Police shooting of unarmed teen leads to protests and Riot

[puffnstuff]

No one else is going to comment on that cop wearing white socks? That was another travesty.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by puffnstuff

No one else is going to comment on that cop wearing white socks? That was another travesty.

He appears to have chevrons on his sleeves, that is more of a travesty.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

Ferguson and Baltimore started as peaceful demonstrations by residents, but absolutely no one cared. It was only after things got violent that the media paid any attention to them and the reasons why they were protesting. And that template has been around for decades, you can walk the streets peacefully to try and get your message across but in all likelyhood will just be ignored. Or you can start breaking #### which immediately draws in nationwide media coverage, it's not a surprise that people will go with the faster and more effective method

As always I preface this by saying I am a 43 yr old white male.

I am not sure that violent protest is the "faster and more effective method".

To my mind, protesting isn't about getting what you want, it is about getting "The Other Side" to want what you want. I am not sure that violence will result in that end goal.

In my experience violence is most often met with violence. If change occurs it is usually begrudgingly.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

As always I preface this by saying I am a 43 yr old white male.

I am not sure that violent protest is the "faster and more effective method".

To my mind, protesting isn't about getting what you want, it is about getting "The Other Side" to want what you want. I am not sure that violence will result in that end goal.

In my experience violence is most often met with violence. If change occurs it is usually begrudgingly.

In the United States, most social change is predicated upon violence.

Either a violent act that is so heinous it ostracizes citizens and members of government, or an act so heinous it generates a violent response.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

In the United States, most social change is predicated upon violence.

Either a violent act that is so heinous it ostracizes citizens and members of government, or an act so heinous it generates a violent response.

I am aware of that, and was going to put that into the post, in short the US is reaping what it has sown culturally.

The approach you mention is what has gotten the US into the #### show it currently is. Maybe, another approach could result in a different outcome.

That being said Ms. Parks didn't kick and scream.


Me experience is that violence has always been met with violence.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

I am aware of that, and was going to put that into the post, in short the US is reaping what it has sown culturally.

The approach you mention is what has gotten the US into the #### show it currently is. Maybe, another approach could result in a different outcome.

That being said Ms. Parks didn't kick and scream.


Me experience is that violence has always been met with violence.

Other posters in this thread have raised the point that it's not up to the oppressed to show comity or patience, it's the role of the oppressors to recognize their actions which dictate the response.

I don't think the violence is going to go anywhere either, but only because the US doesn't exist in the same political state it did in the 1960s. Now, there is NO political recourse for citizens.

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

I am aware of that, and was going to put that into the post, in short the US is reaping what it has sown culturally.

The approach you mention is what has gotten the US into the #### show it currently is. Maybe, another approach could result in a different outcome.

That being said Ms. Parks didn't kick and scream.


Me experience is that violence has always been met with violence.

Peaceful demonstrations worked in the US in the past because you had guys like MLK rallying an entire nation of black citizens around a common ideal. Back then every person of color could rally around segregation laws since they impacted everyone, and when you get to the point of a million people marching in the US capital it's impossible to ignore. But now with the issue being police racism and brutality the issues are much more localized, someone in Baltimore is going to have a very different experience than say someone in San Francisco. It's hard to get a nationalized movement going when the discrimination varies from city to city

That being said, there were plenty of violent protests and race riots that happened prior to Rosa Parks and MLK, and without that who knows if they would have been able to get the attention to their cause that they did

[AcGold]

The onus to stop violence is definitely on the police. There was a publicized policy in New York that made violence against minorites a quota to reach, if it wasn't met the officers faced demotions and punishment.

Yes the officers need to take personal responsibility but it is mostly on the policy makers not on the streets dictating training techniques, hiring policies, organizational philosophy and memorandums to reach quotas.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

Peaceful demonstrations worked in the US in the past because you had guys like MLK rallying an entire nation of black citizens around a common ideal. Back then every person of color could rally around segregation laws since they impacted everyone, and when you get to the point of a million people marching in the US capital it's impossible to ignore. But now with the issue being police racism and brutality the issues are much more localized, someone in Baltimore is going to have a very different experience than say someone in San Francisco. It's hard to get a nationalized movement going when the discrimination varies from city to city

That being said, there were plenty of violent protests and race riots that happened prior to Rosa Parks and MLK, and without that who knows if they would have been able to get the attention to their cause that they did

Does the discrimination vary from city to city? I think it is the same discrimination, just to differing degrees.

I am of the belief that violence will only feed the discrimination.

I also think that violence scares away those that are on the fringes of the movement. In short, those not affected by the discrimination are less likely to come out and support the calls for change if those calls are being made during a violent protest.

I am fully support the right to peaceful protest, I don't support the right to violent protest. It never ends well when a nation/society turns on itself in a violent manner.

[wittynickname]

Originally Posted by taco.vidal

Have they come together in a nationwide, NON-violent uprising in recent years?

How many revolutions in history have been non-violent affairs?
Revolution is rarely neat and tidy and without collateral damage.

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

I am aware of that, and was going to put that into the post, in short the US is reaping what it has sown culturally.

The approach you mention is what has gotten the US into the #### show it currently is. Maybe, another approach could result in a different outcome.

That being said Ms. Parks didn't kick and scream.


Me experience is that violence has always been met with violence.

Ms. Parks didn't kick and scream. MLK preached non-violence. But there was still a lot of blood shed in the fight to end segregation. The issue currently is that the laws and progress that were made due to that movement are being toppled, where for a while racism was less blatant, in the last 6 years or so, it seems to have made a resurgence (ending the voting rights act, for example. Allowing gerrymandering, etc, etc. Changing voting laws to unfairly target minorities and the poor).

Not to mention the last 30 years of "war on drugs" which disproportionately affects the black community, leaving many with criminal records for non-violent offenses, which affects their ability to find a job, which affects their children's ability to go to a good school, which affects their children's ability to break the cycle of poverty. It's a systemic problem and people are sick and tired of being told that racism is over because Obama!

And I'm sure there's absolutely no connection to the surge of overt racism in the US and a black man being in the oval office.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by wittynickname

How many revolutions in history have been non-violent affairs?
Revolution is rarely neat and tidy and without collateral damage.




Ms. Parks didn't kick and scream. MLK preached non-violence. But there was still a lot of blood shed in the fight to end segregation. The issue currently is that the laws and progress that were made due to that movement are being toppled, where for a while racism was less blatant, in the last 6 years or so, it seems to have made a resurgence (ending the voting rights act, for example. Allowing gerrymandering, etc, etc. Changing voting laws to unfairly target minorities and the poor).

Not to mention the last 30 years of "war on drugs" which disproportionately affects the black community, leaving many with criminal records for non-violent offenses, which affects their ability to find a job, which affects their children's ability to go to a good school, which affects their children's ability to break the cycle of poverty. It's a systemic problem and people are sick and tired of being told that racism is over because Obama!

And I'm sure there's absolutely no connection to the surge of overt racism in the US and a black man being in the oval office.

You know I am not saying that the race issues in the US don't exist, right?

I believe they very much exist, I have seen them at play.

What I am saying is I don't think violence is the best approach. I think that much of the message is lost during violent protests.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

You know I am not saying that the race issues in the US don't exist, right?

I believe they very much exist, I have seen them at play.

What I am saying is I don't think violence is the best approach. I think that much of the message is lost during violent protests.

Unfortunately, we're getting to a point where it's not going to be a choice between violent and non-violent means to bring about change. It's going to be a choice between violent means and nothing happening.

Nothing happening and non-violent means are pretty close to one in the same already for minorities in the United States.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by wittynickname

How many revolutions in history have been non-violent affairs?
Revolution is rarely neat and tidy and without collateral damage.
.

Originally Posted by flameswin

Unfortunately, we're getting to a point where it's not going to be a choice between violent and non-violent means to bring about change. It's going to be a choice between violent means and nothing happening.

Nothing happening and non-violent means are pretty close to one in the same already for minorities in the United States.

See these posts are made, and I wonder if people understand what they mean.


"Revolution is rarely neat and tidy and without collateral damage" What you should have written is people die during revolutions, and often the deaths are those of the innocent, on both sides.

It is easy for us to sit behind out computers as call for "revolution" or violent change. It is a very different thing to be standing in the neighbourhoods that will suffer this violent protest and "revolution".

Many of us have no idea the impact of societal violence. Death is ####ing nasty and complete.

[jayswin]

I don't want to speak for Witty, but I believe neither of us was really calling for anything, but rather just predicting that based on the history of the US we'll be seeing escalating violence over the treatment of black people, that will likely end in a major, violent, historic event.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

See these posts are made, and I wonder if people understand what they mean.


"Revolution is rarely neat and tidy and without collateral damage" What you should have written is people die during revolutions, and often the deaths are those of the innocent, on both sides.

It is easy for us to sit behind out computers as call for "revolution" or violent change. It is a very different thing to be standing in the neighbourhoods that will suffer this violent protest and "revolution".

Many of us have no idea the impact of societal violence. Death is ####ing nasty and complete.

If you're livinng in the neighbourhoods that will suffer, you're already experiencing it.

From the outside, it looks like a choice between protest and riot.

From inside, you're watching your friends and relatives go to jail, get assaulted, be financially ruined or killed.

So, while it might alienate someone watching on CNN, it probably won't alienate anyone watching it happen live on the street. The problem with today's society is by and large average people are prevented from going down to the street to watch it happen themselves.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

If you're livinng in the neighbourhoods that will suffer, you're already experiencing it.

From the outside, it looks like a choice between protest and riot.

From inside, you're watching your friends and relatives go to jail, get assaulted, be financially ruined or killed.

So, while it might alienate someone watching on CNN, it probably won't alienate anyone watching it happen live on the street. The problem with today's society is by and large average people are prevented from going down to the street to watch it happen themselves.

I have said my piece on violence v non-violence.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

I have said my piece on violence v non-violence.

Not trying to goad you, I get what you're saying.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Not trying to goad you, I get what you're saying.

Yeah nah, I know you do.

[wittynickname]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

You know I am not saying that the race issues in the US don't exist, right?

I believe they very much exist, I have seen them at play.

What I am saying is I don't think violence is the best approach. I think that much of the message is lost during violent protests.

No, I understood your point re: non-violence. I was mostly just pointing out that with the current trends in the US--toward MORE racial inequality, not less--it's hard to see this getting better before it escalates.

Originally Posted by flameswin

I don't want to speak for Witty, but I believe neither of us was really calling for anything, but rather just predicting that based on the history of the US we'll be seeing escalating violence over the treatment of black people, that will likely end in a major, violent, historic event.

Exactly, I'm not in favor of a violent reaction or uprising. I am only saying that it's looking more and more like it may come from that. I'm aware that innocent people are affected by revolutions. I'm also aware that innocent people are already being affected, mostly on the minority side, and mostly on the poverty-stricken side. And the violence and rioting needs to be seen not as "hoodlums" and "thugs" but what the true message behind the original, peaceful protesting was about--a call to change, a call to realize what is happening in this country, a call to draw attention and make race relations better.

It would be fantastic if leaders of the black community and white legislators/police chiefs could come together, shake hands, and fix their problems. But I just don't see that happening.

[FlamesAddiction]

re: violence vs. non-violence...

I personally would never advocate it although I could totally understand it. Just like in a war, winning the hearts and minds is what eventually wins. You can be wronged a million times, but as soon as you throw away the victim status by seeking retribution, it buries you.

I think the saying; "the pen is mightier than the sword" has never been more true than it is now. With so much access to information and the ability for everyone to broadcast and communicate to large audiences, it is getting harder to hide these injustices. More and more people from all walks of life are seeing the ridiculousness of what goes on and are being angered and embarrassed by it.