It seems that over the past few months, the cries of justice for “Black Lives Matter” has only been met with the forcible cries of “All Lives Matter.” Surprisingly, even presidential candidates have made the mistake of condoning the phrase “All Lives Matter” when there is clearly an issue that is trying to reach the surface when it comes to the significance of “Black Lives Matter.” In 2015, Hillary Clinton made this mistake, but found herself correcting herself since then. Also in 2015, Democratic presidential candidate Martin O’Malley fell into the familiar trap after explaining to multiple groups of black activists who wanted to hear his take on the issue of racism by simply stating, “Black lives matter. White lives matter. All lives matter.” How could you answer the question about the issues of racisms and how you plan to change these issues with a statement like that? It simply can not be done.
I recently found myself in a position where I felt conflicted as I sat with a group of friends who were going back and forth on the subject. Not necessarily conflicted about which side I was on, but trying to make these people understand why stressing the idea that “All Lives Matter” is completely disrespectful.
So…why, exactly, can this phrase be considered so problematic? User, GeekAesthete, from Reddit, broke it down to a perfect tee:
Imagine that you're sitting down to dinner with your family, and while everyone else gets a serving of the meal, you don't get any. So you say, "I should get my fair share." And as a direct response to this, your dad corrects you, saying, "Everyone should get their fair share." Now, that's a wonderful sentiment — indeed, everyone should, and that was kinda your point in the first place: that you should be a part of everyone, and you should get your fair share also. However, dad's smart-ass comment just dismissed you and didn't solve the problem that you still haven't gotten any!
The problem is that the statement "I should get my fair share" had an implicit "too" at the end: "I should get my fair share, too, just like everyone else." But your dad's response treated your statement as though you meant "only I should get my fair share," which clearly was not your intention. As a result, his statement that "everyone should get their fair share," while true, only served to ignore the problem you were trying to point out.
Just like asking dad for your fair share, the phrase "black lives matter" also has an implicit "too" at the end: It's saying that black lives should also matter. But responding to this by saying "all lives matter" is willfully going back to ignoring the problem. It's a way of dismissing the statement by falsely suggesting that it means "only black lives matter," when that is obviously not the case. And so saying "all lives matter" as a direct response to "black lives matter" is essentially saying that we should just go back to ignoring the problem.
Does that not clear up the air?
OK, if GeekAesthete can’t explain it good enough for you to understand, let’s try someone else who’s analogy is off the charts. Tyler Huckabee from Relevant Magazine chose this analogy:
Imagine that you wake up late one night to the sound of your home being burglarized. Through the crack in your bedroom door, you see several figures hauling out your television, computers and nice china to their getaway car parked outside.
Thinking quickly, you dial 911 on your iPhone.
“911, what’s your emergency?”
“Help!” you whisper. “My home is being robbed!”
“Stay where you are, miss,” the other voice assures you. “We’ll look into it.”
“Thank you,” you whisper. “My address is—”
“Woah, ma’am,” the voice on the other end says. “Why are you bringing addresses into this?”
“What?” you say. “My home is being robbed! Aren’t you going to come and stop them?”
“Well, I don’t know why you need to make this about your home, ma’am,” the operator says. “All houses matter.”
By continuing to use “All Lives Matter” to drown out the cry of “Black Lives Matter,” the real problems the movement is trying to address are being ignored.
There is a difference between something being true and something being relevant. In the above conversation with an imaginary 911 operator, what he was saying was very true. All houses do matter. But at the moment, it wasn’t relevant. It wasn’t even helpful. All things considered, it was downright dangerous. You had an actual crisis going on at your house—that’s why your house mattered. While the operator was lecturing you on how important all houses are, bandits were trying to figure out whether they could get all your stuff in one load or if they’d have to make two trips.
It’s the same error people who respond to “Black Lives Matter” with “All Lives Matter” are making. It’s not that what they’re saying isn’t true. It’s just that it’s unhelpful. It’s an attempt to erase an actual crisis under the guise of being fair. And by continuing to use “All Lives Matter” to drown out the cry of “Black Lives Matter,” the real problems the movement is trying to address are being ignored. “All Lives Matter” is useless. It is destructive. It is hurtful. We need to stop saying it.
When someone says “Black Lives Matter,” it isn’t a matter of trying to sound as if they like the idea of separation of color nor does it mean that they are racist. It means that they stand for promoting the love and respect of African-Americans and their rights for equality, justice and fairness. So questioning whether or not these official protesters are anti-white, or against police, or whether or not they are protesting hatred and violence isn't right, because that's not what the movement is about. The real protesters are trying to create equality so that "All lives matter" will finally be a truthful statement. Until our fellow Americans can actually sit down and understand that challenging us on this issue and our pain behind it isn’t except-able, then #BlackLivesMatter will forever echo in the background of everyday life.
