This may be the first useful thing I've seen in Reader's Digest in 45 years.

'Conversations about race are difficult even in the best of times. But over this past contentious year, Americans—both White and BIPOC—have argued over different perspectives on race relations, including whether Critical Race Theory should be taught in schools, how prevalent institutional racism actually is, whether there can be voting-rights restrictions, and the idea of police reform. But few issues are more polarizing than the language people use in their conversations about how to stop racism or whether racism even exists. That's why you've probably heard the slogan "Black Lives Matter" countered with the phrase "All Lives Matter."

But that response is not only insensitive—it is also completely off-point and lacks historical context, explains David W. Campt, PhD, an expert in cultural competence and the founder of The Dialogue Company. "Of course all lives matter," he explains. "The reason that I say Black Lives Matter is because, historically, the sad fact is that all lives haven't mattered equally. That is why I and others are pointing out that Black lives matter also."

Matthew Harper, PhD, an associate professor of History and Africana Studies at Mercer University in Macon, Georgia, puts it simply: We should be upset when police kill unarmed Black people. Full stop. "If it's divisive, it shows that we have a real big problem in our society," he says. "It means that, on some level, a good number of us think that Black lives—or at least certain Black lives—are disposable." To counter this statement, he suggests saying: "It's only divisive if we don't think that Black lives matter. It's actually a very modest claim. All it says is these people who are being killed deserve not to be killed."'