I Believe Black Lives Matter
I shouldn’t be nervous or scared to post this but I am. I shouldn’t have to be nervous to share my opinion and neither should anyone else cause nobody deserves hate for saying this
22-25, F
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
SapphicHeart · F
@Budwick
Buddy, you know what ?
There's a reason why I have muted you. You're nothing but a living joke, sadly not even a funny one.
The only one you fool with your little phoney operations here, will be yourself. Have me excused, this will be the last time I spent a few minutes to reply directly to you.
Have a nice self-delusional life for how long ever it may last, all my best wishes ! Ciao !
Buddy, you know what ?
There's a reason why I have muted you. You're nothing but a living joke, sadly not even a funny one.
The only one you fool with your little phoney operations here, will be yourself. Have me excused, this will be the last time I spent a few minutes to reply directly to you.
Have a nice self-delusional life for how long ever it may last, all my best wishes ! Ciao !
SapphicHeart · F
@Platinum
You will be aware, as much as I am that the meaning behind that statement is a backlash against Black Lives Matter.
[quote][b][big]All Lives Matter[/big][/b]
The hashtag and slogan “All Lives Matter” is a declaration of “colourblindness”, which Ian Haney-Lopez describes as “the dominant etiquette around race” today. As is so often the case when it comes to race, liberal rhetoric serves conservative ends.
“All Lives Matter” erases a long past and present of systemic inequality in the US. It represents a refusal to acknowledge that the state does not value all lives in the same way. It reduces the problem of racism to individual prejudice and casts African-Americans as aggressors against a colourblind post-civil rights order in which White people no longer “see race”.
This kind of rhetoric is hardly new, as we learn from Eduardo Bonilla-Silva’s book Racism Without Racists. It is the most up-to-date articulation of how most White people view racism (as a rare, archaic and unfortunate psychological disposition) as opposed to how most people of colour see it (as institutionalised and systemic).
Under the White understanding, talking about systemic racism is itself racist, because it conjures into existence “racial divides” that are invisible to Whites who believe themselves to be free of prejudice.
There is no better example of this than Giuliani, the former New York mayor who is a famous proponent of “stop and frisk” policing and a longtime master of backlash politics. He told CNN Black Lives Matter is “inherently racist” because “it divides us … All lives matter: White lives, Black lives, all lives.”
Giuliani went on to say:
[i][c=#BF6900]Black Lives Matter never protests when every 14 hours someone is killed in Chicago, probably 70-80% of the time by a Black person. Where are they then? Where are they when a young Black child is killed?[/c][/i]
This argument is a popular one in backlash politics. It holds that Black Lives Matter only cares about Black life when White people are responsible for taking it, thus ignoring and displacing Black responsibility for violence in Black communities.
In November 2015, Donald Trump tweeted an infographic purporting to show that Blacks were responsible for 97% of murders of Blacks and 82% of murders of Whites. Both “statistics” are wrong, the latter monstrously so: African-Americans accounted for about 15% of murders of Whites, according to FBI data.
This twisted tribal accounting deliberately obscures Black Lives Matter’s critique of violence, inequality and failings at all levels of the criminal justice system. Like the slogan “All Lives Matter”, it is a way of changing the subject.
It also exposes the myths of colourblind rhetoric. Many White people are more than happy to “see colour” when assigning blame for Black deaths, and to treat that as the end of the issue.
“All Lives Matter” has not always served as the powerful rebuke of Black Lives Matter that the backlash intends. One strategy by online activists has been to refuse to acknowledge the disingenuous binary of “Black” and “all”.
Nikita Carney notes in a study of the #BlackLivesMatter and #AllLivesMatter hashtags that some Black Twitter users simply used both when calling for protests against police violence, effectively disarming the dishonest critique implied by All Lives Matter.
Alicia Garza, one of the creators of the #BlackLivesMatter hashtag, explained in 2014 how Black lives mattering is a precondition for all lives mattering:
[i][c=#BF6900]Black Lives Matter doesn’t mean your life isn’t important – it means that Black lives, which are seen as without value within White supremacy, are important to your liberation. Given the disproportionate impact state violence has on Black lives, we understand that when Black people in this country get free, the benefits will be wide-reaching and transformative for society as a whole.
When we are able to end the hyper-criminalisation and sexualisation of Black people and end the poverty, control and surveillance of Black people, every single person in this world has a better shot at getting and staying free. When Black people get free, everybody gets free.[/c][/i]
[i][b]Source : [/b]https://theconversation.com/the-backlash-against-black-lives-matter-is-just-more-evidence-of-injustice-85587[/i][/quote]
You will be aware, as much as I am that the meaning behind that statement is a backlash against Black Lives Matter.
[quote][b][big]All Lives Matter[/big][/b]
The hashtag and slogan “All Lives Matter” is a declaration of “colourblindness”, which Ian Haney-Lopez describes as “the dominant etiquette around race” today. As is so often the case when it comes to race, liberal rhetoric serves conservative ends.
“All Lives Matter” erases a long past and present of systemic inequality in the US. It represents a refusal to acknowledge that the state does not value all lives in the same way. It reduces the problem of racism to individual prejudice and casts African-Americans as aggressors against a colourblind post-civil rights order in which White people no longer “see race”.
This kind of rhetoric is hardly new, as we learn from Eduardo Bonilla-Silva’s book Racism Without Racists. It is the most up-to-date articulation of how most White people view racism (as a rare, archaic and unfortunate psychological disposition) as opposed to how most people of colour see it (as institutionalised and systemic).
Under the White understanding, talking about systemic racism is itself racist, because it conjures into existence “racial divides” that are invisible to Whites who believe themselves to be free of prejudice.
There is no better example of this than Giuliani, the former New York mayor who is a famous proponent of “stop and frisk” policing and a longtime master of backlash politics. He told CNN Black Lives Matter is “inherently racist” because “it divides us … All lives matter: White lives, Black lives, all lives.”
Giuliani went on to say:
[i][c=#BF6900]Black Lives Matter never protests when every 14 hours someone is killed in Chicago, probably 70-80% of the time by a Black person. Where are they then? Where are they when a young Black child is killed?[/c][/i]
This argument is a popular one in backlash politics. It holds that Black Lives Matter only cares about Black life when White people are responsible for taking it, thus ignoring and displacing Black responsibility for violence in Black communities.
In November 2015, Donald Trump tweeted an infographic purporting to show that Blacks were responsible for 97% of murders of Blacks and 82% of murders of Whites. Both “statistics” are wrong, the latter monstrously so: African-Americans accounted for about 15% of murders of Whites, according to FBI data.
This twisted tribal accounting deliberately obscures Black Lives Matter’s critique of violence, inequality and failings at all levels of the criminal justice system. Like the slogan “All Lives Matter”, it is a way of changing the subject.
It also exposes the myths of colourblind rhetoric. Many White people are more than happy to “see colour” when assigning blame for Black deaths, and to treat that as the end of the issue.
“All Lives Matter” has not always served as the powerful rebuke of Black Lives Matter that the backlash intends. One strategy by online activists has been to refuse to acknowledge the disingenuous binary of “Black” and “all”.
Nikita Carney notes in a study of the #BlackLivesMatter and #AllLivesMatter hashtags that some Black Twitter users simply used both when calling for protests against police violence, effectively disarming the dishonest critique implied by All Lives Matter.
Alicia Garza, one of the creators of the #BlackLivesMatter hashtag, explained in 2014 how Black lives mattering is a precondition for all lives mattering:
[i][c=#BF6900]Black Lives Matter doesn’t mean your life isn’t important – it means that Black lives, which are seen as without value within White supremacy, are important to your liberation. Given the disproportionate impact state violence has on Black lives, we understand that when Black people in this country get free, the benefits will be wide-reaching and transformative for society as a whole.
When we are able to end the hyper-criminalisation and sexualisation of Black people and end the poverty, control and surveillance of Black people, every single person in this world has a better shot at getting and staying free. When Black people get free, everybody gets free.[/c][/i]
[i][b]Source : [/b]https://theconversation.com/the-backlash-against-black-lives-matter-is-just-more-evidence-of-injustice-85587[/i][/quote]
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
SW-User
@Budwick RIP
SomeMichGuy · M
@SW-User
[quote]You’re old, do us a favor and gtfo[/quote]
ouch! lol he was a jerk, but...ouch
[quote]You’re old, do us a favor and gtfo[/quote]
ouch! lol he was a jerk, but...ouch