Politician booed for saying "All lives matter," apologizes

[Didymus 34,380]

It's okay if one group gets individual attention.
ALL lives matter, but the lives of non-black people are not hurt by Black Lives being in the spotlight for the moment. 
We know All lives matter, but let's not change the focus of this specific movement. It's not our movement to edit, but it can be ours to support. 

I agree in essence but actually I do believe there is a risk. A few people mention the shocking nature of police violence in the U.S. against Native Americans. Simon is right in pointing out that the media frenzy around one social group easily hides the struggles of another. Even last year some major news outlets reported that statistics showed that Native Americans are most likely to be murdered by police forces, in comparison to other social groups. And yet that issue failed to reach global attention.

So in that light, you could actually spin the table and say that #BlackLivesMatter is like going to a rally about Native American discrimination and saying "Hey, black people struggle too!" a lot more than using the term #AllLivesMatter for the same purpose. I don't agree with that because the media frenzy is a result of the massive cry for help and there isn't anything wrong with that, but we can't just become blind to the problem of discrimination itself by allowing us to get carried away in a narrative about the suppression of black people and losing perspective of all the facts on the table. In that light, again, the response of people who are not being discriminated against for their social identity, the message #AllLivesMatter, as O'Malley used it, is actually a stronger force to combat discrimination in general and the black people who disagree with it reveal themselves as the social group that feels their struggle to be superior even in the face of statistics that prove them wrong.

So yes, we should support these movements. But we shouldn't jump in their narrative, because a narrative of desperation and outrage rarely has room for what outsiders can see beyond it. And that sight can be a blessing and a curse, but in the case of police violence, we have the collective duty to disarm the "police violence is a black issue" illusion which is a despicable distortion of truth, supported only by the impressiveness of the passion of its creators. Instead, calling for attention and support of all social groups who face struggles with instances that are supposed to reinforce equality is the better option and a collective stance on equality shouldn't be judged as racist or disrespective at all since it would actually throw light on the whole issue instead of a spectacular piece of it. And that counts for all issues about inequality.

[Kayla 7,595]

I agree in essence but actually I do believe there is a risk. A few people mention the shocking nature of police violence in the U.S. against Native Americans. Simon is right in pointing out that the media frenzy around one social group easily hides the struggles of another. Even last year some major news outlets reported that statistics showed that Native Americans are most likely to be murdered by police forces, in comparison to other social groups. And yet that issue failed to reach global attention.

So in that light, you could actually spin the table and say that #BlackLivesMatter is like going to a rally about Native American discrimination and saying "Hey, black people struggle too!" a lot more than using the term #AllLivesMatter for the same purpose. I don't agree with that because the media frenzy is a result of the massive cry for help and there isn't anything wrong with that, but we can't just become blind to the problem of discrimination itself by allowing us to get carried away in a narrative about the suppression of black people and losing perspective of all the facts on the table. In that light, again, the response of people who are not being discriminated against for their social identity, the message #AllLivesMatter, as O'Malley used it, is actually a stronger force to combat discrimination in general and the black people who disagree with it reveal themselves as the social group that feels their struggle to be superior even in the face of statistics that prove them wrong.

So yes, we should support these movements. But we shouldn't jump in their narrative, because a narrative of desperation and outrage rarely has room for what outsiders can see beyond it. And that sight can be a blessing and a curse, but in the case of police violence, we have the collective duty to disarm the "police violence is a black issue" illusion which is a despicable distortion of truth, supported only by the impressiveness of the passion of its creators.

Very good point. I actually did not know about those statistics relating to Native Americans. I've known about issues of equality relating to how our government interacts with tribal leaders and how they manipulate them to use their land and pollute their drinking water, but police violence against them being more likely than against blacks is news to me. Thank you for sharing!

I disagree with the rally a--logy here, though. My problem with saying "All Lives Matter" in response to "Black Lives Matter" is that people are taking a slogan someone else has and twisting it around. 
Had there already been "#NativeLivesMatter," I would criticize anyone who said "#BlackLivesMatter" in response to it, the same way I criticize (most of) the "#AllLivesMatter" crowd. 
Setting up your own rally next to someone else's is different from going to their rally and preaching about everyone else's problems. I believe in standing up for people, but don't do so by taking the thunder away from another group. 

I agree that All Lives Matter is a good umbrella term, but we shouldn't lump everyone into it. The way we help Black people get equality is different from how we would help Native Americans, for example, so I would view those as two separate issues that deserve their own unique movement that is housed under the true concept that All Lives Matter. 

 

[craig 680]

The problem with "black lives matters" is that it falsely puts all the emphasis on racism rather than deeper problems with policing and the criminal justice system. That just deepens the black vs white divide, and doesn't leave you with an avenue to reform (since everything to legally suppress racism has already been tried, and people are left with useless symbolic stuff like banning the Confederate Flag or going after Iggy for "cultural appropriation."

From an Canadian perspective, looking at America's high murder rate, world-leading incarceration rate (including many non-violent offenders), and it's over the top bully policing, it doesn't seem like AMERICAN live matter enough. Blacks and the poor get the worst of it, but it's much more than a racial problem.

[Didymus 34,380]

I disagree with the rally a--logy here, though. My problem with saying "All Lives Matter" in response to "Black Lives Matter" is that people are taking a slogan someone else has and twisting it around. 
Had there already been "#NativeLivesMatter," I would criticize anyone who said "#BlackLivesMatter" in response to it, the same way I criticize (most of) the "#AllLivesMatter" crowd. 
Setting up your own rally next to someone else's is different from going to their rally and preaching about everyone else's problems. 

I agree that All Lives Matter is a good umbrella term, but we shouldn't lump everyone into it. The way we help Black people get equality is different from how we would help Native Americans, for example, so I would view those as two separate issues that deserve their own unique movement that is housed under the true concept that All Lives Matter. 

Agreed about the slogan. That was a mistake on my part.

The problem, though, is that there is no rally for Native Americans The violence happening to them has been happening for decades and has gone unprotested and largely unnoticed. I'm not saying that black people are to blame for overpowering their voice btw, just saying that the two issues are only different (I mean, how would we help Native Americans and black people differently? I don't get that part, how is it not the same issue?) in how much the rest of the world chooses for spectacle rather than an actual minority struggling in silence and not having the means to even make a cry for help. It's sad.

I get what you mean about the lumping in thing, but I still defend the value of a renewed All Lives message that makes room for specificity. I know I'm not gonna succeed in making the world aware of it, but I am deeply convinced that there are more people than me who would like discrimination issues to disappear, all of them and that they probably would agree with me that the idea of equality can be a booster. Like O'Malley says: more issues of discrimination would be noticed because of that ideal. Surely that's something we all have to aspire to?

Anyway, we understand each other.

[Luiz 4,253]

heard y'all wee talking about police brutality  

no speak english? let me shoot you then  

 

hey thats a lethal rock you threw there  must shoot you in the name of the law

 

no national news coverage for this tho. oh well  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 

[Kayla 7,595]

Agreed about the slogan. That was a mistake on my part.

The problem, though, is that there is no rally for Native Americans The violence happening to them has been happening for decades and has gone unprotested and largely unnoticed. I'm not saying that black people are to blame for overpowering their voice btw, just saying that the two issues are only different (I mean, how would we help Native Americans and black people differently? I don't get that part, how is it not the same issue?) in how much the rest of the world chooses for spectacle rather than an actual minority struggling in silence and not having the means to even make a cry for help. It's sad.

I get what you mean about the lumping in thing, but I still defend the value of a renewed All Lives message that makes room for specificity. I know I'm not gonna succeed in making the world aware of it, but I am deeply convinced that there are more people than me who would like discrimination issues to disappear, all of them and that they probably would agree with me that the idea of equality can be a booster. Like O'Malley says: more issues of discrimination would be noticed because of that ideal. Surely that's something we all have to aspire to?

Anyway, we understand each other.

There are certain things that would overlap between Black and Native Americans- police brutality, living in poverty, lack of quality education, etc. 

However, there are also issues of inequality that are unique to the separate groups. For example, one issue that Native Americans living on reservations face is pollution and mining. Tribes need fresh, healthy water as they rely on it so much, yet it's common for mining operations to occur upstream from reservations that cause pollution in the waters they get directly from the source. Issues with pipelines cutting through reservations also come up from time to time. 

Also, when you're working with a reservation, the legal process for bringing equality to those people would be different from doing so with a low-income urban area as they are sovereign nations/states. Not to mention, property rights don't exist on a reservation- it's all a commons, or communal. This creates issues financially, and with credit, which are easier to learn about through these articles rather than having myself try to ramble on and explain it.

http://www.perc.org/articles/why-are-indian-reservations-so-poor-0

http://www.perc.org/articles/american-indian-collectivism

Those are just examples of how we would need to help them differently. The goal is the same: Equality, but the road to get there is slightly different for each group.

[Didymus 34,380]

There are certain things that would overlap between Black and Native Americans- police brutality, living in poverty, lack of quality education, etc. 

However, there are also issues of inequality that are unique to the separate groups. For example, one issue that Native Americans living on reservations face is pollution and mining. Tribes need fresh, healthy water as they rely on it so much, yet it's common for mining operations to occur upstream from reservations that cause pollution in the waters they get directly from the source. Issues with pipelines cutting through reservations also come up from time to time. 

Also, when you're working with a reservation, the legal process for bringing equality to those people would be different from doing so with a low-income urban area as they are sovereign nations/states. Not to mention, property rights don't exist on a reservation- it's all a commons, or communal. This creates issues financially, and with credit, which are easier to learn about through these articles rather than having myself try to ramble on and explain it.

http://www.perc.org/articles/why-are-indian-reservations-so-poor-0

http://www.perc.org/articles/american-indian-collectivism

Damn, definitely didn't think about that

Thanks for the info, if I'm gonna bring up Native Americans' rights in these issues I should know more about it than I did apparently Definitely taking a good look at those links, thanks

[aaronyoji 2,064]

 "If we jump too quickly to the universal formulation, 'all lives matter,' then we miss the fact that black people have not yet been included in the idea of 'all lives.'

You could argue the same for poor white people. They get abused by the police sometimes, and suffer poverty, and don't get near the attention from progressive-leftist media that blacks do,

If you want to reform the police, you'll build a bigger coalition and come up with better reforms if you consider policing overall, not just make it a race issue (which black lives matter does). 

white people who face police brutality dont face it because they're white, black people face it solely for their race. 

police brutality is an issue, but its also the outlet for their racism which is the source of the issue. 

if stating that black lives matter makes it a race issue, the problem isn't the protesters, its you. because you wouldn't feel the need to negate it. 

[craig 680]

white people who face police brutality dont face it because they're white, black people face it solely for their race. 

police brutality is an issue, but its also the outlet for their racism which is the source of the issue. 

if stating that black lives matter makes it a race issue, the problem isn't the protesters, its you. because you wouldn't feel the need to negate it. 

Solely? Surely that can't be true, many blacks have run-ins with bully cops for the same reasons white people do. When you assume ANY negativity in white-black interaction is racism, white people start to get their backs up and feel unfairly judged. And there are black bully cops patrolling black neighbourhoods too.

[Jjang 2,262]

That's just not a reply to my post. My post was in response to what you repeated here.

I emphasized on my original post's point.

Women rights are also human rights, but they're called as such because they address the rights that women lack.

Are you not keen on that term as well? for your own sake, I hope you never used it and if you did your whole argument loses its credibility to me. 

 

[Jjang 2,262]

Solely? Surely that can't be true, many blacks have run-ins with bully cops for the same reasons white people do. When you assume ANY negativity in white-black interaction is racism, white people start to get their backs up and feel unfairly judged. And there are black bully cops patrolling black neighbourhoods too.

It does not matter whether the cop is black or white, they all work under the same pattern of systems and orders.

And reverse racism does not exist.

[Didymus 34,380]

Women rights are also human rights, but they're called as such because they address the rights that women lack.

Are you not keen on that term as well? for your own sake, I hope you never used it and if you did your whole argument loses its credibility to me. 

Of course I don't use that term, because there are no women's rights Does that mean I didn't discuss the rights women lack in comparison with the model that human rights in my area provide before? No. So again, my point still stands strong: I can reject these silly phrases all I want, I'm still addressing the actual issue, nearly everyone else here is just whining about words.

Does that mean I think actively combatting the term "women's rights" is worth my time? No, because it can be perfectly used in a specific context, just like "Black Lives" can be used perfectly in a specific context and "All Lives" can be too, like I've been proving through these five pages. Do I dislike the first phrase and its movement? Yes, because (1) it clouds the fact that there is an American social group that has it even worse but is ignored; (2) it clearly inspires people to boo, mock and insult people (I mean, I was basically called a racist in this thread - the hilarity of that is still fresh to my mind) who refuse to adopt a misleading and ineffective mindset no matter what other support they might be giving/showing.

That's my argument.

[craig 680]

It does not matter whether the cop is black or white, they all work under the same pattern of systems and orders.

And reverse racism does not exist.

Your first sentence is largely true, but it suggests the problem (like I said earlier) isn't with racism but with over-militant policing and over-sentencing of nonviolent offenders and relying on fines as a source of key municipal revenue (as in Ferguson)..

Denying that non-whites can be racist is a form of racism in my book, but that's not the issue here. It's not that black cops are racist, just that they can have the same moral failing as other cops (bad temper, push people around, abuse of authority).

[Jjang 2,262]

Of course I don't use that term, because there are no women's rights Does that mean I didn't discuss the rights women lack in comparison with the model that human rights in my area provide before? No. So again, my point still stands strong: I can reject these silly phrases all I want, I'm still addressing the actual issue, nearly everyone else here is just whining about words.

Does that mean I think actively combatting the term "women's rights" is worth my time? No, because it can be perfectly used in a specific context, just like "Black Lives" can be used perfectly in a specific context and "All Lives" can be too, like I've been proving through these five pages. Do I dislike the first phrase and its movement? Yes, because (1) it clouds the fact that there is an American social group that has it even worse but is ignored; (2) it clearly inspires people to boo, mock and insult people (I mean, I was basically called a racist in this thread - the hilarity of that is still fresh to my mind) who refuse to adopt a misleading and ineffective mindset no matter what other support they might be giving/showing.

That's my argument.

So basically I have my reasons and you have yours and there's no factual factor to confirm which claim is more accurate. 

#ThisAin'tGettingNowhere.

[Didymus 34,380]

So basically I have my reasons and you have yours and there's no factual factor to confirm which claim is more accurate. 

#ThisAin'tGettingNowhere.

Yes there is. This is your reason:

"Police brutality is a black issue. This is not an ill afflicting all Americans. Telling us that all lives matter is redundant. We know that already. But, just know, police violence and brutality disproportionately affects 99% of the times a certain group only."

Wiped off the table referring to Native Americans and police violence in the U.S.

If it's not longer a black issue but an issue that affects at least two big social groups that co-exist in a racist context, the "Black Lives Matter" movement (and the corresponding claim that black people are the only group that suffers from disproportionate police violence) is clearly incomplete and possibly misleading (and looking at the most defensive replies in this thread, I'd say most definitely misleading).

So O'Malley was correct. "All lives matter, which is why this issue is so important." The Native American issue would carry equal importance if his message was thoroughly carried out, but this is systematically blocked by people who choose to be offended when they think their voice isn't heard.