If you haven’t been living under a rock, The Blaze, home of all things conservative is back at it again. One of their most popular hosts, Dana L, is at the center of a supposed controversy over a “new” ad that not-so-conservative liberals are apparently equally upset over. The issue, we’ll start with, is the fact that the ad isn’t exactly new: it has actually been out since about 7 April.
Let’s begin. The ad, features Dana, talking about the “left’s view on violence in America”. Now, whether or not this may be true, could be an entire debate in itself. While Dana did make a valid point that violence is never the answer, suggesting, that conservatives must fight back (“is no better than those that are burning buildings and causing havoc in itself”).
An interesting fete of Dana’s ad is the use of the phrase “Fist of Truth”. While we mentioned there are all types of “black people” especially those on the “left” there are different ways that each of us react. The original imagery that was used by Black Lives Matter, featuring a fist, has been deeply taken out of context by Dana. Dana cited that “You have a fist, with the word resist” under it.
That fist was never meant to be a sign of violence, anyone, who was on the right side of black lives matter and its movement knows that. The suggestion that we “all” believe that the image in question meant otherwise, is, alike others: dangerous. It suggests that we as black people are incapable of protesting (etc) without actively engaging in violence. Those that shot up Baltimore are not the representation of black people across America, or specifically, “black people on the left”.
It’s interesting that Dana likened her own use of the image and the apparently newly coined phrase “fist of truth” to an act of rebelling with the truth. Has it occurred to Dana that that was the whole point of the original image? That we, as law abiding black people on the right side of the spectrum, want exactly what Dana wants: accountability and the truth. Two things that currently largely lack when it comes to the safety and “civil rights” of several black Americans across the United States.
The suggestion from Dana that the answer to combating supposed ‘violence’ from the left is “fighting back” is essentially dangerous. As readers of The Blaze, we often agree with many of their points, but not so much others. This ad, being, one that we didn’t quite agree with. One thing is certainly clear in this ad, Dana, doesn’t understand events that have caused Black Lives Matter and its movements to balloon into what that movement has become.
Not everybody who participated in the social demonstrations from events like those in Ferguson, (etc), were on the (“let’s commit violent acts and loot businesses”) train. This is what that ad appears to suggest, that, we as a whole are “violent leftists who fit the (“unhinged”). The mention of these events were just prime examples, but, we’ll get to the actual mention of the violence in D.C and Baltimore in a moment.
The suggestion otherwise is indeed stereotypical and in more ways than one racist. The language used in this ad failed to materialize the point the way the point should have actually been made. What could have been a good ad, actually, turned out to be a carefully crafted attack on a whole community instead of a particular brand of that community.
This post does not endorse or agree with the violence committed in D.C; Baltimore, or any other place this month. Violence is never the answer whether literally committed or indirectly incited like it is in this ad.
How can Dana categorize each of those who took part in the violence that occurred that left numerous dead earlier this month in Baltimore? Who is Dana to say that each of these people were “of the left”. She can’t. For all we know they could have been each a part of every possible political group in America. Stop generalizing black people based on crimes committed by certain types of black people. This is a conservative mantra approach adding to the sentiment that all black people are dangerous, which, they’re not. She can’t sit back and say that “the “left” as a whole can be blamed for Baltimore for example.
Now, we could be wrong, maybe we interpreted her viewpoint wrong. But it’s the context of the ad that suggests Dana could be misconstrued as inciting violence against those that are different than her. While we acknowledge that we could be wrong about how this should’ve been interpreted, and, are open to all viewpoints — we’d also like to give Dana a chance to explain herself.
To be fair, the argument presented by some Twitter users appeared to be from the perspective that because Dana is a prominent “white” woman on the “right” that there’s no possible way she could be saying anything else other than “react violently”. Which makes we, as black people, no better than people who generalize black people based on actions of those who are similar to them.
As conservatives, we value the intended point of Dana’s ad but not her sales pitch of the ad. It came from a perspective that lacked a direct-context but instead was a bit all over the place. The bottom line? We’ve expected better from Dana, and, are disheartened that she would take part in such an unusually-negatively charged project like this one.
There are certain ways to go about protecting one’s second amendment right; your right to bear arms, your right to protect yourself, and so on. Indirectly inciting violence against a particular political group or particular group of people who believe a certain thing is exactly why certain people view the “right” as fear-mongering pro-gun people who will shoot you without thinking twice whether you’ve done something wrong or not.