Hey, there! Log in / Register
Restoring a message in Jamaica Plain
By adamg on Fri, 02/12/2016 - 8:35am
Katie Ernst watched kids putting up new fliers over the vandalized part of a Black Lives Matter sign at Hope Central Church on Seaverns Avenue in Jamaica Plain yesterday.
Neighborhoods:
Topics:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Hooray!
Really nice to see people reacting to bigotry with this kind of aplomb. Turns out the kids are all right after all. (And maybe whoever did this can take a moment to contemplate the fact that the children they targeted with vandalism this are the ones reacting like adults)
Erik,
I'm sure it was adults who got those kids to restore the sign. I'm sure it was an adult who took the pic and posted it, too.
Anon,
I'm sure you don't have kids. I'm sure you don't realize they can come up with these ideas themselves.
I do have kids,
And I'm still almost positive it was an adult(s) who had them do this, and was there ready to take and post a pic. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
"almost..."
...means you don't know.
Who cares?
Does it matter if kids did it on their own or if adults suggested they do it? Why?
"Bigotry"
Throwing around words like "bigotry" cheapens their meaning, which doesn't do anyone any good. This wasn't a per se bigoted act. Saying all lives matter isn't bigoted.
Nope
Saying all lives matter isn't bigotry, but defacing a sign the purpose of which is to bring awareness of the fact that black people are treated poorly in this country is, at best, horribly ignorant, and very arguably bigotry. if black people want to bring attention to the fact that they are disproportionately mistreated by law enforcement they have that right, and defacing the sign is no different than telling them that they are just making all that up, which is factually incorrect.
in this case it is.
because statistics show that not all lives matter.
certain lives matter than more right now and until that changes....#BLACKLIVESMATTER
Do they?
There's a whole lot of lives taken in Dot, Roxbury and Mattapan pretty much on a weekly basis, but none of them ever get any attention. Does a life need to be taken under a very specific set of circumstances in order for it to matter?
Just because you have your hands over your ears
Doesn't mean it's not happening. Cut the crap and admit you don't give a shit what happens in the black community, because if you did, you'd know there are any number of efforts in Boston neighborhoods affected by violence. And if you really cared, you'd volunteer for them. But you don't really care, and you're not volunteering for them.
Right
I'm sure there's nonstop 24/7 CNN coverage every time someone gets shot in Dot, just like when a criminal gets shot by a cop and the professional grievance team shows up en masse, but I just don't see it because I always have hands over my eyes.
There isn't
The fact that you feel compelled to complain about a network that doesn't cover Boston anyway shows you really just want to complain, not actually find out for yourself (would you complain that CNN doesn't cover development in West Roxbury?) In the past, I've pointed people like you to specific resources, but what's the point?
lucille-bluth-eyeroll.gif
Yeah, that wall-to-wall CNN coverage sure is a pain for police officers who do things like open fire on prone unarmed suspects while video is rolling. Or, rather, it sure has been a pain for the last ~3 years, ever since it stopped being routinely swept under the rug whenever the victim wasn't white and middle class. Meanwhile, we don't hear a word spoken every time the opposite happens and a police officer is shot in the line of duty. Certainly this blog right here doesn't even acknowledge it.
Since portable video recording devices fell into the hands of most of the country, three things have happened. Aliens have stopped visiting, Bigfoot sightings have stopped, and the police have started shooting minorities at an alarming rate. Funny, that.
Your premise is wrong
People do pay attention to the lives that are taken in Dot, Roxbury, and Mattapan. The problem is with people who don't care enough to notice, and assume that because its not on their radar it must not be on anyone else's.
Erasing a message that is
Erasing a message that is obviously meant to declare that black lives matter just as much as other lives is bigoted. I posted this yesterday and I wish you would take the time to think about it.
http://chainsawsuit.com/tag/all-lives-matter/
Even better, from a reddit user:
"Imagine that you're sitting down to dinner with your family, and while everyone else gets a serving of the meal, you don't get any. So you say, "I should get my fair share." And as a direct response to this, your dad corrects you, saying, "Everyone should get their fair share." Now, that's a wonderful sentiment — Indeed, everyone should, and that was kinda your point in the first place: that you should be a part of everyone, and you should get your fair share also. However, dad's smart-ass comment just dismissed you and didn't solve the problem that you still haven't gotten any! The problem is that the statement "I should get my fair share" had an implicit "too" at the end: "I should get my fair share, too, just like everyone else." But your dad's response treated your statement as though you meant "only I should get my fair share," which clearly was not your intention. As a result, his statement that "everyone should get their fair share," while true, only served to ignore the problem you were trying to point out. Just like asking dad for your fair share, the phrase "black lives matter" also has an implicit "too" at the end: It's saying that black lives should also matter. But responding to this by saying "all lives matter" is willfully going back to ignoring the problem. It's a way of dismissing the statement by falsely suggesting that it means "only black lives matter," when that is obviously not the case. And so saying "all lives matter" as a direct response to "black lives matter" is essentially saying that we should just go back to ignoring the problem."
Or, more succinctly
Or, more succinctly (and from the same source!):
Interesting take, Lunchie..
So what you are saying is that those who use the word "bigotry" to describe an act which is evidence of bigotry is somehow inappropriate (or, as you say, cheapens the meaning of bigotry)? Tell me then. When would you use the word "bigot" and for what action(s)?
The word was not "thrown around"; it is being appropriately used to describe the defacing of a Black Lives Matter sign by removing the word "black".
And the words "all lives matter" are indeed a bigoted phrase (as I referred to in my post of yesterday regarding the same topic).
It's really pretty sad that kids at such a young age
Are given the message that their lives matter less than that of police officers. Add another line to the list of white privileges. Whit children never have to say their lives matter and black kids need to say it over and over again.
Really?
No white faces among the poor/homeless/disenfranchised? When did that happen?
Police violence affects everyone.
About one in three people killed by police each year are black. Yes, that's waaay higher than their representation in the general population, and points to underlying racial prejudice that needs to be addressed. But in terms of raw numbers, many more non-blacks are killed each year by police.
To put it another way - last year, about one out of every thousand police officers killed a suspect (which is just an insane rate). Most of them killed a white male.
Race is definitely a big risk factor wrt "fatal injury by legal intervention", but there are even greater correlations with geographical location and poverty. The rate of such deaths in western states is many times that of the east coast - #1 New Mexico's, at about 4 per 1 million residents, is ten times that of Massachusetts (the second lowest, btw).
And just as disturbing, about 9 out of every 10 fatal police shootings occurs in a community with per capita income below its state average.
People who deface BLM banners are morons at best, and racists most likely. But it's unfortunate that the 'Black Lives Matter' slogan, no matter how sincerely and legitimately it was concieved, frames the conversation in the same 'us-vs-them' rhetoric that is at the heart of our culture's racial problems.
Ask yourself - would you be ok with the stupendously high rate of police shootings, if only the percentages more closely reflected the racial makeup of the country?
But wait....
This statistic, if true, would have a correlation with how many blacks have interactions with police, whether those interactions are self initiated, whether those interactions involve violence or law breaking, etc, etc.
Now if that underlying racial prejudice you want address is poverty, (which you pretty much mention yourself is a problem, if not the biggest problem), the movement might produce better results if they focused more on poverty than police brutality (or police killings), especially when stats are used without context.
How many police lives matter banners have been defaced?
How many police lives matter banners have been defaced, I havent heard about any being defaced, the one I pass on my commute in Medford is fine. Do the people who keep defacing the black lives matter banners think only police lives matter? Why not deface those too? I have seen several police lives matters bumper stickers untouched as well.
Breathlessly unstatistical
Have there been a lot more local incidents than the two that have made the news? Because it seems a bit hyperbolic to make it sound like a trend by "people who keep defacing the black lives matter banners" - if it's been just a few idiots ruining two signs, out of a population of hundreds of thousands/millions.
There's a lot more political lawn signs that get trashed each election cycle than that.
It sucks but it hardly seems like the presaging of a coming race war.
to the people that pretend theres not a big racial issue
every article that has a racial component, or possibility of a racial component to it gets a tremendous amount of comments here
but yea obvs everything is smooth sailin
Do they tell the kids 90% of blacks are killed by other blacks?
Do they tell the kids 90% of blacks are killed by other blacks? Or do they just tell them to be afraid of the police who are involved in less than 1% of black deaths, almost all justified?
Do they tell cops
That most deaths on duty are due to car accidents? That many cops who die from gunshots are suicides? That "police officer" doesn't even make the top ten most dangerous jobs in any given year?
Cops know that cars are more dangerous than black people.....
Or white people. What's the point of that swirly?
Now, black cars...
fuhgeddaboutit
Adam
Why do you let this poster continue to spew made up numbers from hate group sites and shear racism all over this site?
Mr. Stormfront here needs to knock it off.