Before any examination on whether specific phrases should be used versus a universal language, we need to determine the type of injustice that is taking place. Without this knowledge, it is hard to accurately say that one is more appropriate than the other. We also need to find the circumstances in which both are used, and how they differ in their use. In terms of BLM, the idea of using the general expression “All Lives Matter” to make the group inclusive is problematic because it misconstrues the goal of the movement, ignores the specificity of the issues and its differences to other causes, and, unintentionally, silences the voice of the protestors.
Even with this, the rate at which a group gains allies should not be dependent on the language …show more content…
A movement highlighting that oppression should not be made universal in order to appease the oppressors. The language is specific to the cause; making it universal will lead to erasure of the origins of the specific injustice that started the movement. This is similar to
Loury’s argument, however, begs us to question the ability of individuals to pursue justice for social issue separately. People like Loury may find that having separate groups for causes slows down the process of achieve justice. This is founded in the idea that social identifiers do not stand alone but actually intersect in some places. Therefore, a cause to end the harmful effects of patriarchy could coincide with one fighting for civil …show more content…
However, it is crucial that you recognize this discomfort and challenge your perceived notions and stigmas instead of placating the issue(s) by calling for a universal language. Change is disruptive. It’s dirty and uncomfortable. It forces us to face problems that have largely been ignored for years. It cannot be confined by politics of respectability, and definitely not altered to suit the needs of the oppressor. And while there are social issues that intersect, we cannot group them all under one umbrella term; doing so would conceal the specific cause(s) of these racial disparities. Yes, the ultimate goal is to have global racial justice, but to use the language of “All Lives Matter” when it is not appropriate is insensitive
Even with this, the rate at which a group gains allies should not be dependent on the language …show more content…
A movement highlighting that oppression should not be made universal in order to appease the oppressors. The language is specific to the cause; making it universal will lead to erasure of the origins of the specific injustice that started the movement. This is similar to
Loury’s argument, however, begs us to question the ability of individuals to pursue justice for social issue separately. People like Loury may find that having separate groups for causes slows down the process of achieve justice. This is founded in the idea that social identifiers do not stand alone but actually intersect in some places. Therefore, a cause to end the harmful effects of patriarchy could coincide with one fighting for civil …show more content…
However, it is crucial that you recognize this discomfort and challenge your perceived notions and stigmas instead of placating the issue(s) by calling for a universal language. Change is disruptive. It’s dirty and uncomfortable. It forces us to face problems that have largely been ignored for years. It cannot be confined by politics of respectability, and definitely not altered to suit the needs of the oppressor. And while there are social issues that intersect, we cannot group them all under one umbrella term; doing so would conceal the specific cause(s) of these racial disparities. Yes, the ultimate goal is to have global racial justice, but to use the language of “All Lives Matter” when it is not appropriate is insensitive