The #BlackLlivesMatter Movement: Why There is an Emphasis on Black Lives

by Jaylin Paschal

When the #BlackLivesMatter movement came about, many, mostly non-black, especially white, people misinterpreted the message and took offense. I don't know if the entitlement is the problem, or the ignorance, or just the desire to be included. But I am going to try to explain the movement in this post.

That being said, I realize that anyone who would be offended by the statement "black lives matter" in the first place, as if it is untrue, is probably extremely closed minded anyways. I am, more than likely, talking to a brick wall. The truth about brick walls are that they will never change, or be moved, until you take a sledgehammer to them. All I can do is take a sledgehammer to the mentality that allows you to argue with me when I claim that my life, the lives of my family and friends, and the lives of black beings all over the world matter.

I originally titled this article "#BlackLivesMatter vs. #AllLivesMatter" but that's not exactly the point of this. That title was far too combative, and this article is not about conflict as the "versus" would have implied. This is not argumentative. This is explanatory.

We say "black lives matter" and there is always someone who cringes and asks, "don't you mean, all lives matter?" And frankly put, no. That's not what we meant. That is what we know to be true, and what we believe in our hearts, but that's not what we meant. In fact, we shout "black lives matter" because we are so compelled to believe that all lives matter. 

And if we believe that all lives matter, but see that black lives are being treated as disposable and insignificant, how could we not shout "black lives matter"? How could we not focus on the group that is suffering the most from everything the movement against systematic oppression is fighting-institutionalized racism, police brutality, mass incarceration, economic apartheid, racial profiling, etc.?

Yes, all lives matter, but no, all lives do not suffer from the evils listed previously which we ultimately seek to rid the nation of.

And I'm sure this is the part when white people will send me the picture below like, "Actually, even more white people suffer."

If you're one of those white people, you are a part of the problem. Understand that there are millions more white people than people of any other race in this country. Which means that when you consider the rate of killings by percentages, as you always should, you will see that although the black population (12.6%) is significantly smaller than the white population (63.7%), black people are killed by police almost 3 times more frequently. More than 5 times smaller, killed 3 times more frequently. Don't send me this picture. Delete this picture, and then curse the media for using numbers to misrepresent an issue and "discredit what has happened to black people".

We say "black lives matter" because you can kill a black teenage boy with Skittles and tea for "looking suspicious" and not be penalized. We say "black lives matter" because a black man can be killed for touching a gun being sold in a Wal-Mart. We say "black lives matter" because a black 12-year-old playing in a park can be shot dead within two seconds of cops' arrival. We say "black lives matter" because the justice system acts as if they do not. There is a pattern of injustice towards African Americans. A pattern that can be ignored,  but not denied.

The truth is, if any of the previously mentioned victims had been white, they would either not have been killed in the first place, or their murderers would be behind bars. That is the difference. White lives are valuable, therefore killing innocent white people is unjust. You get in trouble for hurting or harassing white people. The same cannot be said for people of color. We know white lives matter, and the justice system knows that, too.

This is not to say that white lives, or all lives, do not suffer.  We all suffer. But from what? If the evil is systematic, then you should be on board with the "Black Lives Matter" movement, as we tackle systematic demons. But if not, understand that there is a difference between being offended and being oppressed. Not all struggles are struggles of oppression. And if your struggle is not oppressive--restrictive, but not oppressive--rejoice in that fact. Be glad that there is no need to rally for your life. (I will never understand why some white people seem to want so badly to included in oppression or struggles for freedom.)

That is why we say "black lives" instead of "all lives." Not to be exclusive, but to send attention directly to the issue the movement is focused on. "All lives matter is true as an AXIOM, but not as a social and political MOVEMENT. In the political and social landscape, black lives need #BlackLivesMatter as a MOVEMENT to save us. People aren't seeing the difference between a belief/axiom and a movement." (Alex Montgomery, @sohamist)



Furthermore, if you truly believe that all lives matter, you would not be offended by an emphasis on black lives. Just as you would not be offended by the statement "gay lives matter." In fact, you'd probably grab a rainbow flag and shout it with them. You would not pollute a protest with your own agenda and phrase, just as you would not scream "ALL DISEASES MATTER" at a cancer fundraiser. In fact, you'd probably donate to the cause, because it is a necessary battle.
If you are, somehow, offended, you are the problem. You are the brick wall.

Note that there is no reason to be offended, as nowhere in the statement "black lives matter" do we suggest other lives don't, or that black lives matter more. Changing "black" to "all" is just spitting on all of the black lives lost to unjust murders and turning your back on a movement rooted in positivity.

But again, I am more than likely talking to a brick wall. And when it comes to brick wall mentalities, their only hope is destruction. When the old, oppressive bricks are finally rubble, they can be cleared away and there will space to rebuild.


First published on web.insightmag.org

Freedoms, Flags, Fires: Wright State University Students Protest Injustice

by Jaylin Paschal

College students have a reputation. Wild. Careless. Lazy.

What people tend to overlook is the passion young people have. The hunger for knowledge. The fearlessness. The willingness to start a fire. 

All it takes is one spark to set a campus ablaze.

For Wright State University, that spark turned to flame on April 24.

I sat with students and concerned citizens Tommy DiMassimo, Will Kellum, and Jordan Ross, to discuss the issues and mainly, to listen.

When these students and others decided to exercise their First Amendment right to Freedom of Speech, they set out with a very clear goal: stand in solidarity with Eric Sheppard (if you don't know, read up) and ultimately contribute to the dismantling of white supremacy.

The students went to the campus's center with a desire to begin an important and necessary dialogue. They displayed their ideas on a sign which read,
"I STAND... 

• with Eric Sheppard and the preservation of First Amendment Rights.
• for all men and women in service to their country.
• for the accountability of the media and other social institutions.
• justice, equality, tolerance, and diversity.
• upon the belief that higher learning should provoke students to question social norms, mainstream values, and power structures.
• [upon the belief that] the "American" spirit is a revolutionary spirit.
• on the American flag because there's no thing MORE American than that."

The protest began with students only holding the sign. When they recognized the lack of interest from their peers, they decided to actually stand on an American flag, as Eric Sheppard, Valdosta State University, did and is now being persecuted for--a statement that definitely brought attention to the stance.

Unfortunately, the attention was not geared toward the unjust oppression of Freedom of Speech, the "rampancy of racism," or the frequent loss of black lives, but to the flag. Not the human beings, the stars and stripes. This was not only a disappointment to the protesters but a shameful display of insensitivity and lack of humanity.

"This is not the tragedy. They'll make more flags. It's not that easy to make more black people," DiMassimo expressed.

Once students noticed the protesters standing on the flag, many were angered. "Nigger" was spat out, a protester was threatened to be lynched, and another was told he would be "put in a coffin with a flag draped over it." These threats were dished out both in person and online. Other messages included "if you don't like America, go back to where you came from" and "get out of my college, better yet, my fucking country."

Some called the protesters "terrorists," to which Kellum responded, "we are terrorists to the white privilege system".

Of course, the local news covered the protest. And our media outlets never fail to let us down. Instead of defending the Constitutional rights to speech and protest, bringing the issue of racism and white supremacy to light, or even condemning threats and promises of physical violence, they painted the protesters as the problem. The "angry" protesters "disrespected" and "threw down" the flag. The story became about the (white, as they only interviewed white students) bystanders' discomfort, instead of the dead, or soon to be dead, (black) men the protesters were fighting for.

The problem is, you can yell "black lives matter" and no one will even look your way. But if you whisper it while upon a flag, they'll pay attention. Not to the issue that matters to you, but to the piece of cloth beneath your feet. Flags matter to people. Black lives don't. The responses and threats the protesters received prove that to be true.

Imagine a nation in which citizens cared about black people as much as they cared about the flag.

"Replace 'black man' with 'flag'. Next time a black person gets shot, we need to say 'cop shoots American flag'," said DiMassimo.

Although it is understood that the flag is often a symbol for freedom (for white people), it must also be understood that the same flag is, ironically, a symbol for oppression. A powerful and deadly force exists in this nation "under God" that is too often ignored. The systematic oppression in America is what allows institutionalized racism, police brutality, economic apartheid, racial profiling, etc. to plague the lives of citizens of color every day. Standing on the flag is not standing on your idea of freedom, it is simply asking: "Freedom for who? Liberty and justice for all?" It is challenging the notion that a black Valdosta student can be hunted for expressing his basic, inalienable rights.

To those who disagree with this act and means of speaking out against injustice, ask yourself, would you be paying attention now if they hadn't stepped on that flag?

To those who believe there is a "better way" to get the point across, like singing Kumbaya and participating in group hugs, wake up. Love is necessary but action is what's effective. As DiMassimo said, "there's no thinking and loving your way out of racism."

And finally, to White America, still in denial of privilege, insistent on supremacy and blind to the bloodshed of fellow citizens-fellow human beings-, your burning will provide light and heat for the rest of us.

If I am to be completely honest, I must express that there is both fear and excitement in me as the flames continue to spread, not only through Fairborn, Ohio, but through the nation. People think of the word "fire" and fear the possible destruction. What they fail to realize is that fires often clear out the debris, allowing a healthier world to grow in its place. Fires will mean out with the old systems, old ideals, old institutions, and old power structures. In with the new.

First published on web.insightmag.org

The Same Damn Heart - Poetry

A special thanks to my lovely and brilliant friend, Frida, for the title.

The Same Damn Heart
I am used to old, beer guzzling men
with gunmetal hair beneath veteran caps,
with leather jackets and leathery skin,
with scars and wrinkles somehow defiant.
Openly private, and more likely to share social security numbers than war stories.
These old men, intoxicated and intolerable,
have tattooed their regrets onto their sleeves
and wear their piercings to remind themselves
that no matter how much space they take up,
things can still go through them.
Unapologetic and amused by life,
they shout-
"If I knew then what I know now,
I'd do the same damn thing,
because even after all these years
the sweet is just as potent as the bitter."
Slow and steady is the beat of the old man heart,
but if you look closely, you can still see
the youthful soul pressing behind their eyes.

I am used to old, beer guzzling men
sweaty, and tired but not finished
and not afraid.

Jaylin Paschal

Other favorites from title suggestions were "Bitter(sweet)" and "Gunmetal".

Happy Birthday, Trayvon

Trayvon Martin would have been 20 years old today. 

Rest easy.

PSA!!!! "Ghetto" is Not an Adjective

Public Service Announcement: "GHETTO" IS NOT AN ADJECTIVE!

ghet•to     /'gedō/     noun

a part of a city, especially a slum area, occupied by a minority group or groups

Correct use:

The Jewish man shared his experiences in the Warsaw ghetto.

Incorrect use:

Her weave is so ghetto!

How We Should Remember MLK

In my elementary school days, one day a year, usually in February, during a pathetic lets-get-this-over-with version of a Black History Month observation, I sat through videos and discussions about Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. I learned about how peaceful and tolerant he was. I learned that he "had a dream," and tried to accomplish that dream by passive-aggressively ignoring the violence and sheer ignorance of the day. Essentially, I was taught that he patiently waited for the white man to come to his senses. In high school the lesson, if it's even taught, has remained the same. But it's not entirely true.

There was nothing even remotely passive aggressive about Dr. King or his methods. He was assertive and to the point. He set goals and often went to drastic measures to meet those goals. Dr. King's nonviolence policy should not be confused as him looking the other way when white people were brutal. His policy was simply his refusal to fight fire with fire, in an attempt to put out the flames in their entirety. "By any means necessary" wasn't his thing, but he also didn't just pray and sit quietly while simply hoping better times would come.

If he saw something he didn't like, he did something about it. He spoke up. He sometimes broke the law with the logic that "one has not only a legal, but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws."

His true existence would be better described as radical but nonviolent, as he said himself that he did not believe in peace where there is injustice, stating: "If peace means keeping my mouth shut in the midst of injustice and evil, I don't want it." He also stated in his famous Letter From Birmingham Jail, "I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate [...] who is more devoted to 'order' than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice." As ironic as it sounds, true peace had to be fought for.

Never let people respond to your cries against police brutality, unjust murders of black men, women, and children, racial profiling, or systematic racism with some misquoted or out-of-context quote from Dr. King claiming that "MLK wouldn't agree with this anger/idea/uproar/protest." Because he did feel what we are feeling.

On police brutality: "We can never be satisfied as long as the negro is the victim of the unspeakable horror of police brutality."

On unjust murders and a racist system/society: "We must be concerned not merely about who murdered them, but about the system, the way of life, the philosophy which produced the murderers."

On racial profiling/ black self-love: "Look in your dictionary and see synonyms for the word 'black'. It's always degrading, low, and sinister. Look at the word 'white'. It's always pure, high, clean."

You never hear quotes like these from Dr. King. I feel like that's because people and the education system will always neglect the more assertive teachings and beliefs of Dr. King. They'll always promote passive aggressiveness and pacifism because they can manage that; because it keeps a conversation from starting and allows a "negative peace which is the absence of tension" to more easily exist. That's why you  hardly ever learn about Malcolm X in schools. People don't want you to latch on to his "radical" ideas -- which they had no control over; which provided no wiggle room-- , and so they shove the not-so-radical ideas of MLK down your throat. "Remember, MLK wouldn't have lost his patience with Darren Wilson or the justice system." Yes. he definitely would have lost his patience. Maybe not his temper; definitely would not have abandoned his nonviolence policy or morals; but patience would have been wearing thin -- that's for sure.

Yes, Dr. King was peaceful and nonviolent. Yes, that is important. Extremely important. I cannot stress its importance. But I wish he was remembered for the more controversial, revolutionary ideas as well, because those ideas are what really pushed this nation towards a tolerant society, free of prejudice and racism.

I love that we as a nation honor and remember Dr. King. I love that, and I appreciate it. I think it's a beautiful thing. I look up to Dr. King in so many ways and everyone should join together to remember a great life lived by a true lover of peace. We should remember Dr. King by honoring his "true legacy of radical resistance against the status quo."

On The N-Word (Why Black People Can Say "Nigga" and You Can't)

We avoid using offensive terms in an attempt to be decent human beings. Almost everyone agrees on this, until it comes to the "n-word".

Whenever a black person asks a white person not to say "nigga", the response is never just "okay." It's never "I'm sorry, I didn't realize I was being offensive." The response is usually one of these three:
"Get over it, everyone uses it."
"I have black friends so I can say it if I want."
Or, the response I'm discussing now: "But if black people use it, they can't be mad when white people use it."

Wrong.

Wrong. Wrong wrong wrong. Wrong wrong. WRONG.

Let's say you have a friend. She's overweight and has an unhealthy diet. She constantly refers to herself as "fat" or a "big girl". Would you ever call her those things? Would you call her "fat" or "big" because that's what she calls herself? No, because it's offensive.

You have another friend. He's gay. He uses terms like "f****t" and "q***r" (don't feel comfortable typing them) when describing himself and other gay people. Would you use those words because he uses those words? No, because they're offensive.

If a group of people who have been oppressed and offended by a derogatory term decide to use it, that's completely fine. They're reclaiming those words for themselves. Often slurs are used by minority groups as a symbol of solidarity, to take some of the sting out of a word, and reverse the effects of something that was created to be hurtful. Minority groups should be able to reappropriate the terms that held them down. Majority groups do not have the right to join in on that. And they're use of the term may not make sense to you, but it makes sense to them. And that's what matters.
As Michael Eagle said in a Washington Post article: "I’m a person who believes in in-group versus out-group privileges and respect. So like if my experience is the ‘nigger’ experience, then I feel like I have free license to do what I want with [the word]. Like, people that don’t have to have their head on a swivel in certain parts of Alabama, I don’t feel like you should be using that word like it’s just cool. Because it’s not just a cool thing."

Now, with all of that being said, I personally don't like the "n-word". I think it is only a reminder of an evil time in American history, and although the use of it ironically reclaims the word, it seems to only encourage white people to continue to use it disrespectfully. I think the word should be totally eradicated. I hope it dies a painful death. But if I do decide to use the word, a white person has no business telling me not to. I agree with Jeff Calimbas, who was featured in the same Washington Post article, when he said "There’s no way that any other race has a right to tell a black person you can’t say – that word. We don’t have any bloody attachments, or history with that word. It’s kind of like telling a woman what she can or can’t do with her body. … So if the word is to be removed from everyday speech. It has to come from the black community, and only the black community."

Until the n-word dies, avoid saying something that offends people for the sake of being decent. Don't argue. I've said in a previous post: "Instead of being defensive, listen to what they're saying and agree to alter your vocabulary in order to make everyone feel comfortable and accepted." So if a woman calls herself a "bitch" and her friends "bitches", but asks a male not to use the word, he should respect that. Regardless of whether or not he agrees with it.

I really don't understand why I even have to blog about this. Why is this concept so hard for people to grasp? You'd think it was rocket science.