Activism: Do black lives (grey)matter?

I’m going to try and keep this as neutral as I can, mostly because:

a)      Most people have already made up their minds on this issue.

b)      I don’t want to be drawn into pointless arguments.

c)       By refusing to pick a side I will piss off BOTH sides and therefore achieve maximum butt-hurt to all people who take themselves too seriously.

So do black lives matter? Duh… yes, of course. But the psychology behind it is thus: It’s not an argument that highlights the value of a black person’s life, it’s an argument that derides the notion that a black life is cheap. So we’re talking about the net worth of an individual now based on the melanin in their skin.

So to expand on the concept of “societal worth” imagine if you will, two black guys: Greg and David.

Greg is born into a middle-class, stable and supportive family, he goes to school, he attends college, he gets a job, pays his taxes and settles down with a family of his own. Greg seeks value in his life through the validation of others, his family, and his peers.

David is born into a lower class broken home, his father is absent because a string of felony charges have landed him in prison, his mother is abusive and makes it clear the only reason she keeps him is the money she will get on welfare for him. David is surrounded by drug culture and petty crime, his school which is underfunded and apathetic about his development as a child, without encouragement to attend he is often absent. David seeks value in his life through the validation of his (remaining) family, and his peers.

Which of these men do you think will be valued more by “society”? As individuals they likely value themselves equally, but hold very different standards about what a man must do to be of worth. So the argument boils down to who has the better standards of what contributes “worth”? David’s life seems very cheap, he is essentially a “criminal waiting to happen” and disposable and replaceable in the eyes of even his family and friends, and while his socioeconomic background is a contributing factor it can’t be said that black and minority individuals in America don’t represent disproportionally in the lower socioeconomic brackets. So we have the uncomfortable truth that being black is associated with a life of poverty and crime. In walk BLM, turning around and shouting to whoever will listen that they no longer want their lives to be worthless in the eyes of society, and the police in particular. They shout that we need to stand with them and recognise that they are no longer willing to be victims of this phenomenon.

The problem is of course, that people like David have very little in the way of a political voice, or even the cognitive ability to approach such a vast and complex problem, and so they talk in the language that is the coin of the realm in the places David grows up, they talk in violence and lawlessness. They draw a line in the sand and declare all on their side “good” and all on the other “bad” any any attack, physical, verbal or social on the “bad” is justified at that point, because after all, your cause is righteous. Just as Dubyah said “If you’re not with us, then you are with the terrorists.” It’s a common pre-conflict mind-set and its violence waiting to happen. The inclusion of the racial element also adds the toxic ingredient that hammers a wider divide between people, as it suggests that commitment to the in-group is based not on ideology, but on racial lines. The often touted “BLM and their white allies” line I see in the paper is a classic example of this.

        So now that we have established my straw men, let me present to you a scenario:

A criminal and a store clerk are in a 7/11 late at night, they share glances every now and then, but otherwise don’t interact. You see, he knows that the other is watching and waiting for an excuse for a conflict, he knows that the other person is hateful and malicious. He honestly feels he could jump at the opportunity to see them brought down a peg.

The question is, as you read that, was “he” the store clerk, or the criminal, and how would you solve the unspoken problem between them? Now replace the store clerk with the BLM activist, and the criminal with a police officer and you see the problem, both in our perceptions of the conflict and the conflict itself.

To borrow from your parents “Violence doesn’t solve anything.” Not technically true, when you’re faced with violence you have two choices, surrender or die. The city-fathers of Hirosuma and Nagasaki chose the former, the Jews of 1940’s Germany had the choice made for them, and they were given the latter. Which leads us to the movements that have not been about “surrender or die” but rather just “die”. The killing fields of Cambodia, the Hutu Ttutsi massacre, and the ongoing wars in the Middle East. The more extreme elements of BLM who demand the system be “torn down” are the shadowy reflections of this (though obviously not as numerous or extreme!), for them there is no “surrender” option and annihilation is the only way forwards.

Approaching this kind of social problem with the current attitude is saying: “Surrender or die” but neither side can make good on the latter half of the threat, and so while lives are taken when people refuse to surrender, I doubt either side would be willing to commit genocide en massé. So is created a terrible self-fuelling conflict machine that latches onto the tribal in-group instincts, and the desire to see justice and fairness we all have in order to push things towards a boiling point for no reason other than to perpetuate the conflict itself. Which in itself isn’t even new; it may interest you to know that this is a common tactic among leaders of fringe political (and terrorist) groups. To them the ends are not important (despite what their rhetoric says), it is only important that the conflict be perpetuated, and if the conflict seems to be resolved, they will find new things to fuel that fire, and more people to pour into that meat grinder for their righteous case.

And if you disagree? Then you’re a: criminal, racist, thug, sexist, privileged, homophobe [delete as appropriate] and you’ll be first against the wall when they hit that boiling point.