It's amazing how the BLM movement is polarising opinion and drawing out some covert racists who maintain the BLM movement risks making people racist. It says more about them than the BLM movement and uncovers their hostile intent. If you don't get the BLM message then you're either very naive, a bit thick, or racist.
As for the Burnley Football Club plane banner stunt - it was done by an EDL supporter, and thus nothing to do with any lives mattering, but solely to have a dig at ethnic minorities; however, there's no law against being ignorant and crass and there is such a thing as free speech. Conversely, there's a an equal right to criticise free speech, so here goes.
Consider these two statements:
“Black lives matter.”
“All lives matter.”
Seems eminently reasonable. Now consider these two statements:
“Black people are disproportionately discriminated against by the justice and police systems.”
“All people are disproportionately discriminated against by the justice and police systems.”
The first statement has the statistics to back it up (Windrush, Hostile Environment Policy, Macpherson Report, statistics on stop and search, etc.) while the second is patently absurd. The two sets of statements address the same issue and mean essentially the same thing. The difference is the shorter sets fit on a badge or poster and the longer ones do not. When writing a slogan for your movement, 3 words are better than 12.
It's arguable that the BLM slogan should have included the word "too" in order to underscore the difference - hence BLM2 in my title.
When trying to undermine a movement, deliberately misinterpreting their slogan is both dishonest and tends to underscore hostile intent towards the group and the people they represent (like deliberately misinterpreting ”taking a knee" as disrespect toward a flag).
Thomas Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence speech in 1776 proves the point. He proclaimed: “all men are created equal...,” - that must either be a lie or he did not believe ‘all men’ included black men, as we all know the slavery in the US wasn’t abolished until 1865.
So yes, in this context, “All Lives Matter” is an intentionally provocative and essentially racist statement that attempts to dilute, hide and deflect from the elephant in the room. "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 idiotic stupidity of the trope and the fact it's an excuse to ignore the problem, which certain people 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 - so they dilute it to hide it.
If you are using it, you either really are defending racism, or you've been suckered into using it in the mistaken belief that it's something noble to say. Not all lives are being oppressed or killed solely because of their colour.
Racism comes from three prime sources, in order of impact.
With regard to the 3rd factor, humans are pattern essentially recognising machine and so, if we have a bad experience with someone, it clouds our judgement of all people having the same attributes or pattern, and someone's colour is the most obvious pattern we can see. The unconscious mind extrapolates the slight or harm one suffered at the hands of a certain person to each and every every person who exhibits that same pattern. It's a deeply embedded survival mechanism - if you've had a bad experience with a cat, you tend to become scared of all cats, not hanging around to see whether they're actually friendly or not. A knee-jerk which can save you at times, but can become a hindrance in the modern world and can lead to all manner of unwanted consequences.
“Black lives matter.”
“All lives matter.”
Seems eminently reasonable. Now consider these two statements:
“Black people are disproportionately discriminated against by the justice and police systems.”
“All people are disproportionately discriminated against by the justice and police systems.”
The first statement has the statistics to back it up (Windrush, Hostile Environment Policy, Macpherson Report, statistics on stop and search, etc.) while the second is patently absurd. The two sets of statements address the same issue and mean essentially the same thing. The difference is the shorter sets fit on a badge or poster and the longer ones do not. When writing a slogan for your movement, 3 words are better than 12.
It's arguable that the BLM slogan should have included the word "too" in order to underscore the difference - hence BLM2 in my title.
When trying to undermine a movement, deliberately misinterpreting their slogan is both dishonest and tends to underscore hostile intent towards the group and the people they represent (like deliberately misinterpreting ”taking a knee" as disrespect toward a flag).
Thomas Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence speech in 1776 proves the point. He proclaimed: “all men are created equal...,” - that must either be a lie or he did not believe ‘all men’ included black men, as we all know the slavery in the US wasn’t abolished until 1865.
So yes, in this context, “All Lives Matter” is an intentionally provocative and essentially racist statement that attempts to dilute, hide and deflect from the elephant in the room. "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 idiotic stupidity of the trope and the fact it's an excuse to ignore the problem, which certain people 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 - so they dilute it to hide it.
If you are using it, you either really are defending racism, or you've been suckered into using it in the mistaken belief that it's something noble to say. Not all lives are being oppressed or killed solely because of their colour.
Racism comes from three prime sources, in order of impact.
- One's parents, and this is the prime determinant,
- One's peer group and,
- Experience.
With regard to the 3rd factor, humans are pattern essentially recognising machine and so, if we have a bad experience with someone, it clouds our judgement of all people having the same attributes or pattern, and someone's colour is the most obvious pattern we can see. The unconscious mind extrapolates the slight or harm one suffered at the hands of a certain person to each and every every person who exhibits that same pattern. It's a deeply embedded survival mechanism - if you've had a bad experience with a cat, you tend to become scared of all cats, not hanging around to see whether they're actually friendly or not. A knee-jerk which can save you at times, but can become a hindrance in the modern world and can lead to all manner of unwanted consequences.
No comments:
Post a Comment