We're living through polarised times, in which middle ground gets lumped in with the other side in a "those who aren't with us are against us" way.
When one side says "We should treat trans people as full equals" and the other side says "there's no such thing, they're just faking it" -- where is the middle ground? Only some trans people are real? They're real but they shouldn't be treated as equal?
When one side says "Blacks should have equal rights and opportunities to whites" and the other side says "Blacks are naturally inferior and we can prove it scientifically," or where's the middle ground? They're naturally inferior but we'll give them a lot of the same rights?
The "there must be a middle ground" line feeds into the hands of the oppressor by creating a false narrative of "bothsidesism".
Indeed, many of these arguments boil down to one side trying to say that people are very simple and fit into traditional neat categories, and the other side trying to say that people are quite complicated and diverse.
There isn't really a middle option between these 2 on any given topic (eg, is everybody straightforwardly male or female, or is it more complicated than that). There's plenty of room for shades once you're in the "people are complicated and diverse" camp, but that's not where the fault line tends to lie.
For example, there are all sorts of debates about what age is it appropriate for trans kids to undergo various kinds of treatment, counselling, drug therapy etc, what kind of support they need, how much of gender is innate versus cultural... but for lots of that you have to first accept that 'trans kids' is a thing. If you've got someone who keeps the conversation stuck at 'are trans kids a real thing' then that's generally where the conversation remains, at a Yes/No stage.
Indeed, many of these arguments boil down to one side trying to say that people are very simple and fit into traditional neat categories, and the other side trying to say that people are quite complicated and diverse.
There isn't really a middle option between these 2 on any given topic (eg, is everybody straightforwardly male or female, or is it more complicated than that). There's plenty of room for shades once you're in the "people are complicated and diverse" camp, but that's not where the fault line tends to lie.
For example, there are all sorts of debates about what age is it appropriate for trans kids to undergo various kinds of treatment, counselling, drug therapy etc, what kind of support they need, how much of gender is innate versus cultural... but for lots of that you have to first accept that 'trans kids' is a thing. If you've got someone who keeps the conversation stuck at 'are trans kids a real thing' then that's generally where the conversation remains, at a Yes/No stage.
Indeed, many of these arguments boil down to one side trying to say that people are very simple and fit into traditional neat categories, and the other side trying to say that people are quite complicated and diverse.
There isn't really a middle option between these 2 on any given topic (eg, is everybody straightforwardly male or female, or is it more complicated than that). There's plenty of room for shades once you're in the "people are complicated and diverse" camp, but that's not where the fault line tends to lie.
For example, there are all sorts of debates about what age is it appropriate for trans kids to undergo various kinds of treatment, counselling, drug therapy etc, what kind of support they need, how much of gender is innate versus cultural... but for lots of that you have to first accept that 'trans kids' is a thing. If you've got someone who keeps the conversation stuck at 'are trans kids a real thing' then that's generally where the conversation remains, at a Yes/No stage.
Or at a "not sure" stage.
People who are "not sure" don't tend to be the ones that prevent the conversation from developing any further.
Indeed, many of these arguments boil down to one side trying to say that people are very simple and fit into traditional neat categories, and the other side trying to say that people are quite complicated and diverse.
There isn't really a middle option between these 2 on any given topic (eg, is everybody straightforwardly male or female, or is it more complicated than that). There's plenty of room for shades once you're in the "people are complicated and diverse" camp, but that's not where the fault line tends to lie.
I disagree. Truth lies in the complexity in the middle ground between competing oversimplifications.
The oversimplification that only the observable sex of the body is real and significant vs the oversimplification that only the experienced feelings of gender are real and significant.
Or the oversimplification that collective black disadvantage is entirely due to wrongs committed by white people versus the oversimplification that collective black disadvantage is entirely natural.
You're right that there's no middle ground between "fully human" and "less than fully human". But I don't see anybody on the Ship saying that anyone isn't fully human.
Every narrative is selective, emphasising some aspects of complex reality and ignoring others. The best of the "middle ground" positions acknowledge the truths in the simplifications of both sides.
Wait... did you just say that black people have some natural disadvantages?
Every migrant starting life in a new country with minimal capital is at a disadvantage relative to those who have grown up in that language and culture.
Wait... did you just say that black people have some natural disadvantages?
Every migrant starting life in a new country with minimal capital is at a disadvantage relative to those who have grown up in that language and culture.
Wait... did you just say that black people have some natural disadvantages?
Every migrant starting life in a new country with minimal capital is at a disadvantage relative to those who have grown up in that language and culture.
Wait... did you just say that black people have some natural disadvantages?
Every migrant starting life in a new country with minimal capital is at a disadvantage relative to those who have grown up in that language and culture.
Believers in middle ground don't think something's right or wrong based on who says it.
It's axiomatic to middle-grounders that there is some truth in the BNP view of the world and some truth in the BLM view of the world.
People are seldom 100% wrong.
The sort of polarisation that insists that our discourse must portray the Other Side as without redeeming features is part of what this thread is about.
And I live in Ireland, where there are no indigenous black people. Most of those who are here arrived in the last 20 years. To most people here, they're as welcome as anyone else who wants to be Irish.
Indeed, many of these arguments boil down to one side trying to say that people are very simple and fit into traditional neat categories, and the other side trying to say that people are quite complicated and diverse.
There isn't really a middle option between these 2 on any given topic (eg, is everybody straightforwardly male or female, or is it more complicated than that). There's plenty of room for shades once you're in the "people are complicated and diverse" camp, but that's not where the fault line tends to lie.
I disagree. Truth lies in the complexity in the middle ground between competing oversimplifications.
The oversimplification that only the observable sex of the body is real and significant vs the oversimplification that only the experienced feelings of gender are real and significant.
Or the oversimplification that collective black disadvantage is entirely due to wrongs committed by white people versus the oversimplification that collective black disadvantage is entirely natural.
You're right that there's no middle ground between "fully human" and "less than fully human". But I don't see anybody on the Ship saying that anyone isn't fully human.
Every narrative is selective, emphasising some aspects of complex reality and ignoring others. The best of the "middle ground" positions acknowledge the truths in the simplifications of both sides.
I think I rolled my eyes only about 3 times while reading this response.
To be clear, the reason for the eye roll is that I can't help thinking that if Russ was faced with Black Lives Matter, he'd say that the truth lies between the oversimplifications that White Lives Matter vs Black Lives Matter and he'd be terribly happy with All Lives Matter.
It's amazing how many satisfactory wins you can have against straw arguments of unspecified gender.
I see no reason to suppose that the present tensions can be solved alone by saying Black Lives Matter .There is also no great reason to suppose that if one doesn't say Black lives matter then one actually means White Lives matter.
(It is possible that there may be some truth in this but it is just as much an oversimplification as anything else might be.
What about the significant proportion of the world's population who are neither Black nor White ? A good number of my immediate family are South Asian. If you divide everything into Black and White, are Asians honorary Blacks or honorary Whites ?
I was pleased to hear and see today, the 60th anniversary of the Independence of the former Belgian Congo, that the King of the Belgians has made a statement regretting what happened in the Congo during the period of Belgian colonialism and hoping that things can improve for everyone in the future. The Head of the Belgian State has indicated that greater efforts will be made to make life better for all
Of course we have to say out loud that Black lives matter, but that is because ultimately there is just one human race with diverse ethnicities, diverse languages and diverse cultures. In spite of relative poverty huge steps have been taken in the last 100 years to make things better for the ordinary person, be they rich or poor,highly intelligent,well educated or not and hopefully also be they black,white,brown,yellow or red.
Of course we are absolutely right to say Black Lives Matter but that is only a start.
after saying that we have to do something to ensure that all lives matter.
Black Lives Matter does not ignore that other groups have problems with the system. The genesis of the movement is rooted in the reaction to the systemic problems that all out-groups suffer. Working to fix the problems that face black people includes the problems felt by other cultural groups.
"What about X?" is a divisive tack. After all, one doesn't go to a Pride march with a Black Lives Matter sign.
And given the inter group prejudice, it is not a good look to make that complaint anyway.
Unity is what is needed, not competition for the spotlight.
I see no reason to suppose that the present tensions can be solved alone by saying Black Lives Matter .There is also no great reason to suppose that if one doesn't say Black lives matter then one actually means White Lives matter.
It is, however, reasonable to conclude that if you're not willing to say Black Lives Matter that you think that Black Lives Don't Matter.
That is a fair point. One might indeed come to that conclusion.
However if one says All lives matter there is no reason to conclude that one thinks that Black lives don't matter.
That is a fair point. One might indeed come to that conclusion.
However if one says All lives matter there is no reason to conclude that one thinks that Black lives don't matter.
The fuck there isn’t. “All Lives Matter” arose for the attempt to shut down “Black Lives Matter”
Arguing for All Lives Matter is the equivalent to arguing for White Pride and pretending there is no negative context
That is a fair point. One might indeed come to that conclusion.
However if one says All lives matter there is no reason to conclude that one thinks that Black lives don't matter.
The best way of explaining this is a cartoon I've seen of the Sermon on the Mount.
Jesus has just got going with "blessed are the poor" when someone in the crowd pipes up "blessed are all lives, Jesus!"
I think if the British Heart Foundation, say, ran a campaign saying ‘heart health matters’, anyone who responded saying ‘all health matters’ would come across as seeking to negate the focus on heart issues.
In saying ‘heart health matters’ the BHF wouldn’t be saying other kinds of health don’t matter, but that there is a particular need to focus on heart health.
Likewise ‘black lives matter’ doesn’t say that other lives don’t matter, just that there is a particular need to focus on black lives - which is borne out by the statistics.
In the context, responding with ‘all lives matter’ gives the impression of trying to negate the ‘black lives matter’ message.
Whilst Bro James is, in my opinion , correct to say that it may give this impression but that would not necessarily mean that the impression is any more than an impression,which is not necessarily true.
For example heart health matters does not really mean that other health matters don't matter. One may be correct to say that' all health matters 'is taking away focus from heart health matters, but it does not make it ultimately less true that ultimately 'all health matters' and that all are interconnected.
Thanks Eutychus but the person interrupted Jesus before he indeed was able to say, Blessed are the poor in spirit, blessed are those who mourn , blessed are those who are humble, ,blessed are those who want to do the will of God, blessed are those who show mercy, blessed are those who work for peace, blessed are those who are persecuted because of their religion. Now that's a pretty broad spectrum, covering many, many people.
Each and everyone is important but so are the lot of them.
thanks,lilbuddha, or should I say thx. Of course I had to look up smh, so that is today's new expression.
Don't be frustrated, however, as we are both singing from the same hymn sheet.
I'm just looking further into the distance and trying to take the long view.
thanks,lilbuddha, or should I say thx. Of course I had to look up smh, so that is today's new expression.
Don't be frustrated, however, as we are both singing from the same hymn sheet.
People who actually mean Black Lives Matter but say All Lives Matter when told how they come off fix it. I have had this discussion with a friend. She had no idea that ALM was a racist tagline and as soon as she was told how people use it, she immediately took down her post and later put up a BLM post. She actually cares about all lives, so when she realized that she could do something to help the lives who need help (Black lives) she quickly did. Those (no fingers pointed) who are not racist are advised to agree that Black Lives Matter or internally question themselves about why are not willing to do so.
Whilst Bro James is, in my opinion , correct to say that it may give this impression but that would not necessarily mean that the impression is any more than an impression,which is not necessarily true.
Context matters. While what you say about "All Lives Matter" may be accurate in a vacuum, we do not live in that vacuum. We live in a world where "All Lives Matter" has been regularly and consistently used (at least in the US—I can't speak to elsewhere) to negate or dismiss the claim that "Black Lives Matter," but to do so in a way that suggests concern and sympathy for the plight of all.
No, the impression may not be true. Neither may the impression given by saying "Some of my best friends are black." But one would have to be extremely tone-deaf to make that claim without regard to the all but universal impression that can be expected in reaction to it.
I'm not sure N.T. what you mean when you say 'All lives matter has been ..used to .. dismiss the claim that black lives matter but.. to suggest that we should have concern and sympathy for the plight of all.
Shouldn't we have a concern and sympathy for the plight of all the exploited ?
In having a concern and sympathy for the plight of all, that must surely include people
who happen to be black ?
Shouldn't we have a concern and sympathy for the plight of all the exploited ?
Of course. But, not using the language of "lives matter" because the phrase "all lives matter" has been so thoroughly hi-jacked by the white supremacists it's too loaded a term to be used unless you want to be seen as racist.
In having a concern and sympathy for the plight of all, that must surely include people who happen to be black ?
Of course it does, but when there appears to be a specific, topical issue concerning one minority group, immediately placing that specific issue in a wider context of "well, everybody has problems" sounds like a denial of the existence of that specific issue.
Whilst Bro James is, in my opinion , correct to say that it may give this impression but that would not necessarily mean that the impression is any more than an impression,which is not necessarily true.
Language is communal. You don't get to use a bit of language for what you want it to mean, if communally it means something else. (Unless you're Humpty-Dumpty and you pay it overtime.) You can, but you will be understood to mean what everybody else thinks it means. Because that's how language works.
I'm not sure N.T. what you mean when you say 'All lives matter has been ..used to .. dismiss the claim that black lives matter but.. to suggest that we should have concern and sympathy for the plight of all.
Because all lives are currently not treated equally.
If I tell you I have a broken leg, and you tell me that all legs matter, you're dismissing the fact that I currently have a rather significant problem with my leg, and it needs some extra attention.
Of course all lives matter, and all legs matter, but the point of the BLM movement is that black lives are currently not treated as being as valuable as white ones, and that's a problem that we have to fix.
Like many people have said, it's a question of context. If you respond to a breast cancer awareness campaign by saying "all cancers matter" you're being dismissive of that particular campaign, even though it's clearly true that all cancers should matter.
By responding to BLM with ALM, you are effectively saying that there isn't currently any systematic difference in the policing of Black communities. And that's a problem.
I'm not sure N.T. what you mean when you say 'All lives matter has been ..used to .. dismiss the claim that black lives matter but.. to suggest that we should have concern and sympathy for the plight of all.
Perhaps you’re not sure what I mean because your paraphrase doesn’t accurately reflect what I said.
I didn’t say “All Lives Matter” is used “ to suggest that we should have concern and sympathy for the plight of all.” (Emphasis supplied.). I said it is used to dismiss “Black Lives Matter” in a way to suggest that the speaker has concern and sympathy for the plight of all.
Saying “All Lives Matter” allows the speaker to present him- or herself as valuing all lives. But functionally, the message is to dismiss the claim that “Black Lives Matter” as unnecessary.
A Black man was slowly choked to death by a white police officer kneeling on his neck, despite pleas from bystanders, whilst three other officers did nothing to stop him. The video of this is available for the world to watch.
How, the fuck, do we need to keep explaining why distractions from this are anything but helpful?
The Black Lives Matter movement arose in the US, where the history of slavery and Jim Crow make it absolutely paramount that Americans say that Black lives matter. Black people have a unique position and history here. They are the people whose lives have consistently been treated as if they didn't matter at all for the last 401 years. Since our society has treated a group of people that badly for that long, we do have to single out Black lives in this way. For the same reasons, we need to have affirmative action policies and we need to start the process of making reparations.
This doesn't mean we shouldn't care about the poor, it doesn't mean we shouldn't care about Latinx people, and it especially doesn't mean we shouldn't care about Native Americans, who also deserve to have the manifold wrongs done to them addressed.
However if one says All lives matter there is no reason to conclude that one thinks that Black lives don't matter.
There is a reason to conclude that one is attempting to invalidate the reasons why specifically saying black lives matter has arisen.
We talk about black lives mattering because it's the value of black lives that has been particularly in question.
I was fascinated by one particular illustration doing the rounds at the moment. If someone says "carrots are vegetables", you don't generally see people feeling the need to start saying "well, all these other things are vegetables too". No-one thinks it's important to clarify that carrots are not the only vegetables.
And yet, when we say black lives matter because people have been acting as if they don't, this is a cue to act as if the value of other lives is in question. As if the goal isn't to put black lives on a par with those lives that aren't so regularly under threat for such stupid reasons.
See also: Straight Pride. As if being heterosexual as ever been regarded as shameful.
Forgive me for butting in, and running the risk of being accused of Junior Hosting.
These issues are obviously very important and deserve discussion. But to me they don't seem to belong on this particular thread - except perhaps to demonstrate how difficult online (rather than RL) discussion can be.
A Black man was slowly choked to death by a white police officer kneeling on his neck, despite pleas from bystanders, whilst three other officers did nothing to stop him. The video of this is available for the world to watch.
How, the fuck, do we need to keep explaining why distractions from this are anything but helpful?
Thank you for all your comments which I have read carefully. I appreciate the input from so many people.
Thank you to Baptist Trainfan for reminding me that these discussions are not germane to this thread.
I note that Martin Luther King many years ago said that he had a dream that all men would one day be equal . That is my hope also.
He, a black man, said it whilst fighting for the rights of black people. No one could reasonably mistake his intent.
Not so much true of white people saying All Lives Matter.
Thank you for all your comments which I have read carefully. I appreciate the input from so many people.
Thank you to Baptist Trainfan for reminding me that these discussions are not germane to this thread.
I note that Martin Luther King many years ago said that he had a dream that all men would one day be equal . That is my hope also.
Forthview, I saw this ad from Love Has No Labels this morning on TV, made with this weekend's Fourth of July celebrations (such as they may be this year) in mind. Perhaps it will help illustrate where so many of us are coming from on "All Lives Matter."
Host hat on
The Black Lives Matter part of this thread is an important discussion, but it is a tangent to the question this thread is addressing. I have copied all (I hope) the relevant posts to the White and other… What about privilege? thread. Please feel free to continue that discussion there, but please do not pursue it further on this thread.
I'm just wondering. If the residents of Anytown were fed up of all the gang-related crime in their area, and wanted to form a group called Citizens Against Black Gang Violence, would you prefer them to drop "black" from the name ?
Wouldn't you say that the name should reflect the principles they hold, and given that they are in principle equally against all gang violence no matter who perpetrates it, their name should say this ?
Wouldn't you say that it's better to have the broadest possible coalition of people against gang violence ?
Wouldn't you say that it's unimportant whether the particular couple of gangs afflicting the area right now are in fact all-black ?
Wouldn't you think that by specifying black gangs they were being somewhat.. ..racist ?
Comments
If you use terms like "victim-culture" is it any wonder?
I'll bite. What's wrong with "the prevailing victim-culture narrative"? Please give specific examples.
When one side says "We should treat trans people as full equals" and the other side says "there's no such thing, they're just faking it" -- where is the middle ground? Only some trans people are real? They're real but they shouldn't be treated as equal?
When one side says "Blacks should have equal rights and opportunities to whites" and the other side says "Blacks are naturally inferior and we can prove it scientifically," or where's the middle ground? They're naturally inferior but we'll give them a lot of the same rights?
The "there must be a middle ground" line feeds into the hands of the oppressor by creating a false narrative of "bothsidesism".
There isn't really a middle option between these 2 on any given topic (eg, is everybody straightforwardly male or female, or is it more complicated than that). There's plenty of room for shades once you're in the "people are complicated and diverse" camp, but that's not where the fault line tends to lie.
For example, there are all sorts of debates about what age is it appropriate for trans kids to undergo various kinds of treatment, counselling, drug therapy etc, what kind of support they need, how much of gender is innate versus cultural... but for lots of that you have to first accept that 'trans kids' is a thing. If you've got someone who keeps the conversation stuck at 'are trans kids a real thing' then that's generally where the conversation remains, at a Yes/No stage.
Or at a "not sure" stage.
People who are "not sure" don't tend to be the ones that prevent the conversation from developing any further.
The oversimplification that only the observable sex of the body is real and significant vs the oversimplification that only the experienced feelings of gender are real and significant.
Or the oversimplification that collective black disadvantage is entirely due to wrongs committed by white people versus the oversimplification that collective black disadvantage is entirely natural.
You're right that there's no middle ground between "fully human" and "less than fully human". But I don't see anybody on the Ship saying that anyone isn't fully human.
Every narrative is selective, emphasising some aspects of complex reality and ignoring others. The best of the "middle ground" positions acknowledge the truths in the simplifications of both sides.
Are we talking about Vitamin D synthesis in sunlight in northern climes here?
Every migrant starting life in a new country with minimal capital is at a disadvantage relative to those who have grown up in that language and culture.
You didn't say migrants. You said black people.
Well quite.
Believers in middle ground don't think something's right or wrong based on who says it.
It's axiomatic to middle-grounders that there is some truth in the BNP view of the world and some truth in the BLM view of the world.
People are seldom 100% wrong.
The sort of polarisation that insists that our discourse must portray the Other Side as without redeeming features is part of what this thread is about.
And I live in Ireland, where there are no indigenous black people. Most of those who are here arrived in the last 20 years. To most people here, they're as welcome as anyone else who wants to be Irish.
Different in other countries, I know.
In other words, held to be true regardless of the evidence. And this is something you're trying to convince us is a good thing?
I think I rolled my eyes only about 3 times while reading this response.
It's amazing how many satisfactory wins you can have against straw arguments of unspecified gender.
(It is possible that there may be some truth in this but it is just as much an oversimplification as anything else might be.
What about the significant proportion of the world's population who are neither Black nor White ? A good number of my immediate family are South Asian. If you divide everything into Black and White, are Asians honorary Blacks or honorary Whites ?
I was pleased to hear and see today, the 60th anniversary of the Independence of the former Belgian Congo, that the King of the Belgians has made a statement regretting what happened in the Congo during the period of Belgian colonialism and hoping that things can improve for everyone in the future. The Head of the Belgian State has indicated that greater efforts will be made to make life better for all
Of course we have to say out loud that Black lives matter, but that is because ultimately there is just one human race with diverse ethnicities, diverse languages and diverse cultures. In spite of relative poverty huge steps have been taken in the last 100 years to make things better for the ordinary person, be they rich or poor,highly intelligent,well educated or not and hopefully also be they black,white,brown,yellow or red.
Of course we are absolutely right to say Black Lives Matter but that is only a start.
after saying that we have to do something to ensure that all lives matter.
"What about X?" is a divisive tack. After all, one doesn't go to a Pride march with a Black Lives Matter sign.
And given the inter group prejudice, it is not a good look to make that complaint anyway.
Unity is what is needed, not competition for the spotlight.
It is, however, reasonable to conclude that if you're not willing to say Black Lives Matter that you think that Black Lives Don't Matter.
However if one says All lives matter there is no reason to conclude that one thinks that Black lives don't matter.
Arguing for All Lives Matter is the equivalent to arguing for White Pride and pretending there is no negative context
The best way of explaining this is a cartoon I've seen of the Sermon on the Mount.
Jesus has just got going with "blessed are the poor" when someone in the crowd pipes up "blessed are all lives, Jesus!"
In saying ‘heart health matters’ the BHF wouldn’t be saying other kinds of health don’t matter, but that there is a particular need to focus on heart health.
Likewise ‘black lives matter’ doesn’t say that other lives don’t matter, just that there is a particular need to focus on black lives - which is borne out by the statistics.
In the context, responding with ‘all lives matter’ gives the impression of trying to negate the ‘black lives matter’ message.
For example heart health matters does not really mean that other health matters don't matter. One may be correct to say that' all health matters 'is taking away focus from heart health matters, but it does not make it ultimately less true that ultimately 'all health matters' and that all are interconnected.
Thanks Eutychus but the person interrupted Jesus before he indeed was able to say, Blessed are the poor in spirit, blessed are those who mourn , blessed are those who are humble, ,blessed are those who want to do the will of God, blessed are those who show mercy, blessed are those who work for peace, blessed are those who are persecuted because of their religion. Now that's a pretty broad spectrum, covering many, many people.
Each and everyone is important but so are the lot of them.
Don't be frustrated, however, as we are both singing from the same hymn sheet.
I'm just looking further into the distance and trying to take the long view.
kinda appears tone deaf at the best.
No, the impression may not be true. Neither may the impression given by saying "Some of my best friends are black." But one would have to be extremely tone-deaf to make that claim without regard to the all but universal impression that can be expected in reaction to it.
I'm not sure N.T. what you mean when you say 'All lives matter has been ..used to .. dismiss the claim that black lives matter but.. to suggest that we should have concern and sympathy for the plight of all.
Shouldn't we have a concern and sympathy for the plight of all the exploited ?
In having a concern and sympathy for the plight of all, that must surely include people
who happen to be black ?
Language is communal. You don't get to use a bit of language for what you want it to mean, if communally it means something else. (Unless you're Humpty-Dumpty and you pay it overtime.) You can, but you will be understood to mean what everybody else thinks it means. Because that's how language works.
Because all lives are currently not treated equally.
If I tell you I have a broken leg, and you tell me that all legs matter, you're dismissing the fact that I currently have a rather significant problem with my leg, and it needs some extra attention.
Of course all lives matter, and all legs matter, but the point of the BLM movement is that black lives are currently not treated as being as valuable as white ones, and that's a problem that we have to fix.
Like many people have said, it's a question of context. If you respond to a breast cancer awareness campaign by saying "all cancers matter" you're being dismissive of that particular campaign, even though it's clearly true that all cancers should matter.
By responding to BLM with ALM, you are effectively saying that there isn't currently any systematic difference in the policing of Black communities. And that's a problem.
I didn’t say “All Lives Matter” is used “ to suggest that we should have concern and sympathy for the plight of all.” (Emphasis supplied.). I said it is used to dismiss “Black Lives Matter” in a way to suggest that the speaker has concern and sympathy for the plight of all.
Saying “All Lives Matter” allows the speaker to present him- or herself as valuing all lives. But functionally, the message is to dismiss the claim that “Black Lives Matter” as unnecessary.
How, the fuck, do we need to keep explaining why distractions from this are anything but helpful?
This doesn't mean we shouldn't care about the poor, it doesn't mean we shouldn't care about Latinx people, and it especially doesn't mean we shouldn't care about Native Americans, who also deserve to have the manifold wrongs done to them addressed.
There is a reason to conclude that one is attempting to invalidate the reasons why specifically saying black lives matter has arisen.
We talk about black lives mattering because it's the value of black lives that has been particularly in question.
I was fascinated by one particular illustration doing the rounds at the moment. If someone says "carrots are vegetables", you don't generally see people feeling the need to start saying "well, all these other things are vegetables too". No-one thinks it's important to clarify that carrots are not the only vegetables.
And yet, when we say black lives matter because people have been acting as if they don't, this is a cue to act as if the value of other lives is in question. As if the goal isn't to put black lives on a par with those lives that aren't so regularly under threat for such stupid reasons.
See also: Straight Pride. As if being heterosexual as ever been regarded as shameful.
These issues are obviously very important and deserve discussion. But to me they don't seem to belong on this particular thread - except perhaps to demonstrate how difficult online (rather than RL) discussion can be.
Nail on head.
Thank you to Baptist Trainfan for reminding me that these discussions are not germane to this thread.
I note that Martin Luther King many years ago said that he had a dream that all men would one day be equal . That is my hope also.
Not so much true of white people saying All Lives Matter.
The Black Lives Matter part of this thread is an important discussion, but it is a tangent to the question this thread is addressing. I have copied all (I hope) the relevant posts to the White and other… What about privilege? thread. Please feel free to continue that discussion there, but please do not pursue it further on this thread.
Thank you
Host hat off
BroJames, Purgatory Host
Wouldn't you say that the name should reflect the principles they hold, and given that they are in principle equally against all gang violence no matter who perpetrates it, their name should say this ?
Wouldn't you say that it's better to have the broadest possible coalition of people against gang violence ?
Wouldn't you say that it's unimportant whether the particular couple of gangs afflicting the area right now are in fact all-black ?
Wouldn't you think that by specifying black gangs they were being somewhat.. ..racist ?
@Russ please see my post immediately before yours. This tangent is not to continue on this thread.
Host hat off
BroJames Purgatory Host