If we have truly achieved racial equality, then there would not be any black lives matter protests, because there would be no racial differences in police misconduct that are the inspiration of such. (There would also be no white flight, neighborhood racial segregation would be in much greater decline, no one would think that affirmative action is needed any more, colleges would not have to worry about whether their students’ racial/ethnic composition affects their marketability, immigration debates would be civil discussions about skills, jobs, families, etc. instead of being poisoned by race and ethnicity undercurrents, etc…)
But then the existence of the protests points out a problem that many may not want to admit still exists.
I am not sure how the Kennedy School’s decision not to offer a visiting fellowship to Chelsea Manning relates either to the propositions under discussion here, namely A)that saying black lives matter = good but saying all lives matter = bad because racism or B)BLM shutting down the ACLU = good because (I guess) free speech + racism. If one of you who believes it to be Germaine could explain, I would be grateful.
Any support for that beyond Trump = racist or republicans = evil
Do you not see that true equality is impossible as long as we define ourselves differently? That’s definitional for goodness sakes.
We have truly progressed over the past few decades. It was unimaginable that 30 years ago a half-Black person could have been elected President. I remember Jesse Jackson crying during Obama’s inauguration ceremony that this change happened during his lifetime. And Obama remained popular enough that he would have likely been elected for a third term if allowed to run.
And more recently we have regressed as the major political parties have begun ignoring a major demographic, which is poorer whites, giving an opportunity for voices with baser instincts to appeal to them. When the next generation’s Ken Burns does a documentary about what happened to the country during this time, I suspect that this will be a major explanatory factor.
I’ve always thought the same way. Adding a “too” to the end of the phrase would have been better.
When someone says, “All lives matter” is racist, I interpret it as saying they think only their group matters. The first time I remember hearing “All lives matter” was when someone was asked whether “Black lives matter.” The response was, “Yes, of course. Black lives matter. All lives matter.” I thought that was a great response.
When another prominent leader of the same party said that he made a “textbook definition of a racist comment” but still endorsed him anyway, what message does that send?
"And more recently we have regressed as the major political parties have begun ignoring a major demographic, which is poorer whites, giving an opportunity for voices with baser instincts to appeal to them. "
I think it is too easy and simplistic to chalk this all up to a “poorer whites” issue. Is it a factor? Sure but I think it only one factor of many (I refrain from wading into a political morass).
Just out of curiosity, does anyone saying All Lives Matter have any black or brown people that they love? Have they truly discussed what it is like for a parent to strip their child’s innocence away at a young age in order to teach them life saving tactics for dealing with people day to day? While there are an abundance of issues a black or brown person can share, have you ever looked into the the eyes of parent that had to explain to their 10 or 11 year old why they are viewed as a threat and not an innocent kid? That look alone will ensure you that All Lives Don’t Matter. The mere suggestion that adding “too” at the end of Black Lives Matter to make others feel more comfortable serves for a huge endorsement for Black Lives Matter. Black Lives Matter if I feel comfortable with your protest… got it…
Back to the original article, that was not the best approach. Some times college kids get it right and sometimes they get it wrong. This time they got it wrong. I hope they have advisers or community activists who can help them understand why it was wrong and work on new approach for next time.
I’m always concerned about conversations that happen without the stakeholders. I feel the same about male politicians making decisions without women in the room or Administrators making decisions without teachers and parents involved. I’d proceed with caution before I tell a POC how to best proceed in their own fight for equality.
Just like you, @ifyouonlyknew, aren’t deputized to speak on behalf of all people of color. There is not a monolithic view on these issues but more importantly, they werent even able to be discussed at the oldest college campus ib America.
And please do try to remember that the innocence of little girls, of all colors, has to be stripped away by parents worried about the victimization of their kids well before that age.
@OhioMom2, you draw no distinction between an institution deciding who they should name a fellow and a group of protesters exercising a hecklers veto? Really? Are there no standard then?
@IfYouOnlyKnew, I hesitate to feed your condescension, but yes. More to the point however, the idea that what, thirteen percent of the population gets to control the conversation on a central social issue is not only non productive, but asinine
“And please do try to remember that the innocence of little girls, of all colors, has to be stripped away by parents worried about the victimization of their kids well before that age.”
Yup, that’s true but a separate issue again. Doesn’t make the issues blacks face less true.
BTW, if I tell you Female Lives Matter are you going to tell me ALL Lives Matter?
Yes, I would, doschicos. That’s our shared humanity. I look for commonality- ties that bind and form the basis for an inclusive community, not what divides us. And little boys can be victims too
In your quest for commonality it seems you bypass uniqueness and whitewash or gloss over the problems that certain groups face that aren’t common to all. So, as an American, how do you acknowledge and address those who do experience racism? How can the issues be solved if folks are unwilling to acknowledge them?
I disagree with this. Don’t incriminate yourself, but if you refuse to answer basic questions like, “What’s your name?”, “What are you doing here?”, or, “Is that your car?”, you’ll make the cops even more suspicious, and you won’t be going anywhere until they get an answer.
On another note, can anyone come up with an instance where a confirmed racist like David Duke or Richard Spencer has responded to the statement, “Black lives matter” with “All lives matter”? Or is this a case where people just assume that “All lives matter” is a racist statement without any real evidence to back that assumption up?
Well, it would help to be able to have civil discussions about these issues on college campuses, wouldn’t it? A radical idea I realize but it could be done. And that leads us full circle back to OP.
Unfortunately I think there is a distinct possibility that one or both sides have given up on the idea that “civil discussion” can be productive. When communication shuts down you know we are headed nowhere positive. Right now we are witnessing the beginning of what I believe will eventually turn to violence.