I see where you’re going with it (to address the “all lives matter”) but it’s not sitting well with me. I think, to me, the wording (unintentionally) makes blacks seem secondary to everyone else. While people matter! Rich people matter! Oh yeah, black people also matter. As if they are an afterthought to everyone else mattering first.
I like the pithy, direct original. And I think the “all lives matter” folks intentionally misconstrue the original so honestly don’t know if this would solve that problem.
Human life started in Africa. What are we really talking about being so obsessed with the colour of the skin. A feature so superficial. Let us dig deep and unearth the fears and biases planted deep into our brains over many generations raised in ignorance. And let’s get rid of it all!
Stephen, I like your phrasing. It is irrefutable, not polarizing, and invites discussion of a problem that is multi-dimensional, one where people of good faith can have different ideas as to how it should be addressed and resolved. Sure, it’s easy to say that skin color, ethnicity and sexual preference should never matter, but inducing folks to embrace this principle and act upon it has been mankind’s biggest struggle since the very beginning. Sadly, many of our leaders today seem more intent on widening the divide on this and other issues rather than finding viable, lasting solutions.
A few days ago I published an essay on my website on the subject of tolerance, or, to be precise, intolerance, mostly of the religious variety. (http://thewellexaminedlife.com/tolerance/) Today, in response, someone posted the following insightful comment:
“There are even more problems that come with intolerance. In many nations, this leads to the eventual forced radicalization of the citizens into opposing camps. Bent on destroying anyone who doesn’t conform, they co-opt or eliminate them and with them any middle ground for cooperation and compromise. From ancient and modern records we see the destabilizing spirals of violence that result. The resulting triumph of demagoguery erodes and then destroys the rule of law.
Did any of the civilizations or nations that have experienced this realize what they were doing? At what point does the collapse become inevitable?”
I’m with Elisa. The wording emphasizes that black people are secondary. It reminds me a little of the patronizing things said by many general authorities to/about women: “Women are important! We need you!” It just makes it clear that women are not, in fact, equal to the ones saying it.
How does it feel when we phrase similar statements?
It’s a good thought experiment and I’m all for brainstorming, but in the end it doesn’t come across right.
I just don’t think we can improve on the statement “Black lives matter.” For too long too many have believed they don’t.
Those of us who have not (to our knowledge) participated in racist behaviors have been nonetheless complicit in allowing injustices to occur. Many of us are waking up to the realization that this must stop.
With you Elisa and Rita.
Eric F., I read “It is irrefutable, not polarizing, and invites discussion of a problem that is multi-dimensional, one where people of good faith can have different ideas as to how it should be addressed and resolved.” to my Black daughter. She finds it polarizing, stimies discussion, and does not demonstrate good faith.
To me, your confidence expressed in that statement could be on the poster for white privilege.
As a thought experiment, replace the [] with other words and the word Black with other words.
Suddenly the paucity of logic behind “All lives matter” becomes evident.
The phrase remains “Black lives matter” but the [] portion is for consideration as to the meta- message.
The [] makes it clear that the phrase does not mean they matter more than any one else in spite of the many people claiming the contrary.
The sad truth is that too very often Black lives are not included in the meaning when someone says “All lives matter” or “All men are created equal.”
Consider that “All men” was promulgated when Blacks were enslaved and women not allowed to vote or own property.
Now. Is it the best way to make the statement? I’m pretty sure it is not (which is why the []).
Are there better ways to say it? Surely there are.
I invite those from our commentators.
This is only a starting place. Not an answer.
Elisa makes the excellent point that In society right now Blacks are treated as secondary to everyone else.
To the extent that a [] emphasizes that rather than calls it out, it is a complete failure.
But it would seem to many Native Americans, at least in New Mexico, that the claim that “in society right now blacks are treated as secondary to everyone else” is simply false. I’m reminded of a time when there were in common jargon, three groups of New Mexicans: Native Americans, Hispanics, and “Anglos”. “Anglos” included Blacks and Orientals. Of course, “hispanics” was in some places also meant to include only those of descent from “original” Spanish settlers of New Mexico and to exclude those from Mexico or any other part of Latin America. In some relatively rural places in New Mexico it is as unsafe for an “Anglo” to be present as it is for Blacks in Minneapolis and numerous other places in the US. Similarly, a very white friend of mine was kindly instructed by a Black bus driver in Baltimore after missing his stop, that he could not get off the bus and catch the bus going the other way. Instead, he was to stay on the bus to the end of the line and return on the same bus, because it was not safe for him to be merely standing at a bus stop in that Black neighborhood. I wonder if we’re not dealing with a more general human problem, of which the Black v. White privilege or supremacy problem is a specific instance garnering most attention at this point.
In my view, there’s nothing wrong in English with either “Black lives matter” or “All lives matter.” It is the sloganizing of those statements that has made them carry meanings to some that go much beyond the English language. I don’t know a cure for that. “All lives matter” is tainted by its having been in some (most?) circles an opposition to the idea that “Black lives matter.” “Black lives matter” is now tainted in some (probably fewer) circles by its association with the organization by that name that now seems to some to be calling for chaos by demanding that police departments be defunded.
I wish we could get beyond slogans and beyond thinking the worst of others because they do not use or appreciate our individually preferred slogans. I don’t know how to help that happen, so I’d best keep my minimal experience with race relations, 1970s affirmative action, fear based on my skin color, etc. private. It has seemed to me that none of the virtue-signalling slogan-adherents on either side of the divide is interested in being charitable to those who choose a different slogan or simply speak English. I hope that perception is wrong.
Van Jones was On The Ellen Show yesterday and he phrased it as Black Lives Matter (Too). The slogan is not to discount other lives, but to point out the disadvantage and injustice experienced by blacks in this country.
But beyond slogans we need to focus on where we go from here. What changes do we need to see happen and how do we bring it about? My dad does not see a point in continued protest (note this does not mean riots) but I pointed out that change hasn’t happened yet. We need better practices by law enforcement. Just a few training on de-escalation and banning choke and strangle holds. We can’t just let this be another moment where we give lip service to the problem.
Wondering is right. So much weight is given to these slogans that our leaders are able to relieve political pressure by saying the right three words. We should demand action from our leaders, not platitudes.
Just a note: Anglo is shorthand for “Anglophone” ie English speakers. That’s why African-Americans, and others were included. The racially-based term is “gringo.”
Yes, vajra2, except that some orientals thought of as “Anglos” did not speak English, some younger Hispanics did not speak Spanish, and some Native Americans no longer spoke their various indigenous languages. The classifications then used for New Mexican us-versus-them thinking lumped some ethnic/racial groups together quite without regard to race or minority/majority status (which varied by community) and without regard to what languages they actually spoke. That old three-part usage does seem to have changed over the last 4 or 5 decades, though there remain some places in New Mexico where it is still generally unsafe to be a lone “Anglo” of whatever racial background
And “gringo” is not always a racially based term. Among other stories about its origin, “the 1786 Castilian Dictionary by Esteban Terreros y Pando traces the use of the word back to 1700s Spain. Spaniards used it as a name for people who could not speak Spanish, he said, or who spoke Spanish with a heavy accent.” https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2013/08/07/209266300/who-exactly-is-a-gringo
Generally, it means “foreigner,” a term that can have specific meaning, but is now commonly used to other-ize people including the very latin-american, raised in Florida author of that article.
But that’s all beside the point of what seems to be the current larger national problem, which is itself a problem of othering people because of skin color..
Wheat & Tares 
I see where you’re going with it (to address the “all lives matter”) but it’s not sitting well with me. I think, to me, the wording (unintentionally) makes blacks seem secondary to everyone else. While people matter! Rich people matter! Oh yeah, black people also matter. As if they are an afterthought to everyone else mattering first.
I like the pithy, direct original. And I think the “all lives matter” folks intentionally misconstrue the original so honestly don’t know if this would solve that problem.
Human life started in Africa. What are we really talking about being so obsessed with the colour of the skin. A feature so superficial. Let us dig deep and unearth the fears and biases planted deep into our brains over many generations raised in ignorance. And let’s get rid of it all!
Stephen, I like your phrasing. It is irrefutable, not polarizing, and invites discussion of a problem that is multi-dimensional, one where people of good faith can have different ideas as to how it should be addressed and resolved. Sure, it’s easy to say that skin color, ethnicity and sexual preference should never matter, but inducing folks to embrace this principle and act upon it has been mankind’s biggest struggle since the very beginning. Sadly, many of our leaders today seem more intent on widening the divide on this and other issues rather than finding viable, lasting solutions.
A few days ago I published an essay on my website on the subject of tolerance, or, to be precise, intolerance, mostly of the religious variety. (http://thewellexaminedlife.com/tolerance/) Today, in response, someone posted the following insightful comment:
“There are even more problems that come with intolerance. In many nations, this leads to the eventual forced radicalization of the citizens into opposing camps. Bent on destroying anyone who doesn’t conform, they co-opt or eliminate them and with them any middle ground for cooperation and compromise. From ancient and modern records we see the destabilizing spirals of violence that result. The resulting triumph of demagoguery erodes and then destroys the rule of law.
Did any of the civilizations or nations that have experienced this realize what they were doing? At what point does the collapse become inevitable?”
I’m with Elisa. The wording emphasizes that black people are secondary. It reminds me a little of the patronizing things said by many general authorities to/about women: “Women are important! We need you!” It just makes it clear that women are not, in fact, equal to the ones saying it.
How does it feel when we phrase similar statements?
Male lives [also] matter.
Mormon’s lives [also] matter.
Women’s lives [also] matter.
It’s a good thought experiment and I’m all for brainstorming, but in the end it doesn’t come across right.
I just don’t think we can improve on the statement “Black lives matter.” For too long too many have believed they don’t.
Those of us who have not (to our knowledge) participated in racist behaviors have been nonetheless complicit in allowing injustices to occur. Many of us are waking up to the realization that this must stop.
With you Elisa and Rita.
Eric F., I read “It is irrefutable, not polarizing, and invites discussion of a problem that is multi-dimensional, one where people of good faith can have different ideas as to how it should be addressed and resolved.” to my Black daughter. She finds it polarizing, stimies discussion, and does not demonstrate good faith.
To me, your confidence expressed in that statement could be on the poster for white privilege.
Consider this my “informed dissent”.
Thank you for the comments.
https://www.deseret.com/opinion/2020/6/4/21280445/black-lives-matter-white-privilege-racism-alex-boye-julie-boye
Is a good read for context.
As a thought experiment, replace the [] with other words and the word Black with other words.
Suddenly the paucity of logic behind “All lives matter” becomes evident.
The phrase remains “Black lives matter” but the [] portion is for consideration as to the meta- message.
The [] makes it clear that the phrase does not mean they matter more than any one else in spite of the many people claiming the contrary.
The sad truth is that too very often Black lives are not included in the meaning when someone says “All lives matter” or “All men are created equal.”
Consider that “All men” was promulgated when Blacks were enslaved and women not allowed to vote or own property.
Now. Is it the best way to make the statement? I’m pretty sure it is not (which is why the []).
Are there better ways to say it? Surely there are.
I invite those from our commentators.
This is only a starting place. Not an answer.
Elisa makes the excellent point that In society right now Blacks are treated as secondary to everyone else.
To the extent that a [] emphasizes that rather than calls it out, it is a complete failure.
But it would seem to many Native Americans, at least in New Mexico, that the claim that “in society right now blacks are treated as secondary to everyone else” is simply false. I’m reminded of a time when there were in common jargon, three groups of New Mexicans: Native Americans, Hispanics, and “Anglos”. “Anglos” included Blacks and Orientals. Of course, “hispanics” was in some places also meant to include only those of descent from “original” Spanish settlers of New Mexico and to exclude those from Mexico or any other part of Latin America. In some relatively rural places in New Mexico it is as unsafe for an “Anglo” to be present as it is for Blacks in Minneapolis and numerous other places in the US. Similarly, a very white friend of mine was kindly instructed by a Black bus driver in Baltimore after missing his stop, that he could not get off the bus and catch the bus going the other way. Instead, he was to stay on the bus to the end of the line and return on the same bus, because it was not safe for him to be merely standing at a bus stop in that Black neighborhood. I wonder if we’re not dealing with a more general human problem, of which the Black v. White privilege or supremacy problem is a specific instance garnering most attention at this point.
In my view, there’s nothing wrong in English with either “Black lives matter” or “All lives matter.” It is the sloganizing of those statements that has made them carry meanings to some that go much beyond the English language. I don’t know a cure for that. “All lives matter” is tainted by its having been in some (most?) circles an opposition to the idea that “Black lives matter.” “Black lives matter” is now tainted in some (probably fewer) circles by its association with the organization by that name that now seems to some to be calling for chaos by demanding that police departments be defunded.
I wish we could get beyond slogans and beyond thinking the worst of others because they do not use or appreciate our individually preferred slogans. I don’t know how to help that happen, so I’d best keep my minimal experience with race relations, 1970s affirmative action, fear based on my skin color, etc. private. It has seemed to me that none of the virtue-signalling slogan-adherents on either side of the divide is interested in being charitable to those who choose a different slogan or simply speak English. I hope that perception is wrong.
Van Jones was On The Ellen Show yesterday and he phrased it as Black Lives Matter (Too). The slogan is not to discount other lives, but to point out the disadvantage and injustice experienced by blacks in this country.
But beyond slogans we need to focus on where we go from here. What changes do we need to see happen and how do we bring it about? My dad does not see a point in continued protest (note this does not mean riots) but I pointed out that change hasn’t happened yet. We need better practices by law enforcement. Just a few training on de-escalation and banning choke and strangle holds. We can’t just let this be another moment where we give lip service to the problem.
Wondering is right. So much weight is given to these slogans that our leaders are able to relieve political pressure by saying the right three words. We should demand action from our leaders, not platitudes.
Just a note: Anglo is shorthand for “Anglophone” ie English speakers. That’s why African-Americans, and others were included. The racially-based term is “gringo.”
Yes, vajra2, except that some orientals thought of as “Anglos” did not speak English, some younger Hispanics did not speak Spanish, and some Native Americans no longer spoke their various indigenous languages. The classifications then used for New Mexican us-versus-them thinking lumped some ethnic/racial groups together quite without regard to race or minority/majority status (which varied by community) and without regard to what languages they actually spoke. That old three-part usage does seem to have changed over the last 4 or 5 decades, though there remain some places in New Mexico where it is still generally unsafe to be a lone “Anglo” of whatever racial background
And “gringo” is not always a racially based term. Among other stories about its origin, “the 1786 Castilian Dictionary by Esteban Terreros y Pando traces the use of the word back to 1700s Spain. Spaniards used it as a name for people who could not speak Spanish, he said, or who spoke Spanish with a heavy accent.” https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2013/08/07/209266300/who-exactly-is-a-gringo
Generally, it means “foreigner,” a term that can have specific meaning, but is now commonly used to other-ize people including the very latin-american, raised in Florida author of that article.
But that’s all beside the point of what seems to be the current larger national problem, which is itself a problem of othering people because of skin color..