"Black Lives Matter"

Martin O’Malley, a Presidential candidate, at a recent event in which the slogan “Black Lives Matter” was highlighted, did not have a clue that he was saying anything contentious prior to stating “Black Lives Matter. White Lives Matter. All Lives Matter”.
He was so taken aback and dumbfounded by the boos from the predominately black crowd that he repeated himself, still not getting that what he said could possibly be problematic.
Maybe he eventually got it, because he apologized. Now the conservative news channels are showing their ignorance, along with their leaders, such as Jeb Bush, who railed against O’Malley for apologizing for something so obviously true as saying “All Lives Matter” in retort to “Black Lives Matter”.
Can political leaders, and white people in general really continue to ignore the context in which the slogan “Black Lives Matter” arose? i.e., We have been confronted in news story after news story of black people dying after run ins with police, when the circumstances were such that they were posing no deadly threat. I mean so many blatant stories. And those are just the ones we hear about. It is so predominately black lives that are being needlessly extinguished.
So an analogy, to break it down for those who still don’t get what is wrong with the retort “All Lives Matter” to the slogan “Black Lives Matter”:
You break your left leg. You go to the doctor, who oddly spends as much time checking out your right leg, and both of your arms. After a while, you say “Doc, it’s my left leg that matters”. The Doctor says “Left Legs Matter. Right Legs Matter. All Limbs Matter.”
You find a different doctor.

You break your left leg. You go to the doctor, who oddly spends as much time checking out your right leg, and both of your arms. After a while, you say "Doc, it's my left leg that matters". The Doctor says "Left Legs Matter. Right Legs Matter. All Limbs Matter." You find a different doctor.
OK this is going to ruffle a few feathers but I think its worth saying. I'm not sure I agree entirely for several reasons. While there does seem to be a perception that blacks are unfairly targeted and treated I don't trust the media to present a balanced view of the problem. Its in their best interest to keep this story going. It may well be true that blacks are preferentially the victims of harsh treatment and violence from police but the problem is not entirely limited to blacks. Its possible that the disproportionate effect on the black community is as much as result of the fact that blacks are more likely to live in neighborhoods that put them in contact with police more often or are more often involved in criminal acts that are more likely to result in confrontations with police. Its also possible and perhaps even likely that the media and others are more likely to bring police violence to public attention when its a black victim because it fits the current meme and makes a more news worthy story. I do not mean to say that there isn't a bias on the part of police that makes blacks more likely to be the victim of police violence but the story is not as simple as the media portrays it. While we need to address the bias against blacks I think the bigger issue is police violence in general and in that respect All Lives do matter. It may have not been the correct venue to make that statement because the people there clearly believe this is only a problem for blacks and they weren't going to be receptive to his message, but his point was correct. The best way to fix the problem may be to address it as a police violence issue rather than a racial bias issue. By the way if you go to a doctor who insists on examining all of your limbs when you complained that one was broken you should not walk out. That doctor would be doing his job. An OK doctor treats the injury. A great doctor treats the patient. There may be more to the story than one broken limb when someone is the victim of trauma and the victim may not always be able to see the whole picture just like there is more to this story than police targeting blacks and the victims may be so focused on what is hurting them that they aren't seeing the bigger picture.

Mc, There is a strong right wing media, perhaps stronger than the left wing media, that will champion your line of thinking. If there were case after case of cops, being involved in altercations with white citizens, where the citizens wind up dying for no good reason, don’t you think you could trust FOX News to be proudly reporting all of these hypothetical cases to show that race is in no way an issue?
Do you also think that the criminal justice system, in general, is not disproportionally stacked against black people, despite all of the evidence to the contrary?
As far as the analogy, a “great” (as you say) doctor, once determining that the only substantive medical problem is the one broken leg, does not avoid treating the broken leg by focusing on everything else about the patient. The great doctor might try to figure out why the patient keeps breaking the left leg over and over, but he would not neglect repairing the broken leg, and tell the patient “It is you, my patient, and your health as a whole that I am concerned about right now. Your left leg can wait.”
Now, it may well be correct to suppose that part of the problem is that, as you say,
“blacks are preferentially the victims of harsh treatment and violence from police but the problem is not entirely limited to blacks…(&) that the disproportionate effect on the black community is as much as result of the fact that blacks are more likely to live in neighborhoods that put them in contact with police more often or are more often involved in criminal acts that are more likely to result in confrontations with police…”
But being part of the problem, these are not issues to then avoid addressing simply because you came up with the explanatory hypotheses.
The problem remains in our society, that Black Americans are getting disproportionally screwed, in various ways, not just by being killed more often by cops. Sure let’s come up with reasonable hypotheses about why that is. But then do something about it, instead of being content to explain it away.

The protest chant “Black Lives Matter” does not negate or discount the truism that “All Lives Matter”, but the truism in response to the protest DOES discount the protest, in the context of the social realities for black Americans in our society.

The protest chant "Black Lives Matter" does not negate or discount the truism that "All Lives Matter", but the truism in response to the protest DOES discount the protest, in the context of the social realities for black Americans in our society.
To me, it sounds as if they are saying ,"Black lives matter, too." They're saying, "We often feel marginalized. We count, too." I see nothing wrong with it. Lois

Tim I agree that bias against blacks is an important factor in all of this. I never meant to imply it wasn’t. My point was that there are additional factors here that may be just as important and all liklihood the media portrayal that only blacks are being shot is almost certainly wrong. My reason for posting my response was to point out two things. First that there are reasons in addition to bias why blacks are more often the victims of these situations and that blacks are not the only targets.
I didn’t point this out to imply that there isn’t a problem or that we can’t do things to fix it. My reason for doing this was because the solution to the problem is entirely different depending on what the cause is. Weeding out bigots from the police dept and giving more training on race relations to others will no doubt help but it won’t solve the problem because there are other factors which are as or more important that aren’t being addressed. We need to address the social issues that keep blacks in poor neighborhoods. We also need to address the us vs them mentality that exists among some of the police as well as the mentality that they own the law and have the right to dispense justice as they see fit.
These are really difficult problems but we can’t resolve them by focusing on just one of many causes.

Tim I agree that bias against blacks is an important factor in all of this. I never meant to imply it wasn't. My point was that there are additional factors here that may be just as important and all liklihood the media portrayal that only blacks are being shot is almost certainly wrong. My reason for posting my response was to point out two things. First that there are reasons in addition to bias why blacks are more often the victims of these situations and that blacks are not the only targets. I didn't point this out to imply that there isn't a problem or that we can't do things to fix it. My reason for doing this was because the solution to the problem is entirely different depending on what the cause is. Weeding out bigots from the police dept and giving more training on race relations to others will no doubt help but it won't solve the problem because there are other factors which are as or more important that aren't being addressed. We need to address the social issues that keep blacks in poor neighborhoods. We also need to address the us vs them mentality that exists among some of the police as well as the mentality that they own the law and have the right to dispense justice as they see fit. These are really difficult problems but we can't resolve them by focusing on just one of many causes.
Granted. But my purpose with this topic was more narrow. I wanted to explain why it should be completely understandable that a group of black Americans would respond so vociferously and negatively to someone saying "...All Lives Matter". When I first saw the news blurb of O'Malley being shouted down for saying that, my initial internal reaction was "What's up with these black people?" (I suspect that most white people would have a similar initial reaction, as did I, and as did Jeb W. Bush). When it occurred to me what the black reaction was about, and that it was a completely reasonable response, I wanted to pass that discovery along.

Some “Black Lives Matter” advocates recently literally had a hissy fit, to scream down Bernie Sanders before he even had a chance to address the crowd that had gathered to see him. Their behavior was such that, in that part of myself that is racist, they appeared to be a cartoonish caricature of negroes. They were upset that progressives are only paying lip service to their cause while passively allowing racism to continue. Not the way to win friends and influence people, I think, by attacking the very people who, at least, acknowledge their issue. And by attacking the one man that would conceivably do the most to help their cause, should he be elected POTUS.
To me, they, also, seemed particularly cowardly, in their choice of target, Bernie. Why not ANY other presidential candidate?
Their rage is justified, I think, but their presentation of it, just looked ridiculous.

Just to add balance to the discussion.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/06/us/seneca-teen-dead-police-shooting/index.html

Tim I agree that bias against blacks is an important factor in all of this. I never meant to imply it wasn't. My point was that there are additional factors here that may be just as important and all liklihood the media portrayal that only blacks are being shot is almost certainly wrong. My reason for posting my response was to point out two things. First that there are reasons in addition to bias why blacks are more often the victims of these situations and that blacks are not the only targets. I didn't point this out to imply that there isn't a problem or that we can't do things to fix it. My reason for doing this was because the solution to the problem is entirely different depending on what the cause is. Weeding out bigots from the police dept and giving more training on race relations to others will no doubt help but it won't solve the problem because there are other factors which are as or more important that aren't being addressed. We need to address the social issues that keep blacks in poor neighborhoods. We also need to address the us vs them mentality that exists among some of the police as well as the mentality that they own the law and have the right to dispense justice as they see fit. These are really difficult problems but we can't resolve them by focusing on just one of many causes.
Granted. But my purpose with this topic was more narrow. I wanted to explain why it should be completely understandable that a group of black Americans would respond so vociferously and negatively to someone saying "...All Lives Matter". When I first saw the news blurb of O'Malley being shouted down for saying that, my initial internal reaction was "What's up with these black people?" (I suspect that most white people would have a similar initial reaction, as did I, and as did Jeb W. Bush). When it occurred to me what the black reaction was about, and that it was a completely reasonable response, I wanted to pass that discovery along. Yes. Saying all lives matter is taking attention away from their plight and forcing them to share the spotlight with the white people they always had to struggle with for their civil rights. It was hard enough to fight white oppression and now they have to say white lives matter, when what they were fighting all along was the idea that ONLY white lives matter. Right or wrong that's what they probably think and there is an element of truth and rationality in it. Lois

I think that the Black Lives Matter movement is extraordinarily important, but its proponents are tactical idiots if they are going to, so vehemently, go after their strongest potential allies rather than their strongest obvious opponents.

Black lives matter is funny.
All the footage of them disrupting progressive gatherings should be compiled into a movie called When your pets turn on you.

Black lives matter is funny. All the footage of them disrupting progressive gatherings should be compiled into a movie called When your pets turn on you.
I guess it's a bit like a mini-version of what is happening to the Old-guard Republican Party with (first the Tea Party) and now with Donald Trump. The movies could be called When Chickens Come Home to Root (not roost) and the sequel When the Rooster Comes Home to Take Over.
Black lives matter is funny. All the footage of them disrupting progressive gatherings should be compiled into a movie called When your pets turn on you.
I guess it's a bit like a mini-version of what is happening to the Old-guard Republican Party with (first the Tea Party) and now with Donald Trump. The movies could be called When Chickens Come Home to Root (not roost) and the sequel When the Rooster Comes Home to Take Over.Not quite, though the republicans should have some movie to commemorate their spinelessness.
The protest chant "Black Lives Matter" does not negate or discount the truism that "All Lives Matter", but the truism in response to the protest DOES discount the protest, in the context of the social realities for black Americans in our society.
This
I think that the Black Lives Matter movement is extraordinarily important, but its proponents are tactical idiots if they are going to, so vehemently, go after their strongest potential allies rather than their strongest obvious opponents.
Couldn't agree more. Disrupting Bernie, being so disrespectful to someone who has been so pro-their cause, unfortunately makes them look stupid. Conservatives eat that stuff up, turn to each other and say "told you so".

I heard a statistic this morning: 24 unarmed young black men have been shot to death by white cops this year. Ok, that’s horrible, and that’s the point that was being made. BUT there’s another part to this that I haven’t heard, and I’d like to know: what are the other numbers? # of unarmed white young men shot to death by black cops, # UYMB shot by black cops, #UY white men shot to death by white cops. Does anyone know those statistics? Let’s say those other three stats were 0, THEN there’s a huge problem. But what about if those others weren’t 0? What would we say if the stats showed 24 young white unarmed men were shot dead by white cops? Black cops? See, until we get those stats it’s very easy to think the media is just playing up an angle, versus going after the truth. So anyone have those stats? I wouldn’t know where to start.

I think that the Black Lives Matter movement is extraordinarily important, but its proponents are tactical idiots if they are going to, so vehemently, go after their strongest potential allies rather than their strongest obvious opponents.
Couldn't agree more. Disrupting Bernie, being so disrespectful to someone who has been so pro-their cause, unfortunately makes them look stupid. Conservatives eat that stuff up, turn to each other and say "told you so". Besides that being a statement based on almost no data, I think we should give this a little time, so we can find out who these two women were and what they were up to.]
I heard a statistic this morning: 24 unarmed young black men have been shot to death by white cops this year. Ok, that's horrible, and that's the point that was being made. BUT there's another part to this that I haven't heard, and I'd like to know: what are the other numbers? # of unarmed white young men shot to death by black cops, # UYMB shot by black cops, #UY white men shot to death by white cops. Does anyone know those statistics? Let's say those other three stats were 0, THEN there's a huge problem. But what about if those others weren't 0? What would we say if the stats showed 24 young white unarmed men were shot dead by white cops? Black cops? See, until we get those stats it's very easy to think the media is just playing up an angle, versus going after the truth. So anyone have those stats? I wouldn't know where to start.
http://killedbypolice.net/ http://killedbypolice.net/ This site appears to stay up to date in listing everyone, that they can discover, who has died in an interaction with the police. You could glean out the data that you want by clicking on each case and figuring out the race of the departed, and whether he allegedly was armed or not. I don't think you would consistently find the race of the policemen involved, however. But good luck if you make the effort. There are well over 100 people killed by police per month.
I think that the Black Lives Matter movement is extraordinarily important, but its proponents are tactical idiots if they are going to, so vehemently, go after their strongest potential allies rather than their strongest obvious opponents.
Couldn't agree more. Disrupting Bernie, being so disrespectful to someone who has been so pro-their cause, unfortunately makes them look stupid. Conservatives eat that stuff up, turn to each other and say "told you so". Besides that being a statement based on almost no data, I think we should give this a little time, so we can find out who these two women were and what they were up to.] Thanks for the link. That is interesting. My view is that If the perpetrators against Bernie are not actually representatives (as they portrayed themselves to be) of the BLM movement, then the BLM movement should make that known. If they are Sarah Palin Supporters and Right wing Christian nuts who also happen to be rabid supporters of the BLM movement, the BLM movement should get them under control, because they are not, IMO, doing anything productive to advocate for their cause. And Lausten, (re: your "no data" statement) do you ever have an opinion or perspective on anything, that you express, without waiting for a series of rigorous and replicated scientific studies to support it? If not, we will be waiting a long time for your perspectives and opinions. And if the day does come, I expect that the BLM movement will have come and gone, and will be a footnote in history, by then. If we always demand more data and more studies before we say or do anything, about anything, then we will never say or do anything, except wait for more data and studies.