bbauska wrote:Just because I say ALL lives matter, it does not mean Black lives don't. (See what I did there?)

Brad's wife: "Brad, darling, do you love me?"

Brad: "Honey, you know I'm a Christian, which means I love everyone, so of course I love you."

LMK how that goes over. :-P

Well, the request was not just based on race but that black people in general had been affected by George Floyd and the resulting protests and that this justified treating them differently. A reference to the legal requirement that students be treated equally without regard to race, gender religion, sexual orientation, etc and that this standard required him to only consider claims for special accomodation based on an individualized basis would have been fine.

His response was mocking and also reflected an underlying politicial viewpoint. It's the sort of supposed cleverness I might have have written when I was 18 or 19. To come from a 60+ UCLA professor with 39 years of teaching...is embarrassing for him and the school. My school!

Freeman, I know it is your school.

George, I would expect that from someone else, not you.

geojanes wrote:

bbauska wrote:Just because I say ALL lives matter, it does not mean Black lives don't. (See what I did there?)

Brad's wife: "Brad, darling, do you love me?"

Brad: "Honey, you know I'm a Christian, which means I love everyone, so of course I love you."

LMK how that goes over. :-P

She smiled and gave me a nice hug.

Then she elaborated her feelings. "You are correct, in the non-romantic way. You do love everyone equally with the same love as Jesus Christ. That is what we are called to do." she said. I agree with my wife. Romantically, she is different to me than the rest of the world.

I hope that helps you understand our relationship with each other and with our Lord, George.

Well, that was sweet. Sincerely.

Back to the topic at hand...George Floyd's brother referred to his brothe's death as being a lynching
Of course that's not literally true. But I do think that one of the purposes of a lynching was to signal something to the black population about what they were permitted to do. It was an expression of power by the white community over the black community.

One of the effects of Trump being elected I think was that there has been an attempt by white supremacists to normalize racist conduct. I dont know what was in the mind of that officer but it was a public expression of power, heedless of the protest of on-lookers. The Arbery killing also hearkened back to an earlier time when whites could use violence against blacks they believe had misbehaved with impunity.

Fortunately, those attempts to normalize racist conduct against black people...have failed utterly because large swaths of the public have rejected such conduct. Wouldnt it be ironic if a racist president...helped cause reforms that helped black lives that never would have happened under Obama?

I just saw that a dictionary was going to change its definition of racism to include systemic racism (apparently at least in part due to the efforts of a black college student.)

I recall the argument I had with an acquaintance probably 10 years ago. He contended that minorities could not be racist because they did not have power. And I said of course they could be racist. But ultimately it was a matter of semantics. Of course I would admit that the impact of white person who is prejudiced is likely greater because they can on average more easily tap into society's power structure. Like the Central Park woman who called the police on the black bird watcher.

And of course more and more minorities and women are reaching positions of power. But structures are not so easily changed. The Minneapolis police chief is black...but that didnt prevent what happened.

I guess I disagree that it is an expression of the white community over the black community. This jerk of a police officer (AKA murderer) does not speak for me in the least. Last I checked, I am part of the white community.

More importantly, I am part of American community. Chauvin did something wrong, and needs to answer for it. These looters/arsonist/murderers need to answer for their actions. If it is wrong for one person to do it, then it is wrong for all to do it.

We should be judged by our actions, not what color we are.

Freeman, my eldest son is black. I see him as my son, not a black man. The rest of my kids are white. I see them as my sons and daughter, not as white people.

If that paints me as a racist because I see people individually, and not a certain color; then I guess we just don't agree.

bbauska wrote:She smiled and gave me a nice hug.

You got a keeper.

geojanes wrote:

bbauska wrote:She smiled and gave me a nice hug.

You got a keeper.

Yes I do. 35 years strong!

LIke many slogans, Black Lives Matter falls short of perfectly conveying its intended message.

What it tries to convey is that Blacks are in greater jeopardy than whites when they encounter police.
And that police routinely treat Blacks disrespectfully, with unjustified violence expecting that they have impunity.

The counter phrase "All Lives Matter" ignores the intended message and purposefully ignores the reality that neutral facts, and mountains of anecdotal evidence support the notion that the intended message is accurate.

The obvious retort is "Yes, all lives matter. But all lives are not in equal jeopardy".

rickyp wrote:LIke many slogans, Black Lives Matter falls short of perfectly conveying its intended message.

What it tries to convey is that Blacks are in greater jeopardy than whites when they encounter police.
And that police routinely treat Blacks disrespectfully, with unjustified violence expecting that they have impunity.

The counter phrase "All Lives Matter" ignores the intended message and purposefully ignores the reality that neutral facts, and mountains of anecdotal evidence support the notion that the intended message is accurate.

The obvious retort is "Yes, all lives matter. But all lives are not in equal jeopardy".

Well done, RickyP! I agree! Perhaps the intended message should be re-packaged to better reflect the "intended message".

That being said, Black lives DO matter.

My clearly stated message as retort does not need re-packaging, as it IS clear.

bbauska

My clearly stated message as retort does not need re-packaging, as it IS clear.

Does it? As a retort does it acknowledge that Black's are at greater jeopardy when encountering police?
Does it acknowledge that the US justice system is systemically biased against blacks? Or that society has never really made up for the historical injustices dealt those with a black appearance?

As a retort its just a rhetorical jab intended to blunt the impact of BLM. Lately, as BLM seems to have gained acceptance and support by an increasing majority, its really just become an identifier for people who refuse to acknowledge the underlying truth of the BLM message.

My position is clearly stated. Refusing to accept the statement tha All Lives Matter, but expecting total acceptance of the BLM viewpoints without anything but blind total capitulation to the extremist views or a label of racist is applied is one sided.

I do think Black Lives Matter.

Do you think All Lives Matter?

Take my words at face value, and do not believe it some secret white supremacist dog whistle.

A comprehensive listing of studies demonstrating bias against blacks in the criminal justice systrm...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics ... ce-system/

All lives matters...but in our criminal justice system...black lives have not mattered as much. Maybe the phrase should be black lives matter as much as white ones. But then that is not as catchy a phrase....