The New Exchange

You are not logged in. Would you like to login or register?



9/04/2015 5:17 am  #1


The Truth of ‘Black Lives Matter’

The Truth of ‘Black Lives Matter’

By THE EDITORIAL BOARD
SEPT. 3, 2015

The Republican Party and its acolytes in the news media are trying to demonize the protest movement that has sprung up in response to the all-too-common police killings of unarmed African-Americans across the country. The intent of the campaign — evident in comments by politicians like Gov. Nikki Haley of South Carolina, Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin and Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky — is to cast the phrase “Black Lives Matter” as an inflammatory or even hateful anti-white expression that has no legitimate place in a civil rights campaign.

Former Gov. Mike Huckabee of Arkansas crystallized this view when he said the other week that the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., were he alive today, would be “appalled” by the movement’s focus on the skin color of the unarmed people who are disproportionately killed in encounters with the police. This argument betrays a disturbing indifference to or at best a profound ignorance of history in general and of the civil rights movement in particular. From the very beginning, the movement focused unapologetically on bringing an end to state-sanctioned violence against African-Americans and to acts of racial terror very much like the one that took nine lives at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, S.C., in June.

The civil rights movement was intended to make Congress and Americans confront the fact that African-Americans were being killed with impunity for offenses like trying to vote, and had the right to life and to equal protection under the law. The movement sought a cross-racial appeal, but at every step of the way used expressly racial terms to describe the death and destruction that was visited upon black people because they were black.

Even in the early 20th century, civil rights groups documented cases in which African-Americans died horrible deaths after being turned away from hospitals reserved for whites, or were lynched — which meant being hanged, burned or dismembered — in front of enormous crowds that had gathered to enjoy the sight.

The Charleston church massacre has eerie parallels to the 1963 bombing of the 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham, Ala. — the most heinous act of that period — which occurred at the height of the early civil rights movement. Four black girls were murdered that Sunday. When Dr. King eulogized them, he did not shy away from the fact that the dead had been killed because they were black, by monstrous men whose leaders fed them “the stale bread of hatred and the spoiled meat of racism.” He said that the dead “have something to say” to a complacent federal government that cut back-room deals with Southern Dixiecrats, as well as to “every Negro who has passively accepted the evil system of segregation and who has stood on the sidelines in a mighty struggle for justice.” Shock over the bombing pushed Congress to pass the Civil Rights Act the following year.

During this same period, freedom riders and voting rights activists led by the young John Lewis offered themselves up to be beaten nearly to death, week after week, day after day, in the South so that the country would witness Jim Crow brutality and meaningfully respond to it. This grisly method succeeded in Selma, Ala., in 1965 when scenes of troopers bludgeoning voting rights demonstrators compelled a previously hesitant Congress to acknowledge that black people deserved full citizenship, too, and to pass the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Along the way, there was never a doubt as to what the struggle was about: securing citizenship rights for black people who had long been denied them.

The “Black Lives Matter” movement focuses on the fact that black citizens have long been far more likely than whites to die at the hands of the police, and is of a piece with this history. Demonstrators who chant the phrase are making the same declaration that voting rights and civil rights activists made a half-century ago. They are not asserting that black lives are more precious than white lives. They are underlining an indisputable fact — that the lives of black citizens in this country historically have not mattered, and have been discounted and devalued. People who are unacquainted with this history are understandably uncomfortable with the language of the movement. But politicians who know better and seek to strip this issue of its racial content and context are acting in bad faith. They are trying to cover up an unpleasant truth and asking the country to collude with them.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/04/opinion/the-truth-of-black-lives-matter.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=opinion-c-col-left-region&region=opinion-c-col-left-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-left-region&_r=0


We live in a time in which decent and otherwise sensible people are surrendering too easily to the hectoring of morons or extremists. 
 

9/04/2015 5:25 am  #2


Re: The Truth of ‘Black Lives Matter’

Goose wrote:

The “Black Lives Matter” movement focuses on the fact that black citizens have long been far more likely than whites to die at the hands of the police, and is of a piece with this history. Demonstrators who chant the phrase are making the same declaration that voting rights and civil rights activists made a half-century ago. They are not asserting that black lives are more precious than white lives. They are underlining an indisputable fact — that the lives of black citizens in this country historically have not mattered, and have been discounted and devalued. People who are unacquainted with this history are understandably uncomfortable with the language of the movement. But politicians who know better and seek to strip this issue of its racial content and context are acting in bad faith. They are trying to cover up an unpleasant truth and asking the country to collude with them.

For those who angrily counter "All lives matter", I think that this is the key passage for understanding the Black Lives Matter movement.
They are NOT saying that black lives matter and white lives don't. What they are saying is that white lives have always mattered and it is time for black lives to matter too.

Imagine; If you say "Save the rain forests", it doesn't mean "F#*k the other forests", now does it?
It means that you believe that the rain forests are in particular peril.

Too many times (and I've seen it happen right here on the exchange) a questionable and tragic killing of a young black person is greeted with a shrug and a justification. "Yea, the police may have gone a bit overboard, but"
But, he shouldn't have been where he was
But, he shouldn't having been doing ____
But, he was a thug anyway
But, the world is bettter off without him.
But, he had it coming.


Something to ponder before dismissing the movement entirely.
 


We live in a time in which decent and otherwise sensible people are surrendering too easily to the hectoring of morons or extremists. 
     Thread Starter
 

9/04/2015 7:16 am  #3


Re: The Truth of ‘Black Lives Matter’

I do understand what they mean by that phrase.

I've frequently used the counter phrase but I get the feeling it's being interpreted in a manner that is significantly different from what I mean by saying it.

It's unfortunate that prases like 'lives matter' and 'can't we all just get along' have become cliche and are mostly meaningless now.

I admired Rodney King's attitude.  After what happened to him he still set aside any anger he might have felt to appeal to people to to let go of the rage.

Everyone picked up the slogan but no one really thought about the meaning.

How sad. 


If you make yourself miserable trying to make others happy that means everyone is miserable.

-Me again

---------------------------------------------
 

Board footera

 

Powered by Boardhost. Create a Free Forum