This is not a statement of fact, that Black Lives Don’t Matter – rather, it’s a complaint in The Guardian that apparently they don’t because we’re not doing what is demanded.
But then it’s possible to disagree with the demands while still agreeing with the base contention, that lives, regardless of melanin content, do matter. Well, it’s logically possible to do so even if there’s a risk of the mob shouting you down when you try.
So, here’s Nesrine Malik:
It seems black lives don’t matter quite so much, now that we’ve got to the hard bit
Hard might not be quite the right word there. Wrong could be closer to the mark.
It didn’t take long. The wheels of the Black Lives Matter movement are already starting to get stuck in the mire of doubt and suspicion. A few short weeks ago, politicians were eager to be photographed taking the knee in solidarity with the movement; now they’re desperate to distance themselves from what the movement demands – such as moving funds away from policing and into mental health services and youth work to prevent crime occurring in the first place. After a respectful period during which it would have been tone deaf to object to public support of the cause of the day, the BBC banned its hosts and presenters from wearing Black Lives Matter badges because it is seen as an expression of some sort of “political” opinion.
That last seems sensible because it now has become a political proposition. The claim that Black Lives Matter is simply an insistence on the common humanity that flows across melanin contents. OK, no argument with that. But the insistence on defunding the police, that’s a political, not civil liberty, claim.
It’s also an incorrect one.
Changing the subject in order to explore the underlying logic. Take climate change as an example. It’s entirely possible to agree that something should be done and yet also not to agree with – just imagine – Extinction Rebellion on what ought to be done. I, for example, run with the idea that we should do what the Stern Review tells us, have a carbon tax, not St Greta and the hordes insisting that we disassemble industrial civilisation.
No, it is not true that disagreeing on the solution means disagreement on the need for one.
Or, to make it simpler, dessert. That it is necessary is agreed but my insistence upon Marmite and chocolate ice cream in competition with your apple pie does not mean that I deny the necessity of dessert. I just disagree on what the actual solution for that dessert shaped hollow in our diet is.
It’sd entirely possible to believe that first statement- BLM, without agreeing that defunding the police is the answer.
And now to why it’s wrong specifically. This is to make the Soviet mistake. They designed, according to all the science, this grand new economic system. Super. Then they insisted that they’d have to wait for New Soviet Man to turn up to make it work. Hmm, bit of a problem there of course. Systems for humans work better when designed for the humans we have.
One part of all of this was that crime would fall away, would cease to exist, once social justice had been achieved. For, obviously, crime was only caused by social injustice. This turned out not to be true and not just because it was made a crime not to believe in the plan for social justice. Rather, humans just don’t work like that. Sure, some crime is caused by that structure of society but not all. Therefore however desirably wondrous we make society we’re not going to do away with the crime.
Which is the mistake being made here, isn’t it? That more social workers will eliminate crime….