Why "All Lives Matters" is wrong

[Timsup2nothin]

But that's the very same platform BLM is using, is it not? So in the end, if both want the same, then why not ditch the whole race thing altogether and form a united movement?

BLM is acknowledging that there is a serious element of racism that the reforms need to deal with. You asked what to say if you just want to deal with the reforms generally without reference to the racial element that exists. Yes, I would like to see the racial aspects subsumed into a wider perspective demand for reforms...but the fact is that for many white people "there's no need for reform as long as it's mostly other people bearing the brunt" so as usual it's people of color who mostly have to carry the ball.

 

[Lexicus]

To say that you can call for reform without mentioning the racist aspect of it is to ignore the fact that there are drastic differences in how people are treated by the police according to race, and that it has literally always been this way because the origins of the modern police system in the US are slave militias.

 

[Ryika]

Yes, I would like to see the racial aspects subsumed into a wider perspective demand for reforms...but the fact is that for many white people "there's no need for reform as long as it's mostly other people bearing the brunt" so as usual it's people of color who mostly have to carry the ball.

That's true. However, this still doesn't explain why BLM chose to fixate on the smaller issue.
Why is it "(racism + criminal justice reform)", instead of "criminal justice reform (with focus on racism)".

I mean... that was mostly a rhetorical question, the answer is mostly tribalism between people who suffer from the same problem of course.
And it's an understandable response, but I do think it's suboptimal.

To say that you can call for reform without mentioning the racist aspect of it

I didn't say that, I merely said that racism should not be on the top level (the "required for us to care about you"-level), because it excludes victims that are victims because of reasons other than racism. This could be white people, or other black people who were shot by overly aggressive cops without (apparent) racist motivation.

 

[Senethro]

Isn't that kind of like asking why LGBT groups don't fix straight person problems? (whatever those might be)

 

[Ryika]

Isn't that kind of like asking why LGBT groups don't fix straight person problems? (whatever those might be)

That mostly depends on the issue.

Let's say a group wants to help gay people in a country where HIV is a serious problem. Why would you advocate for free condoms for gay people instead of advocating for free condoms for everyone there, while making sure to note that gay people are the group that is affected more by the problem?

That's of course not a perfect parallel because the racism of police officers is an active factor, not just a fact of life (it being easier to be infected by butt-sechs and gay men having more butt-sechs than straight couples). But I do think it would be more sensible to choose the broader model, you'll get more people on your side.

But again, I don't fault BLM for that, I understand where it's coming from. I just think it's weakening their position unnecessarily.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

That's true. However, this still doesn't explain why BLM chose to fixate on the smaller issue.
Why is it "(racism + criminal justice reform)", instead of "criminal justice reform (with focus on racism)".

I mean... that was mostly a rhetorical question, the answer is mostly tribalism between people who suffer from the same problem of course.
And it's an understandable response, but I do think it's suboptimal.

Well, the racism aspects are statistically the most obvious, so in any call for reform that meets "prove there is a problem" that's sort of the go to. Unfortunately it is suboptimal for exactly the reasons this thread is about. In my town about ten percent of white people are glaringly open racists, but when you put police reform into racial imbalance terms another fifty percent at least say "Oh, so they treat white people better? Okay, good then." They aren't glaring racists, but clearly recognize that racism is not a problem for them. Of course they are actually wrong about that, because when the inevitable riot in the wake of failed reforms happens they will bear as much of the brunt as the open racists, but recognizing that would take foresight that is lacking.

 

[EgonSpengler]

That's true. However, this still doesn't explain why BLM chose to fixate on the smaller issue.
Why is it "(racism + criminal justice reform)", instead of "criminal justice reform (with focus on racism)".

I mean... that was mostly a rhetorical question, the answer is mostly tribalism between people who suffer from the same problem of course.
And it's an understandable response, but I do think it's suboptimal.


I didn't say that, I merely said that racism should not be on the top level (the "required for us to care about you"-level), because it excludes victims that are victims because of reasons other than racism. This could be white people, or other black people who were shot by overly aggressive cops without (apparent) racist motivation.

I hadn't thought of it before, but maybe it's worth mentioning: BLM isn't a criminal-justice reform organization, per se, it's a civil rights organization. Police violence is a big issue that gets a lot of media attention but, iirc, the University of Missouri protests weren't about criminal justice reform.

 

[Sommerswerd]

That's true. However, this still doesn't explain why BLM chose to fixate on the smaller issue. Why is it "(racism + criminal justice reform)", instead of "criminal justice reform (with focus on racism)".

Isn't that kind of like asking why LGBT groups don't fix straight person problems? (whatever those might be)

Right, like saying "why are they focusing on the 'gay and lesbian' aspect of marriage equality instead of focusing on equality for all people gay or straight? Why are they focusing on the smaller issue? Why is it "(gay marriage + LGBT rights)", instead of "Civil rights (with focus on gay marriage)"?

Back in the day, putting the word "black" in the name of movement created an even stronger negative visceral reaction... But even if you left the word out, people still associated it with black people and opposed it accordingly... When it was called the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee people said "why are they focusing on this 'black' stuff", despite the word black not being part of the name. When it was called the Freedom Riders, same thing...

But white folks participated in all those causes (including the Black Panthers BTW), because they believed in the cause. They didn't conclude that they felt alienated because the causes seemed to be focused on black people. So my thought (no sarcasm whatsoever) is that if whites want to participate in a movement about "criminal justice reform", they can just join BLM... its fine, it really is. They would be (and are) perfectly welcome.

Spoiler For example :

The word "Black" only offends/repulses/alienates you (the royal you) if you let it... and it shouldn't, if you believe in the cause. Focusing on the name is oftentimes just an easy excuse/pretense for opposing the cause. If you oppose the cause, just oppose the cause. Its another example of the who/what - versus - the how point we keep discussing.

 

[Lexicus]

Right, like saying "why are they focusing on the 'gay and lesbian' aspect of marriage equality instead of focusing on equality for all people gay or straight? Why are they focusing on the smaller issue? Why is it "(gay marriage + LGBT rights)", instead of "Civil rights (with focus on gay marriage)"?

Or in comic form

hey can just join BLM... its fine, it really is.

That's actually not entirely correct...I don't know all the details (don't know if you can actually "join" BLM, in fact, given its decentralized/informal nature)... regular BLM meetings where I am are billed as "no white people allowed", which frankly I have mixed feelings about. But there are specific events and things they do that white people can (and are encouraged to) go to.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

That's actually not entirely correct...I don't know all the details (don't know if you can actually "join" BLM, in fact, given its decentralized/informal nature)... regular BLM meetings where I am are billed as "no white people allowed", which frankly I have mixed feelings about. But there are specific events and things they do that white people can (and are encouraged to) go to.

There are white people who can walk into a "no white people allowed" meeting and be met with "oh we don't mean you." They know who they are and ignore the sign.

 

[Farm Boy]

Not that I'd know, but I see no reason to doubt. Yea, that's how people work. Those other people too. Everyone, really.

 

[Lexicus]

I don't think it's that kind of deal. I can't look into it in detail right now though, wait until I get home from work.

 

[Sommerswerd]

That's actually not entirely correct...I don't know all the details (don't know if you can actually "join" BLM, in fact, given its decentralized/informal nature)... regular BLM meetings where I am are billed as "no white people allowed", which frankly I have mixed feelings about. But there are specific events and things they do that white people can (and are encouraged to) go to.

You're right that BLM is not a corporation or club you can join... but see the pic I posted. Anyone can support the movement, march in the protests, attend the rallies, events etc... and MOST IMPORTANTLY... argue in support on the internets.

"no white people allowed" signs suck and are wrong, misguided, juvenile (and more) and if I were faculty at that school (I'm assuming its a school for something so juvenile) I would pull those kids aside and counsel them against that... And if its adults instigating it I would chastise them as well.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

You're right that BLM is not a corporation or club you can join... but see the pic I posted. Anyone can support the movement, march in the protests, attend the rallies, events etc... and MOST IMPORTANTLY... argue in support on the internets.

"no white people allowed" signs suck and are wrong, misguided, juvenile (and more) and if I were faculty at that school (I'm assuming its a school for something so juvenile) I would pull those kids aside and counsel them against that... And if its adults instigating it I would chastise them as well.

I wouldn't. There are a fair number of white people who would love to walk in there just to be counterproductive. There is no reason to not try to dissuade them. Like I said, a white person who is not one of those will probably be known, recognized, and welcomed anyway.

 

[Sommerswerd]

And deny yourself the chance to confront them in person?

 

[Bugfatty300]

I doubt no whites allowed signs are actually stopping anyone from showing up and causing trouble. In fact they probably have the opposite effect.

I know if I saw a sign like that I'd probably walk in just see what happens.

 

[Traitorfish]

It's not like "no whites" signs are new.

It's just, historically, they used to be more specific. "No Jews". "No Irish". Things like that.

If anything, we should laud the refusal to discriminate.

 

[Lexicus]

It's just, historically, they used to be more specific. "No Jews". "No Irish". Things like that.

Yeah, not the same kind of thing at all...more like "no bosses" when you have a union meeting...

 

[jackelgull]

You're right that BLM is not a corporation or club you can join... but see the pic I posted. Anyone can support the movement, march in the protests, attend the rallies, events etc... and MOST IMPORTANTLY... argue in support on the internets.

"no white people allowed" signs suck and are wrong, misguided, juvenile (and more) and if I were faculty at that school (I'm assuming its a school for something so juvenile) I would pull those kids aside and counsel them against that... And if its adults instigating it I would chastise them as well.

I do think there are some conversations where white perspectives would be unhelpful to the discussion and uncomfortable. It's easier for Muslims to gather among themselves and discuss problems with Muslim culture and how to interpret their faith if a white person isn't around, because the presence of a white person might incline them to be defensive about Islam and then things are going to go nowhere fast.

 

[Bugfatty300]

It's just, historically, they used to be more specific. "No Jews". "No Irish". Things like that.

Great. We let them in and now nobody wants us at their meetings anymore.