By preserving culture and supporting children, the nuclear family consequently becomes the highest and most effective form of empowerment.
By now, people are realizing that Black Lives Matter (BLM) is less an organization committed to improving the black community, and more a Marxist group exploiting racial tensions to push its agenda. According to a recent poll, “70 percent of respondents think that the movement has not improved race relations, with 38 percent saying Black Lives Matter has made race relations worse.” After so much agitation and protest, BLM has little to show for itself besides fomenting chaos in urban America and coaxing millions of dollars from white elites hoping to expiate feelings of guilt.
Besides the lackluster outcome of its campaign, what has bothered people most about BLM is its core beliefs, which often stray from the concerns of many black Americans. In particular, BLM opposes the nuclear family: “We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and ‘villages’ that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable.”
The logic of this statement suggests that children do better without parents and outside the home. Rather, the “village” will raise them. More than any other belief of BLM, this one against the nuclear family threatens the most harm to Americans of all races. Dismantling it leaves children extremely vulnerable to social ills.
As former NFL athlete Marcellus Wiley brilliantly explains, children in broken homes “are 5 times more likely to commit suicide,6 times more likely to be in poverty,9 times more likely to drop out of high school,10 times more likely to abuse chemical substances,14 times more likely to commit rape,20 times more likely to end up in prison,32 times more likely to run away from home.” Far from taking responsibility for the children, BLM’s proverbial village usually swallows them whole.
So why does BLM include this claim in its creed? When all evidence suggests that eliminating the nuclear family immeasurably harms minorities, how does an organization advocating on their behalf justify this stance? Answering these questions is worthwhile not only because it highlights the essential virtues of the nuclear family, but it also offers a way to address the great decline in family life already happening.
