“Black Lives Matter” is a simple looking phrase, but it functions as a Trojan Horse. Many people don’t understand that there is a big difference between A) stating the obvious fact that Black lives do, indeed, matter and B) embracing the controversial political agenda of the Black Lives Matter organizations. Just because one believes A doesn’t necessarily mean that one believes B, but this conflation flies under the radars of many people who embrace both A and B even though the only part that they have carefully considered is A.
Consider this excerpt from a recent news article about Nick Buckley, a man who has spent many years of his life helping desperate others through a charity he founded in 2011, Mancunian Way, based in Manchester, England. The problem started when Nick dared to write an article:
In the article the 52-year-old started by saying: “Of course black lives matter. Let’s get this obvious point over and done with at the beginning”, but went on to criticise the political agenda of the organisation BLM which sought to repudiate the values expressed by Martin Luther King.
I am sympathetic to Nick Buckley’s clearly stated concerns. Like Buckley, I am concerned that some of the political ends of BLM sharply conflict with the wisdom of Martin Luther King. The fact that Nick Buckley dared to speak up about this critical issue cost him his job and that is a tragedy.
In some circles, the phrase “Black Lives Matter” has taken on the status of an unassailable fundamentalist religion, which is extremely unfortunate. Whenever this phrase is uttered, we should be asking whether the speaker is asserting A, B or both A and B. Whereas A is self-evident truth to me, B is a complex set of ideas, many of them ill-defined and/or problematic.
Every idea, especially every political idea, should be open to vigorous criticism and discussion. There should be no exceptions, for the reasons carefully stated by John Stuart Mill in his work, On Liberty. To every claim I respond: “Let’s test it.” To the extent that any ideas are declared to be sacrosanct, off-limits to discussion and criticism based on science, statistical analyses and the diverse wisdom collected by thinking people from the beginning of time, our democracies are dead.
I would say unequivocally that black lives matter, and will go even further to say black lives should be valued every bit as much as white lives. I think the Black Lives Matter movement is mostly good and productive. I can’t say I would agree with everything they say or do, but I fully support the movement. BLM, like any group or movement, will sometimes make mistakes, go too far, get so fervent they offend the very people who are trying to help them, and may sometimes have a few members who become extreme in actions or words.
BLM has raised the awareness of how black people are treated, and there seems to be a great shift in attitudes of white people, most of whom have become more aware and far more sympathetic to it. I’m guessing the public sympathy for the cause is what puts BLM into that place in which it becomes socially unacceptable to have an opinion about something they say or do that is not in line with their narratives.
I hope that will pass. I hope that all the protests turn into conversations, and conversations turn into understanding and change. I hope we can get to the point where we can trust each other with our questions and opinions without being called names.
–will go even further to say black lives should be valued every bit as much as white lives–
as a foreigner, I’m wondering, which particular law in 2020 USA says that a black live is valued less than a white live?
No law that I know of that is still being actively enforced explicitly states that “blacks” should be treated worse than “whites.” I assume, however, that there are still some laws sitting on the books of various states and cities that are no longer enforced as a result of civil rights court decisions. Not enforceable but never officially repealed by legislatures. Good question.
On FB, I posted a similar post. A woman responded that Nick Buckley deserved to be fired because “he wrote a 570 word post” that was “racist and insensitive.” I asked her for a link to his post, assuming that she hadn’t ever seen Buckley’s actual post. Her answer revealed that she had never actually read Buckley’s post. This illustrates something very disturbing that is increasingly commonplace today: Characterizing something as racist or insensitive without knowing or showing us the actual words so that we can have a meaningful discussion. This is witch hunt mentality, not what the Enlightenment thinkers had in mind.
I’m wondering, if anyone was fired in last few years for support of “antifa” or BLM? and if it’s none (it’s my gut feeling), don’t we have the obvious discrimination based on political views and violation of freedom of speech?
It would seem so, certainly in the case of government employees, who are protected from infringement of their right to speak. A non-profit called FIRE, “FOUNDATION FOR INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS IN EDUCATION,” handles cases of this sort with regard to colleges and universities. If interested, check out the website of FIRE. Check out Greg Lukianoff’s video: “Five ways university presidents can prove their commitment to free speech.”
if there is no such law, then I don’t understand, what’s the base for the claim of Renee Youree Kennison? I assume that the claim is baseless and was not underpinned by facts or logic.
Renee Youree Kennison, do you have any arguments?
–there are still some laws sitting on the books of various states and cities that are no longer enforced as a result of civil rights court decisions. Not enforceable but never officially repealed by legislatures. —
Erich, I’m wondering, if the 14-th amendment made these laws null and void?