Black Lives Matter TOO

[Jayhawker Soule]

To my understanding, this is what many state the message is supposed to be, so this one adjustment would probably clear up a lot of confusion about the message, as well as reduce resistance to the more ambiguous "black lives matter."

This being the case, I wonder how many would be willing to make such an adjustment.

Best I can tell, this is precisely the point that I was attempting to make here. I was frankly surprised that the OP met with such sophomoric resistance.

 

[Revoltingest]

That's what I was thinking. Scientists are now starting to say that there isn't any such thing as race anyway (Something I've been saying for about 35 years).

That just shows to go you that scientists are racist.

Best I can tell, this is precisely the point that I was attempting to make here. I was frankly surprised that the OP met with such sophomoric resistance.

I was aiming for freshman level resistance.

 

[Revoltingest]

I could be wrong, but I believe this thread is in response to a particular event. A white politician was booed by the crowd chanting "Black Lives Matter" for saying "All Lives Matter".
There is another thread about it, if I recall correctly.
Tom

Presidential contender O'Malley (Dem) is the perp.
He apologized for respecting all lives.

 

[SomeRandom]

That's what I was thinking. Scientists are now starting to say that there isn't any such thing as race anyway (Something I've been saying for about 35 years).

I didn't realize that scientists (except actual racists) even cared about race for the last 35 years. Race as a word isn't even used anymore in Academia, and hasn't been for years, as is my understanding. Hell to hear my old High School Biology teacher talk about it, you'd think that the mere mention of "race" was enough to get laughed off the intellectual stage.

 

[psychoslice]

I personally am sick and tired of hearing about this black and white crap, both are bad as each other, period.

 

[Curious George]

. No one who says "all lives matter" as a retort to "black lives matter" plans to do jack about the systematic inequalities that kill some of those "alls" way more than others.

Hmm, I don't know about that. Asserting that all lives matter is certainly an argument. But, I wouldn't presume that any person saying such plans to do nothing about racial disparity.

How could you know such a thing, how can you assume such a thing? The fight against racial disparity is literally chalked full of people speaking out for all lives. To make this assertion is to connect "all" with both the status quo and racial injustice. Such a thought is absurd.

What you have is people demanding a focus on a particular injustice, I agree. I do not think this is wrong. However, if you say we need to do something about the racial injustice blacks face and I "retort," "we need to do something about all of the racial injustice in America," this means I don't plan to do jack. Or, does it more accurately imply that yes you are right but that is but one piece of the larger puzzle?

I certainly understand how responding "all lives matter" is not focusing on the specific problem at hand. But that does not mean the problem will be completely ignored.

 

[Politesse]

Hmm, I don't know about that. Asserting that all lives matter is certainly an argument. But, I wouldn't presume that any person saying such plans to do nothing about racial disparity.

How could you know such a thing, how can you assume such a thing? The fight against racial disparity is literally chalked full of people speaking out for all lives. To make this assertion is to connect "all" with both the status quo and racial injustice. Such a thought is absurd.

What you have is people demanding a focus on a particular injustice, I agree. I do not think this is wrong. However, if you say we need to do something about the racial injustice blacks face and I "retort," "we need to do something about all of the racial injustice in America," this means I don't plan to do jack. Or, does it more accurately imply that yes you are right but that is but one piece of the larger puzzle?

I certainly understand how responding "all lives matter" is not focusing on the specific problem at hand. But that does not mean the problem will be completely ignored.

It doesn't literally have to mean that. It just always does. People who actually care about the issues at hand aren't offended by the slogan to begin with, the literal form of the retort is just a dozen versions of "black lives only matter if there's a disclaimer that somehow includes whites in the signification".

 

[Politesse]

I didn't realize that scientists (except actual racists) even cared about race for the last 35 years. Race as a word isn't even used anymore in Academia, and hasn't been for years, as is my understanding. Hell to hear my old High School Biology teacher talk about it, you'd think that the mere mention of "race" was enough to get laughed off the intellectual stage.

Academics talk about race plenty. What's changed is how. Biologically, there is no basis for talking about race, and there never really was. Certainly not since the discovery of DNA.

But sociologically, race obviously continues to exist and shape people's lives, demonstrably and intolerably. And indeed, race as a purely social category was always its most honest form - all of the scientism surrounding racial typologies at the beginning of the century was superficial at best. Science is built on experimentally confirmed observations and empirically validated categorizations. There was never any real support of this kind for the idea that race had a biological grounding. Just a lot of people who badly wanted there to be, as now.

 

[idav]

To my understanding, this is what many state the message is supposed to be, so this one adjustment would probably clear up a lot of confusion about the message, as well as reduce resistance to the more ambiguous "black lives matter."

This being the case, I wonder how many would be willing to make such an adjustment.

If it doeant say all lives matter then its dissing Hispanics and Latinos.

 

[Curious George]

It doesn't literally have to mean that. It just always does. People who actually care about the issues at hand aren't offended by the slogan to begin with, the literal form of the retort is just a dozen versions of "black lives only matter if there's a disclaimer that somehow includes whites".

"We cannot walk alone. And as we walk, we must make the pledge that we shall always march ahead." MLK Jr.

 

[SomeRandom]

Academics talk about race plenty. What's changed is how. Biologically, there is no basis for talking about race, and there never really was. Certainly not since the discovery of DNA.

But sociologically, race obviously continues to exist and shape people's lives, demonstrably and intolerably. And indeed, race as a purely social category was always its most honest form - all of the scientism surrounding racial typologies at the beginning of the century was superficial at best. Science is built on experimentally confirmed observations and empirically validated categorizations. There was never any real support of this kind for the idea that race had a biological grounding. Just a lot of people who badly wanted there to be, as now.

Well yeah, race is purely a social construct. I agree with you, just never realized that "race" as we laymen understand, was given much time of day or used in favor of better more accurately terminology by scientists of all people.

 

[Politesse]

It's not so much that we use the popular concept, as it is that race is the popular concept, so we're very concerned about it.

 

[Politesse]

"We cannot walk alone. And as we walk, we must make the pledge that we shall always march ahead." MLK Jr.

No one is talking about walking alone. But it's important to be walking with people who are more or less headed in the same direction as you. King knew that more than anyone else.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

If it doeant say all lives matter then its dissing Hispanics and Latinos.

"Black lives matter too" doesn't speak to how much other races matter either way.

 

[Revoltingest]

In the news.....
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/aug/4/empire-state-buildings-1m-cecil-the-lion-display-o/

The Empire State Building’s projection of Cecil the lion and other endangered animals is being criticized for ignoring the “Black Lives Matter” movement.
Along with Cecil, whose illegal killing sparked an international uproar, a snow leopard, tigers, lemurs and various snakes, birds and sea creatures were projected onto the building using 40 projectors, CNN reported.

The light display cost $1 million and was intended to promote the Oceanic Preservation Society’s documentary “Racing Extinction.”
Many social media users said the projection gave unfair attention to animals while ignoring the deaths of black people at the hands of police, The Huffington Post reported.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

In the news.....
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/aug/4/empire-state-buildings-1m-cecil-the-lion-display-o/

Animal Lives Matter!

 

[gsa]

To my understanding, this is what many state the message is supposed to be, so this one adjustment would probably clear up a lot of confusion about the message, as well as reduce resistance to the more ambiguous "black lives matter."

This being the case, I wonder how many would be willing to make such an adjustment.

Do you really think that "Black Lives Matter" is a confusing message? I think it is only confusing if you assume that saying that black lives matter implies that Latino lives, white lives, etcetera do not matter. Indeed, how does adding "too" clarify things? Perhaps that would only mean that black and white lives matter, and Latino lives do not matter. "All lives matter" is a tone deaf response. Of course we generally agree that "all lives matter" in some vague way. But insisting on "too" or "all lives matter" dismisses the reality that not all lives matter in practice. It reads "Black Lives Matter" as "Only Black Lives Matter," for whatever reason.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Do you really think that "Black Lives Matter" is a confusing message?

As I stated, I think that "black lives matter too," is more clear and less ambiguous, if the message is that some people feel that black lives matter less than white lives (or other lives). Do you have some kind of specific reason why adding "too" would make it less ambiguous, and not more accurate in terms of what the message is supposed to be?

I think it is only confusing if you assume that saying that black lives matter implies that Latino lives, white lives, etcetera do not matter.

This clearly isn't the case, seeing the range of people's responses to the message "black lives matter." Obviously, many people find it ambiguous.

Indeed, how does adding "too" clarify things?

Because the message is supposed to be that black lives matter as well as non-black lives. The word "too" is a clear, short way of providing this additional context.

Perhaps that would only mean that black and white lives matter, and Latino lives do not matter.

There is no semantical argument which would support this notion.

"All lives matter" is a tone deaf response. Of course we generally agree that "all lives matter" in some vague way. But insisting on "too" or "all lives matter" dismisses the reality that not all lives matter in practice.

Actually, adding "too" clearly indicates that people feel that, currently, some lives matter while others do not. The lack of a qualifier such as "too" clearly leaves this information out.

 

[columbus]

But insisting on "too" or "all lives matter" dismisses the reality that not all lives matter in practice. It reads "Black Lives Matter" as "Only Black Lives Matter," for whatever reason.

This is a big problem with pithy symbolism.
The symbols don't necessarily mean the same thing to everyone, and people often want to insist that theirs is the most important, or even the only legitimate, one.

This caused a lot of trouble over the Stars and Bars flag. Someone waving it as a symbol of something other than pro racism or pro slavery often got shot down for lack of sensitivity or something similarly vague. But now the shoe is on the other foot, and I am expected to understand what those people mean.
Even though it is not what they said.
Tom

 

[Revoltingest]

Do you really think that "Black Lives Matter" is a confusing message? I think it is only confusing if you assume that saying that black lives matter implies that Latino lives, white lives, etcetera do not matter. Indeed, how does adding "too" clarify things? Perhaps that would only mean that black and white lives matter, and Latino lives do not matter. "All lives matter" is a tone deaf response. Of course we generally agree that "all lives matter" in some vague way. But insisting on "too" or "all lives matter" dismisses the reality that not all lives matter in practice. It reads "Black Lives Matter" as "Only Black Lives Matter," for whatever reason.

There is the controversy (albeit a small one) that the media don't report in
a major way about the even greater number of white guys killed by cops.
As they regularly say on NPR (my radio news source.....government
created, btw), the problem is with "police killing African Americans".
They generally don't acknowledge the larger problem of militarized & violent cops
killing every ethnic group with impunity. It is reasonable to object to this focus, & to
broaden it. SJWs don't like it if anyone changes the focus.....tough noogies.

There's also some irony pointing towards the larger issue....some of the cops killing
\black folk are also black, eg, Eric Garner.