WGMBH VIA GETTY IMAGES
“All Lives Matter” is true as a sentence, but as a reply to “Black Lives Matter” it changes the subject. The original slogan was never a claim that other lives matter less. It points to a specific problem: that Black Americans have been treated, by police, courts and institutions, as if their lives counted for less. Answering with “all lives” turns attention away from that problem and back to everyone in general, which is why so many people hear it as a dismissal.
This piece looks at where both phrases came from, why the reply feels so natural to many white people, what the evidence says about racial bias, and what anyone who wants to be on the side of fairness can do. It is written in the spirit of an open letter by American writer John Halstead, addressed to his fellow white readers, which first appeared in 2016.
Where the two slogans came from
#BlackLivesMatter began in 2013, when activists Alicia Garza, Patrisse Cullors and Ayọ Tometi started using the hashtag after George Zimmerman was acquitted in the killing of unarmed teenager Trayvon Martin. It grew into a national movement after the police killings of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, and Eric Garner in New York in 2014, and in 2020, after the murder of George Floyd, an estimated 15 to 26 million people joined protests across the United States.
“All Lives Matter” appeared only afterwards, on social media, as a response. Nobody was chanting it before. That timing matters: it exists as an answer to a specific claim, not as an independent message. By 2016 it had become a common political reply, alongside “Blue Lives Matter”, a slogan in support of police officers.
A simple comparison helps. If a friend organises a breast cancer fundraiser, no one assumes she thinks other cancers are unimportant, and turning up with a sign reading “All Cancers Matter” would seem strange and a bit hostile. The cartoonist Kris Straub made the same point with a drawing of a firefighter hosing down a neighbour’s unburning house because “all houses matter” while the one actually on fire burns.
Why the reply feels natural to many white people
Halstead’s core argument is about discomfort. He notices that people who object to “Black Lives Matter” are often comfortable with “Blue Lives Matter”. If only one of those phrases causes irritation, the word that differs is “Black”. Saying it out loud, he suggests, reminds white people that race is real and that they have one too.
Many white people were raised to believe the ideal was to be “colourblind”, to not see race at all. Saying the word “Black” could feel almost impolite, as though noticing colour were the problem. But being able to ignore race is itself a kind of privilege. In American life, whiteness is often treated as the default, so white people can go through their day without thinking about it. Black Americans rarely get that option, because the world keeps reminding them.
Seen this way, “All Lives Matter” works as a way back to comfort. It lets the listener step away from an uncomfortable conversation about race and return to a general statement nobody can disagree with.
Researchers have found something similar. A study in the British Journal of Social Psychology, summarised on Wikipedia, linked support for “All Lives Matter” with a colourblind outlook and with a narrow view of discrimination that only counts it when it is deliberate. Interestingly, it also found that some people support both slogans, so the two are not always seen as opposites.
What the evidence shows about unequal treatment
The claim behind “Black Lives Matter” is not just a feeling. Data collected by The Washington Post show that in 2019, U.S. police fatally shot Black Americans at a rate of about 31 per million people, compared with about 13 per million for white Americans, more than twice as high. Researchers still disagree about how much of that gap is caused by bias and how much by other factors, and studies have reached different conclusions, but the disparity itself is well documented.
Individual cases made the issue concrete. In July 2016, in North Miami, behavioural therapist Charles Kinsey was lying on the ground with his hands raised, trying to calm an autistic patient holding a toy truck, when a police officer shot him in the leg. Both men were unarmed. The officer was later convicted of a misdemeanour, though that conviction was overturned on appeal in 2022.
Critics of “All Lives Matter”, including former President Barack Obama, have made the same basic point: the movement is not saying other lives do not matter, it is saying that a particular community faces a particular danger that deserves attention.
Racism without bad intentions
For many people, the word “racist” brings up images of hoods, slurs and open hatred. Those things still exist, but Halstead argues that the more common problem today is quieter. It is the bias of decent, well-meaning people who would never use a slur yet still go along with systems that treat people unequally, or who do not notice the problem because it does not touch them.
This is often described as racism by omission rather than commission: failing to see inequality, treating race as a Black issue rather than a shared one, or reaching for comfortable phrases when the conversation gets hard.
One tool people use to explore their own blind spots is the Implicit Association Test, developed by psychologists Anthony Greenwald, Debbie McGhee and Jordan Schwartz in 1998 and available free through Project Implicit at Harvard. It measures how quickly people link groups with positive or negative words. It is worth knowing its limits: individual scores can vary from one sitting to the next, and later research found it is only a weak predictor of how someone actually behaves. It is best treated as a prompt for reflection, not a verdict on anyone’s character.
What white allies can actually do
Halstead’s advice can be summed up in one idea: accept some discomfort, because there is no comfortable way to change. In practice that means:
- Drop the colourblind ideal. Noticing race is not the problem. Pretending not to notice it makes inequality harder to see.
- Check your own reactions. If you find yourself feeling proud of treating a Black person “normally”, that is a sign the bias is still there.
- Spend time in Black-led spaces, and listen. Attend events, churches, talks or community meetings where you are not the majority. Go to learn rather than to lead, and notice how it feels to be the outsider for once.
- Talk to other white people. White listeners are often more open to hearing about bias from someone who looks like them. Use that.
- Say the words plainly. Using vague code words like “urban” or “inner city” instead of naming race keeps the discomfort hidden. Saying “Black Lives Matter” without qualification is a small but real step.
Halstead gives a parallel from his own life: at a vigil after the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting, he noticed that speakers barely used the words “gay” or “lesbian”, even though the victims were targeted for exactly that. Avoiding the word, he suggests, is a sign of the same unease.
The lesson from the civil rights era
Today Martin Luther King Jr. is almost universally admired, and many white Americans like to imagine they would have marched beside him. The historical record is less flattering. In an August 1966 Gallup poll, 63 percent of Americans had an unfavourable view of King, and only about a third saw him positively. By 2011, his favourable rating had climbed to 94 percent.
In other words, the civil rights movement was unpopular while it was happening, largely because it asked people to confront things they would rather not. Black Lives Matter makes many people uncomfortable for the same reason. Decades from now, people will look back at this period and ask who listened and who changed the subject.
The simplest place to start is to stop answering “Black Lives Matter” with a correction, and to let the sentence stand on its own.
Sources: Wikipedia: Black Lives Matter; Wikipedia: All Lives Matter; Wikipedia: Implicit-association test; Project Implicit; Wikipedia: Shooting of Charles Kinsey; Pew Research Center: How public attitudes toward Martin Luther King Jr. have changed; original open letter by John Halstead in HuffPost.
COMMENTS