At least we're better than Facebook comment sections!
Protests following the killing of George Floyd
- Thread starter Abizzz
- Start date
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.)
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 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.)
Last edited:
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?
Last edited:
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?
Some do it on purpose.
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?
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?
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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?
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.
Last edited:
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...
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 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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Arnie-ni wrote:
"arnie_ni said:
Seen from a nfl player a young black kid, couldn't be more than 10 was shot dead at the weekend but an unidentified black person.
Why does this not get a similar uproar and discussion?
Im not trying to stoke the flames here, im genuinely asking why does this almost seem accepted?
Obviously i know why there is uproar of police killings."
and I replied:
"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. "
I don't think there was anything wrong with that reply.
Not a historian by any means, but.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DZ9Ltn2VoAY6DZm?format=jpg&name=900x900
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/dc/a5/f4/dca5f4f5b47e4f5f1c087d822e1d1872.jpg
Last edited:
Thanks
I didn’t say it was ‘wrong’ I said your stance on BLM is unclear and your posts in this thread only back that up further, using two paraphrased phrases as an example.
You’re far more interested in focusing on the riots, not the context in which they happen & why they only receive media attention, nor how few there are in comparison to the wider movement.
Google 1960s small town newspapers in the South, Tuscaloosa, Alabama, for example. I was reading about a string of tornados that hit Tuscaloosa one day in the late 60a in its hometown newspaper. I flipped to the ‘Letters to the Editor’ page & counted three letters in which ‘n****r’ & its close variants were used. Each letter had the full name of the author & the neighborhood in which they live in the signature.
This was not one lucky coincidence that I hit on openly racist, published letters to the newspapers, it was the norm.
So one of the posters you mentioned used nothing, but what about the others?
And I'm fairly sure that, if you ask @JPRouve , they'd tell you that they didn't mean that literally nothing at all has changed, just that Black Americans are still an oppressed minority, still marginalized, still discriminated against.
When you make a point that hinges on someone saying something they haven't said, which renders your whole point moot, it should be pointed out. Your might have had a point if you were only addressing JPRouve, but you weren't.
And no, I wasn't being pedantic, I addressed an inaccuracy that left you with no argument against all but one of the people you were arguing against. It wasn't an attempt at derailing your pitiful argument, it was a refutation of it, made incredibly easy by your inability to engage with what people actually write.
I actually told him what has not changed and it's a fact that it hasn't, people in the US are still protesting about police brutality and economic inequalities toward minorities, decades of peaceful protests haven't changed that. I also told him that if he wants to extend the point to things like lynching and legal segregation then yes things have changed but it's not the topic of these protests, it's nothing else than whataboutism.
Ah, so another example of him not bothering to engage with what people actually write, instead preferring to filter it through his own brain, and then respond to whatever comes out the other end.
I hardly recall when was the last time a peaceful protest actually works? Serious questions
They claim Gandhi Ahimsa works, but it only works because there's a few hundred millions of Indians and there's only a handful of Brits. If the Indians are the minorities in numbers I doubt peaceful protest works.
They claim Gandhi Ahimsa works, but it only works because there's a few hundred millions of Indians and there's only a handful of Brits. If the Indians are the minorities in numbers I doubt peaceful protest works.
That's a very fair point and I have admit, I find it hard to answer. I would certainly support them and their cause but condemn destructive actions not specifically aimed at their opressors. I am also far more leaning towards MLK's colourblind ideal than say being told to read and subscribe to Robin DiAngelo's views laid out in her book "White Fragility" than is being pushed on BLM reddit.
And my response is clear. If peaceful protests have failed then violent protests have failed as well.
And no one told you otherwise, people told you that violent protests are the consequence of peaceful protests being ignored. What people told you is that even if they don't agree with violence they empathize for the reasons which was also expressed by MLK but you only cared about the first minute.
Just admit you were wrong when you said none of them made that point. I am happy enough to say that I was engaging with many people at the same time so if I confused very little with virtually nothing and nothing being said by a few different posters then sue me for making that mistake. Again I'm repeating it doesn't change the substance of what I'm saying.
And I said that I understand that the violence is caused by police brutality and social conditions.
Is there actually a point to this discussion anymore? Everyone seems to be saying the same thing yet we are arguing about misconceptions.
If nothing has changed so what is affirmative action? How come a black kid with worse grades can get into university ahead of an asian kid with better grades? Its pure hyperbole to say things haven't changed and I'm sure you know it.
And again I'm going to state that I am not saying things are great or even very good just a lot better than the 60s.
So you still don't understand? Seriously, have you read what I wrote or listened to what MLK said?
We have quoted that sentence multiple times, @villain and I posted the video of a part of his speech that only last two minutes and you still don't understand that sentence? "A riot is the language of the unheard."
So police brutality is not a widespread thing anymore and minorities in particular black minorities have the same level of amenities that the average american has?
Do you have evidence of anything remotely similar to your first paragraph? Not just individual anecdotes but actual statistics that show percentages of worse performing applicants who are preferred to more talented applicants?
I heard and I understand. Did you hear and understand the part where MLK condemned violent riots?
Whats wrong with me doing the same?
Police brutality is obviously still a big problem and blacks don't have the same level of amenities as whites but it is better than it was in the 60s. I'm not saying anything else apart from this.
I already told you what was the problem with what you said yesterday. People have also told you today.
Close to completing my bingo card here fella...
Good then people should stop protesting against people being killed by the police, death is apparently better than it was in the 60s. They should also stop protesting against economic inequalities, hunger, homelessness and not being able to afford basic health services is better than in the 60s.