So Then, Whose Life Matters?

Recently, the American people have seen a rise of Blue on Black crime – or, a possibility, the media is only now reporting it. In the wake of this, a Movement is spread across the United States, calling itself “Black Lives Matter.” This Movement is united in its attempt to bring public awareness to those levels of institutional racism which still exist in this Country.

They stage protests and are extremely vocal. Occasionally, these protests can be annoying, yes, and they have occasionally shot themselves in the foot, as it were, but when people have been oppressed for so long – and then arrested, or even killed,  if they dare speak out – one can imagine them totally justified in whatever course their Movement might take. What good is even the most peaceful protest if it cannot step on a few toes?

This hasn’t been enough justification, though, for a large portion of Americans. Criticism of the Movement has been, at times, harsh. However, the critics have merely used variations of the same arguments. My purpose in this article is to demonstrate why these arguments “don’t matter.”

In the course of this post, I shall list those arguments I have heard most often (I am certain there are plenty more) and then give a brief rundown.

“All Lives Matter”

This is currently the most prevalent argument. It has even found its way to becoming a rallying cry for the opposition. At face value, it seems to even be a common sense retort – not to mention that the phrase “common sense” is merely used today as an alternative expression for “my personal prejudices.”

There is, however, something drastically and crucially wrong with “All lives matter.”

They don’t.

Well, not yet. That’s the point.

It is quite easy to see the reason certain people spout this truism. Just take a look at some of the other political positions they might take. Libertarian Unfettered Free Market Capitalism, anyone? (Yes, I find the concept laughable and potentially dangerous, but I’ll describe my full objections, when I get around to writing my posts about Economics – I’m planning and preparing a multi-part series.)

What I am saying is, they suffer from an all-too-common misconception. They see an ideal where all lives matter. However, they mistake the ideal for reality. In the end, they are giving a backhanded agreement – “Sure black lives matter, because all lives matter.”

In this case, the statement is reasonably true. Be that as it may, Truth is not synonymous with Fact (more later). The more factually accurate statement is, “Black lives matter, because we want all lives to matter.”

This is one of the many reasons I support this Movement. I want all lives to matter, and I am prepared to fight to make the ideal into reality, rather than bury my face in the sand and/or shame the victims for every and any illusory instance, by which they may have brought the violence upon themselves.

To some powerful individuals, especially to some of the more authoritarian leaders of the opposition, black lives do not matter, although they’ll still spout the “all lives matter” truism and fully support the violence done against the African American Community by the institutions. Do these believe that black lives matter? It is evident that they do not.

Don’t believe me? Watch any commentary by FOX News pundits whenever the subject is raised. If that’s not enough, read the comments on any post or YouTube video on the subject. In all cases, be warned in advance. You will lose all respect for humanity and want to curl up in the corner of a cave for the rest of your life.

It is logical that, if black lives do not indeed matter, then all lives – therefore – do not matter.

The truism is false.

“Who cares? More blacks are killed by other blacks in gang violence and drug deals than are ever killed by whites, the police, or any other institution.”

Perhaps so; perhaps not so. I’m an empiricist, so I’ll see the validity of this once I am presented with accurate figures. Additionally, the Black Lives Matter Movement appears interested in black-on-black violence as well, for good reason. This is not the point.

The point is, this argument is a veiled non sequitur. It is a disingenuous attempt to distract attention away from protesting an undertrained, over-militarized, overstressed, overentitled and potentially racist police force.

No, I am not applying a brush stroke against the police forces, of whom I have a genuine – if tepid – respect, but even one instance of racial profiling and/or unjustified violence by on-duty members of any institution – especially a government institution  – and done in that institution’s name is two too many.

This is the big issue. Black on black violence isn’t institutionalized. Blue on black violence, in contrast, is. One issue at a time.

“Every person the police went after and/or killed was engaged in either an armed robbery or heavily armed with murderous intent.”

Really? Evidence? And no, Bill O’Reilly saying something to that extent does not qualify as evidence. Neither does “If one wasn’t guilty, then Jesus would never have allowed one to be accused.” I can’t believe people still think the latter is a valid legal argument!

On the other end, what about a person having a heart attack and then shot by police, upon arrival, who were called to assist? What about a person shot by police for breaking down on the side of the road? What major capital crimes were they carrying out? I’m sure if I asked someone who can regularly stomach FOX or other Corporate News, they will have already been provided with a lot of answers to these. Most likely, knowing Corporate Punditry, these will be answers about incidents which were going on at the same time in different places and bore little to no relation to one another.

“They’re just a bunch of malcontents who want people to have excuses to kill cops.”

Appealing to motive? Ad hominem much?

How do you presume this? Do you know the minds of each individual? This argument is so unsound, I see no reason to bother with it, except that I keep hearing this from people who get their news exclusively from FOX (and as such, I know which “anchors” there are spouting this nonsense).

That said, I have this message to the Movement. As they are aware, there have been a number of cop killings in their name. This needs to be resolved. It needs to be resolved internally, and it needs to be done soon. Don’t provide the critics with evidence against you. No shouts of “Tu quoque” at the police. Two wrongs don’t make a right.

And the same goes to the police, to the politicians and to their paid pundits. Why provide apologetics for a small number of individuals who are ruining the honor of America’s (otherwise comparatively noble) police forces? Instead, fix the problem!

“Why does this issue matter so much when unborn babies do not? Blacks have more abortions than any other demographic in the Country.”

This is another disingenuous, self-serving attempt at confusing the issue. It is irrelevant. Nevertheless, since you asked. . .

I am not going to presume to speak for everyone, but both issues matter to a good number of us. Since when did “Pro-Choice” equivocate to “Pro-Abortion?” The two concepts are, although not mutually exclusive, at a great distance from one another.

All the same, please indulge me as I put the same question back to you. Why does the abortion issue matter, when the lives of people do not matter after they are born? If you are supporting the sacredness of all human life, why aren’t you supporting this?

There will be more posts on this issue in the future, I imagine. I hope I never have to write them. Still, more news and more evidence – and more arguments - always present themselves.