The current, heated debate generated by the “Black lives matter” movement has produced some interesting and important discussion. The trouble is that, as with all passionate debates, they are often not examined in the heat of the moment. Recently I came across the following passage (attributed to Doug Williford) that illustrates the need for careful thought as well as passion.
“If my spouse comes to me in obvious pain and asks, “Do you love me?”, an answer of, “I love everyone “ would be truthful, but also hurtful and cruel in the moment. So when a friend speaks up in obvious pain and hurt and says “Black lives matter”, a response of, “All lives matter” is truthful. But it’s hurtful and cruel in the moment.”
Now this struck me at first as a very appropriate response in the circumstances, but something niggled at the back of my mind, intimating that something was wrong with it. It is the kind of riposte to criticism to which one immediately responds, “Hey! I wish I had thought of that!” Although it is a brilliant debating point it is, nevertheless, a poor argument.
It is not appropriate to take “I love everyone” as the equivalent of “All lives matter.” When I say to my wife, “I love you”, this translates pretty well as, “You are uniquely significant and valuable to me”. It would, of course, be a contradiction in terms to say that everybody is “uniquely significant and valuable to me”, and somebody who says that they love everybody might be regarded as merely gushingly sentimental.
In this case “matter” is not the equivalent of “love”. The problem with responding to “Black lives matter” with “All lives matter” is that it fails to consider the context in which the statement is made. In this case that context is the long history during which events have appeared to support the belief that black lives do not matter. Williford is right in the sense that in the present context the response “All lives matter” might indeed be hurtful and cruel, but his treatment of “love” and “matter” as equivalents runs the risk of undermining his case because it is a weak argument.
If we change the context, then the statement that “All lives matter” might be appropriate. If I am up in front of a military appeal board as a conscientious objector to war, then a part of my case for refusing military service might indeed be the affirmation that “All lives matter”. During the current Covid-19 epidemic I have heard the cynical suggestion that the relatively high rate of mortality in care homes is not to be taken as too seriously as a problem. After all, the quality of life of these people is pretty limited, and they are going to die shortly anyway. To that abhorrent view it is would be thoroughly appropriate to reply that “All lives matter”.
The “Black lives matter” movement is timely and its title makes a powerful and entirely valid point. A proper address to the issues they raise is long overdue. It is important, however, not to limit the effectiveness of their case with superficial but weak arguments.