Your understanding and my understanding of the word 'all' is not the same.
I simply cannot see how the word 'all' can be highjacked to mean anything else but 'all'
Your understanding and my understanding of the word 'all' is not the same.
I simply cannot see how the word 'all' can be highjacked to mean anything else but 'all'
It operates within a context, in this case juxtaposed against the original 'black lives matter'
It is what is known as a dog whistle - so a seemingly benign statement used to indicate a more problematic position. E.g. If the KKK carry a placard saying, “all lives matter” - it is unlikely to mean they see discrimination against Black people as a problem.
(Likewise, I doubt the Football Lads Alliance give a shit about either law and order or statues - despite that having been the ostensible reason for their ‘protest’ in London.)
I would operate , however, within the context that 'all' means 'all' without exception.
I am happy to say that 'black lives matter' I am happy that there is a realisation of the problems of racism.
Fair enough to make clear that 'black lives matter' but once you have said that what happens next. Is not the aim to make black lives matter as much as those of other colours and eventually to arrive at a time when 'all lives matter' ? If not could not 'black lives matter' be understood as racism ?
There is no linguistic reason why the KKK or the Football Lads Alliance should be able to determine the meaning of the word 'all'
I would operate , however, within the context that 'all' means 'all' without exception.
I am happy to say that 'black lives matter' I am happy that there is a realisation of the problems of racism.
Fair enough to make clear that 'black lives matter' but once you have said that what happens next. Is not the aim to make black lives matter as much as those of other colours and eventually to arrive at a time when 'all lives matter' ? If not could not 'black lives matter' be understood as racism ?
There is no linguistic reason why the KKK or the Football Lads Alliance should be able to determine the meaning of the word 'all'
Socio-linguistics. Things don't always mean what the dictionary says they mean. Word choices encode attitudes.
If you present at hospital with a broken leg, do you think people with unbroken legs would point to them and say "well, all legs are important! "?
I quite agree that at the moment all lives do not matter equally and I think that it has ever been so. That surely does not mean that we should not aim to achieve equality of opportunity and parity of esteem for all.
Arbeit macht frei (work makes one free) has a particular meaning within the context of the Nazi concentration camps. At the moment the phrase 'Black lives matter' is of special importance but this should not be taken to mean that 'only black lives matter'.
Surely the phrase 'black lives matter' is NOT meant to mean 'only black lives matter'
If it doesn't mean 'only black lives matter' then it must mean that 'other' lives matter also.
I think everyone, excluding the out and out racists, would agree that ideally all lives would matter equally. At the moment, we need to stand saying that Black Lives Matter more, because currently they matter less. "All Lives Matter" is at best insensitive to the suffering of black people and unconsciously racist, at worst a racist dog whistle to other racists. "White Lives Matter" is nothing more than blatant racism.
I quite agree that at the moment all lives do not matter equally and I think that it has ever been so. That surely does not mean that we should not aim to achieve equality of opportunity and parity of esteem for all.
Arbeit macht frei (work makes one free) has a particular meaning within the context of the Nazi concentration camps. At the moment the phrase 'Black lives matter' is of special importance but this should not be taken to mean that 'only black lives matter'.
No one takes it to mean “only black lives matter” except for those who seek to undermine the idea that black lives matter as much as white lives.
Surely the phrase 'black lives matter' is NOT meant to mean 'only black lives matter'
If it doesn't mean 'only black lives matter' then it must mean that 'other' lives matter also.
Of course other lives matter. But nobody has acted as though white lives don’t matter. Plenty of people have acted as though black lives don’t matter.
“Black Lives Matter” means “black lives matter just as much as other lives.” Without context, “all lives matter” sounds reasonable. But in the context of the claim that “Black Lives Matter” and of the societal realities that make that claim necessary, the response that “All Lives Matter” is at best a dismissive platitude and at worst a deliberate attempt to negate the claim that black lives matter. It seems to avoid facing and acknowledging the reality of racism in our society.
We wouldn’t need to affirm that “Black Lives Matter” if we really believed that all lives matter.
Cross posted , apologies .
And
Maybe a more general discussion could find traction elsewhere?
But running with it for now.....
Now
I am in complete and utter agreement with the last couple of posts.
But to say that it is hard to believe why people don’t get this.......?
Imho there are two wildly different groups
1)
A pretender. They know perfectly well what they are doing and trying their hardest to look innocent.
(Some middle aged aged people in my family)
2)
Someone who genuinely does not get it. Yes. These people exist.
(Some much older people in my family)
To say that 2)’s don’t exist, just because 1)’s are making all the noise....is a shame.
And in my experience the 2)s would actually like someone to take the time to explain to them
Without making them feel silly.
Basically, as well as being true statements need to be relevant. That means that if you say something you imply that either the other party has forgotten it or disagrees with it. So if someone responds to, Black Lives Matter, with, All Lives Matter, they're directly insinuating that the first speaker meant, Only black lives matter.
“All lives matter, white lives matter - of course they do.
But to say that in response to ‘Black Lives Matter’ entirely misses the point. The point that systemic racism still exists at all levels of our society and it stems from racism in people’s hearts and minds - spoken and unspoken. This racism arises from fear, fear of the ‘different’ and can be very mild and subtle or extreme.
The extreme racism in the US police force hit a chord when it was shown on live TV and then shared. All humanity has risen against it and recognised that the mindset that caused slavery still exists.
To post ‘All lives matter’ at this time in history is to side with that mentality. I don’t want to do that, while I agree completely that ‘All lives matter’.
And I won’t stay silent, even if I’m the only one in the group saying it.”
“What the blazes are we going to do about racism in our families?”
Say it, but gently.
When I first met my MIL she was very racist. (Ignorance not malice) Over 40 years I very gently and slowly chipped away at her assumptions. She did change.
If she were alive today she’d understand and, I think, support Black Lives Matter.
sorry, did we work out that what Black Lives Matter means is: Black lives matter as well as white lives, because it seems like people value black lives less than white lives.
We who believe in freedom cannot rest. We who believe in freedom cannot rest until it comes. .... until the killing of black men, black mothers' sons is as important as the killing of white men, white mothers' sons.
That's from the Sweet Honey in the Rock song Ella's Song.
Well That was not a universal answer from all here!
Those questions around How we continue to have a relationship with a relative that we Can discuss matters calmly with....
Like, seriously How?
Do we cut off contact?
Funerals?
It's a personal answer I think, heavily dependent on circumstances. I don't consider myself under any obligation to challenge others' racism. I value relationship especially family relationship highly, and I would choose to maintain relationships every time. YMMV, and it ought.
I think everyone, excluding the out and out racists, would agree that ideally all lives would matter equally. At the moment, we need to stand saying that Black Lives Matter more, because currently they matter less. "All Lives Matter" is at best insensitive to the suffering of black people and unconsciously racist, at worst a racist dog whistle to other racists. "White Lives Matter" is nothing more than blatant racism.
I don't consider myself under any obligation to challenge others' racism.
Why not ?
(I am not claiming to be perfect here, I think I ought - but sometimes I bottle out of it.)
I tend to agree with Simon. It's different with your own family though. My ma was racist about Bangladeshi people, and I used to argue with her, but also ignored her. Both seem OK to me. But racism at large, too tiring, as there is mountains of it.
The Declaration of independence of the USA states that 'all men are created equal - endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights - life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness'
We know now that those founding fathers either did not understand the meaning of 'all' or they did not understand the meaning of 'men' (in the sense of mankind.)
Given what the situation is at this present time with different groups of people, should we abandon the idea of 'all men being created equal and endowed with certain inalienable rights' or should we be working towards a time when 'all men'/members of the human race should be understood as being equal and having the same rights.
That is my understanding of 'all lives matter' It does not stop me supporting 'Black Lives matter'.
Do you think you're under a moral obligation to challenge every single one of your neighbour's failings ? His high alcohol consumption that sets a bad example to others ? His bad temper when his team loses ?
Wouldn't you say there's a time and place for a gentle corrective word, and a time and place to not make an issue of it but accept others as they are ?
Well That was not a universal answer from all here!
Those questions around How we continue to have a relationship with a relative that we Can discuss matters calmly with....
Like, seriously How?
I have relatives, and friends, with whom I disagree on serious matters. We discuss and occasionally argue, but we also talk about other things. I have friends who do not swear and do not like it at all, some who do a little or tolerate a little and others who would make sailors blush. I speak differently around each group. This is similar. Most humans tailor their behaviour to their surroundings, we can tailor how we address racism. From a simple "I do not agree with that" to "That is racist" and all the way to "You are racist" depending on how the person will process the statement. Accompanied by the reasons why. The statement alone is not enough, you have to know why if challenged.
My gran was treated very poorly by one of her sons, he would not relent and would not see or speak to her. And yet she encouraged me to not cut him off.
Do you think you're under a moral obligation to challenge every single one of your neighbour's failings ? His high alcohol consumption that sets a bad example to others ? His bad temper when his team loses ?
Wouldn't you say there's a time and place for a gentle corrective word, and a time and place to not make an issue of it but accept others as they are ?
No, but if I were with him and he was drunk and about to get in a car - I would at least ask him not to.
If someone is in conversation with me, and saying racist things - I would hope in most situations I would at least say that I disagree. In my head, if I don’t, I need a good and clear reason not to.
It is not unlike a situation where you observe someone bullying or threatening someone else.
...
Well That was not a universal answer from all here!
....
I'm still trying to figure out what the question was. It sounds like what you are actually trying to decide is whether you should beat yourself up for tolerating their racist crap, beat yourself up for not challenging their racist crap, or beat yourself up for walking away from their racist crap.
There's no universal answer because every family is different. All you can do is decide what your boundaries are, enforce them, and don't beat yourself up afterwards because someone else chose not to respect those boundaries.
Point of order @Simon Toad - "gyp" meaning "swindle" (as a noun or verb) is indeed from gypsy, which itself derives from the mistaken belief that European Romanies came from Egypt.
"Gyp" meaning trouble or pain (e.g. "my leg's giving me gyp") on the other hand appears to be a back-formation of gyppy - as in "I've got a gippy stomach". This appears to derive from a slang word for Egyptian, as British forces stationed there sometimes found the food needed some getting used to.
Both forms of Gyp therefore ultimately go back to Egyptian, but only the "swindle" sense came via "gypsy"
This is a different question to whether the term might be best avoided.
Please avoid. The acceptable term as a descriptor is Roma
In my experience, it is more complicated than this. Some people embrace the word gypsy, some do not.
So, ISTM, the use is situational. It isn't for me to decide when the use is acceptable, but it is rude to dismiss the acceptance of it by some groups when dealing with those groups. It is, after all, in some groups official titles and urls and used liberally therein.
Whilst travelling the US, white people tell me not to say Indian, that the "correct" term: was Native American. However, on and off reservations, the people I meet call themselves Indian.*
I use what people wish to be called. The important thing is to know what that is.
*In one instance, I asked a person what they preferred to be called and was told 'Call me Ben'.
Tbf the usage I was questioning was "gyp" meaning discomfort or pain; despite this sense of the word doesn't come from 'gypsy', if people think it does, what then?
Tbf the usage I was questioning was "gyp" meaning discomfort or pain; despite this sense of the word doesn't come from 'gypsy', if people think it does, what then?
I wouldn't use the term, personally. It is nothing to give up that word in order to avoid insult to someone else. Not like there are no other terms to use.
Plus.... as a parent of many children....the appeal to Fairness is never going to trump the equally fair appeal to Manners.
@Ethne Alba, I am curious what you mean here. I have read the first three pages of this discussion, so have read it in context, but I think I would find it helpful for it to be unpacked a bit, as a general thing. Not personal to you or your views, but as a way of understanding some of the wider attitudes I am encountering in general around BLM and fighting racism.
I had a curious turn of events in the last few days. "A" is a friend of mine in his 70s, ethnically First Nations (indigenous, for non-Canadians), culturally completely Europeanised, and politically a reactionary batshit crazy conspiracy conservative. Friday I received an email that he had forwarded from friend "B", an article from American Renaissance entitled The Black Dilemma, which purportedly appeared in The Baltimore Sun. The article was shockingly racist, even by "A"'s standards. American Renaissance rang a bell from when I was researching the extreme right. I was right: Links to the KKK, BNP, stormfront.org, etc. So I hit reply all, and linked to the SPLC site's page on American Renaissance, and the Snopes page dealing with The Black Dilemma's fake connection to The Baltimore Sun. (I actually got to use the phrase "fake news"!) The sound of crickets for a few days. Then, yesterday, "A" sent out the "Scrotty Students" letter, purportedly by Lord Patten on behalf of Oriel College, regarding the movement to take down the statue of Rhodes. If you haven't seen it, I'll save you the trouble - it's blatantly racist. I had a very busy day, and thought that I'd get around to replying. "B" stole the march on me, denouncing it as fake and linking to Snopes. Huh, I thought, Have I actually help bring light to a dark corner? I'm probably being too optimistic. "A" won't change, but has "B", just a little?
I think everyone, excluding the out and out racists, would agree that ideally all lives would matter equally.
I think that's hopelessly naïve.
Well, clearly there are some people who consider white lives should matter more. But, they're racists ... any one who isn't a racist or other bigot would struggle to explain why all lives shouldn't equally matter.
I tend to agree with Simon. It's different with your own family though. My ma was racist about Bangladeshi people, and I used to argue with her, but also ignored her. Both seem OK to me. But racism at large, too tiring, as there is mountains of it.
I absolutely think I have an obligation to oppose racism. If I'm standing by, and allowing my neighbour to be abused and discriminated against because of his appearance, I can't claim to be loving him. This isn't the same as saying I must quit my job and devote all my time to anti-racism work - everyone has different gifts and talents, and there are plenty of ways to oppose racism without doing it as a full-time job (and I think in a lot of people's cases, a few words from the fairly normal person you work with can be more effective than campaigners on TV. Both are necessary.) It's also the case that the most effective way of getting someone to change isn't necessarily presenting them with a list of their faults at every available opportunity.
But all of us have opportunities to oppose racism in our normal lives. It'll be different for everyone, but unless you're a hermit, you're going to get an opportunity to do something. You should.
Whilst I acknowledge that people of all colours and backgrounds can be racist, the most problematic form of racism in western societies is by white people, and principally against black people (more problematic because of the existing power structure). That means it's largely the job of white people to fix it. The more normal, everyday white people who take a stand against racism - calling it out in public, in their families, at work - wherever, the less opportunity there is for the active racists to pretend that their bigotry is OK. And the more those normal, everyday white people call out racism, the more opportunity they have for finding the more subtle effects of racism in their own actions.
You can't change public opinion by yourself, and you can't do it in private. But we can all do it together.
Do you think you're under a moral obligation to challenge every single one of your neighbour's failings ? His high alcohol consumption that sets a bad example to others ? His bad temper when his team loses ?
Wouldn't you say there's a time and place for a gentle corrective word, and a time and place to not make an issue of it but accept others as they are ?
These are different statements. We agree that presenting our neighbour with a long list of all of his failings isn't likely to be effective. That's not the same as "accepting him as he is". Do you prioritize? Only call out the worst of his behaviour? Not make an issue of his drunkenness in general, as long as he doesn't drive and doesn't get abusive when he's drunk? Sure, but that's not the same as just letting it go.
I think everyone, excluding the out and out racists, would agree that ideally all lives would matter equally.
I think that's hopelessly naïve.
Well, clearly there are some people who consider white lives should matter more. But, they're racists ... any one who isn't a racist or other bigot would struggle to explain why all lives shouldn't equally matter.
Well, the idea that all lives matter equally is based on what ? I believe it because I believe that everybody is a child of God.
Comments
CW - offensive terms for clarification
They're both from the same "'ere, wot about us, eh?" source. At worst, racist in motivation; at best, useful idiot for the far right.
I simply cannot see how the word 'all' can be highjacked to mean anything else but 'all'
It operates within a context, in this case juxtaposed against the original 'black lives matter'
(Likewise, I doubt the Football Lads Alliance give a shit about either law and order or statues - despite that having been the ostensible reason for their ‘protest’ in London.)
I am happy to say that 'black lives matter' I am happy that there is a realisation of the problems of racism.
Fair enough to make clear that 'black lives matter' but once you have said that what happens next. Is not the aim to make black lives matter as much as those of other colours and eventually to arrive at a time when 'all lives matter' ? If not could not 'black lives matter' be understood as racism ?
There is no linguistic reason why the KKK or the Football Lads Alliance should be able to determine the meaning of the word 'all'
Socio-linguistics. Things don't always mean what the dictionary says they mean. Word choices encode attitudes.
If you present at hospital with a broken leg, do you think people with unbroken legs would point to them and say "well, all legs are important! "?
Arbeit macht frei (work makes one free) has a particular meaning within the context of the Nazi concentration camps. At the moment the phrase 'Black lives matter' is of special importance but this should not be taken to mean that 'only black lives matter'.
Surely the phrase 'black lives matter' is NOT meant to mean 'only black lives matter'
If it doesn't mean 'only black lives matter' then it must mean that 'other' lives matter also.
It was meant as nothing less.
Yeah, but that was "white lives matter", explicit racism. "All lives matter" is disingenuous.
My mistake
And looking round in bewilderment.
Yes, it's hard to believe that some people don't get that. Context, context.
Of course other lives matter. But nobody has acted as though white lives don’t matter. Plenty of people have acted as though black lives don’t matter.
“Black Lives Matter” means “black lives matter just as much as other lives.” Without context, “all lives matter” sounds reasonable. But in the context of the claim that “Black Lives Matter” and of the societal realities that make that claim necessary, the response that “All Lives Matter” is at best a dismissive platitude and at worst a deliberate attempt to negate the claim that black lives matter. It seems to avoid facing and acknowledging the reality of racism in our society.
We wouldn’t need to affirm that “Black Lives Matter” if we really believed that all lives matter.
And
Maybe a more general discussion could find traction elsewhere?
But running with it for now.....
Now
I am in complete and utter agreement with the last couple of posts.
But to say that it is hard to believe why people don’t get this.......?
Imho there are two wildly different groups
1)
A pretender. They know perfectly well what they are doing and trying their hardest to look innocent.
(Some middle aged aged people in my family)
2)
Someone who genuinely does not get it. Yes. These people exist.
(Some much older people in my family)
To say that 2)’s don’t exist, just because 1)’s are making all the noise....is a shame.
And in my experience the 2)s would actually like someone to take the time to explain to them
Without making them feel silly.
“All lives matter, white lives matter - of course they do.
But to say that in response to ‘Black Lives Matter’ entirely misses the point. The point that systemic racism still exists at all levels of our society and it stems from racism in people’s hearts and minds - spoken and unspoken. This racism arises from fear, fear of the ‘different’ and can be very mild and subtle or extreme.
The extreme racism in the US police force hit a chord when it was shown on live TV and then shared. All humanity has risen against it and recognised that the mindset that caused slavery still exists.
To post ‘All lives matter’ at this time in history is to side with that mentality. I don’t want to do that, while I agree completely that ‘All lives matter’.
And I won’t stay silent, even if I’m the only one in the group saying it.”
In family matters though......
( to haul this back a bit)
My question was
(In short!)
“What the blazes are we going to do about racism in our families?”
Well That was not a universal answer from all here!
Those questions around How we continue to have a relationship with a relative that we Can discuss matters calmly with....
Like, seriously How?
Do we cut off contact?
Funerals?
Say it, but gently.
When I first met my MIL she was very racist. (Ignorance not malice) Over 40 years I very gently and slowly chipped away at her assumptions. She did change.
If she were alive today she’d understand and, I think, support Black Lives Matter.
That's from the Sweet Honey in the Rock song Ella's Song.
It's a personal answer I think, heavily dependent on circumstances. I don't consider myself under any obligation to challenge others' racism. I value relationship especially family relationship highly, and I would choose to maintain relationships every time. YMMV, and it ought.
I don't get what you do not get. It is very simple.
Why not ?
(I am not claiming to be perfect here, I think I ought - but sometimes I bottle out of it.)
I tend to agree with Simon. It's different with your own family though. My ma was racist about Bangladeshi people, and I used to argue with her, but also ignored her. Both seem OK to me. But racism at large, too tiring, as there is mountains of it.
We know now that those founding fathers either did not understand the meaning of 'all' or they did not understand the meaning of 'men' (in the sense of mankind.)
Given what the situation is at this present time with different groups of people, should we abandon the idea of 'all men being created equal and endowed with certain inalienable rights' or should we be working towards a time when 'all men'/members of the human race should be understood as being equal and having the same rights.
That is my understanding of 'all lives matter' It does not stop me supporting 'Black Lives matter'.
Wouldn't you say there's a time and place for a gentle corrective word, and a time and place to not make an issue of it but accept others as they are ?
No, but if I were with him and he was drunk and about to get in a car - I would at least ask him not to.
If someone is in conversation with me, and saying racist things - I would hope in most situations I would at least say that I disagree. In my head, if I don’t, I need a good and clear reason not to.
It is not unlike a situation where you observe someone bullying or threatening someone else.
I'm still trying to figure out what the question was. It sounds like what you are actually trying to decide is whether you should beat yourself up for tolerating their racist crap, beat yourself up for not challenging their racist crap, or beat yourself up for walking away from their racist crap.
There's no universal answer because every family is different. All you can do is decide what your boundaries are, enforce them, and don't beat yourself up afterwards because someone else chose not to respect those boundaries.
So, ISTM, the use is situational. It isn't for me to decide when the use is acceptable, but it is rude to dismiss the acceptance of it by some groups when dealing with those groups. It is, after all, in some groups official titles and urls and used liberally therein.
Whilst travelling the US, white people tell me not to say Indian, that the "correct" term: was Native American. However, on and off reservations, the people I meet call themselves Indian.*
I use what people wish to be called. The important thing is to know what that is.
*In one instance, I asked a person what they preferred to be called and was told 'Call me Ben'.
@Ethne Alba, I am curious what you mean here. I have read the first three pages of this discussion, so have read it in context, but I think I would find it helpful for it to be unpacked a bit, as a general thing. Not personal to you or your views, but as a way of understanding some of the wider attitudes I am encountering in general around BLM and fighting racism.
I think that's hopelessly naïve.
I absolutely think I have an obligation to oppose racism. If I'm standing by, and allowing my neighbour to be abused and discriminated against because of his appearance, I can't claim to be loving him. This isn't the same as saying I must quit my job and devote all my time to anti-racism work - everyone has different gifts and talents, and there are plenty of ways to oppose racism without doing it as a full-time job (and I think in a lot of people's cases, a few words from the fairly normal person you work with can be more effective than campaigners on TV. Both are necessary.) It's also the case that the most effective way of getting someone to change isn't necessarily presenting them with a list of their faults at every available opportunity.
But all of us have opportunities to oppose racism in our normal lives. It'll be different for everyone, but unless you're a hermit, you're going to get an opportunity to do something. You should.
Whilst I acknowledge that people of all colours and backgrounds can be racist, the most problematic form of racism in western societies is by white people, and principally against black people (more problematic because of the existing power structure). That means it's largely the job of white people to fix it. The more normal, everyday white people who take a stand against racism - calling it out in public, in their families, at work - wherever, the less opportunity there is for the active racists to pretend that their bigotry is OK. And the more those normal, everyday white people call out racism, the more opportunity they have for finding the more subtle effects of racism in their own actions.
You can't change public opinion by yourself, and you can't do it in private. But we can all do it together.
These are different statements. We agree that presenting our neighbour with a long list of all of his failings isn't likely to be effective. That's not the same as "accepting him as he is". Do you prioritize? Only call out the worst of his behaviour? Not make an issue of his drunkenness in general, as long as he doesn't drive and doesn't get abusive when he's drunk? Sure, but that's not the same as just letting it go.
Well, the idea that all lives matter equally is based on what ? I believe it because I believe that everybody is a child of God.