Why "All Lives Matters" is wrong

Sommerswerd said:
Its dark matter not black matter... but I guess all matter looks alike right :p?
Click to expand...

Hmm you're right, that's not quite as clever as I thought.

Well whatever, we're hereby renaming dark matter to black matter. I have pronounced it and it is therefore fact
 
jackelgull said:
So the phrase "All Lives Matters" has always rubbed me the wrong way, because it implies an alliance between all Americans, regardless of creed ethnicity or race, with bigots being outside of the norm. That is not true. The election of Donald Trump proves that white people as a demographic will just as likely ally with bigots as with minorities. I want to stress this is not meant to be an individual judgment on all white people, but as an understanding that in our current model of race relations, a minority group cannot fundamentally trust the white majority as a demographic to protect their rights. In this model of race relations, a minority can only really trust others of a similar back ground and shared experience to protect their rights because it is in their best interests to do so too. Any cooperation with white people can only be a temporary coalition based on mutually beneficial goals, rather than an alliance based on shared values.

And the sad thing is, this begins with the actions of the white demographic. Let me start you off with an example, the same example, but one where it happens in an "All Lives Matter" world, and one that happens in the real world.

In the "All Lives Matter" world, we have a bigot boss, doesn't matter how he got there, doesn't matter why he's there, he's the boss of a company, and he's a bigot. So one day he tells his hiring manager, "Don't hire black people" although let's parrot recent political language and rephrase it to "Just throw out the applications of people with inner city sounding names, we all know they won't pass the drug tests anyways". The hiring manager will say, "I'm not doing that" because he knows and the boss knows the boss can't just fire him and find someone who will.

In the real world, we have a bigoted boss who says the same thing, and the hiring manager would go along with it because he himself might agree and because he knows other people would do it.

In both cases, the hiring manager is not a significantly better person than in the other.

And in the real world, this would create the shared experience that makes a touchstone of the black experience, because there is a pattern of bosses and managers like this.

Also in the real world, if a boss decides, "Let's hire these people exclusively to give them a chance from all the places that reject them" everyone would screech reverse racism.
Click to expand...

There's a thing you're missing here, actually. It's a pretty important thing.

Even if the hiring manager were to know that both candidates were black, Jamal is not the same as James. Jamal isn't just a black name (and also a Muslim name, adopted by American blacks), it's a poor black name. The movement to take back the names of black Americans and make them more similar to African names did not really catch on among the black middle-to-upper class, but it did among poor blacks. It is MLK, not Malcolm X, who both caught on in white society and who had the last laugh here. Now not only do the poorer two-thirds of black people have numerous other disadvantages in life, their own names stand out and target them for discrimination!

In this "post-racial" society, non-black people actually like middle-to-upper-class black people: the ones who speak with General American accents, rather than African American Vernacular aka Ebonics or any other southern-influenced accent, and who have "normal" names. You can tell that black people who act like middle-to-upper class white people are favored because they're overrepresented in advertisements: black people with the "standard" General American accent appear much more often than they do in the society as a whole. I haven't actually found stats on this but I'd be shocked if it weren't the case. Lots of good white God-fearing, Trump-voting (sic) Real Americans™ are perfectly fine with black people who act and speak exactly the same as white people. It's the ones who speak all funny-like and wear their pants too low that scare/disgust said Real Americans™.

What was I doing with "all funny-like" in that last sentence? A poor imitation of the Upland Southern accent (aka South Midland, aka Greater Appalachian, etc). That accent is associated with rednecks, because rednecks do speak that accent - the people we consider rednecks originated in Appalachia and their culture spread with them - initially north, to where the jobs were in the East and Midwest, pulled by some of the same forces as the Great Migration of black people from the Deep South, but without the Jim Crow pushing force. They would eventually become identified with the white working class, and that's why people who stereotype the sorts of people who would vote for Trump poorly imitate Upland Southern accents. Of the two major Southern accents here, it's the rhotic one. You can hear it anywhere from the southern thirds of Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio down to northern Georgia and Alabama, and west-southwest to Oklahoma and Texas, predominantly in rural areas and small towns, and among older people or people of all ages without college degrees. It's not the prestige accent of the US, but it's a little higher than Ebonics notwithstanding.

What would happen if Billy Bob (his real name) applied for the same job as Jamal and James, and those were the only three applicants? Probably, he does better than Jamal but worse than James. Maybe he gets an interview along with James, which reveals immediately that Billy Bob speaks Upland Southern and James speaks General American, while Jamal is cut entirely. James gets the job. But if James came out speaking Ebonics, then Billy Bob might get the job - he speaks a non-prestige accent, but it's not quite as non-prestigious, and management is convinced he will be easier to train than the other two.

Gori the Grey said:
"All Lives Matter" does not imply an alliance between all Americans. As has been posted, it is a counter-slogan that arose to undercut the claims made by the slogan "Black Lives Matter." The original implied contrast of the slogan "BLM" was "as opposed to not mattering (as would seem to be the case from the few opportunities our society provides them, harassment by the police, unequal rates of incarceration, etc.)"

So the implied contrast is "as opposed to not mattering." "All Lives Matter" reframes the implicit contrast in "BLM" to "The lives of black people matter, as opposed to the lives of people of other races." To be more succinct, it takes a slogan that asserts "Black Lives Matter" and acts as though it was asserting "Black Lives Matter," so that that slogan can be summarily dismissed.

"All Lives Matter" was never intended as an assertion that white people, like the hiring manager in your scenario, would help black people. Almost the opposite is the case. It was devised so that white people could close their ears to calls by the black community to treat them as though they matter.
Click to expand...

My impression of "Black Lives Matter" is that it is intended to convey that black lives matter too, so the police are not supposed to gun down black people any more often than they would gun down white people. But "Black Lives Matter Too" would not have been sufficiently confrontational for media attention, so BLM is easily the better slogan. "All Lives Matter" was coined in opposition to BLM, because BLM can be interpreted in an exclusionary way rather than an inclusionary way, and there are a lot of white people, statistically but not individually privileged relative to black people, who want included among the lives that matter. And then there are some people - probably like 15 or 20% of the population, not small but not overwhelming either - who would rather "all lives matter" be thrown up as a counter-slogan just to suppress the "black lives matter" slogan because they would rather those black lives be put in their place.

I mean, if the goal is to end up with anything grounded in reality, we might just have to accept that class, or alternately privilege, is a function of many variables, of which things like race and gender are among the most important, along with education level, parents' income, disability status, and so on. The left as it is has done itself a disservice by ignoring class except for focusing on a few of the variables that are among the most important in determining class. Class warfare never ended - in fact, it got worse from the 1970s onward.
 
Well, these are American-generated slogans and movements. Feel free to substitute your own, and explain them to those of us who don't speak Dutch. This goes for anyone speaking any other language too.
 
Bootstoots said:
There's a thing you're missing here, actually. It's a pretty important thing.

Even if the hiring manager were to know that both candidates were black, Jamal is not the same as James. Jamal isn't just a black name (and also a Muslim name, adopted by American blacks), it's a poor black name. The movement to take back the names of black Americans and make them more similar to African names did not really catch on among the black middle-to-upper class, but it did among poor blacks. It is MLK, not Malcolm X, who both caught on in white society and who had the last laugh here. Now not only do the poorer two-thirds of black people have numerous other disadvantages in life, their own names stand out and target them for discrimination!

In this "post-racial" society, non-black people actually like middle-to-upper-class black people: the ones who speak with General American accents, rather than African American Vernacular aka Ebonics or any other southern-influenced accent, and who have "normal" names. You can tell that black people who act like middle-to-upper class white people are favored because they're overrepresented in advertisements: black people with the "standard" General American accent appear much more often than they do in the society as a whole. I haven't actually found stats on this but I'd be shocked if it weren't the case. Lots of good white God-fearing, Trump-voting (sic) Real Americans™ are perfectly fine with black people who act and speak exactly the same as white people. It's the ones who speak all funny-like and wear their pants too low that scare/disgust said Real Americans™.

What was I doing with "all funny-like" in that last sentence? A poor imitation of the Upland Southern accent (aka South Midland, aka Greater Appalachian, etc). That accent is associated with rednecks, because rednecks do speak that accent - the people we consider rednecks originated in Appalachia and their culture spread with them - initially north, to where the jobs were in the East and Midwest, pulled by some of the same forces as the Great Migration of black people from the Deep South, but without the Jim Crow pushing force. They would eventually become identified with the white working class, and that's why people who stereotype the sorts of people who would vote for Trump poorly imitate Upland Southern accents. Of the two major Southern accents here, it's the rhotic one. You can hear it anywhere from the southern thirds of Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio down to northern Georgia and Alabama, and west-southwest to Oklahoma and Texas, predominantly in rural areas and small towns, and among older people or people of all ages without college degrees. It's not the prestige accent of the US, but it's a little higher than Ebonics notwithstanding.

What would happen if Billy Bob (his real name) applied for the same job as Jamal and James, and those were the only three applicants? Probably, he does better than Jamal but worse than James. Maybe he gets an interview along with James, which reveals immediately that Billy Bob speaks Upland Southern and James speaks General American, while Jamal is cut entirely. James gets the job. But if James came out speaking Ebonics, then Billy Bob might get the job - he speaks a non-prestige accent, but it's not quite as non-prestigious, and management is convinced he will be easier to train than the other two.

---SNIP---

.
Click to expand...

If I'm doing the hiring I can get past the ethnic naming but you are correct that it will be flagged. Not sure if flagged is the right word but it would taint the first impression. Jennifer and Shaniquala will have different expectations of their abilities based purely on their name. But in a technical field like engineering and construction a good CV with relevant experience will overcome the initial disadvantage.

Speaking Ebonics would pretty much be a deal breaker unless the job was for something menial and out of view of the public. A heavy ethnic accent would be fine but Ebonics equates to illiterate and unintelligent to me. Call me a racist but that's how it is.

Similarly neck tattoos or super baggy gangster style pants would also negatively affect your employment opportunities. Being an ex-con would not disqualify if they looked 'normal', but looking like a recruiting poster for the Aryan Brotherhood or MS-13 would also be rejected.

Another racist thing to consider is how easy or difficult it will be to fire someone. I can fire a straight white male pretty easily with no chance of blowback, but the more 'protected' checkmarks they can make the harder it will be. Women, protected minorities, and protected lifestyles all can play the discrimination card and file a lawsuit. To avoid all of that potential headache it's better to hire the white guy if you can swing it.
 
Hygro said:
That is racist.
Click to expand...

If you are an American, raised here and everything and you can't speak proper English but instead speak a gibberish called Ebonics, I'm calling you illiterate and unintelligent. Teachers who teach that crap are doing irreparable harm to their students.

Our society like all societies reward conformance to social norms and speaking proper English is a big part of normal society. Being unable to perform that puts you in the illiterate category. English as a second language gets a pass on this.
 
KmDubya said:
If you are an American, raised here and everything and you can't speak proper English but instead speak a gibberish called Ebonics, I'm calling you illiterate and unintelligent. Teachers who teach that crap are doing irreparable harm to their students.

Our society like all societies reward conformance to social norms and speaking proper English is a big part of normal society. Being unable to perform that puts you in the illiterate category. English as a second language gets a pass on this.
Click to expand...
Because you can't understand a form of English that has even more verb tenses and therefore nuanced ways of communicating, you call it gibberish.

Because people choose to speak this way, you assume they can't speak the English you prefer.

You imagine this kind of English is taught formally by teachers, somewhere presumably.
 
Bootstoots said:
What was I doing with "all funny-like" in that last sentence? A poor imitation of the Upland Southern accent (aka South Midland, aka Greater Appalachian, etc). That accent is associated with rednecks, because rednecks do speak that accent - the people we consider rednecks originated in Appalachia and their culture spread with them - initially north, to where the jobs were in the East and Midwest, pulled by some of the same forces as the Great Migration of black people from the Deep South, but without the Jim Crow pushing force. They would eventually become identified with the white working class, and that's why people who stereotype the sorts of people who would vote for Trump poorly imitate Upland Southern accents. Of the two major Southern accents here, it's the rhotic one. You can hear it anywhere from the southern thirds of Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio down to northern Georgia and Alabama, and west-southwest to Oklahoma and Texas, predominantly in rural areas and small towns, and among older people or people of all ages without college degrees. It's not the prestige accent of the US, but it's a little higher than Ebonics notwithstanding.

What would happen if Billy Bob (his real name) applied for the same job as Jamal and James, and those were the only three applicants? Probably, he does better than Jamal but worse than James. Maybe he gets an interview along with James, which reveals immediately that Billy Bob speaks Upland Southern and James speaks General American, while Jamal is cut entirely. James gets the job. But if James came out speaking Ebonics, then Billy Bob might get the job - he speaks a non-prestige accent, but it's not quite as non-prestigious, and management is convinced he will be easier to train than the other two..
Click to expand...
Funny anecdote... I went out to eat with my wife last week, and the waitress came over and as soon as she started talking I asked her if she was from Ohio. She seemed stunned for a moment, and then explained that people always think she is from the deep-south when she's really from Northeast Kentucky right on the border of Ohio and WV. She asked how I was able to pick that up, and I told her my family was from Ohio.
 
Watching how people talk about other people's accents and what they associate them with is pretty fascinating. All the way down to the kids that thumped their chests with limp wrists when the special education class passed by in the hallway.

I do have to admit I have a hard time actually telling what people are saying if they get deep enough into southern or ebonics territory. Harder even than Indian or eastern European broken English. Probably mostly because by this point it's me missing what's being communicated rather than what's being communicated missing the language.
 
My parents can never watch a movie in English if it's heavy into ebonics or British English, unless there's subtitles. They will just not understand what's being said. They will not watch Monty Python or The Wire unless there are subtitles. Even so, especially with ebonics, they will usually not understand much of the meaning behind the words anyway, even if the words are spelled out for them on the screen. It's the same with a lot of British humour. This includes my dad, who has been fluent in English for over 30 years now (and was even an English teacher once)

Personally I had to watch several The Wire seasons twice. "Had to"/wanted to. It's a great show so I didn't mind, but I honestly missed a lot on the first watchthrough. The first time a lot of the ebonics just flew right over my head. I've watched two of the seasons three times even. Each time I pick up something new. I'm just not used to that dialect of English at all, so it's not easy to follow conversations. With British English it's a lot easier for me, but I watched a lot of Monty Python during my highschool years, so I "get" a lot of that type of comedy and what it's trying to get across
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

danjuno
Jimmy Carter Dies at 100
Replies
15
Views
1K
Graham1
G
H4run
US Foreign Policy and How it impacts Politics
Replies
4
Views
237
Klaus Hergersheimer
Klaus Hergersheimer
Hygro
Alternatives to hard money question mark
Replies
18
Views
469
Lexicus
Lexicus
Samson
  • Poll Poll
How do you secure your online identity?
2
Replies
26
Views
1K
warpus
warpus
GoodEnoughForMe
Should the US be a Dictatorship?
8 9 10
Replies
195
Views
8K
EnglishEdward
EnglishEdward
Back
Top Bottom