This past week has sparked a whirling fury of misguided and misinformed opinions built upon a fragile foundation of illogical pursuits to justify a handful of backwards or ill-willed sets of ideals. And it's getting tiring trying to sift through the vitriol to find any argument, on either of the various sides, that is worth exploring. And it's also getting tiring writing about this.
Two black American men were fatally shot by police this week. One of the incidents was caught on camera entirely, including the police actually shooting the man. The other showed a woman, presumably the man's girlfriend, after he was shot, bleeding out in their car. Both stories are saddening, infuriating and wholly frustrating, causing us to re-engage with the discussion of police brutality, racism, etc. To make matters worse, five police officers were shot and killed at a rally that was in response to these events. The suspect(s) involved are clearly being labeled by the media and other reports as either Black Lives Matter supporters, or wanting to kill white people. This may be true and in light of the recent events. But as I was sifting through my social media feeds, I was fortunate enough to come across an amazing retort to an issue that I believe needs some clearing-up before we can effectively move forward with a healthy discussion about racial violence.
Black Lives Matter started three years ago in the wake of Trayvon Martin's murder and his killer George Zimmerman's acquittal. It sparked a rage of sorrow and fury, much like this week and many other previous weeks strong enough to cause a ripple across the nation. It has since grown beyond a trend into a legitimate movement that has forced presidential candidates, such as Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, to hear their voice and respond. Of course, with notoriety, especially about a subject that is bound to upset people, the movement has also earned some negative connotations, which also have lead to some misconceptions. Rioting and looting and violence towards white Americans seems to be the common theme when attempting to discredit BLM.
So, again, I was lucky enough to find a memo sent out to a law professor at a law university about the very subject. The names are anonymous and have yet to be revealed, however, if you have the time and care enough, I highly recommend you read the eight pages here. The subject regards a group of "Concerned Students" and their displeasure and "concern" about the law professor who decided to wear a shirt that read "Black Lives Matter".
The problem these students had with the BLM shirt was that it represents, to them, a sentiment of hatred towards white people and "alienates non-black groups" from claiming any right to mattering to black people in general. Also, this discussion does not belong on a law school grounds.
Alienation is a common theme when criticizing BLM. However, as the anonymous law professor so eloquently pointed out in his 6-page response, breaking down each of the memo's arguments point by point, there is no invisible "Only" before Black Lives Matter. The point of the movement is not to separate a group of people from the rest, but to highlight repeated, racially motivated violence towards black people as something of importance. Black lives matter. Because so many instances of unreported, undocumented and unpunished murders have gone on for far too long; because black people have grown tired of feeling like their lives are of a lesser value; because they do not want to continue living in fear; because people are tired of being told that their experiences are exaggerated, an illusion.
The purpose of Black Lives Matter is to bring awareness - to remind everyone that, well, black lives do matter, despite what media narratives and political biases might suggest. And to suggest that BLM does not believe that all lives matter, is also another example of misunderstanding the movement itself, which the "concerned students" also happen to do.
Responding to BLM with "All Lives Matter" or something else of that fashion is simply a way to discredit and undermine black lives, something the movement was started for in the first place. All lives do matter, including black lives. But it seems that we have yet to instill the idea in enough people to where we no longer have to see or hear of unnecessary violent incident after unnecessary violent incident.
I've tried to simplify what this professor much more effectively conveyed in his response. And I have to say, it's a must-read for anyone who enjoys a good, intellectual blowout. The professor even goes a step further after defending himself by pointing out the memo's poor argumentative skills, claiming the moment as a great opportunity to teach.
We must go further with the discussion. Absolutely. But there can be no real, substantial progress with constant roadblocks and debates over semantics like defining and legitimizing Black Lives Matter.
