The CBC wrote an article about the misunderstanding of people who benefit from systemic racism have when it comes to Black Lives Matter versus All Lives Matter.

What Black Lives Matter is:

“Frank Leon Roberts, a professor-lecturer specializing in race and social movements at New York University, says Black Lives Matter is an “anti-violence movement that is attempting to end structural racism in all forms.”

“Police brutality is one form of structural racism but there are other forms that Black Lives Matter is combating as well,” Roberts told CBC News.”

Combating the system that is murdering your people is a historic task.  The BLM movement is necessarily a long term movement, the structural change required in society is huge and most likely will require more militant action to see the problem of systemic racism resolved.  But let’s just stop here and state for the record the situation in question.

  1.  Systemic racism exists in the United States.
  2.  It is a choice to maintain systemic racism.
  3.  Society can resolve this matter in myriad of ways, but the two poles of the spectrum are peaceful revolution or violent revolution.
  4.  Peaceful revolution *should* be the preferred method of eliminating systemic racism.
  5. The path that is ultimately followed will be the result of the dominant class in society making a choice, or being forced to make a choice, as JFK well understood, see his quote below.

“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.” -John F. Kennedy

C.  It behooves us (the dominant class), to fundamentally re-imagine society so it more closely resembles this (from the Declaration of Independence):

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”

(A side note here, “men” should not be construed as the default for everyone.  Women’s struggle to be recognized as fully human goes farther back the Declaration and necessarily that struggle (sadly) continues to this day)

So maybe let’s err on the side of preserving human life and take the less violent option, just for once?  The race issue in the US is not going to go away, this isn’t another #occupy, as this is so much larger and so so much more history behind it.  Oh certainly this instance of BLM might simmer down a bit, but the on going injustice coupled with the immediacy of social networking will keep the boil going.

I think it would be wise if the representatives of he status quo decided to take the non-violent path, because soon that choice will become unavailable, and then only the more chaotic option will be all that remains (which will be bad for everybody).

Let’s take a peek at the what the other side is saying:

“But there are many who do not see eye to eye with the message Black Lives Matter is attempting to send because they believe all lives are important, and specific groups should not be singled out.

[…]

“It appears many “all lives matter” supporters feel that “Black Lives Matter” is not about equality, but rather focusing on the oppression experienced by only one group.”

Well duh?  BLM is about the fact that being Black in the US is an oppressive experience.  Would the converse statement make things any more clear?  #WhiteLivesMatterMore?  Don’t look at foreign policy if you’re about to disagree with #WLMM, the uncounted coloured dead in Iraq (Afghanistan, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Vietnam, Syria, Mexico, India, Philippines… et cetera)  have millions of arguments to make against you…

“Recently, Rudy Giuliani, the former mayor of New York City, went as far as to say that “Black Lives Matter” is “racist” during an appearance on Fox and Friends.

“It’s inherently racist because, number one, it divides us. All lives matter,” he said.”

Nothing more racist that overlooking the fact that a racial divide exists.  :/  But here we go again, with the notion that somehow the playing field is the same for everyone and everyone has the same chances and opportunities in society.  The answer according to the status quo is more ‘equality'(?).  Unfortunately, ‘more equality equals ephemeral/meaningless ‘change’ to the status quo to make things look more equal, while in fact, maintaining the superstructure that is responsible for the racial oppression in the first place (we can lump a large part of liberal feminism into this grouping as well).  So let’s dispense with the neo-liberal platitudes and realize:

  1.     The playing field is not even.
  2.     The opportunities are not the same.
  3.     Treatment within the society is not the same.
  4.    Outcomes in society are not the same.

Without addressing the root causes of institutional racism, nothing will change. (For a great example of please see the second wave of feminism, as they named the problem, and tackled some of the institutions responsible for their oppression)  Let’s slip over to Deep Green Resistance for their take on the problem –

“Justice is not won by rational argument, by personal transformation, or by spiritual epiphany. It’s won by taking power away from the powerful and then dismantling their institutions.”

Hmm… sounds like a painful process.  It all depends on how fiercely the dominant class latches onto the superstructure that benefits and supports them; maybe some enlightened self interest might take hold and change that doesn’t come from the barrel of gun will be possible.  I doubt it, but it could happen.

 

Oh, and some gems from the comment section of the CBC article, ranging from light banality to vapid boorish ignorance :

 

-I think it just comes down to poor branding. Black Lives Matter might be better served by say End Racial Violence, or Black Injustice, or less vague and self-evident to anyone with an open mind. The issue isnt that black lives don’t matter, and no one who isn’t a racist thinks they don’t so maybe the movement should have a more focused name based on their stated goals.

[Because changing the name will make all the difference.  Racists be like, “Oh snap! They are *just* trying to end Racial Violence – we’re totally on board with that!.“]

-“Black Lives Matter” doesn’t do anything to prevent racists from joining their group, and their group has racist overtones in their messages, focusing only on blacks when many blacks have already openly called “Black Lives Matter” an Anti-Police hate group.

[Binky has the fun idea that oppressed people can be racist.  Sorry Binky, it doesn’t work that way.  Racism has the institutional power of society behind the racist actions in question.  Most certainly, oppressed groups can discriminate, but not be racist – especially toward their oppressors as they hold no institutional power in society.]

-Black Lives matter creates further division, especially with it’s members and supporters condemnation of saying All lives matter. Inclusive thinking rather than exclusive is required – All Lives Matter is inclusive and is something to strive for.

[Inclusion in this instance is just another way of obfuscating the fact that black people in America face more obstacles that white people do.  In every facet of their lives’ because of the colour of their skin, they are treated differently.  This has to change, and focusing on this difference is completely justified in pursuing their goals of a more equal society.]

-The problem is BLM aren’t selective in their support for black people who come to a bad end in encounters with the police. They even support the ones who have guns, a rap sheet five miles long and who had intent to kill cops. If you are going to support people who don’t deserve that support then your movement will be seen as a mockery.

[Ah, well perhaps we can use the tried and true ‘a few bad apples’ apolgia to wave this one away.  Funny how it tends not to work when you happen not to be white, rich, and male.]