In this article, I will discuss the hypocrisy of the #BlackLivesMatter movement, which has institutionalized prejudice against itself.

As I’ve been doing research about the BLM movement, I have been attempting to make an unbiased report of what the affects of the movement have been. Through this series, I will approach the discussion from both a liberal and conservative ideology, followed by a kind of cost-benefit analysis. Hopefully an objective examination of unbiased information will allow us to decide whether or not we should support this movement and if such support is consistent with our own ideologies. As a note, this is an editorial article, and I will be injecting my opinions backed up with unbiased facts and figures that I have found through my research. I welcome respectful discourse in the comments to enhance the conversation, and hope those reading will attempt to view the topic with fresh eyes.

To begin, to measure the effectiveness of any group, we must first define the objectives they are trying to achieve. For instance, Americans for Tax Reform hope to achieve new tax legislation that fits with their conservative ideology. While I have heard several people claim different reasons for the BLM movement, I will base my answer to the question from the information on blacklivesmatter.com.

According to the website, #BlackLivesMatters was created as a result of the acquittal of George Zimmerman, the police officer that shot Trayvon Martin back in 2012. Four years later they are alive and well, preaching that “#BlackLivesMatter is a call to action and a response to the virulent anti-Black racism that permeates our society. Black Lives Matter is a unique contribution that goes beyond extrajudicial killings of Black people by police and vigilantes.”

While I originally thought that the movement was specifically geared at ending police brutality, according to the website, their goals are much broader than that. They call for “Black people to love Black, live Black and buy Black, keeping straight cis Black men in the front of the movement while our sisters, queer and trans and disabled folk take up roles in the background or not at all.”

They end their mission statement by saying:

"#BlackLivesMatter is working for a world where Black lives are no longer systematically and intentionally targeted for demise. We affirm our contributions to this society, our humanity, and our resilience in the face of deadly oppression. We have put our sweat equity and love for Black people into creating a political project–taking the hashtag off of social media and into the streets. The call for Black lives to matter is a rallying cry for ALL Black lives striving for liberation."

To analyze these statements, I must define a few terms. While definitions may vary from different sources, these definitions are from oxforddictionaries.com—my dictionary of preference.

Extrajudicial:Not legally authorized.

Cisgender: Denoting or relating to a person whose sense of personal identity and gender corresponds with their birth sex. Compare with transgender.

Transgender: Denoting or relating to a person whose sense of personal identity and gender does not correspond with their birth sex. Compare with cisgender.

Analysis: These statements are extremely provocative, and would certainly elicit an emotion response from a community grieving the loss of one of their own. Their call to action, however, does not include any specific goal they are trying to achieve. How then, can the movement ever end? Without a clearly defined goal, those participating in the movement have become inflamed with rage without a direction for their ambitions. The only parameters are to, buy goods from other black people, love other black people and—rather disturbingly—keep cis Black men in the front and black women, queers, trans and disabled in the back.

While the first two goals are meant to strengthen the black community, and I can fully support wanting to have peace between black people—especially with the extreme amounts of black on black crime—they are literally affirming the roles of queers, women and disabled as LESS than that of the straight black man. Forget the movement, but as a feminist, I take serious exception to this call because I believe those groups could have just as much to offer as any man. Why should a black woman not take a leadership role in the movement? I just don’t understand why people think that being queer or a woman or disabled makes you less of a person. The irony is that this is supposedly a movement to end subjugation against minorities, yet they advocate only for straight black men to take a leading role in the movement.