There is nothing wrong with standing up for a cause. However, a good cause has a defined intention, and better yet a noble method and worthy goal. We can all try to outlaw lawnmowers by yelling at cats, but although the intention is defined, the goal is lofty and the method frankly stupid. People should feel empowered and listened to. The problem with the modern revolution (the way I see it) is that there is a decentralized narrative (Besides BLM) and an ineffective vehicle for facilitating a unified front. With the oversaturation of people on social media, dreams are not being granted everyday, and those that are actualized are just becoming a drop in the sea of narcissism painted with genuine philanthropic initiatives. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. I don’t think there is anything wrong with standing unified with an “organized” cause, but I really think the reactions/methods behind it are…pedantic and futile. The real movers and shakers are not concerned with political correctness from angsty privileged teenagers trying to out-anti-racist each other but instead a solid (or flawed) narrative that begs questions. A narrative that actually mobilizes structural corruption. One that demands answers from people in power instead of sarcastic ambivalence towards millions of people who lose all their credibility when they become violent. A protest can have a hundred different viewpoints of each protester, that is why Black Lives Matter is the only political movement that has any sustenance, because IT HAS ONE MESSAGE. The lives of black people are not valued in the judicial system. Sadly, Republican news organizations have argued that, because of the riots, BLM is a militarized anti-establishment organization that should be recognized as a threat. HO HO HEY HEY POLICE ARE NOT THE WAY, does very little compared to the activist/lawyer who writes 500 pages on policy reform, that, although flawed, gets the ball moving. It is a perfect example of the pen is mightier than the sword. Brain instead of brawn. Throwing money at hundreds of different organizations will not solve one issue. Protests are a stagnant form of revolution. Riots are just one step further in that same direction, creating another problem instead of solving the initial issue. Anger looses credibility. I’m not saying that African Americans (the race that has resulted in the initial spark for equality through murder) don’t have a right to be angry. But it is like breaking the law to recognize it. We have to be better than what they expect of us. I also don’t think that BLM could be sustainable with only African Americans. It is a group effort that requires everybody to engage in hopefully a more effective change than looting, spiting on SWAT, and disagreeing with every Trump supporter. We are just as responsible for the capacity for change as those who refuse to accept it. It is best to create an argument so rational, so infallibly correct (not any political agenda, but basic human rights), that there can’t be an argument against it. For some reason, I just believe wars are a waste of human potential, and the way that our country fundamentally disagrees on social issues, it may be that we are heading for a civil militant conflict. Trump already brought out the national guard against civilians. NORMAL PEOPLE who, though their methods may be less effective than they think, are being silenced through violence. Violence vs. Violence = no solution = misdirecting of narrative=more deaths. There are physical, social, economic disparities that I believe need to be addressed, but the problems will be alleviated by hundreds of people at a non-profit, case managers, housing experts, social workers, lawyers, and yes, police officers, that will shepard an afflicted individual out of crime and poverty. I am all for police reform, but I think a stronger training program, higher respect for the profession may stop the issue just as well. Hating the police, inciting violence is not going to stop one more black teenager from being killed. I remember in high school debating whether or not I wanted to be a lawyer or a cop because I wanted to make the greatest impact on a problem I saw in society. The way I saw it was that I was better off becoming a police officer because then I could physically intervene and save a life, instead of being a lawyer who receives a paycheck for cleaning up after the mess. I hadn’t really thought about it, but lawyers are profiting over George Floyd’s death. Why is that more acceptable than a minimum wage, undereducated pig who fucks up? There sincerely needs to be reform, but social media has become an outlet to argue, parade bigotry or extreme leftist values, instead of open dialogue. I don’t have the solution of what will open a discourse, what will defuse tension, but making the problem about ourselves, misdirecting questions that deserve to be answered because of how “I” want to be represented, affiliated, is truly going to be the death of freedom of speech, because everyone will silence each other. Nobody can listen when everybody is yelling.
What is a more effective solution than chants, and selfies?
As a final point, I think that we have a moral obligation to keep the supreme court as balanced as possible. If one voice outweighs the other, law and order will cease to be the foundation of this country’s judicial system. Well, it might already be that way.
Ben Bonkoske 