BLM ignores stats, advocates violence

Recent surges in police brutality and racial violence have provoked riots, protests and… well, more violence. This is (and has been) an ever-growing issue in America, and the problem is rooted in how police are trained. Too much power is given to certain people that don’t know how to use it, and this is why people are unjustly killed by the police. While this is a legitimate danger, the retaliation from groups such as Black Lives Matter (BLM) is often just as harmful to the communities experiencing these tragedies.

Just to clarify, the notion that “black lives matter” and the actual organization called “Black Lives Matter” are two very different things. The conflict of interest is in regards to the organization.

BLM claims to advocate for “dignity, justice, and respect” for the black community, yet almost immediately resorts to aggression or violence when an African American is killed by the police. Just recently in Milwaukee, 23-year-old Sylville Smith was shot at a traffic stop. Upon hearing about this, BLM took to the streets. Protesters quickly dropped their peaceful agendas and started blocking traffic, burning cars and buildings, throwing bricks at police cars, looting businesses and inciting violence with police officers. This went on for nearly 24 hours. What the protesters didn’t take the time to read into was the actual nature of the shooting.

Smith was carrying a stolen handgun, which he refused to drop after being asked by officers twice. The weapon had 23 rounds in it, according to Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett. Both officers on the scene were wearing body cameras. Oh, and the officer who shot Smith was black. Yet, for whatever reason, protesters supporting BLM still tried to make it a racial issue.

It’s ridiculously easy to set BLM off. What’s sort of backwards about the whole organization is their inconsistent representation of the message they supposedly advocate for. It seems like BLM regularly ignores crime statistics, which is probably because these numbers would rip their anti-police brutality arguments in half. Statistically, black-on-black crime kills more African Americans than police brutality. Yet, you don’t see any rallies advocating for a change in black-on-black murder rates. It seems that BLM only reacts when police are the ones killing blacks, rather than blacks killing their own.

Black-on-black crime is a product of the environments within predominantly black communities. Unfortunately, a mix of poverty, drug-related crime, dysfunctional family structures and inadequate education systems plague these areas. These detriments are responsible for the lack of opportunities in lower-income communities, which statistically house mostly minorities. With this being said, the black community is already at a big disadvantage. When racial tension is thrown in the mix, it creates a whole new dilemma.

Just so it’s completely clear, racism still exists in America. It affects the American society and way of life, and needs to be put to rest. Unfortunately, most people don’t realize that racism is a two-way street. When people hear the word racism, most would immediately associate it with white people. This is a problem that contradicts BLM’s stance on racism. The notion that the black population is being oppressed by the white population (therefore blaming whites for the downfall of blacks in society) is racist in itself. Negative connotations begin to materialize, and this is why whites are often attacked at BLM protests.

Another thing BLM is being criticized about is how the organization’s advocates represent themselves. The fact of the matter is, for true peace, both sides of a given conflict need to behave. When a black individual is killed by the police, regardless of who was in the wrong, BLM (almost without fail) resorts to violence of some kind. If BLM truly stood for peace, this wouldn’t happen. Yes, a good percentage of the black individuals being killed or victims of police brutality, but BLM supporters seem to think that the appropriate response is to burn down businesses that had nothing to do with the isolated incident. In reality

BLM claims to push for social equality and better treatment for the black population, yet there aren’t any protests against the problems in black communities themselves. BLM should be against the systems that cause these areas to fail, instead of pointing the finger at racism and “white privilege”. Based on this, it strongly seems that BLM only cares about black communities when an African American man is shot by the police. This is part of the reason why BLM is sending off mixed signals to the general public, because it’s hard to tell exactly what they stand for. Protesting a death is one thing, and something like that can be kept peaceful. However when protesters who claim to support BLM loot stores, burn businesses and attack white people in the area, the organization’s true effect on the community comes to light.

Milwaukee declared a state of emergency once the protests following Sylville Smith’s death turned violent. Black protesters started fires, looting sprees and attempted to pull white drivers out of their cars. A white man attempting to record a shot of a burning police car was pelted with rocks by black protesters, simply for being there. It’s pretty backwards that BLM still claims to stand against racism, especially when protesters have a track record of attacking white individuals.

Smith’s sister even went on live TV. CNN shows her standing against the destruction of the community, saying it doesn’t help anything. However, what media failed to show was the rest of her speech, in which she shouted “Take that sh*t to the suburbs, burn their sh*t down”. Targeting the primarily white suburbs of Milwaukee somehow doesn’t equate to racism in the eyes of BLM.

For the people saying things along the lines of “Don’t let the actions of a few people define the whole group”, here’s the deal. An organization (or group of any kind) is comprised of the people that represent it. If a vast majority of the people claiming to represent it are burning communities to the ground, then that’s exactly how the organization will be perceived. Is that not logical? Combating racism and violence with more racism and violence won’t solve anything.

Now, if BLM was diplomatic with their interactions (as opposed to aggressive), they’d have a lot more respect from the media, the general public and the percentage of the population that has their doubts in the movement.

America is in dire need of a change, specifically in how racial tension is dealt with. Again, racism is a two-way street, so both sides of these conflicts need to compromise. White racism shouldn’t be remedied with black racism, and vice versa. The problem not only lies with how police in America are trained and selected, but in the high crime rates in black communities that cause tension in the first place.