Black Lives Matter. Why, Then, Does That Phrase Harm Black People?

The phrase, “black lives matter,” is true. It is absolutely true that black lives matter. There can be no doubt that black lives matter. To deny that black lives matter is an absurdity, and the vast majority of people recognize this and affirm it. 

What, then, is the problem with the phrase that “black lives matter” when it is used as a quasi-mandatory public confession, a slogan, or a test of allegiance to the fact that black lives matter? 

The problem with the phrase is that it reinforces the problem it seeks to alleviate. In converting into a confession, slogan, or mark of allegiance the truth that black lives matter, one re-segregates and therefore reinforces the problem which harms people of color. How does it do this?

Everytime people convert the truth that black lives matter into a slogan, the problem of racism is reinforced. This is why many people reject this slogan, not because they reject black people, or because they subtly think black lives don’t matter, but because they intuit that the problem of racism is being reinforced by the phrase. To reject racism and segregation is to see through the lie, the falsehood that distinction based on the color of skin has any place in responsible public discourse. 

Peace and unity cannot be established on the affirmation of the very categories that create racism in the first place. 

If segregation based on skin color is wrong, then alignment based on skin color is equally wrong. This fact is the elephant in the room. Many people are raised on the idea of some sort of color-based identity, and therefore their very sense of self is erroneously attached to the color of their skin. The solution is not then to erect some sort of color-based solidarity, but to align with people who understand the truth that skin-color is not a valid category for any kind of intentional or non-accidental social grouping. 

The problem of violence against people who have dark skin is therefore a human problem, not a “black problem” or a “white problem.” It is everyone’s problem equally. The problem of color division at the conceptual level is that it is a false construct that produces both alignment and therefore division based on skin color, which necessarily produces division at the cultural and political level. The solution is therefore to systematically teach and train people not to see past color, but to see that color literally has zero place in any kind of meaningful distinction-making between human beings. 

Black lives matter. But on what basis? Their blackness? No. People do not matter because of the color of their skin. People matter because they are created in God’s image and likeness. At no point does God divide or unite people on the basis of the color of their skin. To seek to divide or align people based on skin color is therefore to oppose God, to oppose His truth and His love. To divide or align people based on skin color is to introduce a foreign and alien principle into one’s thoughts about humanity. The idea of color-based race is a tool of the Devil.

Black human lives matter not because they are black, but because they are human lives. The belief that there are different color-based races of people is unbiblical and not consistent with Christian teaching. The bible speaks of cultural groups and ethnic diversity, but not in terms of race. The idea of color-based race is therefore a false construct, and is itself the essence of racism. Racism is therefore literally delusional. To hold to the belief that there are different "kinds" of men based on skin color is itself the true and underlying racism. If people hate or love each other under the false idea that there is such a thing as a race, that is racism.

God divided men into tribes and nations, and so there are different cultural groups and therefore ethnic diversity, but this is a far cry from the reductive notion that there is a kind of man called "black man" and a kind of man called "white man." There are Irish, Scottish, Chinese, Japanese, Greek, Persian, Hatian, Dominican, Ethiopian, Nigerian, Russian, Polish, etc., but there are no skin-color based "races." God made ethnic diversity through division of languages which produced accidental divisions of heredity and customs, but the idea of dividing man in absolutist categories based on skin color is not Biblical and not made by God. There is no such thing as a "black man" or a “black culture” or a "white man" or a “white culture.” To believe there are these things is itself the problem because it is rooted in illegitimate social constructs and not in God. There are men with darker or lighter skin who come from this or that place and have this or that custom, but there is no "kind" of man or culture that is some color.

A truer refutation of racism, the idea of finding justice for a black or white person therefore makes no sense because there is no such thing as a “black person” or a “white person.” There are only people, human beings equally created in God’s image who through the accidents of history just happened to pick up some color diversity in their skin tones, diversities which do not equate to different “kinds” of human beings. Problems that effect people with darker colors of skin is therefore a human problem, not a “black person” problem, it is everyone’s problem; it is our problem and not their problem, and is not solved by affirming the value of blackness, but by executing justice in reference to universal human nature. 

This is why many people of good conscience reject the phrase, “black lives matter,” not because of a reduction of the value of this or that person’s life, just not establishing it in reference to the presence or absence of this or that color. And they are correct to do so. Justice is either blind or it is not justice. Black lives matter, but the blackness is accidental and so does not matter. 

The lie and crime of people with lighter skin against people with darker skin was to convince each other that their lighter or darker skin mattered, and then to erect criminal and inhumane social constructs and brutal mistreatment on this basis. But, like a Trojan Horse, associating “mattering” with skin color is a travesty for it smuggles in the Godless lie. Sadly, this lie that skin color has intrinsic meaning is still being spread, and this is why the phrase "black lives matter" harms black people.

In conclusion, to attempt to erect a slogan, public confession, or affirmation of solidarity on the basis of the accidental features of a human person, whether their height, weight, sex, eye, hair, or skin color, wealth or poverty, place of origin, or any of these kinds of things is to reject and exclude the possibility of justice and to ensure that racism will never end, harming the very people it is attempting to affirm. Due to the constant reinforcement of sensual paradigms and cultural ignorance, however, the ideation of color-based race is a difficult lie to see through, and it takes courage and integrity to see through it. But it must be done for the sake of truth and love, for diversity of color does not equate to diversity of kinds of people.

-Fr. Joshua Schooping.

Revisioning Parenting: A Brief Manifesto

As a parent of three young children, I reflect a lot on what it means to parent. I know for sure that I am not the best parent, and I make tons of mistakes. What I am about to write, then, is not meant as criticism to any parent, but for me to express what insights have been dawning on me, and to put them together in a way that is hopefully helpful for other parents in their own reflections on what it means to parent well.

The typical American parent seems to involve their child or children in some activity, like sports, gymnastics, ballet, music, or something else along these lines. When asked the reason for this, the answer is not typically that they want their children to be professional athletes, gymnasts, ballet dancers, or musicians, but that these activities provide opportunities for self-awareness, learning to play with a team, have more appreciation for some facet of life, or some kind of other enrichment.

The problem with this is the almost totally indirect nature of these aims. The following will attempt to show how this indirect aim can and often does create some real, long term negative impact. One example, however, may suffice to demonstrate what I mean. For example, a parent sends their child to baseball, not with the intention that they become professional baseball players, but so that they can learn some hand-eye coordination, learn how to play with a team, develop focus, have fun, etc. Notice: the baseball itself is incidental, for basketball could serve the same overall practical purpose. 

Now, what is the scope of this activity? The child who plays baseball, let's say they play from eight years old to eighteen, will play and practice on average about five hours per week, often far more. Many sports go year round, and certainly gymnastics, ballet, and music lessons can, and so let’s say they average about forty weeks a year of five hours per week. That amounts to two hundred hours per year. That’s two hundred hours per year of the indirect accomplishment of the intended goal, and two thousand hours over the course of ten years.

We are now in a position to flesh the example out more. When a child goes to baseball practice and to games, the coaches largely spend their time in baseball-specific skill training, such as fielding ground balls, catching pop-ups, throwing to first base, to second base, making double plays, pitching, catching, batting, and so on. During and after practice and games they assess, and constantly assess, their performance of these skills. They don’t spend specific attention on team building, trust, effective communication, concentration, etc. These are ancillary to the principle focus which, naturally, is winning baseball games. What is more, these ancillary skills, the actual goals of sending the child to baseball, are only developed marginally and to the degree required for the production of baseball-specific skills. 

The foregoing is an incredibly time-intensive and therefore inefficient way to learn an intended skill or gain some appreciation, especially when the desired skill is not the focus of the activity. Moreover, the desired skill, let’s hone in on team building, is often sidelined and left out of focus. The team building is simply an accidental by-product of doing coordinated tasks, like throwing a ball from first base to third base, but certainly that does not teach all that needs to be known and practiced for effective teamwork. The same goes for ballet, gymnastics, and music, which in some cases may require little to no teamwork at all, or much, as in the case of playing music in an orchestra. But even here in an orchestra, the overwhelming majority of the time is spent on developing a specific skill set related to the particular task, the performance of some piece of music. How much of that kind of participation in an orchestra is required to learn team building?

If, alternatively, a company wanted to teach team building among their staff, they would hire someone to come in and directly teach team building. They would not bring in a baseball coach to teach baseball with the hope that team building would emerge as a byproduct. They would not bring in a music teacher with fifteen different instruments who would then teach them these instruments over the course of years in order to derive team building lessons along the way to the performing of some piece of orchestral music. They would teach far more directly, using tasks that are subordinated to the actual purpose for which they are there: team building. 

The same goes for physical skill building. Baseball does not teach a person how to use their body in a comprehensive way. They are not learning anatomy and physiology, they are not working through the entire range of motion of their muscles, learning how to balance strength and flexibility, except maybe for a few minutes prior to skill practice or games. The exercise they receive for two thousand hours over the course of ten years is subordinated to the specific task of baseball, to continue with that example, and so again the goal of exercise is not met in an effective way. Gymnastics may be so thorough, but how many hours on a balance beam are required to accomplish the actual parental goal? A general athletics course that balances theory and practice would accomplish that goal far more effectively.

Moving on, one of the goals of parenting is not simply to grow large children, but to foster effective habits and skills in young adults for the sake of effective and skillful living. I am afraid we are training our children for two hundred hours a year in activities that give the preponderance of their focus to arbitrary and useless skills, which is to say a skill that is not immediately useful to their life or others. This is why children’s activities can be so exhausting for a parent, because they intuit the fact that an enormous amount of energy is being expended for their children to learn a baseball, ballet, gymnastics, or piano skill that they will not use, for the inefficient delivery of the goal they are intending, such as healthy bodies, balance, gracefulness of motion, or appreciation of music.

What is the solution? Well, instead of spending countless hours perfecting them in skills that will not help them, teach or have taught to them skills that will. Not everyone needs a baseball player, but everyone needs a carpenter. Not everyone needs a ballerina, but everyone needs a plumber. Not everyone needs a gymnast, but everyone needs a mechanic. Not everyone needs a piano player, but everyone needs an electrician, a farmer, and a person who can make or repair clothes. If, over the course of ten years and two thousand hours, children were taught some or even all of these skills, with the same level of dedication as given to sports and entertainment-industry skills, if they were taught how to work together to build, repair, and make things work, then after ten years a young adult could repair almost anything, build almost anything, save enormous amounts of money, and have a tremendous and practical set of skills that would give them authentic confidence to survive in the real world. 

Instead of getting a trophy, putting on a performance, or playing in a concert, a graduation project could be the supervised building of a house for a homeless family. In other words, instead of giving children over to activities that produce a useless set of specific skills, teach them how to be skillful and effective with personally and communally needed and helpful things. Let them learn teamwork there; let them gain confidence there; let them get exercise there. I am afraid we are subtly teaching our children to be useless and helpless, to place all their eggs in the college basket and there to receive an education that still leaves them utterly dependent on the narrow demands of their field.

In conclusion, I don’t think what I said above is original, but it is a growing awareness that really needs to be spread. As everyone acknowledges, children are our future, and so instead of grooming them to be athletes and entertainers, rather groom them to be helpful, to build, to repair, and to survive. It’s time we revision parenting.

-Fr. Joshua Schooping