“To conquer racism requires a conversion to holiness, and a willingness to spread grace and charity to hardened hearts,” wrote Moloney.Logically, to affirm that all lives matter is necessarily to affirm that all lives matter. For a Christian it is simply an extension of the belief that we are all created in the image and likeness of God. If you object to the proposition that all lives matter, you would seem to have a problem regarding substance.
I am dismayed, but hardly surprise at the timorousness of the Boston archdiocese. The American hierarchy has lately become a major obstacle to the faith. Nothing surprising there. The hierarchy wasn't so hot during the Renaissance either.
Anyway, let's return to those benighted days of yesterday when this song was a No. 1 hit here and in Britain:
One serious problem with this article, is that it assumes anyone who disagrees is a liberal, and that if liberal, you push the following foolishness:
ReplyDelete"Moloney calls out the new liberal strategy on racial justice for exacerbating racial divisions where there are none, using an individual’s evil act to denounce people everywhere as prejudiced, and casting out from society all who do not promulgate its dogma that police everywhere are racist."
People everywhere are not getting blamed for being racist by some great majority, because of some racists acts. This is making a straw man, that is easy to argue with, but behind it seems to be a serious misunderstand of how people consider the situation. The Black Lives Matter movement is pro-cop. As a group, they want the good cops only.
The idea is to get rid of the bad cops, and to retrain all cops, set new standards and methods. Most everyone loves the good cops. Are there some who love the bad cops? Granted, sure, but this does not make them conservative, right? Are there some who hate good cops? Sure, and maybe some of them are conservative too.
Let's go a step into the argument, and how it just falters horribly, and is steps outside of reality. The reason people do not get charged with hate crimes they commit, is the same reason people do not get charged with murder they commit. It's about bringing a case that sticks. The classic case, but it happens every day, is Al Capone, getting nailed by the IRS, but never for murder and such.
If you as a white person, hang out with a person of color long enough, you get to see the racism. You get to be at least interrupted far too often by it not to notice. Part of it is how people are just plain rude to dark-skinned more often than whites. And you wonder, "Is that idiot rude to everyone, or is there racism here?" You cannot just blab out that the person is racist. You can, however, speak out about how rude she or he just was. Statistically you may be correct in your overall hunches, but specifically, in a given individual case, just making someone who is having a bad day feel even worse.
Let all us white people be clear. We have all been in groups where the "n" word is batted around, where blacks and other people of color are stereotyped horribly, even where mean things are contrived. We cannot then get into a social philosophy conversation and hold even as a devli's advocate that racism exists because people called liberals bring it up.
People of color know this. They get to be victims of contrived acts, of being called names and such. But also, many come from mixed families, some pass, and the behind-the-scenes racism is often stupidly performed in front of blacks passable as whites, at least to the hateful racist, and whites with black children, siblings and parents.
So, after so much racist murdering and false imprisonment or too-long imprisonment, comes a movement called Black Lives Matter, founded on the idea that if we can agree that all lives matter, then black live must logically matter. It comes down to a simple admission that everyone who believes that all lives matter can speak. Just simply assert, "Black lives matter." It's not liberal, not conservative, it's logical and especially for true Christians, true.
If you assert that all lives matter it should be presumed that you mean black lives matter. At least if you speak English I was taught it. So far as I know the word "all" has not surreptitiously morphed into "some" or "most". It still means, well, all.
ReplyDeleteHence, the group, Black Lives Matter. You just showed how the BLM name applies, logically. If all lives matter, then black lives matter. It's part of the slogan.
ReplyDeleteWhen someone says, "Black lives matter," the response of "All lives matter," comes across either as flippant, or some newly discovered though.
Using the language, why might a speaker point this or any subgroup out? It is clear that for many, black lives do not matter. They get killed far more often, imprisoned for longer terms, live through all sorts of racist put downs, from name-calling to not being hired or included in the public swimming pools.
If you cannot assert simply the words, "Black lives matter," without caveat, qualification or explanation of how all lives matter, or expounding upon the logic inherent in the name BLM, explaining as if you think people using the phrase are mis-applying it somehow or do not think all lives matter, or that they are the ones who need to be reminded about all lives mattering -- then you are wrong, everyone in the BLM understands this, all. The flippant "all lives matter" gets in the way of constructive conversation, and communicates that the responder does not get it.
Just say simply, "Black lives matter." Can you do it? It's easy to say, and it is true. It's simple.
Just say simply, "God loves children," -- without qualifying to say, "God loves ALL people, not just children!" Such qualifying is not edifying, but dull interruption. The response would be, "What? You serious? -- Does your Grandma need help or something? -- Okay God loves Grandmas too. Anyway, back to the children. Like I was saying, God loves children . . ."
It's the application that is important, isn't it. We could say that "All Native American lives matter." No one in the BLM movement would object. It has import and application. We could specifically say about all the missing Native American women, "All Native American women's lives matter." Response: "Okay, yes, we have a problem in that category, don't we. What do you propose?"
To respond with "All lives matter" . . . you have to wonder if the person who cannot simply state the truth that "Black lives matter," really believes it. It comes that close to making a liar out of the flippant respondent, who does not seem to believe that all lives matter when it comes to black people. Response: "Okay, yes, we have a problem in that category, don't we. What do you propose?"
If that be so, then why do supporters of BLM raise objections when all lives matter is mentioned? Why does this even need to be discussed?
ReplyDeleteBecause they already know it. It is not the appropriate response. Asking how you can help, is appropriate, or saying nothing and looking into the problem, then taking your own personal action, is appropriate. Fitting oppression into some libertarian ideal, is just where libertarianism fails. Reality does not fit into the theory. After I responded, earlier, I saw yet another racist incident, where a racist is calling the cops on a black person who lives and belongs there. Things like this and worse happen every day.
ReplyDeleteIndeed, there is another interpretation of why someone would be so dull with a response like, "All lives matter." Consider the obviously stupid loud mouth racists. "All lives matter," can be used by someone who is flat out racist and does not know it, as if the respondent believes that black people do not get it about all loves mattering -- as if someone is treating the BLM people who are clear on the logic, which is the power within the phrase in the first place and they know it, as if they are dull and could not understand it because they are black -- this versus the person saying the dull response being another kind of dullard who thinks they are being clever, which surely at times is the case as well.