BLM is shooting itself in the foot
Section 1 of 1
BLM has wasted the attention of which it harnessed from the world
Living things that haven’t (even briefly) come into contact with content related to the killing of George Floyd include house dust mites and North Korean window cleaners.
The reaction to his death has swept dramatically across the United States like a tsunami. And these are waves that have well and truly started to spread into an immense push to drive this impassioned debate as a priority issue amongst populations around the planet.
To be clearer than the water which washes up to the beaches of the Bahamas, I can’t stress enough how much I that want to see racism rid from society. So the reason I bash movements like Black Lives Matter (BLM) is not because I wish for (real) anti-racists to fall and fail.
In fact, I want nothing more than to see BLM’s (claimed) core aim of crushing racism result in a sensational and cracking success. The reason that I bash them is because the calamitous way in which they’re conducting their campaign is doing nothing but crucifying the entire anti-racist effort.
The anger of which they’re emitting is absolutely and undeniably understandable. But it’s an emotion which is being aimed in the all the wrong areas, and very often aimed at all the wrong people.
When anger is wrongly channelled at chiselling away reason and rationality, all logic is drastically drained away from the debate. A debate which is so desperately dependent on such logic in order for the whole anti-racist side to eventually revel in success.
From the very start, Black Lives Matter managed to mobilise the attention of the world. But rather than harnessing that heed and recognition by developing this debate into a process of attempting to produce solid solutions, they’ve instead opted to pursue the path of intense chaos.
Good comes in spite of riots and never because of them
If Black Lives Matter was a ship, it’d be sailing straight towards the Bermuda Triangle. But if this ship sinks, it sure won’t be marked down as a mystery.
The first thing that BLM must throw overboard is the reckless rioting and their venomous vandalism, both of which are ultimately done in vain. Extreme, anarchist hagfishes attempt to brainwash emotional and innocent activists into believing that riots are some sort of universal solution to achieving social change.
However, just because a riot has occasionally been followed by results on policy reform in the past, it doesn’t simply mean that riots are a one-size-fits-all answer to re-shaping society. Riots are rarely ever the right road to drive down.
As racial justice writer, Kai Wright, states – “though some good may follow a violent riot, such as awareness of the desperate issues which inspired it, the good comes in spite of it, and never because of it”.
What is right to say about riots is that they’re an emotionally induced reaction to oppression & systemic violence (including any impression of such), rather than being a solution to any severe social injustices.
The lionheart of the American civil rights movement in the 1950’s and 60’s, Martin Luther King Jr, said that “the ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy, instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it. In fact, violence merely increases hate”.
Dr King’s words couldn’t resonate more when responding to the riots that we’ve recently witnessed. He sure knew and understood that (as mentioned) vicious violence and rampant rioting was a natural and emotional reaction, rather than a sensible solution.
His words carry even more weight and clout when you consider how far civil rights in the U.S. and the UK have come along since his day. Racism still survives. But the platform for voices vying for racial justice is a hell of a lot more solid than it was seventy-odd years ago.
Martin Luther King Jr. managed to peacefully secure some of the most pivotal civil rights reforms in U.S. history, at a time when racism was so much more rampant. So what exactly is Black Lives Matter’s excuse?
BLM have been in possession of a heavily publicised platform for yonks and years. So why aren’t they using that precious platform to propose peaceful solutions, at the same time as rejecting rioting, rage and recklessness?
BLM are hurting the very people who they claim to help
It’s not like we can profess that nothing will come from these race riots. Oh no, my friend, they certainly won’t be ineffectual – and I sadly don’t mean that in a positive way. Instead, these riots run the risk of making racial injustice so much more incredibly worse!
First of all, who are BLM really helping by directing hostility and destruction at the homes and businesses of black people? How can one claim that they care for black lives, at the same as bringing a blast of blight upon these poor very people?
I mean, I would ask you to speak to David Underwood and David Dorn, both of whom are black. But unfortunately you won’t be able to because both were killed by blockheads flying the flag of Black Lives Matter. Clearly, these two black lives didn’t matter.
Next, let’s look at riots and violence volleyed at the homes and businesses of white people. Surely if we want to end systemic racism, we need white people onside. So I don’t think that I need to openly declare that destroying their livelihoods will achieve the downright opposite.
Even worse, what if these people aren’t like you and me. Because we both understand that rioters don’t represent anywhere near the majority of anti-racism protestors. But we also can’t ignore the ignorance of the few individuals who aren’t able to distinguish between the two.
When these white people are targeted, or when they witness other people (black or white) being targeted, there’s a tremendous possibility that riots will only reinforce and accelerate any racial stereotypes that they may hold.
Even though logic tells us that these negative stereotypes are a load of old nonsense, we can’t just simply assume that others won’t think as rationally as us about race. This would prove Dr King right when he said “instead of diminishing evil, [violence] multiplies it”.
But if you still don’t believe me (or arguably one of the greatest civil rights activists in American history) and want to continue to bolster those who riot, allow me to ask you this – if you back the legitimacy of riots, would you therefore be happy for BLM to burn your house down in the name of racial justice? If so, let me know. I’ll send someone round within the hour.
BLM has been hijacked by anarchists
So now we’ve installed some degree of common sense into our brains on riots, it’s only right to criticise the Black Lives Matter ‘leadership’ for not duly disavowing the destruction that’s doing nothing but battering their already bruised campaign.
Whilst organisers can’t control each and every one of the people who attend their protests, we wouldn’t be wise to underestimate the power that could be produced if they were to publicly renounce rioting. They need to row back on promoting a barrage of rioting and socially dissuade people from jumping putridly on this particular bandwagon.
If they were to formally disavow and distance themselves from such destructive protests, people would begin to start taking BLM much more seriously. If they were to extricate themselves from extremism, their (rebranded) efforts on racial justice would with no doubt be rewarded.
And that allows us to flow swimmingly onto this following point – Black Lives Matter has been hijacked! Don’t just take this unfortunate fact from myself. Listen to those actual activists on the ground who are angry and aggrieved to see their efforts jumped on and seized by bandana bearing, anarchist buffoons.
These are anarchists who care nothing for racial injustice. They’re pathetic, professional protestors who pounce on any opportunity to cause as much trouble as possible. By the way, these are also the same rioting anarchists who attempt to remain anonymous so that they avoid their mummy from spotting them on the 6 o’clock news, which would eventually result in banishment to their bedroom.
BLM’s silence on the dreadful infiltration by these slimy groups is deafening. As they say themselves – “silence is complicity”. Turning a blind eye to this extremism is proving to be a totally back-breaking blunder.
Stop bailing out anarchists who are so desperate for destruction
The blunder gets even bigger when you consider that BLM are more than willing to bail these rioting balloons out of jail. A fact that they don’t clearly disclose to the people that they accept donations from. It’s true that some pro-riot donors read between the lines and are very well aware that their cash can go to people causing chaos in both black and white communities.
However, it’s also true that so many people who are donating don’t realise that their money is being spent on fuelling ferocious riots. Innocent donors instead are under the false and incorrect impression that their cash is going towards bailing out wrongly arrested peaceful protestors.
Either way, how can we trust Black Lives Matter when they bail out those who will bounce, belly first, back into causing complete chaos? Until Black Lives Matter can guarantee that donations are diverted away from those who are desperate for destruction, I’d emphatically encourage people to pledge their money to organisations like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) as a substitute.
As I understand it, the likes of the ACLU are more greatly geared towards ensuring that black people are treated fairly as they argue their case in court. A superior stance on securing justice compared to that of BLM. This money would then be making sure that peaceful protestors are justly exonerated, whilst the repulsive rioters are rightly punished.
BLM spend most of their time attacking anti-racists
Riots aren’t the only repugnant and illogical iceberg that the Black Lives Matter ship has struck, however. Their movement also has a misanthropic-esque tendency to misunderstand various other points of view that are prevalent in this debate. One prime example of this includes the battle between the “Black lives matter” and the “All lives matter” mantras.
My pants would be on fire if I proclaimed that some people (from either “side” of the debate) didn’t commandeer these proverbs, seeking to wind each other up. But again, me and you – we’re people of common sense. We understand that sincere anti-racists who choose to sport either saying are actually all on the same side – or at least we should be.
Therefore, the two should not be seen as being mutually exclusive. Black lives matter because all lives matter – and all lives matter includes black lives mattering. We should accept that there’s absolutely nothing wrong with either phrase.
It’s so stupid to slam each other based on the angle in which we want to attack this issue from (as long as that angle obviously doesn’t involve violence). I’m sure that you might sense a hint of hypocrisy when I say this (given the nature of this ‘essay’), but BLM spends more time being scornful towards those on their own side than they do scolding the real problem – the racists.
Then there’s the bombardment that’s brandished by some crass Black Lives Matter campaigners, aimed at white people (who are fellow anti-racists) whenever the latter puts forward an opinion. A bombardment which basically borderlines on bigotry.
Silencing anti-racist people who aren’t black goes against all logic
In the eyes of these select few BLM campaigners, white people have no right to command any smidge of authority whatsoever when speaking out against racism. All solely because they have “not been the subject of it”. On the surface, that standpoint might seem to make sense, but when you really think about it, that view is nothing more than vacuous and illogical vitriol.
The overwhelming and vast majority of white people have indeed not been the subject of racism (including myself). But how on Earth does than mean that we’re unable to grasp and understand what barriers hold back and bruise the lives of those who have experienced racism?
I was never groomed or abused as a child. But people would have no problem with me speaking out about and posing solutions to that. I’ve never been the subject of anti-semitism (as I’m not jewish). But people would have no problem with me speaking out about and posing solutions to that either.
I mean, I’ve never experienced being shoved into an active volcano (yet). But nobody would claim that I don’t have an authority to speak on the subject of standing against shoving people into volcanos. See how BLM’s lethargic logic is flawed? So why is the subject of racism any different? Why can’t I speak with authority against racism and propose solutions to the problem?
I say this to you ardently – don’t let anyone convince you that just because you haven’t felt or experienced the consequences of something first-hand, that you therefore don’t have the ability to speak with a deep degree of authority on that subject.
In fact, by using BLM’s (broken) logic, even those who have experienced racism first hand can’t realistically claim to “fully understand” racism. That’s owing to the fact that they have (hopefully) never actually experienced what it’s like to hold racist feelings themselves.
After all, racism relies on those dishing it out (whether that be through words or through action) and those subsequently receiving it. Racism is a sort of “it takes two to tango” situation. This is where the failed logic that only those who “fully understand” racism can speak as an authority breaks down in its entirety.
By their logic, do we have to therefore search for a racist who has also been the subject of racism to be that so-called ‘authority’. For only they would understand what it takes to be both racist, and what it’s like to receive racism. They’d be the only people who could truly claim to “fully” understand racism. But that doesn’t sound like a very smart solution, does it?
You don’t have to be the subject of racism to understand the barriers that it creates
Instead, just like we don’t have to experience racism in order to get a grasp on the barriers that it creates for black people, we also don’t have to be a racist in order to grasp where anti-black views may appear to stem from. All it requires is real thorough research through social engagement with both black people and the racists themselves.
Just in case you thought that you misread – aye, I did definitely say that we need to respectfully engage with the racists directly. We must be willing learn about many of them and ultimately understand where their skewed stereotypes might source from. Because if we refuse to understand this issue’s source and root cause, we’ll never get any nearer to cancelling and stamping out racism.
The last thing that we should be doing is throwing white people (or those of other ethnicities) brutishly overboard. Marginalising white and other non-black ethnic anti-racists from the debate drives dreadful division into the debate. It’s this division that adversely affects all of our efforts to rid our societies of racism. But this ship can become sturdy enough to support all of us.
To reiterate here, I hate to see Black Lives Matter drive themselves into the ground and towards an early grave. It would fill me with heartfelt happiness to see them succeed at genuinely tackling racism, and that’s no word of a lie.
However, if they are going to actually win – if WE are going to actually win – Black Lives Matter mustharness wholesale reform to their (currently crumbling) campaign. Then (and only then) will I start to support Black Lives Matter. But until that day, there will be a BIG difference between believing black lives matter and backing ‘Black Lives Matter’.