Protests following the killing of George Floyd

[sebsheep]

There are only 2 ways this can head from this point, in my view.

1) an ever worsening cycle of resentment and violence

Or

2) a change in policing culture and accountability as well as transformative investment in the underlying causes of poor educational and economic opportunities in the poorest communities in an effort to improve equality

Given this is the US we are talking about, I expect number one to happen.

Did the LA riots change much in the US?
Maybe some of our American posters can shed some insight, it's just from the outside it looks like the police brutality never really went away.

 

[villain]

There may not be any actual leaders of the movement but each chapter will have people running certain things like the social media and arranging protests. Decisions will also have to be made as to how the donations are spent.
It being decentralised can lead to each chapter protesting for a slightly different set of things, even if the core message remains the same.
A chapter in DC had a list of things they were marching for that were not just based around equality and not everyone is going to agree with everything they wanted. I disagree with your opinion that someone not getting behind them then means they don't support the fight for equality.
I could also understand people having their businesses attacked or looted having an issue with the BLM chapter they are coming across if people are branching off from their protests to do these things.

Which is why I mentioned those who organise protests, and manage the admin part of any cause. But there’s no centralised voice, mostly volunteers and activists.
Supporting a cause and supporting an individual faction are two different things - protests can often be contextualised to be specific based on the timeline of events that led up to the protest - but ultimately supporting BLM shouldn't just be a 'I think racism is bad', because what does that achieve, and who does that help?
Supporting the cause sounds good, and i'm sure it makes people feel good to know that they agree that people should be treated equally - but it's got to a point where people are restless, so simply doing nothing is not good enough. Like the MLK letter I posted - the moderate white is arguably the biggest block to racial equality.
I think i've made my feelings clear when it comes to the looting - objects & things can be replaced, lives can't & there's almost no societal change that happens peacefully. But also, for the millionth & 1 time over 90% of BLM protests are peaceful - the fact that the media paints it in a very different light is incredibly telling, and I won't feed into that bias, or feel the need to explain it further.

 

[Mastadon]

I’m a mixed race South African. So we understand racism pretty well. Whilst I agree with you about differing views and opinions being good for discussion and debate, I don’t agree with the focus of your points of discussion.

If we are establishing credentials then I am a mixed race minority from a country(I rather not mention) that actively practices racism against minorities and has it enshrined in laws. As a bonus I am also a religious minority so I have the extra flavor of religious and well as racial discrimination. I know what I'm talking about when it comes to being a minority thats officially discriminated.

If you are keen on listening to me explain myself I don't mind starting a dialogue.

You stated a post above about “progress having been made on racism” like it’s something that we should accept or be proud of. Why should anything other than complete fairness and zero racism be accepted? Even the slightest degree of racism is unacceptable and a cause with fighting/dying for.

It is something to be proud of in the same way that most progress is something to be proud to. I took it as a simple fact. In no way, shape or form should that be construed as "we should sit on our laurels and everything is ok now". I fight racism that prevents people of my color and religion from holding the highest offices and I will continue to do so. Saying that we are halfway up the mountain doesn't mean we are at the top it means we are halfway up the mountain. Progress has been made. Fact.

Also, the rule of law only applies to those it serves. If it’s those exact rules of law that’s oppressing them and that they’re fighting against, then clearly there’s a contradiction in expecting them to obey those rules and laws? It’s only convenient for those that those rules and laws protect, to want to have everyone abide but those rules and laws, imo.

Do they actually have laws that discriminate against them? Where I come from there are laws saying that certain jobs, opportunities, land, businesses etc are only available to people who have a different skin color than mine. Does the same apply in the US? Bear in mind I know what its like to have real laws that explicitly exclude you on your race and religion and still do to this day and I know there is a difference between official legal racism and racist individuals.

If they choose to fight the system because they believe it is discriminatory against them then I have full respect for that. What I don't have respect for is those that indiscriminately use the protests and an opportunity to burn and loot and steal to enrich themselves. I think this is a perfectly reasonably stand but its a sign of the times where a person who condemns mindless violence is in turn criticized for doing so.

And the destruction of property is surely a “small” price to pay in the bigger scheme of things and in the attempt in eradicating racism and bringing about real change? Surely to focus on the destruction of property is kind of the wrong thing to really focus on, no? I don’t think anyone here would outright condone violence, looting or damage (innocent people will lose a lot) of property etc. but it’s just “collateral damage” because peaceful protests have not brought about meaningful change.

It is a small price to pay when you don't have to pay it sure. Just like saying we need to die for freedom but lets send your children to die not mine.

If you are going to say that peaceful protests have not brought about meaningful change then you must also say that violent protests have failed to do the same because there have been both peaceful and violent protests all this while. Thats why I don't bother to answer those who say peaceful protests have done nothing since the 60s therefore there needs to be violent protests. There have been violence protests as well and in great scale if nothing has changed then you have to say that violent protests are equally useless so why do them? The difference between peaceful and violent protests is that innocent people are harmed and livelihoods are destroyed in violent protests and I condemn this.

I think that racial issues need to be addressed and real equality is the goal of every minority and right thinking person and the fight is ongoing. That does not mean that I can't condemn mindless violence. I hope you see the difference between supporting equal rights and condemning mindless thugs.

I don’t post much in this thread but that’s my view on it anyway.

Its fair enough I don't think its very different from what I've been saying.

 

[Ish]

@Mastadon I'm curious as to where you are from? You can pm me if you don’t mind telling me but don’t want to do so on the forum.

 

[sebsheep]

Which is why I mentioned those who organise protests, and manage the admin part of any cause. But there’s no centralised voice, mostly volunteers and activists.
Supporting a cause and supporting an individual faction are two different things - protests can often be contextualised to be specific based on the timeline of events that led up to the protest - but ultimately supporting BLM shouldn't just be a 'I think racism is bad', because what does that achieve, and who does that help?
Supporting the cause sounds good, and i'm sure it makes people feel good to know that they agree that people should be treated equally - but it's got to a point where people are restless, so simply doing nothing is not good enough. Like the MLK letter I posted - the moderate white is arguably the biggest block to racial equality.
I think i've made my feelings clear when it comes to the looting - objects & things can be replaced, lives can't & there's almost no societal change that happens peacefully. But also, for the millionth & 1 time over 90% of BLM protests are peaceful - the fact that the media paints it in a very different light is incredibly telling, and I won't feed into that bias, or feel the need to explain it further.

I see where you're coming from, I think we obviously just have different views on that issue.
Just for clarification I didn't just mean people who "support" the cause but people who want to get involved. I also wasn't suggesting that protests weren't overwhelming peaceful, I think it sometimes comes across like that because we're sort of narrowing down the conversation.
Rioting/looting I see both sides on. The society we live in puts a lot of value in all this stuff but the inequalities built into it and it's unwillingness to change are what lead to people smashing it up. Plus Americans smash their towns up when they're happy as well.

 

[Drainy]

Did the LA riots change much in the US?
Maybe some of our American posters can shed some insight, it's just from the outside it looks like the police brutality never really went away.

I think that culture has moved on a lot since the early 90s

Also, phone cameras, the internet and (for better for worse) a profit motive means that police brutality won't ever be brushed under the carpet like it could be previously and the average right minded white person will have a better insight into what the police are really like.

 

[calodo2003]

Did the LA riots change much in the US?
Maybe some of our American posters can shed some insight, it's just from the outside it looks like the police brutality never really went away.

I would say that things changed for the positive mostly on a superficial level. There’s also been a lot of hardening of the same racist ideology.

 

[Gehrman]

Did the LA riots change much in the US?
Maybe some of our American posters can shed some insight, it's just from the outside it looks like the police brutality never really went away.

I believe the riots played some role in getting Nixon re-elected. Also back then nobody/very few condemned mainly korean business owners protecting their property against arson and looting by being heavily armed as the koreans were disproportiantly targeted in Koreatown.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Los_Angeles_riots

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jun/16/trump-nixon-1968-law-and-order-america

 

[Mastadon]

I'll also go back to comments from @villain, @Adisa, and @JPRouve: there have been protests for decades, yet very little has improved for Black people since segregation officially ended. (I keep saying 'officially', cause far too little actually changed in practice to say that segregation really ended.) @Adisa quoted this "Until we have peace, you won't get justice" line, which I suppose you agree with. But as they pointed out, the point is to get back the peace - and then do nothing, cause 'people obviously aren't that unhappy so why would we bother'? So as @JPRouve keeps asking: what would you do in that circumstance, where peaceful protesting is doing virtually nothing to help you regain your humanity in society? And finally, as @villain, pointed out, MLK understood the violence very well, calling rioting the language of the unheard (in that video that was posting). If you think that's an clear rejection of rioting, then I'm afraid you're simply wrong.

Let me just flip this back on you then. You and those you quoted keep saying nothing has changed since the 60s. There have been multiple violent protests and riots since then so that means violent protests achieved nothing. Since you know that violent protests are completely useless because nothing has changed why would you think that they are useful as a tool of change. The best argument against violent protests is your and others assertion that nothing has changed despite them. Don’t just single out peaceful protests as being useless.

I cant really tell you what to do because I believe a lot of things have changed. You have affirmative action for example to help disadvantaged minorities but I’m not going into that because I can see this being turned into a strawman of me saying that everything is perfect and there is no racism.

I already suggested going on strike as an effective means of protest that damages the economy but that was dismissed as people need to work in order to eat. Not sure how that fits in with rioting and looting maybe people go on paid leave for that.

 

[Gehrman]

"Watch the fish Marge..:"

 

[Halftrack]

Let me just flip this back on you then. You and those you quoted keep saying nothing has changed since the 60s. There have been multiple violent protests and riots since then so that means violent protests achieved nothing. Since you know that violent protests are completely useless because nothing has changed why would you think that they are useful as a tool of change. The best argument against violent protests is your and others assertion that nothing has changed despite them. Don’t just single out peaceful protests as being useless.

I cant really tell you what to do because I believe a lot of things have changed. You have affirmative action for example to help disadvantaged minorities but I’m not going into that because I can see this being turned into a strawman of me saying that everything is perfect and there is no racism.

I already suggested going on strike as an effective means of protest that damages the economy but that was dismissed as people need to work in order to eat. Not sure how that fits in with rioting and looting maybe people go on paid leave for that.

There's a pretty big difference between 'nothing' and 'very little' (they used the latter, so so much for your attempt at a 'gotcha')

 

[Mastadon]

There's a pretty big difference between 'nothing' and 'very little' (they used the latter, so so much for your attempt at a 'gotcha')

Change my words from 'nothing' to 'virtually nothing' then. It makes virtually no difference to the point I'm trying to make does it?

 

[Halftrack]

Change my words from 'nothing' to 'virtually nothing' then. It makes virtually no difference to the point I'm trying to make does it?

Makes virtually no difference? It literally changes everything. It invalidates the entire point you were trying to make, because you made it dependent on something none of them has said.

 

[Mastadon]

Makes virtually no difference? It literally changes everything. It invalidates the entire point you were trying to make, because you made it dependent on something none of them has said.

Well if you insist on nitpicking and using semantics to detract from the point I’m trying to make, then refer to post 7935. So now you see the use of the word nothing are you satisfied?

 

[villain]

I believe the riots played some role in getting Nixon re-elected. Also back then nobody/very few condemned mainly korean business owners protecting their property against arson and looting by being heavily armed as the koreans were disproportiantly targeted in Koreatown.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Los_Angeles_riots

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jun/16/trump-nixon-1968-law-and-order-america

Koreatown was targeted because a Korean store owner shot a 15 year old black girl in the back as she was trying to leave the store because the owner believed her to be stealing. Called the girl a witch and claimed she shot her in self defence. Instead the girls body was found with money in her hand.
The jury recommended the store owner get 16 years, however the judge reduced sentencing to 5 years probation and community service, insisting instead that the owner will ‘live with this for the rest of her life’
Once again - no justice, no peace.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Latasha_Harlins

 

[Gehrman]

Koreatown was targeted because a Korean store owner shot a 15 year old black girl in the back as she was trying to leave the store because the owner believed her to be stealing. Called the girl a witch and claimed she shot her in self defence. Instead the girls body was found with money in her hand.
The jury recommended the store owner get 16 years, however the judge reduced sentencing to 5 years probation and community service, insisting instead that the owner will ‘live with this for the rest of her life’
Once again - no justice, no peace.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Latasha_Harlins

I wonder how many of the owners of the 2,300 Korean-owned stores that were looted or burnt was complicit in this incident.

 

[Drainy]

I wonder how many of the owners of the 2,300 Korean-owned stores that were looted or burnt was complicit in this incident.

sounds a little bit Liam Neeson, only with actual victims of the targeting tbh.

 

[starman]

Koreatown was targeted because a Korean store owner shot a 15 year old black girl in the back as she was trying to leave the store because the owner believed her to be stealing. Called the girl a witch and claimed she shot her in self defence. Instead the girls body was found with money in her hand.
The jury recommended the store owner get 16 years, however the judge reduced sentencing to 5 years probation and community service, insisting instead that the owner will ‘live with this for the rest of her life’
Once again - no justice, no peace.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Latasha_Harlins

You do realise you are stereotyping yourself with all your posts.
I am sure you mean well but you're basically trying to fight racism against one group with more racism against others
If a black person does something bad is it then fair game to take it out on other black people...? isnt that essentially the motto of white supremacists...

 

[sebsheep]

I believe the riots played some role in getting Nixon re-elected. Also back then nobody/very few condemned mainly korean business owners protecting their property against arson and looting by being heavily armed as the koreans were disproportiantly targeted in Koreatown.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Los_Angeles_riots

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jun/16/trump-nixon-1968-law-and-order-america

Koreatown was targeted because a Korean store owner shot a 15 year old black girl in the back as she was trying to leave the store because the owner believed her to be stealing. Called the girl a witch and claimed she shot her in self defence. Instead the girls body was found with money in her hand.
The jury recommended the store owner get 16 years, however the judge reduced sentencing to 5 years probation and community service, insisting instead that the owner will ‘live with this for the rest of her life’
Once again - no justice, no peace.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Latasha_Harlins

Yeah I only came across that earlier on this year, not nice watching someone shot in general nevermind in the back of the head from a very short distance when they're walking away from what was a small scuffle. Was baffled by the 'sentencing' decision on that.
Reading through the wiki page it suggests there were already tensions between the two communities before this.

 

[villain]

I wonder how many of the owners of the 2,300 Korean-owned stores that were looted or burnt was complicit in this incident.

I wonder how many of the many hundreds of thousands of the black population in LA related to the story of a black person being wrongfully accused of being a thief, being killed, or not getting justice in a system that's supposed to protect & serve them.



"A riot is the language of the unheard" - Martin Luther King

 

[villain]

Yeah I only came across that earlier on this year, not nice watching someone shot in general nevermind in the back of the head from a very short distance when they're walking away from what was a small scuffle. Was baffled by the 'sentencing' decision on that.
Reading through the wiki page it suggests there were already tensions between the two communities before this.

Yes because the store owners would target black customers as thieves, and would follow them around as a result.
Also prospective black business owners, were not given loans in the same neighbourhoods to start their own stores.

You do realise you are stereotyping yourself with all your posts.
I am sure you mean well but you're basically trying to fight racism against one group with more racism against others
If a black person does something bad is it then fair game to take it out on other black people...? isnt that essentially the motto of white supremacists...

You're going to have to be specific here, how am i fighting racism against one group with racism against another?

 

[afrocentricity]

Some are destined to forever miss the point it seems...

 

[NotThatSoph]

@villain

I don't know how you do it. Holding the views is one thing, and infuriating enough, but people are treating it like a debate. Like it's a game with points to be won.

 

[villain]

@villain

I don't know how you do it. Holding the views is one thing, and infuriating enough, but people are treating it like a debate. Like it's a game with points to be won.

It's mentally draining for sure, and funnily enough i've held my tongue in the last few weeks - but there are some things which can't continue to go unchecked.

 

[sebsheep]

@villain

I don't know how you do it. Holding the views is one thing, and infuriating enough, but people are treating it like a debate. Like it's a game with points to be won.

At least we're better than Facebook comment sections!

 

[Cheimoon]

Let me just flip this back on you then. You and those you quoted keep saying nothing has changed since the 60s. There have been multiple violent protests and riots since then so that means violent protests achieved nothing. Since you know that violent protests are completely useless because nothing has changed why would you think that they are useful as a tool of change. The best argument against violent protests is your and others assertion that nothing has changed despite them. Don’t just single out peaceful protests as being useless.

I cant really tell you what to do because I believe a lot of things have changed. You have affirmative action for example to help disadvantaged minorities but I’m not going into that because I can see this being turned into a strawman of me saying that everything is perfect and there is no racism.

I already suggested going on strike as an effective means of protest that damages the economy but that was dismissed as people need to work in order to eat. Not sure how that fits in with rioting and looting maybe people go on paid leave for that.

As @Halftrack mentioned (which I know you dismissed), I never said that nothing had changed; I said it's way too little. I agree with the point you made elsewhere that any progress is good, but what has changed is simply nowhere near good enough, as simple stats about socioeconomic and health situations of Black people demonstrate.

I would also say that violent protests have often been a catalyst for the little change we did see. Take police brutality for example: it's been happening really long and been protested really long. Yet changes in US policing policies have been extremely slow. The explosion of protests after the George Floyd murder, however, have set a lot of things in motion very quickly. Many cities have taken meaningful action to reform their policing, and it got to the point where even someone like Trump (who really doesn't give two shits about Black people) signed an executive order about it. It didn't mean as much, but just to indicate how the explosion of protests reverberated. But as soon as the protests slow down, the issues go off politicians' radars, and we go back to business as usual - which in the US often means further policies about neoliberal economics and being tough on crime that hurt minority communities.

I'm not a violent person myself and I wish mass action (demos, strikes) would have the right effect. But it seems to me that violent protests have definitely been a catalyst for meaningful change, which otherwise comes unbearably slowly. In Canada, for example, Indigenous Peoples are often in awful situations, and while politicians are happy to acknowledge that and there is now finally(!) some kind of action plan, actual improvements are still almost unnoticeable. To really move things along, it looks like we need either a huge catastrophe (which would hurt Indigenous Peoples), or more impactful protests. In that case, I prefer the latter, even though that would probably hit my city. (They've done big rail blockades recently about what was a relatively minor issue in the grand scheme of things, and I hope they will now use those tools more often.)

If they choose to fight the system because they believe it is discriminatory against them then I have full respect for that. What I don't have respect for is those that indiscriminately use the protests and an opportunity to burn and loot and steal to enrich themselves. I think this is a perfectly reasonably stand but its a sign of the times where a person who condemns mindless violence is in turn criticized for doing so.

I think the bolded bit is a red herring. You talk here as if all or a representative part of the protesters engage in that kind of stuff, which is clear and utter nonsense. I also don't think anyone on here condones opportunists who use the riots to start looting. For myself, I also think looting is unhelpful and violence (if there has to be any) should first go against government stuff and mass infrastructure - i.e., things that represent the state and society. Looting small businesses that are out-of-context to me is completely besides the point, and yes, reprehensible.

It is a small price to pay when you don't have to pay it sure. Just like saying we need to die for freedom but lets send your children to die not mine.

This metaphor suggests that Black people should turn their violence against their own businesses and community. I suppose you might want to rethink your point here. My take would be that the 'enemy' is the state and society in general, and so if violence is the way, it should focus on things that represent those. (As I said above.)

(I feel like an absolute keyboard warrior writing these things btw. I hope I won't be a lazy coward if ever I'm in a situation where violence is required to fix an obvious wrong.)

Edit: I actually think enormous mass protests (like in Belarus right now) might be the best pressure tool. But it's hard to get those going for a minority, or to sustain then long enough. I anyway feel more ambiguous towards the violence then I'm admitting in my text above, I think. But I really can't judge people for it. (In this context; but not the looting of unrelated small businesses.)

 

[Gehrman]

I wonder how many of the many hundreds of thousands of the black population in LA related to the story of a black person being wrongfully accused of being a thief, being killed, or not getting justice in a system that's supposed to protect & serve them.



"A riot is the language of the unheard" - Martin Luther King

So are all these white people rioting, looting and commiting arson because they are oppressed? Or is just kind of solidarity looting and arson? Don't you think there are a fair share of people taking advantage of this situation to both get to do virtue-signalling and get a free pass to feck shit up?

 

[villain]

So are all these white people rioting, looting and commiting arson because they are oppressed? Or is just kind of solidarity looting and arson?

Not only do you continue to focus on the riots, even though they account for a minimal amount of the number of protests that take place
https://elephrame.com/textbook/BLM

On top of that, I see no evidence of you even considering or emphasising with the BLM cause or perspective.
In fact looking at every post you've made in this thread, it's not actually clear what your stance is or if you even support BLM - all I find find is 'what about the other atrocities in the world' 'riot and looting emboldens the Right'

So what is it that you're trying to achieve?

 

[JPRouve]

Some are destined to forever miss the point it seems...

Some do it on purpose.

(I feel like an absolute keyboard warrior writing these things btw. I hope I won't be a lazy coward if ever I'm in a situation where violence is required to fix an obvious wrong.)

I will never engage in violence outside of a direct response to an attack, so don't consider yourself as a lazy coward or a keyboard warrior because you may not engage in violence. It's always important to have level headed people in all causes, people that will not let their emotions control them because many people can't do it and what we should do is understand why they feel the way they do but also tell them that it's not the way.

The actual way is very difficult basically you need to play the political game, you need to out fox the current leaders and slowly gain more and more actual power. You need to lie, cheat, backstab many people sometimes alienate people you care about but the ultimate goal is to actually gain power. If the americans wants to rebuilt their society they need to get rid of the Democrats and Republicans but neither parties can realize what is happening until it's too late. Now the question is who is going to do that, who is going to put the wheels in motion?

 

[Gehrman]

Not only do you continue to focus on the riots, even though they account for a minimal amount of the number of protests that take place
https://elephrame.com/textbook/BLM

On top of that, I see no evidence of you even considering or emphasising with the BLM cause or perspective.
In fact looking at every post you've made in this thread, it's not actually clear what your stance is or if you even support BLM - all I find find is 'what about the other atrocities in the world' 'riot and looting emboldens the Right'

So what is it that you're trying to achieve?

Could you reference me this bit? " 'what about the other atrocities in the world"?

I have already said that I support some the BLM causes such as

- Racial Equality before the law
- Exposing police brutality and reforming the methods of the police so we end up with less tragedies
- working against cultural embedded racism.

I do not support arson, looting, property damage or intimidation tactics.

I have already said that my support of the BLM organization and movement is mixed.

I'm not trying to achieve anything other than express my point of view. This is redcafe after all.

 

[NotThatSoph]

Could you reference me this bit? " 'what about the other atrocities in the world"?

I have already said that I support some the BLM causes such as

- Racial Equality before the law
- Exposing police brutality and reforming the methods of the police so we end up with less tragedies
- working against cultural embedded racism.

I do not support arson, looting, property damage or intimidation tactics.

I have already said that my support of the BLM organization and movement is mixed.

I'm not trying to achieve anything other than express my point of view. This is redcafe after all.

If we imagine this was the time of the Civil Rights Movement, do you see yourself 1) doing nothing at all, 2) arguing for or fighting for the CRM, or 3) arguing against the arson, looting, property damage or intimidation tactics even though you of course would support the CRM in principle though perhaps in a mixed way?

 

[Cheimoon]

I will never engage in violence outside of a direct response to an attack, so don't consider yourself as a lazy coward or a keyboard warrior because you may not engage in violence. It's always important to have level headed people in all causes, people that will not let their emotions control them because many people can't do it and what we should do is understand why they feel the way they do but also tell them that it's not the way.

I grew up in the Netherlands and what I was thinking about when writing that comment is the Nazi occupation of the Netherlands. Would I have been complacent, would I have been passively resistant, would I have joined the actual underground resistance... It's a lot more radical than this situation of course, but there are situations that need violence and where you need people that participate.

The actual way is very difficult basically you need to play the political game, you need to out fox the current leaders and slowly gain more and more actual power. You need to lie, cheat, backstab many people sometimes alienate people you care about but the ultimate goal is to actually gain power. If the americans wants to rebuilt their society they need to get rid of the Democrats and Republicans but neither parties can realize what is happening until it's too late. Now the question is who is going to do that, who is going to put the wheels in motion?

That's kinda what I was saying in the rebellion thread. Minorities and lower classes are being fleeced and mistreated by current socioeconomic systems in many OECD countries. These people together represent a large part of society (if not an actual majority) and there are lots of very reasonable measures that fit the general capitalist context and would enormously improve their situations (read any recent mainstream book on inequities). Yet I don't know of any party anywhere that really goes all out for those ideas and makes them its platform. I don't get that - I'd think it should be a winning formula! (Maybe more outside the US, but I'm not restricting this comment to the US.)

 

[Gehrman]

If we imagine this was the time of the Civil Rights Movement, do you see yourself 1) doing nothing at all, 2) arguing for or fighting for the CRM, or 3) arguing against the arson, looting, property damage or intimidation tactics even though you of course would support the CRM in principle though perhaps in a mixed way?

With regards to the civil rights movement I would be far more supportive as there was far more clear cut racist laws in place to abolished. Basically the systemic racism was far more tangible and also there were more clear cut solutions.

 

[villain]

Could you reference me this bit? " 'what about the other atrocities in the world"?

I have already said that I support some the BLM causes such as

- Racial Equality before the law
- Exposing police brutality and reforming the methods of the police so we end up with less tragedies
- working against cultural embedded racism.

I do not support arson, looting, property damage or intimidation tactics.

I have already said that my support of the BLM organization and movement is mixed.

I'm not trying to achieve anything other than express my point of view. This is redcafe after all.

Paraphrasing of course:

There is literally some worth protesting worth everyday if you want to. Hunger in the world. War in Syria. Recent annexation of Hong kong. Opression of Tibetans. Donald fecking trump every day. Climate change. Gender bias. You name it. Simply because you don't meet up for protest does not make you complicit.

Because it's not a racially motivated killing and an example of police brutality and racism.

I think people are choosing their causes to highlight as there is virtually an unlimited number of daily atrocities around the globe.

We barely hear about Syria anymore and think stiill around 20.000 people have been killed in that conflict this year. Still lots of killings in Iraq as well and people dying from hunger in Yemen and Africa.

The problem is you keep equating the arson, looting and property damage with BLM - as if that is the intention of any of the protests, or as if it's sanctioned. It's not.
On top of that, you continually only talk about those things despite them being an insignificant number in the grand scheme of the amount of BLM protests that occur daily - I haven't seen any reference to any of the causes of BLM that you apparently do support recently.

So by bringing up the riots - while failing to acknowledge what turns a protest into a riot & how few there are in comparison - you're basically saying because of a few (literally a few, in comparison) riots, you can't fully support BLM.

As an aside & in reference to the quoted posts, it's possible to be active & support multiple causes at once. Inaction is complicity more often than not - i'm not going to quote MLK's white moderate speech again, because it really should be clear by now.

 

[NotThatSoph]

With regards to the civil rights movement I would be far more supportive as there was far more clear cut racist laws in place to abolished. Basically the systemic racism was far more tangible and also there were more clear cut solutions.

But, there was still arson, looting, property damage and intimidation tactics.

Are you saying that with regards to the Civil Rights Movement you would overlook these things and argue on their side instead of against these things, while with regards to Black Lives Matter you will not overlook these things and argue against them instead of on Black Lives Matter's side, or did you mean something else?

 

[Gehrman]

Paraphrasing of course:




The problem is you keep equating the arson, looting and property damage with BLM - as if that is the intention of any of the protests, or as if it's sanctioned. It's not.
On top of that, you continually only talk about those things despite them being an insignificant number in the grand scheme of the amount of BLM protests that occur daily - I haven't seen any reference to any of the causes of BLM that you apparently do support recently.

So by bringing up the riots - while failing to acknowledge what turns a protest into a riot & how few there are in comparison - you're basically saying because of a few (literally a few, in comparison) riots, you can't fully support BLM.

As an aside & in reference to the quoted posts, it's possible to be active & support multiple causes at once. Inaction is complicity more often than not - i'm not going to quote MLK's white moderate speech again, because it really should be clear by now.

Did you see the context in which I made the 2nd post? I suggest you read what my answer was to. My answer was literally to a poster who asked why no posters made a single sound about a child being killed(or all the others killed) in gang violence in Chicago and my reponse was that posters was choosing their causes and incidents since terrible things happen around the world every day.

In regards to meeting up to protests and stuff, I think it's a fair point to make. The current mantra of the BLM movement is "Silence is violence". By logic you can apply that to every injustice in the world. I am not complicit in every injustice in the world because I'm not talking about it.

 

[afrocentricity]

Historians, do we have examples of anti civil rights era propaganda and rhetoric so I can compare and contrast, I'm curious about it's evolution since then...

 

[Mastadon]

As @Halftrack mentioned (which I know you dismissed), I never said that nothing had changed; I said it's way too little. I agree with the point you made elsewhere that any progress is good, but what has changed is simply nowhere near good enough, as simple stats about socioeconomic and health situations of Black people demonstrate.

I think its very unproductive to the discussion to nitpick the words others have used when its clear what they are trying to say. You said virtually nothing had changed as a result of the protests does it really change the substance of the argument by saying nothing instead of virtually nothing? Halftract was being merely being pedantic in an attempt to derail my argument using semantics which failed. I didn't dismiss what he said I pointed out that he was wrong because someone else had actually said nothing had changed repeatedly while asking me for a response.

I would also say that violent protests have often been a catalyst for the little change we did see. Take police brutality for example: it's been happening really long and been protested really long. Yet changes in US policing policies have been extremely slow. The explosion of protests after the George Floyd murder, however, have set a lot of things in motion very quickly. Many cities have taken meaningful action to reform their policing, and it got to the point where even someone like Trump (who really doesn't give two shits about Black people) signed an executive order about it. It didn't mean as much, but just to indicate how the explosion of protests reverberated. But as soon as the protests slow down, the issues go off politicians' radars, and we go back to business as usual - which in the US often means further policies about neoliberal economics and being tough on crime that hurt minority communities.

I think the video of George Floyds murder and the reaction from the general public would have done the same. Im not sure how burning and looting innocent businesses has helped apart from alienate supporters. Do you have any data or evidence to support the idea that violent protests bring about change better than peaceful protests in the US?

I'm not a violent person myself and I wish mass action (demos, strikes) would have the right effect. But it seems to me that violent protests have definitely been a catalyst for meaningful change, which otherwise comes unbearably slowly. In Canada, for example, Indigenous Peoples are often in awful situations, and while politicians are happy to acknowledge that and there is now finally(!) some kind of action plan, actual improvements are still almost unnoticeable. To really move things along, it looks like we need either a huge catastrophe (which would hurt Indigenous Peoples), or more impactful protests. In that case, I prefer the latter, even though that would probably hit my city. (They've done big rail blockades recently about what was a relatively minor issue in the grand scheme of things, and I hope they will now use those tools more often.)

There are situations which call for violence I'm not denying that. I just don't see this as being one of them. This isn't Syria or Iraq for example.

I think the bolded bit is a red herring. You talk here as if all or a representative part of the protesters engage in that kind of stuff, which is clear and utter nonsense. I also don't think anyone on here condones opportunists who use the riots to start looting. For myself, I also think looting is unhelpful and violence (if there has to be any) should first go against government stuff and mass infrastructure - i.e., things that represent the state and society. Looting small businesses that are out-of-context to me is completely besides the point, and yes, reprehensible.

This is simply not true. I have stated repeatedly that I am able to differentiate between BLM protestors who are mostly peaceful and the people who are out to loot and rob. Like I said said just because I choose to focus on what happened in the 50th minute of a football match doesn't mean I'm unaware of what happened in the other 89 minutes. The topic of the discussion for me is the 50th minute why criticize me for not talking about the 30th or 60th minute?

If you don't understand my position let me make it clear : I support the struggle against police brutality and for equal rights and I condemn the mindless looting and burning and destruction of private property.

The funny thing is people keep saying on one hand don't equate the violent looters with BLM while acting like condemning the violent looters means you are against BLM.

By BLM I mean any of the anti police brutality and equal rights movements.

This metaphor suggests that Black people should turn their violence against their own businesses and community. I suppose you might want to rethink your point here. My take would be that the 'enemy' is the state and society in general, and so if violence is the way, it should focus on things that represent those. (As I said above.)

(I feel like an absolute keyboard warrior writing these things btw. I hope I won't be a lazy coward if ever I'm in a situation where violence is required to fix an obvious wrong.)

That is not my point. My point is that those who are so quick to say sacrifices have to be made should experience those sacrifices before volunteering other unwilling parties to be sacrificed and suffer.

 

[villain]

Did you see the context in which I made the 2nd post? I suggest you read what my answer was to. My answer was literally to a poster who asked why no posters made a single sound about a child being killed(or all the others killed) in gang violence in Chicago and my reponse was that posters was choosing their causes and incidents since terrible things happen around the world every day.

In regards to meeting up to protests and stuff, I think it's a fair point to make. The current mantra of the BLM movement is "Silence is violence". By logic you can apply that to every injustice in the world. I am not complicit every injustice in the world because I'm not talking about it.

Yes, I saw the response - it's typical to equate BLM with 'black on black crime' and suggest 'why doesn't this black person's life matter' etc. It's a foolish tactic rooted in ignorance, which is not only completely different to what BLM is, but is only brought up in bad faith.

And no you can't apply the same logic to every injustice in the world, different injustices require different approaches, some are political and require years worth of strategising, voting & preparation to help fix. However the world won't fix itself if everyone thinks someone else will do the job.
For BLM, it's not simply enough to not be racist and be horrified at the treatment that minorities are subject to. It's educating those around you, challenging friends & families who's views on the matter are warped and having uncomfortable conversations. Simply doing nothing and saying you're not racist - just means that violence against black (& other minorities) will continue.

 

[klsv]

So clear where some draw the line.

A pig of a cop rams seven bullets in someone's back months after another one kneeled on someone's neck for seven minutes? Well it's not that easy, should have just complied, there's more to it, must understand why the cops did it, they must have been scared for their lives. The video has a low quality, no sound and doesn't show the beginning of the incident.

Riots break out and a bank window get broken? Naw man, never justified, never a reason for that. No social, economical or political background, no personal dimension for it, just plain wrong.