A Rhetorical Analysis Of Black Lives Matter (BLM)

1837 Words4 Pages

Black Lives Matter (BLM) was created by black organizers Alicia Garza, Petrissa Cullors and Opal Tometi. It is a black centered political will and movement that was in response to the acquittal of Trayvon Martins murderer, George Zimmerman. According to BlackLivesMatter.com, they organized and build local power to intervene in violence inflicted on Black Communities. It is an ideological and political intervention in a world when black lives are systematically and intentionally targeted for demise. BLM is an affirmation of black folks' humanity, our contribution to this society, and our resilience in the face of deadly oppression. They acknowledge, respect and celebrate differences and commonalities. They work for the freedom and justice for …show more content…

They aim to preserve “pure Americanism.” It has attacked Jews and Roman Catholics, along with immigrants and communists but is still primarily opposed to equal rights for black people and has often engaged in violence against them. Anyone who points to the rhetoric of Black Lives Matter as a root cause of violence doesn’t know anything about black history. In 1988, N.W.A released “Fuck tha Police” to protest police violence and racial profiling of the black community. The song, like hip-hop in general, and now Black Lives Matter, has often been blamed for the resentment black folks feel toward law enforcement. But this aggressive criticism of police, like the concerns voiced by Black Lives Matter, is a response to mistreatment at the hands of police officers. And it’s that mistreatment, not rhetoric, that continues to fuel this resentment according to www.huffingtonpost.com …show more content…

Saying “All Lives Matter” in response would suggest to them that all people are in equal danger, invalidating the specific concerns of black people. “You’re watering the house that’s not burning, but you’re choosing to leave the house that’s burning unattended,” said Allen Kwabena Frimpong, an organizer for the New York chapter of Black Lives Matter. “It’s irresponsible.” It’s not that what they’re saying isn’t true. It’s just that it’s unhelpful. It’s an attempt to erase an actual crisis under the guise of being fair. And by continuing to use “All Lives Matter” to drown out the cry of “Black Lives Matter,” the real problems the movement is trying to address are being ignored. It’s almost as if we lived in two different worlds. That’s where things appeared to be headed in 1968, when the Kerner Commission report on civil disorders in America cryptically concluded that the nation was “moving toward two societies, one black, one white—separate and unequal.” If All Lives Matter, why is the black community continually asked to justify its anger and grief? If All Lives Matter, why does the court system continue to put the victims of racial discrimination and police brutality on trial, rather than punishing their assailants? If All Lives Matter, why do our fellow Americans continually challenge African-Americans to justify our pain instead of empathizing with

Open Document