In light of BLM’s 2021 Nobel Peace Prize nomination at the hand of Norwegian MP Petter Eide, it would appear as if the world has finally reached a sociocultural turning point.
Throughout history, victims of social inequalities have often taken to the streets to uncover a sense of negligence in the current distribution of civil rights. Black Lives Matter, being a recognized ‘racial justice movement’, is employing similar strategies to ensure that their “call for systemic change” will receive a fundamental representation in every party’s political agenda worldwide.
Provided that the heated rage which has been utilized during BLM protests does not merely derive from emotional identity politics, the employment of ‘guilt’ remains a strictly political criticism – this being a very useful tool in trying to work out systemic deficiencies. It is only when the platform becomes self-serving, as one starts blaming all individuals present rather than observing a particular malpractice of public law – a policeman who becomes The Police – that this noble operation will go sour.
The natural craving for favorable inheritance, that is the guaranteed succession of benign virtues, is innate to man. Its working principle is, not unlike one’s parental instinct, set to serve as a conservative shelter to secure the continuation of whatever it is one deems to be of great value.
Nonetheless, one must consider the possibility that today’s growing emphasis on the ‘preservation of legacy’ is not solely impelled by perpetuating biological and/or financial features. Evidently, YOUR NAME and all that breathes with it – memories, family, race, … – is no monolithic body, for it is empty without the dynamic understanding of what it really implies. Consider for example the image of Trump without a comparative reference to his father, riots, Russians, Proud Boys, and so forth. No easy task, right?
Furthermore, one cannot adequately grasp the intricacies of a statutory transmission in regard to relational property without recognizing the complications of passing down unfavourable conditions. A stigma of indirect culpability can stay with you for an entire lifetime, as no court can truly free a man from predisposed blame. It begs the question whether a person who has somehow benefited from the improper behaviour of his ancestor, is in any way morally obligated to restore the damage. There is, after all, a distinct difference between a just emancipation as opposed to a radical expropriation. Namely, that society itself ought to be the primary beneficiary of a ‘justice movement’, so that, you have heard it before, “all lives may matter”.
Those who consider the act of ‘legally pursuing reparations’ as an appropriate antidote for previous harm, fail to recognize the appalling role of social biases actively present in the newly suggested ‘equality of outcome’ ideology.
Of course, there can be no doubt that societal institutions should always guarantee the expansion of equal academic opportunity. Having said that, it is ultimately this boost in universal competence that ought to stabilize disparity – a long-term project worth investing.
To demand instant compensation in the form of the ‘redistribution of wealth’ is therefore a foolish act, as it would spawn an even wider gap within the transcultural working class. The only legitimate ‘quick fix’ is to, again, provide everyone with the necessary infrastructure by which certain sub-cultural communities can flourish without being alienated from national and global affairs.
The BLM movement is in itself a multivalent tool, causing it to be extraordinarily susceptible to the deviating intentions of the various users – a horizontal leadership, so to speak. Even so, all actions fall under the protection of the campaign’s ‘empowering’ slogan, making it quite hard to distinguish the more ‘disturbing’ aspects from its main ambition.
Mainstream media, in stark contrast with statistical evidence, has pushed the narrative that the movement is an exclusively peaceful manifestation of protesting citizens. Still, a substantial amount of protesters call for anarchy, the defunding of police, and the need for beneficial segregation in pursuit of establishing cultural values.
More than ever, clarity is needed as a guiding principle for action, for it is the only way to peacefully redefine the hierarchical nature of human relations on behalf of the ‘mistreated’. That is to say, a structural cleansing of the commonwealth without having to resort to the Jacobin ‘terror of revolution’.
Let us then hold our breath, watch, and pray that, when all is said and done, BLM’s final destination will shine through as the rational liberation and protection of all life. It is an opportunity like no other to bring about change where change is needed most, but keep in mind that it is no excuse for attaining new forms of inequity. Charge what is guilty and abstain from a sentimental trial against the innocent.
