Is a movement defined by what it responds to, or how it responds?
by Mauve Maude
July 13, 2021
Imagine, if you would . . .
On a weekend visit to his father’s house, a teenager walks to the corner store, for a drink and a snack. On his way back, he talks to a girl on his cell phone, and he takes a shortcut to his father’s behind a row of townhouses. He’s then accosted by a grown man with a gun, who is not a law enforcement officer. A struggle ensues. The teenager is shot dead. The gunman says the deceased teenager attacked him, and he’s acquitted.
A couple years later, a twelve-year-old in an open-carry state plays with a toy gun in a city park. Somebody calls 911 to report him, admitting he may be a child, and it may be a toy. The police arrive. The twelve-year-old is shot dead within two seconds. No one is charged.
A year after that, another teenager is stopped by a police officer while walking down the street in Ferguson, Missouri . . .
It’s not hard to imagine, because for nearly ten years now, America has heard, story after story, stories like these.
But now imagine this:
After the deaths of Trayvon Martin, Tamir Rice, and Michael Brown, a group of American activists form an organization to address the deaths of unarmed people, at the hands of police officers and others who act as citizen enforcers. And they call it: All Lives Matter.
Their aim? To draw attention to these deaths and hold responsible parties accountable, for their actions that have resulted in the deaths of unarmed people, many of whom weren’t doing anything but minding their own business (this story was also in an open-carry state, the same one in fact). Why are they doing this? Because All Lives Matter. So no child should be shot playing with a pellet gun at a rec center. Neighborhood patrolmen shouldn’t be chasing down teenagers (against the advice of 911 operators), shooting them, and walking away. Police officers shouldn’t be shooting (or asphyxiating) unarmed citizens in the street (or in their homes) and asking questions later. Because All Lives Matter, we as a country can not continue letting this happen. Can we?
Unfortunately, we have.
In regard to police shootings in the United States, the annual number of officer-involved shooting deaths has remained pretty constantly around a thousand, for the last several years. That’s All officer-involved shooting deaths. So if All Lives Matter–our imaginary organization fighting for accountability for the deaths of unarmed Americans–if they wanted to call attention to the number of people who are shot by police each year, that would be it. And obviously, that’s a thousand different cases, a thousand different stories, a thousand different officers–a thousand unique situations in which the deceased may or may not have actually threatened an officer’s life. Police officers do have, potentially, a very dangerous job, especially considering just how well-armed the American public is. Many officers span their entire careers never pulling their guns. But with the others, it’s tricky at best to say what someone should have done when you weren’t there. However, if unarmed citizens are dying when they weren’t really a threat to an officer’s life (or anyone else’s), and few officers are seeing any significant consequences, that would indicate that some lives don’t matter, because an officer’s is deemed more important in that scenario. All Lives Matter would say, on the contrary, they do. What can we do to stop this from happening?
And in a truly colorblind America, that would be All Lives Matter’s relatively uncomplicated mission.
Because All Lives Matter, we as a country can not continue letting this happen. Can we?
Unfortunately, some Americans have complained, for quite a few years now, that the police interactions they’re observing in their own communities, aren’t quite matching the interactions they’ve observed in other communities–for example maybe, the ones they work or go to school in, but don’t live in. Or, they do live and work in communities where not a lot of people look like them, and they’ve observed different police interactions between themselves and their neighbors. Not All Americans are making note of these disparities, but many are. So because All Lives Matter, it’s worth looking into: are some people being treated differently by the police, who are there to serve and protect us All? This is, perhaps, something All Lives Matter might be interested in, as it might help them solve the problem they’re trying to solve.
What would they find?
They would find that of the one thousand people killed by police every year, they are overwhelmingly male (95%). Considering males and females are represented pretty evenly in our population, that’s unsettling. They are also mostly between the ages of twenty and forty. Roughly half of All those killed are White. That sounds alarming, but mathematically, it makes sense, because White people make up more than half of the United States population, about sixty percent of All of us. (White Americans are also issued more food benefits, for example, just because they’re in the majority. It follows.) Naturally, about half of White Americans are male, so that would mean about 30% of America’s population are in the pool for those 50% of (All) police-shooting deaths. If the numbers followed that path, remaining in proportion, Black Americans would make for about 10% of All those lost, because Black Americans make up about 12-13% of the population. Hispanic Americans would make up another 10% (give or take) of our police shooting deaths.
But that’s not what the numbers are showing us. The actual trend is, that for every two White (let’s say men because they are mostly) men who are shot and killed by police each year, a Black man and an Hispanic man are also shot and killed. Like White men make up about half of the White population, Black men should naturally make up about half of the Black population. So Black men, roughly 6-7% of our whole population, are actually falling into at least 25% of shooting deaths involving police officers. Hispanic men, who make up roughly the same percentage of the population, are accounting for about 19% of those deaths. All others account for the remaining six percent of those shootings.
Those concerned Americans might be onto something. If we were colorblind, we would never have noticed it. Then again, if we were colorblind, would it be happening in the first place?
Black men, roughly 6-7% of our whole population, are falling into at least 25% of shooting deaths involving police officers. Hispanic men . . . 19% of those deaths.
Naturally, All Lives Matter would be on this. Because if All Lives Matter, and if race does not, how can Black and Hispanic Americans be enduring police shootings at twice the rate of White Americans?
A couple realities go into answering that question. First of all, regarding the mission of our activist organization, All Lives Matter, fighting to absolve All the deaths of unarmed Americans at the hands of police or police wannabes: these numbers don’t represent Americans shot by police unarmed. The thousand stories of each yearly death will include perpetrators who legitimately, without a doubt, endangered the lives of police officers. Although the perpetrators’ lives mattered too, police officers and civilians alike do have the right to use firearms to protect themselves in this country. We’re not entitled to protecting ourselves without scrutiny, but we do have the right. Also, this racial disparity hardly indicates that all individual police officers are most likely racists. That, in turn, makes it unfair and unjustified to wave an arm over every police officer in the country and accuse them of being a singular racist body.
One could say that Black and Hispanic men are more likely to be shot by police because they’re more likely to live in low-income, high-crime areas, where the police are most active, trying to fulfill the purpose of their jobs. And that’s true. “Low-income” and “high-crime” tend to go together, because most street crime is committed by people who lack resources and opportunity (whereas, most white collar crime is committed by people who lack neither). Native Americans are actually shot by police at three times the rate of White Americans, considering they make up less than 3% of the U.S. population, and they live in some of the poorest communities in the country. However, it would serve us All to ask why low income areas in America are so heavily populated by Black, Hispanic, and Native people. Why are Black, Hispanic, and Native people more likely to live in these areas? Are they just inherently worse people getting what they deserve, what they earned? I can’t imagine All Lives Matter would think so, as the name of their organization implies otherwise. (And that’s textbook racism, by the way. And ALM is not a racist organization.)
If that assertion isn’t true, then by definition, outside forces must be at work. And yes, we actually do have quite a lot of history with which to explain it. It doesn’t make up the totality of any one individual’s story, but its significance is hard to ignore. And again, Not All Americans have made these complaints. But many have. They would be the best ones to ask about the situation.
But back to ALM and their mission. The name All Lives Matter implies a lot. Advocating for literally All Lives that end in anything but the most natural, free-flowing ways, is a task so gargantuan it’s essentially hopeless. Lives are cut short in an endless number of ways and situations, every second of the day. It could be any one of us in any instant. So we can see why ALM is narrowing it down to these specific instances–just like some specifically advocate for, say, cancer victims, death row inmates, or unborn children. Those groups wouldn’t say those are the only lives they care about, would they? Neither would ALM.
So knowing that, how many of these annual thousand dead were unarmed?
Without a Weapon
The data says, overwhelmingly, that most suspects shot by police do possess some kind of weapon. The Washington Post database referenced above (and here) tells us six percent of American police shooting deaths are of unarmed civilians. Of 6,380 people reported shot and killed by police, between 2015 and press time, just over four hundred of them were unarmed. These are the people ALM are here for. Of these victims, 93% were male. 41% (172) were White. 33% (137) were Black, and 19% (77) were Hispanic. Five percent were of other races. Seven individuals were reported as race unknown.
So the rate of White American men being shot unarmed as opposed to armed, went down nine percentage points. The rate of Hispanic men being shot unarmed as opposed to armed, stayed the same. The rate of Black American men being shot unarmed as opposed to armed? Up eight points. Others, down one point.
Some other facts to consider: Eighty-one of these 412 individuals were known to be mentally ill or suffering some kind of breakdown. In the majority of all of these cases (52%), the victims were not fleeing. (This recent case of a South African rugby player killed in Hawaii falls into both of those categories.) Ninety were fleeing on foot. Seventy-seven were fleeing in cars. Eighty-two of these shootings were recorded on body cameras. That’s only 19% of them, so an overwhelming number of the shooting deaths of unarmed citizens are not recorded (Breonna Taylor was one. Her boyfriend was legally armed. He also survived). Delaware, Rhode Island, and Montana are the only states where no one has been shot by police unarmed in the last six years.
The rate of Black American men being shot unarmed as opposed to armed? Up eight points.
These 412 stories from the last several years, are the ones our fictional ALM would delve into. These are the people whose specific lives they would call attention to. Why? Because these lives matter more than others? No. Just because All Lives Matter, period. It’s in the name. Simple as that.
The Big But . . .
All Lives Matter sounds like an organization most of us would get behind. But unfortunately, All Lives Matter is not an organization that came forward at any time to defend all lives, or even all lives lost to police shootings of unarmed Americans, regardless of race. “All Lives Matter” is a refrain we’ve all heard repeatedly over the last few years. But it’s a refrain we only heard in reaction to an organization called Black Lives Matter, which was started in order to call attention to the disproportionate number of Black and brown Americans (illustrated above) being shot, or otherwise fatally harmed, by the police (or neighborhood watchmen), and dying unarmed, many times not even engaged in crime, the thing police are here to stop. That disproportion Americans have been complaining about, continues to occur as if some lives don’t matter. “Black Lives Matter” means “Oh, yes, they do, and we’re here to remind you.” It means “Black Lives Matter Too, so stop treating them like they don’t”. It’s shameful to have to bring it up, but here we are.
The very premise of the real “All Lives Matter” is that when people say “Black Lives Matter”, they’re saying only Black lives matter. Many have declared the statement, and hence the organization, to be racist, and it would be if that was indeed what people were saying. But it’s not. The “only” part gets inserted, mentally, when people get scared, when people feel threatened. And people get scared and feel threatened by a lot of things having to do with suppression, of women and minorities–whether that be racial minorities, or minorities of any other kind. More accurately, they get scared and feel threatened by women and minorities breaking out of that suppression, because deep down they’re afraid they’ve got some kind of vengeance coming to them, some kind of violent retribution, some kind of reversal. It’s difficult for people that severely frightened to imagine, that not everybody thinks or lives in that way, that people just want to be allowed to live their lives, that they don’t wish to conquer them.
They see other people having the very rights they themselves enjoy, as some form of “special” treatment. It seems there’s no real such thing as people living on the same level. If other people are allowed to enjoy the same rights and privileges, then that must mean they’ve somehow gotten over on them. Because, seemingly, the only way they can enjoy them is if other people are held down and kept away. And if other people aren’t being held down and kept away, then they feel that they are.
It’s not new. Americans have a long history of this, one we’re still working out–a history of all kinds of people trying to assimilate into a culture that doesn’t really want them to do so, and doesn’t wish to assimilate back either. A history in which people who’ve broken their backs for our country go without reward (punished actually) and instead are told to “work harder”, “say thank you”, and “stop isolating yourselves” while they’re pushed away from the prize, usually while they’re pushing hard right back. A history in which history itself is denied, ignored, and stifled, to better its own image. A gaslighted history in which some, if they believed what they were told, would believe their lives don’t matter.
But instead, they stand up and say, “Yes, they do.” And around we go.
Move
I was reminded recently that the name George Floyd makes people very angry. On a particular post on The Mauve Report’s Facebook page, I was forced to delete comments by people who definitely did not believe All Lives Matter, as they openly advocated for White supremacy, and murder without trial for (All?) people with criminal records.
It wasn’t surprising. Our country got quite angry about George Floyd just over a year ago. And that’s what I was in the midst of recalling–the fever pitch of protest (and counter-protest) Americans were moved to after they lost their tolerance, in which you eventually heard just two basic statements. “Black Lives Matter”, and “All Lives Matter.”
Outside of the social media “slacktivism” on both sides, here’s what we saw:
The ALM crowd started out by assuming the BLM crowd was pushing Black Supremacy, to which they reacted by objecting and not backing down on their objections. The BLM crowd then began to assume that the ALM crowd were all racists. One assumption came from fear. The other assumption came from exhaustion.
And on the streets of America, they met, the scared and the tired. BLM’s street protests (especially those that went into the night) attracted a less peaceful contingent, and things got violent (as has happened in our country’s history many, many times before). Some may have just wanted to grab the opportunity to steal and mess stuff up. Others may have just been outraged beyond their capacity to protest peacefully. Maybe some mixes of the two. This made the ALM crowd even madder, although some presumably on their side got involved in starting riots specifically so BLM could take the blame, or packed up their guns and crossed into entirely different states to participate. Then protests peaceful and non-peaceful began to see counter-protests, with the ALM crowd (and the White supremacists who even more strongly objected to the idea of Black supremacy) running downtown on weekends to fight their battles with those on the “other side”–plus, for extra flavor, anarchists who probably could’ve been on either side if it meant fighting and messing stuff up. Again, some just grabbed that opportunity. Others were just outraged, possibly without having made any public attempts to protest peacefully (but then, what was there really to protest?). By the time the election came along, the country seemed to be pretty well split, with BLM on one side, and ALM on the other. And after the election went in the perceived direction of the BLM side, with accusations of a stolen election that preceded the election itself by several months, the ALM crowd responded with their own nationally-planned riot, saying if you can support theirs, you can support ours. Now one side is still scared, and the other side is still tired, and neither side seems to want to help out the other. (Though I’d venture to say one side already has, without being asked, and they haven’t been told “Thank you” either.)
The year 2020 will prove to be quite an historical one, but its effects will take years of more history unfolding. These movements will have to take their place beside the older ones of our past. One responded to a very specific American issue, in a number of very specific ways–before an American was choked to death in front of the entire country, and after, when more Americans fell in behind it. One leader even won a race to Congress. The other movement, beaten to the punch, was left to respond to the response.
Can we just imagine what would be different, if that movement had responded to the original problem? For now, I suppose, that’s all we can do. Other than respond ourselves.
This article will be followed with a second part, reflecting on Critical Race Theory.