All Life is Matter

A lot of people are using All Lives Matter as a foil to the Black Lives Matter trope - and don't be mistaken, for a foil it is, even if you use it unthinkingly in the mistaken belief that it says something deep and meaningful. It doesn't.

The people using this are primarily those high in the ultra-nationalism, ultra-patriotism and Uber-Brexiteer range of psychological disorders and use it as a deflection. Some get suckered into using it, as they believe it's a noble thing to say, but they haven't thought it through.

Obviously all lives do matter, but that's ignoring the elephant in the room and there's an agenda behind it. Let's analyse All Lives Matter:

• At first glance it seems an eminently reasonable statement, but not all lives are being oppressed or killed solely on the basis of their colour (the elephant in the room).
• Black people in the USA and, arguably to a lesser extent in the UK, are treated differently by the police and the justice system. If you can't see that, then there's no value in continuing the conversation (although it's not strictly a conversation unless you reply) and you've obviously never heard of the Windrush Scandal.
• "All Lives Matter" can logically be translated into: "I'm not giving to Cancer Research as there are other diseases too!" Or; "NSPPC? But all children matter!" Or "Save the Earth? But all planets matter." That illustrates the stupidity of the trope and the fact it's an excuse to ignore the problem, which they don't perceive (against all evidence to the contrary) as being a problem in the first place. Nor do they want you to see the problem - they dilute it to hide it.
• The right is fond of taking liberal terminology and twisting it as a weapon against social justice - this is simply another example of that.
• "All Lives Matter" reflects a view of racial dismissal, ignoring, and denial. It implies that all lives are equally at risk, and they're not. It's a lazy justification that black lives aren't all that important and an excuse to not give a damn.
• The ALM adherents don't actually care about the BLM protests, even if non-violent, any more than they care about immigration detention centres, threats to the rule of law, the illegal suspension of parliament, Windrush, the Hostile Environment policy or any of the other affronts to freedom and equality which logic would dictate should be contrary to the values they maintain they espouse, but don't actually believe in. 
• The critical word missing from Black Lives Matter is the word 'Too' at the end.

A slight aside, but I've noticed that people are far more concerned about being perceived as anti-semitic than racist. I wonder why this is? However, let's not confuse anti-Israel with anti-semitism - they are not the same thing, despite some desperately wanting to portray it as such. Could it be because slavery finished long ago (despite its legacy still being with us) and the Holocaust is within living memory? Jews have a far longer history of persecution in Britain than black minorities - they've been here far longer. The average Jew, unless announcing his or her Jewishness by dressing as an Hasidic, is indistinguishable from an indigenous, white Christian. Many Jews must be relieved that racists now have a focus other than them.

A friend sent me this image yesterday, which I think speaks volumes and echoes the teachings of a famous, Jewish holy man who some follow to this day.

My friend's words accompanying the photo are this: "Madiba (Mandela) beside the grave and statue of the architect of Apartheid, HF Verwoerd. The eloquence of his deeds cannot be overestimated and perhaps a younger generation can but strive for a sliver of that wisdom."

People often say; "What would Jesus have done?" Well, we know the answer to that, Wasn't it something to do with forgiveness, even in the face of insuperable provocation? MLK understood this, but rioters apparently don't.

As regards old statues and judging people by the standards of their time - we do get a bit bogged down here when it comes to religion, where the standards are very, very old, and yet remain as valid today as they were when written (or uttered in this case) and certainly in the times within which Edward Colston lived.

"Do unto others...."

It's called the Golden Rule and forms the basis of many religious and cultural beliefs older than Christianity, and if that's not an admonishment against slavery, I don't know what is. A classic case of morality (and Christian ethics) vs what was considered legal - probably because it was enormously profitable. I am reminded of the neo-liberal free market where profitability justifies legality and throws morality to the wind, as the free market does not consider people. The get-out clause is to not even consider black people as human....

I didn't know this, but France outlawed slavery in 1315 but, crucially, only withing the kingdom of France and thus its later colonies were free to use slaves.

Another consequence to consider when saying 'we cannot judge yesterday by the values of today' is that you can't logically criticise the Nazis. Think about it - Britain was having its own flirtations with fascism in the 1930s.

So to sum up - i) learn to forgive, and ii) do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Lessons for both sides of the argument, but you can't have one without the other.

I never thought I'd be using religion to bolster my arguments, but there is wisdom in much of it, if you don't engage in wilfully misinterpreting it for your benefit. It's in the woo-woo where religions go squonk.