The Pitters' Place

An old social activist I deeply respect has been pushing the All Lives Matter thing.

The thing is that in his case, he truly does believe that all lives matter, including black ones. His position seems to be that All Lives Matter is a better phrase to encompass all marginalised populations and affirm the worth of every life regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, economic status, disability (FWIW he's physically disabled - as a civilian he was violently beaten up by Japanese soldiers during WW2) etc, because too many lives in the world are cast aside as worthless, or are presently threatened by war and oppression and treated as though they do not matter, and he wants to tell them that all their lives matter and that everyone has the right to respect and dignity and life.

I'm trying to argue but it's frustrating because he's not coming from the usual position of reactionary privilege. He's been a strong advocate of all forms of social justice long before BLM began, and the notion that all lives matter - not just the privileged ones - was a driving principle for his work.

His statement (one of a few FB posts on the subject): "Black Lives Matter is a movement which originated from the black community is addressed primarily about opposing racism. When non-blacks co-opt this without recognizing and contrasting it with All Lives Matter it becomes condescending and their intentions suspicious. All Lives Matter is a more inclusive term which includes Black Lives Matter and fights against all forms of discrimination, stigmatization and ostracism of all people who are different from us. We share a common humanity though different from one another."

He's also previously posted that "All Lives Matter and especially black lives matter due to racism rearing its ugly head again in America." so I don't know if this is just a matter of semantics, but he seems oblivious to how the phrase has been associated with racists derailing attention from racism.

I prefer No Lives Matter

Tell him that he is the one co-opting the movement for his kumbaya shit. In those words exactly.

I think the practice of dictating the language oppressed minorities use in their social movements and arguments needs to end, as if the reason privileged groups don't accept their points is a matter of semantics; it isn't.

If your friend thinks the BLM movement would have been better received if they were named "All Lives Matter" from the start, sorry, but he's delusional.

Tell him that all contexts matter, and as such, you can't co-opt a phrase used by a disenfranchised group and decide it means what you want it to mean now.

Lol

Technically he's not policing the language of marginalized groups, since he clarified that black people have the right to say that black lives matter. He was questioning a white activist who said that, saying that there's no reason why a straight white man should single out black lives vs women's lives or non-straight lives, when those lives are also oppressed; that when it comes to privileged people who aren't black, they need to acknowledge more than just their racial privilege, and that sentiment is best encapsulated in the phrase all lives matter.

idk I think that's the argument he was making. I don't want to be rude to him because he's really old.