by Micah J. Fleck
TLR Contributor Wayne Pac just wrote an op-ed on the topic of Black Lives Matter and its motivations/effects on society as a whole through its actions, which Mr. Pac believes to be violent and hate-spewing. In his article, Mr. Pac uses as his evidence fuzzy phone footage and extrapolation of limited observation. And quite honestly, the most odd part of this is that he even admits as much more than once in his article, undermining his own point:
“Something to recognize is that the video is far from something that would be considered sound evidence in a court case, it is not clear what exactly happened from this video.”
Now, this quote is referring to the footage of the shooting of Keith Scott – but the same principle and observation could be applied to the footage Mr. Pac cites later on in his piece, in which it appears as if a white man is being assaulted in a parking lot for no reason by what are allegedly members of the Charlotte BLM protesters:
In reality, that footage too is hard to pin on BLM, and is also hard to point to as proof that the man being assaulted wasn’t the initial instigator (the video starts rolling after the altercation is already underway). I’m not saying the white man was the one who started it, but without the surrounding context, we cannot know for sure; nor can we say that the small group of black assailants in the footage are even a part of BLM at all, much less a fair representation of BLM’s official stances.
And another point in the article in which Mr. Pac cuts the legs out from under his position is when he admits that this violent behavior is being spoken out against:
“Fortunately on the positive side of the spectrum we have prominent members of the black community speaking out against these actions, saying they are completely unjustified. Many more black people are coming around the bend, realizing what is truly going on, and they are not going to keep listening to protesters and such tell them what to think. They are open to the idea of Justice, as ordained by the law, through policy.”
Unfortunately, this is also a quote in which Mr. Pac is revealed as either missing the real point, or being willfully ignorant to it. He paints a picture of “the rioters” as representative of an influential collective that “tells” the black community “what to do.” He paints a picture of the rioters in Charlotte, and by extension (and implicit the title of his article) BLM as a whole, as violent, hate-filled, “fueling the fire” instigators.
But this could not be further from the truth, as Black Lives Matter itself has always spoken out against the violence toward whites and innocent cops any time such violence has either occurred or been promulgated by the bad apples in the protestor ranks.
Such as the time just this past July when DeRay Mckesson, one of Black Lives Matter’s best known leaders, called for peace and an end to violence on both sides of the police brutality issue via a phone interview with the New York Times:
“I’m waiting for more information like everybody else,” he said. “I have more questions than answers”
“The movement began as a call to end violence. That call remains.”
“My prayers are with the victims of all violence.”
And that wasn’t just a fluke of a lone instance, either. Indeed, many more times did BLM either directly or through its spokesmen denounce the violence against innocent white people and police officers:
- Rashad Turner, another BLM leader and organizer of the St. Paul chapter, angrily spoke out against the practice of traffic blocking (you know, the practice the right-wing hit pieces on BLM always cite as evidence that the organization itself is in favor of it). He also spoke out against violence against innocent police, saying the protestors who do so are doing those officers “a disservice,” as they are only trying to keep the peace. Turner seems to be saying that the groups doing such things are not officially endorsed by BLM to do so.
- Lilly Workneh and Kai Wright, spokespeople for black social issues and BLM commentators, shortly after the deadly Dallas shootings of innocent cops wrote pieces in The Huffington Post and The Nation, respectively, both emphasizing the fact that BLM “spreads love, not hate ― and it condemns violence altogether” (Workneh), as well as the reality that “if Dallas changes anything about the movement for black lives, it is only to remind us that in order to truly ensure black lives are valued, we will have to confront the broader culture of violence that has long gripped this nation” (Wright). This last statement is especially important, because it is very inclusive of whites and blacks as American citizens against a common threat of police- and state-enforced violence.
- BlackLivesMatter.com, the official website for the BLM movement, also released an official statement condemning the Dallas shootings, calling the killing of the five innocent police officers “a tragedy–both for those who have been impacted by yesterday’s attack and for our democracy.” It went further to say that “black activists have raised the call for an end to violence, not an escalation of it,” and that “to assign the actions of one person to an entire movement is dangerous and irresponsible.” This principle of course was meant to apply to both black assailants of cops and murderous police officers.
These are but only a few examples of how BLM and BLM-related voices speak out each time things are taken to the extreme on the protest streets, and to gloss over this, or assume that it doesn’t happen without looking into it first, or worst of all, insinuate that the violent actors are accurate representations of the movement as a whole or its mission, is not only missing the point, it’s dangerous. It perpetuates the division, the anger, and the distrust. We as libertarians should know best of all why not to do this, and why to instead bring people together for a common cause.
At the end of the day, emphasis is not the same thing as exclusion. And wether one personally agrees with BLM’s position that black Americans are being disproportionately targeted, one cannot deny that when it comes down to choosing between race lines and human compassion, camaraderie, and solidarity, BLM always chooses the latter. The “dead cops” chant, the blocking of traffic, the violence against innocents… All of these instances have been shown as not being officially endorsed by the official BLM organizers. So why in the world would this situation currently going on in Charlotte be any different? And why would Mr. Pac be so quick to assume that it is? Already we have reports to suggest that many of the violent actors in Charlotte were not in fact local residents or BLM marchers. The honest thing to do would be to wait until all the facts come, and the dust clears, and BLM speaks up. Which, now you can know for certain, BLM always does.