Black lives matter vs. All lives matter is a false debate

I thought this piece was pretty good: http://fusion.net/story/170591/the-next-time-someone-says-all-lives-matter-show-them-these-5-paragraphs/

Maybe this is a microcosm of the overall race impasse in America. Blacks and minorities want equal treatment as guaranteed by our Constitution (not to mention human decency). They are not calling for special treatment. Even the arguments in support of slavery reparations are not excessive and have plenty of precedent.

However, I think some whites dislike the race debate because (1) no one likes feeling blamed as the bad guy, or enjoying an unfair latent advantage (especially in a nation of "self-made" individualistic success), and (2) they get turned off by what they view as blacks/minorities already getting special treatment (welfare, immigration amnesty, affirmative action, political correctness, etc.) and wanting more. Of course the evidence suggests that such an attitude is misguided, and ignores the obvious facts that some minorities have worse outcomes for health/wealth/edu/incarceration/etc. vs. whites even when you control for other variables.

So "black lives matter" can be misinterpreted as "blacks are more important." Which is of course not the point of the moment, and not what the supporters believe. The whole genesis of the moment is the fact that blacks are treated as second-class (or worse) by many measures in the US, are fed up about it, and want to raise awareness. I don't think that is unreasonable. But then you get the white privilege backlash (no, only "we" are allowed to be special!), and they criticize the movement by saying "shouldn't all lives matter?" Yes, they should! But you're not doing it, and the victims are disproportionately the poor and darker skinned. So when those lives get equal respect (validated by actions and data), then the "black lives" folks will gladly disband I think.

I guess it is related to whites' "fear of blacks" again. Fear of them getting more power (even equal power is a threat), uprising, and taking over (hence no traction on slavery reparations). Obama in the WH was bad enough. Why can't they be meek and respectful like the Charleston blacks after the shooting? Well some civil rights folks have criticized the Charleston response as conditioned by decades of southern blacks' fixation with needing to please whites and be accepted by them (even though they never will).

But here is another example of the empathy deficit. Would the critics of "black lives matter" just quietly accept it when their communities get raw deal after raw deal (or unpunished murder after murder)? Of course not. Obama gets elected and you get the Tea Party movement (sure other factors contributed like the Recession, but you know what I mean). You get armed standoffs like with the supporters of Cliven Bundy in NV (but the white cops didn't send in storm troopers and tanks to break them up). So why is it OK for "marginalized" whites to stand up for their rights (even violently), but not OK when blacks do it - and do it mostly peacefully (and they have way more legit grievances to protest about)?

I guess even the ability to assemble and protest in America is not equally guaranteed and free of bias.

----

Maybe you heard that FNC wants BLM classified as a hate group (after a couple recent high-profile attacks on cops that may have been linked to anger over Ferguson/Baltimore/etc.). I know FNC doesn't speak for all of White America, and they are intentionally provocative, but their hostile overreaction to BLM kind of validates American bias and why BLM is actually needed. Good job, Fox.

https://www.facebook.com/HuffingtonPost/videos/10153332388156130/

Let's remember that demographically, it's highly likely that more cop killers are white than minority, and not motivated by politics (I couldn't find data on cop killers' races though). And statistically, being a cop in the US is still safer than the average job. Being a cop in the US is still safer than being a young black man in the US. At least a cop can fight back against attackers, wears Kevlar, and is backed by the law.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/10/the-counted-500-people-killed-by-police-2015

FBI Director Comey calls out systemic bias and data suppression in US law enforcement

http://www.thenation.com/blog/198009/fbi-director-police-violence-everyones-little-bit-racist

Resurfacing this thread again, after dozens more questionable police killings since Ferguson. FBI Director Comey recently called out the lack of police accountability in deadly force incidents, as well as the undeniable racial element in policing. That seems to be a big deal, and Obama/Holder have not been that explicit. Most high ranking police leaders have failed to acknowledge public concerns/anger over alleged misconduct, preferring to look foolish pretending that the boys in blue can do no wrong.

As D said earlier, it's unacceptable (and likely deliberate) that there is very little data on police killings - especially on a national level. That has to change - data access in the hands of capable, ethical people never hurt a society, but the lack of it has. Only people who stand to lose or get punished are opposing transparency. This isn't about censorship of controversial information, this is hard data - a set of facts and testimonials as the historical record (or the closest we can get to it). So anyone who claims to be on the side of right can't justifiably argue against the sharing of data to enable analysis and insights that will likely lead to improvements. And what do we have to lose - it can't get any worse, right? Anyone who has reasons to oppose access by other people evaluate his/her performance on the job probably shouldn't hold that job.

Comey also raised the issue that law enforcement policies and actions can result in unjust and racially biased outcomes, yet the agents of those policies and actions (the officers) may not actually be "racists with a capital R". Some of them clearly are, but for the majority of officers, I doubt that they would be classified as virulent racists (people who actually hate another group and work toward their marginalization/persecution). It's more like unconscious bias and heuristics. Officers assigned to at-risk neighborhoods may not have much sensitivity, context, and psychology training. Week-in, week-out they get dirty looks (or worse) from mostly minority residents. The suspects they interact with (and in some cases physically confront) are all "stereotypical" black and brown young men, possibly engaged in the stereotypical bad behaviors. After a while, even a non-racist will start to associate black/brown man with negativity/crime/violence/

danger/etc. What can be done about this? Maybe suspicion and the rules of engagement have to be based on objective, scientific signals - not necessarily appearance and circumstances. But most of the beat cops out there are not qualified to do this effectively, if it's even possible.