“Black” Lives Matter?
Certain expressions can become so overloaded with significance that they come to mean something (or multiple things) other than what the words actually mean. But, incidentally, words do mean things [1]. — And when an expression has come to mean something other than what its words mean, it’s a good idea to pause and consider if we ought to be using those words, and whether the people who are using those words are really doing so in good faith.
The phrase “Black Lives Matter” is one such phrase worthy of criticism. Not only do the words not mean what people mean when they say the words, but what some people mean when they say the words is contradicted within the words themselves. And not only that, but these words have been carefully chosen for this purpose, to be unclear and to obfuscate the true purposes for which the movement that bears them was created.
So let’s analyze this phrase. We can start by asking, what does it mean that “black” lives matter? Think about it: what is a “black” life? Lives don’t have colors.
People may think I’m being obtuse in saying this, since “black lives matter” is obviously shorthand for “black people’s lives matter.” But I’m not being obtuse; I’m making a point. In terms of “mattering” (that is, in terms of inherent value), what is the difference between a black person’s life and any other person’s life? Nothing. So while we’re discussing the value of people’s lives, which is the same regardless of those people’s skin colors, why have we made a distinction between the skin colors? The person who is doing this is trying to say that one group of people is the same as the other, by making them distinct. So which is it? Are they the same, or are they distinct?
Someone might respond that they are the same in one way (the value of their lives), but distinct in another (the colors of their skin). To that I say: since the ostensible purpose of the expression “Black Lives Matter” is to draw attention to the sameness (in one way), simultaneously drawing attention to the difference (in another, completely irrelevant way) is counterproductive. Since we’re talking about the value of people’s lives, why have we assigned a color to those lives, when doing so makes no difference in the value?
Some may think I’m still being obtuse. They may say, “That’s the whole point. Black people’s lives should be valued as much as any other person’s life, but they’re not being valued.” So then, “black lives matter” is not only shorthand for “black people’s lives matter,” but “black people’s lives matter, and they’re not being treated like they matter.”
I don’t believe this assertion of how black people are treated is true [2]. In fact, I believe it’s gravely misinformed [3]. But even if it were true, what would be the solution to that problem? Would the solution be to continue to divide ourselves along differences of color, or would the solution be to stop doing that? If the purpose of the Black Lives Matter movement were to promote equality among people of different colors of skin, then it’s own name shoots itself in the foot, because it focuses on one skin color over others.
Black people’s lives don’t matter any more or less than white people’s lives, brown people’s lives, or the lives of people with any other color of skin. The lives matter, the colors don’t. When we act like the colors matter in the same sentence that we’re trying to say they don’t matter, what on earth are we talking about?
I don’t believe that “black” lives matter, because I don’t believe in “black lives.” A person’s life is not intrinsically defined by the color of his skin any more than his life is intrinsically defined by the color of his eyes. “But skin color has defined people’s lives, historically,” someone may object. Maybe so - but to whatever degree that’s true, that’s been the problem, hasn’t it? Will you be part of the solution, by putting an end to dividing people by color, or will you be part of the problem, by perpetuating it?
I’m not naive. The people behind the Black Lives Matter movement are not what they pretend to be, and they’re certainly not what their name would seem to suggest at first glance. As anybody who is even a little informed about these issues knows, the Black Lives Matter organization was founded and is led by avowed Marxists, and has declared that its mission is to do such things as “disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure” and “[free] ourselves from the tight grip of heteronormative thinking“ [4]. Also, in the same statement, they say, “We are unapologetically Black in our positioning.” Imagine an organization saying, “We are unapologetically White in our positioning”!
Clearly, it’s not a movement about equality or equal treatment. It’s just the opposite. It’s a movement about favoring some over others and, ultimately, destroying the present society to replace it with another, which are the things Marxism always does, in both theory and practice [5]. Unfortunately, far too many people are naive — to the reality of Black Lives Matter, and to the dangers of its deceptively-packaged worldview [6].
Lack of clarity in the words one uses is a good way to mislead people, and the Black Lives Matter movement has done a bang-up job at that, even starting with its name.
NOTES:
[1] When I was in Bible college, one of my professors said, “Words don’t have meanings, only usages.” He was making the point that we have to understand what words are intended to mean according to their context, rather than think a word always means the same thing and then interpret the context according to that meaning. I don’t disagree with this. By saying “words mean things,” I’m saying words have a semantic range and should generally be used and understood within that range. When phrases are used to indicate something other than what the words of the phrase together would ordinarily indicate semantically, or when the phraseology is vague, there is a danger of misunderstanding and, sometimes, an indication of intentional deception.
[2] I am not unaware of the fact that saying this kind of thing invites accusations of “white fragility.” I reject the notion of white fragility. See the link in this tweet for some good reasons why.
[3] Claims of racism—be it individual or systemic—are much overstated in general. Most high profile claims of individual racism in recent memory have turned out to be hoaxes, and claims of systemic racism (despite their staying power) are largely incredible, for such reasons as presented by Larry Elder in this interview and this monologue. I have also posted about this, specifically in regards to claims of racist policing, here. Also, when it comes to claims of racism, the role of attribution bias should not be overlooked.
[4] This language has recently been quietly scrubbed from the website after some bad press. If that doesn’t raise suspicions about whether they’re on the up and up, I don’t know what would. Fortunately, the internet preserves everything; you can read the scrubbed language in full here.
[5] On how destroying a society to replace it with another is one of Marxism’s theoretical goals, read this article. On its horrible track record in practice, read this one. For a great explanation of Cultural Marxism, watch this message by Pastor Voddie Baucham.
[6] By using the phrase “Black Lives Matter,” which is so easily interpreted in a variety of ways, these Marxists found a way to create a broad base of support, a coalition of people that includes many who wouldn’t support them if they really understood what they were about. It’s a marketing ploy. Some who have come to realize the bait-and-switch have tried to claim there’s a difference between the organization and the movement, but even if a distinction could be made, the worldview behind both would be found to be the same — so, even that claim is just another way of falling for the clever marketing trap.