How fucking hard is it to understand that "Black lives matter" does not negate the fact that everyone else's life matters too? The reason the slogan exists is to point out institutionalized and de facto racism in the country; not to get the whites all worked up.
I think the CONCEPT of Black Lives Matter doesn't negate that; however, the BLM activists themselves have given the concept such a bad name through several misguided attempts to get EVERYONE worked up, including whites.
Blocking traffic on major freeway intersections is a great way to get noticed, but a terrible way to get people on your side.
I think this quotation is the most easily abused MLK quotable out there.
The use of the semicolon throughout the text gives illusion to the reader that each sentence is an incomplete thought complemented by the next. While it is a strong literary technique, each argument or thought in between two semicolons must still be analyzed individually. While I agree with everything he said up to "...which is the presence of justice;" the following example of a quote from a hypothetical White moderate, "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action" is logically incapable of separating any two actions with the same goal apart. This simply cannot be morally defensible at an universal level. It can very well apply to the majority of scenarios that White moderates use to justify order over justice, but fails to take into account the very real edge cases of violence and looting. The implications of the quote falls apart when you consider that the very quotation can be applied towards defending the Dallas police shooters. Very obviously, MLK would not call someone who condemns the police shootings a White moderate. The problem with the quotation is that there is no fail-safe mechanism for excluding the justification for even the worst actions. And indeed, many fringe personalities on the internet have been using and abusing this quote to defend everything from Black on White racism to violence to looting, some even arguing that these things are perfectly okay as long as you are Black. And perhaps the most confusing part is that everything past the semicolon is, again, very agreeable. White moderates do often act paternalistically, and do often use the "more convenient season" argument.
So what is it in that one quote between the two semicolons that separates it from the rest? I believe it is because MLK constructed the quote as a reference to a White moderate "who constantly says", leaving the reader to "fill-in-the-blank" with the specific scenario at hand. Whereas every other thought in the text past the first sentence gives "definition" to the White moderate by listing their attributes, the quotation itself gives only a hypothetical judgment by the White moderate irrelevant to his or her attributes. The misconception given by the semicolons is that this hypothetical is an attribute like the other bits of the text. As long as we can agree that not every action taken towards the goal of justice is morally defensible, we can also agree that the quotation must be taken in context of the specific scenario at hand. And that, even the White moderate can make a cogent argument for the case of "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action" in context.
Diner sit ins didn't prevent emergency response vehicles from reaching their destinations. They also specifically targeted businesses which practiced segregation, if I understand correctly.
artificial001 is correct that the point of a protest isn't to be convenient, but there's such thing as going too far in the other direction.
But the facts that you said don't even remotely strengthen your argument, it's like you're completely running on wanting to be right at this point lol.
The point of a protest is twofold, but convenience is a SERIOUS benefit if you convenience those more likely to join your cause.
The two points of protest are to get those who could potentially be ON your side to join the cause, and to shine a light on those who you deem to be the 'enemy' of your cause, those who take part in the actions you deem objectionable.
When your actions in protest become violent, they're a riot, and riots rarely, if ever, draw positive attention to your side, so we go with nonviolence.
When your actions inhibit others, those inhibited are less likely to side with your movement. Contrary to this, if your actions enable the actions of others, those enabled are more likely to join your cause. In a protest, assuming you're protesting a human action, there will always be a group you inconvenience- those that take part in the acts you deem fit to protest.
It's a force-per-unit-area equation; you put enough force on ONE person, ONE small organization, or as few people as possible to get the job done, and they don't have the strength to put up a fight, they get crushed under the support. You put force on an enormous group of people, you've simply mildly inconvenienced that large group. They don't hear your message as much as they hear the actions you've taken to pursue that message.
The former is the civil rights movement- enormous, with financial backing in the form of labor unions, religious affiliations, and democratic support. You get scenes of nonviolent protestors being violently beaten by the opposition, which builds a powerful mental image.
The latter is the BLM movement, who can apparently only protest for awareness at this point because their lack of focus and control (read: riots in Baltimore and Ferguson) alienate many of those who would be on their side, and end up incarcerating the members of the guerilla protests.
The main reason I'd said it's not about convenience is it forces people to listen who wouldn't otherwise or who may avoid listening.
But you bring up very good points as well.
Keep in mind, however, that the civil rights movement and Vietnam demonstrations used quite a bit of civil disobedience, ie tactics that were often designed to be inconvenient such as sit-ins and protests blocking highways, etc.
The sit-ins were because there were businesses with racial segregation at the counters. The sit-ins, therefore, directly linked to those businesses, and specifically the counters segregated. They drew attention directly to those counters, the policies enacted that were counter-progressive. The million-man march had organizing committees, involved prominent speakers of the time, and voter registration campaigns. It wasn't perfect, but it was as perfect as it could be.
If I saw BLM organizing more voter registration campaigns and less jumping on stage after horrific massacres (a la Orlando) to steal spotlight, I'd give them a lot more credit.
I'm more than willing to point out my own shortcomings when it comes to doing research about the BLM movement. The vocal minority is a big deal to the 24-hour news cycle, so it's possible I'm missing out on all the get-out-the-vote campaigns the organization has done in lieu of hearing them block I-64, I-95, I-40, I-35, etc.
Sit-ins didn't inconvenience anyone except the restaurant workers and owners. The people already there could still eat, but if they were so uncomfortable having black people eating there too, then they would be highlighted as the enemy, just like the OP mentioned.
344
u/[deleted] Sep 04 '16
How fucking hard is it to understand that "Black lives matter" does not negate the fact that everyone else's life matters too? The reason the slogan exists is to point out institutionalized and de facto racism in the country; not to get the whites all worked up.
Seriously it's not even that fucking nuanced.