There appears to be a controversy over the statement, "Black Lives Matter."
It seems that to say "All lives matter" is taken as a denial of the Black Lives Matter truth, even if it is immediately followed by an emphasis that of course black lives matter too.
Maybe one explanation might be that the supporters of the Black Lives Matter,(BLM), movement see it as more of a denial of their movement and grievances than a denial of the truth of the statement.
A recent presidential candidate was asked the BLM question, and his response went something like this;
All lives are important, Black lives, White lives, Hispanic lives.... All lives are important"
The thought wasn't about the movement and its insistence on only one correct answer, but whether the rephrasing was an instance of being Politically Correct, politically shrewd, or just truthful - with no agenda?
I am going with a two-fer, the last two.
GA - I would agree on either of the last two as you do.
It is interesting how saying "All Lives Matter" has now become a racial slur. To deny that "All Lives Matter" is racial bias to the extreme in my opinion.
What a screwed up world this has become.
Greetings GA and OP,
Of course, all lives matter. What we are talking about is what appears to be a diversion from the concern of the Black community of what seems to be the heavy handed approach to law enforcement, unjustified police shootings, etc. That has not been experienced to the same extent by "all lives". Thus, the creation of "Black Lives Matter". There are many that just as soon co-op or neutralize the issue, creating a new rallying cry in its place
Hello Credence2, it has been a long time my friend, hope all is well in Florida for you and your bride.
This was a great comment and your said it well.
That sounds like a fair explanation, but what about my OP inference, and Old Poolman's declaration that saying all lives matter is taken as an insult as a mild description and racial bigotry at the extreme description?
From what little I know of the purpose of the movement, I can see their motivation, but the other part of the movement that I see is what I am discussing; How can it be justified as a denial or slur when the answer is all lives matter? Seems hard to get beyond the impression that they are placing the importance of black lives above all others.
Perception is too often the reality of most folks, and that perception can't be helping their movement.
As for the 'twofer', I can go along with that.
There are many that want to make it appear that those that discredit the idea that 'all lives matter' are biased in their own right.
I say, 'no', we, as Black folks want the issue of police brutality and excess toward our groups addressed, the title of the movement is irrelevent, really. Right now, the title serves as a focal point for an exercise of sematics for those, particularly conservatives, that do not want to recognize the problem in the first place. It is a Jedi mind trick on the part of the Right to dilute the power of a potent issue and turn the perps into the victims and vice/versa.
I think I have to disagree with your explanation, perhaps not your gut feelings, but the way you have expressed them here seems to be the picture in the OP.
My lack of knowledge about the details of the movement has already been noted, and was also the reason I addressed the problem I see in the use of the name as a burgeon by group's activist supporters, not the validity of the movement's issues.
First, In the context of an exchange involving the question of lives mattering, how can it not appear to be placing black lives over all lives when anyone that does not answer correctly is tarred with the brush of bias or racism?
It appears to me, based on my first reaction to the movement/activists/politician/celebrity confrontations that were used as the video bytes of the news stories covering it, that even if all the movement issues are valid, no white person is going to see those issues after first being slapped with the choice; all lives matter or black lives matter, before even seeing what is behind that choice.
Text media stories of this `controversy' seem to say the same thing. The impact on all but the movement's base, and leaning-to supporters, is an image of being criticized if you don't make a choice to say black lives matter without any `buts' or `ands'.
You mentioned 'focal point" and "exercise of sematics" as the purpose of the movement's actions... I think I understand the purpose of a focal point, but what the hell will an exercise of semantics that has absolutely no compromise in it accomplish?
Think about it a moment... You might be able to convince me of shades of gray after discussion, but if you insist that I must say that black is white, (sorry), before we can have a discussion...
And then... wait for it.... "There you go again..." with the conservatives and the Right.
Yep, a "Jedi mind trick" that points out the purposefulness of the actions behind the confrontations. The problem as it strikes me is that action, (again to the non-committed), translates into you demanding that I agree with you, before we can even have a discussion about whatever I am agreeing to. Some trick.
Your feeling that the name of the movement is irrelevant, when almost everything the public hears about the movement, is about the name puzzles me.
It is a PC argument for sure. Just like marriage is different when you add the gay element as a PC statement with legal ramifications with regards to adoption and partners rights. Soon "Black Lives Matter" will have a legal element as well if the movement gathers support. Anymore, racial issues have gathered a damned if you do and damned if you don't paradigm depending on the language you use and when you use it. "Black Lives Matter" has garnered its' support in opposition to the police killings that do in fact in many cases look like murder. Statistically young black males are 21% more likely to be killed by police than their white counterparts. Does that mean that they were targeted to be killed? "There were 151 instances in which police noted that teens they had shot dead had been fleeing or resisting arrest at the time of the encounter. 67 percent of those killed in such circumstances were black."  The cases don't show what areas it happened in as being a higher crime or lower income areas where crime is more prevalent.
The fact is that all lives matter even though the percentage of white victims are less.
 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/1 … 65706.html
All Lives Do Matter ,But in todays America , some think that "theirs" are more important than all the others . That's pretty obvious.
That's very true, (with different `somes' perhaps). But the OP question concerned the controversy around the "Black Lives Matter" question, and whether replying as the candidate did; "all lives are important," was a shrewd reply, or a dodge?
Well if "all lives matter" there wouldn't be such a fuss over refugees, now would there be? All lives don't matter, brown lives don't matter, white lives don't matter, no life matters to anyone anymore unless it fits their agenda, whatever it may be. Thankfully some people's agendas still include loving other people.
Really though can you blame them for needing to specifically say "Black lives", after all there is still a good bit of racism in this country, and on top of that the African American youth are taking each others lives.
I think of it similar to black history month. Just a way of pointing out that black lives are important, since some have chosen not to acknowledge the fact.
I can see the strength of your conviction in that response, but I am not sure it addresses the OP. Which was the apparent insistence that the only non-racist answer is "Yes, Black Lives matter," and the candidate's rephrasing with "important" vs. "Matter?"
Here is a partial explanation already offered;
".... But the OP question concerned the controversy around the "Black Lives Matter" question, and whether replying as the candidate did; "all lives are important," was a shrewd reply, or a dodge?"
I think it is a false dichotomy. If all lives matter then black lives matter. The movement is not called "black lives matter more than other lives", it clear stated purpose is to ensure law enforcement act as if black lives matter *as much* as other lives. Something that, in many jurisdictions, is not currently happening due to conscious or unconscious racial bias. People are allowed to fight for the under-dog. If not, the inequity will never be addressed.
"The movement is not called "black lives matter more than other lives", it clear stated purpose is to ensure law enforcement act as if black lives matter *as much* as other lives."
The inferred reference to the term "black lives" differentiates the importance of the movement to give greater focus on the issue. Is it because of or in spite of the alarming rate of black youths being killed in greater numbers? The resistance being felt shows us that it is a black movement and does not wish to share the spotlight as with most racially motivated groups.
Black lives matter ? Black crimes matter too , Yet you will call me the racist.
by Ralph Schwartz8 months ago
There are too many news stories about racial tensions in the United States; violence, murder, and destruction of property amidst the chaos of racially charged events is putting unnecessary stress on this nation. ...
by ahorseback16 months ago
For the American News Media ,Not everyone seems willing to admit that racism is a double edged sword , Think about it ? But here's the thing , Do we hear the same noise from the Hispanics...
by Denise8 months ago
I have made it clear that I support the Black Lives Matter Movement. Honestly, I thought it was mostly about making cops stop shooting black guys for being black. Now, there is a policy statement which goes way, way,...
by Susie Lehto3 weeks ago
Infowars has documented the violent rhetoric of BLM, the New Black Panthers, and other groups that share their racist ideology: http://www.infowars.com/milwaukee-sheri … g-america/On Monday, Milwaukee County...
by Jack Lee10 days ago
Recent protests in Berkeley campus turned violent. These masked individuals are trying to shut down free speech. They disagree with speakers and use violence to shut down the dialog.The question is who are these people,...
by Ronnie wrenchBiscuit9 months ago
The United States government, and the media, are filled with professional liars. This is not surprising, especially in government. Many elected officials, like Hillary Clinton, are former lawyers, and American lawyers...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.