Yes from that perspective yes. But from another no. The real radical threat to imperialism is that black lives might be viewed as fully American lives, and that is the real threat to the power. Black is the label of slavers to make a human less then fully human. White is the label the slavers hide behind. They hide behind the slightly more privileged masses of white slaves. To me the label of black reinforces the idea of race that divides the working class and keeps the lie of race alive in the collective conscious. It preserves the system. When we say Eric Gardner was black the cop was racist. It removes the fact that Eric Gardner was a American on a american street. The officer had no reasonable suspicion of a crime to place hands on him. That conversation has not happened. The rights of the house and the field slaves dont get discussed if they did the system would reveal no one actually has any rights they are all privlidge. Blacks are fully American and all rights matter. When you hit American rights we all become Americans wanting to preserve them. That is easy when your sister has not been murdered in a texas jail. Black lives matter but we must discuss the whole systems to change it not preserve the tools invented by slavers.
This is indeed a “wonderful and useful response” … if you already accept all the premises assumed. If you don’t, you’re probably not likely to be all that impressed.
Just more disastrously misguided apologetics. Progressives would be far smarter, in fact, to co-opt the catchphrase “ALL lives matter.” But instead they’ll resort to this type of Progsplaining that ultimately persuades no one.
“So when a young black man gets killed (prior to the recent police shootings), it’s generally not considered “news”…”
Why is it that black on black violence gets so little news attention? The angle that not enough people care to make it “news” was one I hadn’t thought about.
ETA - the article says that the signs imply the word “too” at the end. I think they should add that. I think it makes it more impactful. YMMV.
I think the sentiment that “Black Lives Matter Too” is good. But they should just say it. Plenty of people hear the implicit “Black Lives, and Only Black Lives Matter” in the current slogan. Even if that is not the intention.
All Lives Matter. Period.
I do not have a problem with people saying “Black Lives Matter”, but why on earth would anyone have a problem with people saying “All Lives Matter?” All Lives = Black Lives, White Lives, Asian Lives, etc…
Because people only say “All lives matter” in response to “Black lives matter”, specifically to cover up and distract from the systematic racism that is treating black lives as if they don’t matter. By saying “all lives matter”, you are intentionally trying to drag the spotlight AWAY from people fighting to make their lives recognized by the systems as meaningful, and onto yourself in a selfish show of racism.
Hmmm, I wonder why… Oh wait.
So…
Dock_Drumming: Under 5. Verdict? Maybe, but seems unlikely.
waetherman: Insulting, condescending and smug. Verdict? Yup.
But you know, it’s not like waetherman came across as an a-hole or anything. He’s a PROGRESSIVE. They’re the GOOD guys.
Explained. At length. In this very article.
Which, as its title implies, was written specifically to answer said question.
Well, seeing as you’ve essentially stated in this thread that you want to see less focus on black victims of racist police brutality, it’s pretty apparent you AREN’T one of the good guys. So your condemnation ends up being a ringing endorsement.
Dock_Drumming is a first time poster who didn’t even read the article and just wanted to post his drive-by racism that the article specifically addresses. Being insulting to him isn’t being an a-hole - it’s being factual. Accurately describing his behavior is an insult to his character.
I think some have used “all lives matter” when they recognized that there was a noninclusive element to the original slogan, and it made them uncomfortable. Not because they wanted to minimize the value of black lives, but because it feels wrong to single out any one race as having lives that matter.
No, weatherman was right on target: the post SPECIFICALLY ANSWERS the question that Dock_Drumming asks, as if he were the first person to think of it.
The WHOLE POINT of the post is to explain why “All lives matter” is used to make “black lives matter” look like a case of special pleading. When it isn’t, it is a simple demand for justice.
As the post, which Dock_Drumming obviously didn’t read, makes crystal clear.
And I love the fact that people assume I didn’t read the article because I don’t accept its BS premise.
Well, you didn’t react to it in any way, and instead asked a question that was straight-up answered in the article. While not addressing the article at all.
It’s not really an “assumption” that you didn’t read the article when you do that.
I think the article doesn’t explain this very effectively. It spoon-feeds an interpretation which I don’t agree with, and does not do anything to illustrate why I would possibly interpret it such a way.
Just like asking dad for your fair share, the phrase “black lives matter” also has an implicit “too” at the end: it’s saying that black lives should also matter. But responding to this by saying “all lives matter” is willfully going back to ignoring the problem. It’s a way of dismissing the statement by falsely suggesting that it means “only black lives matter,” when that is obviously not the case. And so saying “all lives matter” as a direct response to “black lives matter” is essentially saying that we should just go back to ignoring the problem.
HOW is saying that “all lives matter” ignoring anything? HOW is this a call for “the status quo” in a place where all lives are demonstrated not to matter, where life is cheap? If people acted as if all lives mattered to them, this would presumably have the same effect that those who campaign that “black lives matter” seem to strive for. Basically, the argument against it is predicated upon its perceived insincerity, rather than what it actually says. If people insist that all lives matter, then they need to act to make the slogan a reality, instead of empty words. But I see that as being a different problem.
For what it’s worth, I do not have a problem with either slogan, and was unaware of the controversy about this. But for having learned it through this article, I did not find it edifying.
[quote=“Mister44, post:4, topic:62217, full:true”]Why is it that black on black violence gets so little news attention? The angle that not enough people care to make it “news” was one I hadn’t thought about.[/quote]Mostly just because it doesn’t have that racist angle that gets the ratings. White on white violence similarly gets little to no media coverage unless it hits “mass murder” levels.
Just an aside question in general: Would you consider using “All Lives Matter” to be as stupid/racist/whatever if it came from a non-white source? What if a white male used it when highlighting another oppressed minority’s situation?
NO.
It isn’t about you. I know that comes as a shock, because you are pretty comfortable in a world that IS all about you. Something out there that isn’t about you feels wrong, you feel excluded. So you demand to be included.
There are also a lot of folks out there who are really, really threatened by anything that empowers somebody NOT them. They tried hard to fight it directly, but discovered that being an overt asshole doesn’t garner much support in the modern world. But then they got a brilliant idea. If you can’t silence a message, why not just dilute that message until it is no longer threatening. Demand that everyone and everything YOU care about be included in someone elses message so it is no longer about them and can be about YOU again.
So here’s the deal. Go put on your big girl panties and take a seat. Use the opportunity to witness something that is not about you, that doesn’t include you as a learning opportunity. A chance for growth. Experience a tiny, miniscule hint of what other people live every single day.
And just maybe, grow the fuck up. Because ultimately the dialog is not about you, does not belong to you, and you don’t get to dictate how it is discussed.
No, people don’t assume you didn’t read it, they’re pretty sure you did, but if you insist on acting like you didn’t read it then it makes sense people would address you as if you hadn’t and if you love for people to treat you like you haven’t read it either, then it makes sense, (Although that was pretty clear from the beggining) that you don’t actually care for an answer.
The only one who thinks that people think you haven’t read it is you. The only person who thinks that you’re being even a little bit clever is you as well.
But please, continue to make a spectacle of yourself while thinking you’re so smart.
And if you have a point to make, then make it.
