News #ferguson

[Deleted member 1860]

What major events in history haven't involved violence? I think the French would still be eating "cake" if it weren't for that lovely little revolution... [Thank you, Marie!]

 

[Anarchy]

Sh-t, where did my resolution to not engage primarily white communities on this topic as much as possible go. Bitter, bitter, bad choice self. I tend to get kind of passionate where humanity of others is concerned, & mostly tired of fighting for it one way or the other all of the time. Retreating.

@ Kaia, No need to feel bad about getting passionate on this.

I think you're right, abusers pick on those whom they expect to be able to get away with abusing, and abusers appear to assume that the mainstream will have little sympathy for visible minorities, and act accordingly .

Where ongoing events like Ferguson lead, and the insights which people gain as a result, is fascinating and far from immediately obvious. With very intelligent people like @Trauma, looking into this and being inspired to look further, this is going to be interesting.

One of my favourite examples of where these things can lead, comes from a sociological and historical study of the 1990s militia movement and the associated "brown (fascist) scare" which occured in the mainstream media, by Prof Robert H Churchill*, He found that some within the largely [but far from entirely] white movement had identified a common thread of abuse, begining with visible minorities, and expanding into those minority sections of the white population, which could be villified in the media and abused with impunity - or so the abusers appeared to hope.

As a result of that insight, there are still working class white guys, avidly studying the history of black self defence groups such as the "Deacons for Defence" and the Panthers, and finding common cause with the black communities on the other side of town#

*Churchill published his study under the title; To shake their guns in the tyrant's face...
# To be fair, some of the gun rights people had already worked as civil rights activists and were protected by the "Deacons", an example of that would be civil rights lawyer and retired professor, Don B. Kates.

 

[Anarchy]

What major events in history haven't involved violence? I think the French would still be eating "cake" if it weren't for that lovely little revolution... [Thank you, Marie!]

There have been some, though court chroniclers (mainstream historians) do tend to prefer to portray their bosses winning dramatic, violent victories, rather than studying slow bottom up changes, that don't glorify the "great men" who's favour and sponsorship the chroniclers seek.

The spread of Classical Liberalism in the 18th and 19th centuries would be an example of largely peaceful and positive change. Certainly there were instances of violence as some who had enjoyed special privilege at the expense of others, tried to use violence hang onto those privileges - or to gain new ones, but, by and large it was peaceful.

 

[catjudo]

Where I am from unless you make a whole lot of people very uncomfortable you don't get change.

Where I am from, it is possible to make a whole lot of people very uncomfortable and initiate change without engaging in mass violence against innocent, uninvolved private citizens.

I'm not against protests. If people feel there has been an injustice and want to peacefully protest then they should do that. It will almost always take more than peaceful protests to initiate change. But riots, looting and other violence is not the answer. Their energy and efforts are being wasted on an ineffective strategy that is only harming innocent people with no real possibility of change that can be directly attributed to their violent efforts.

 

[Ronin]

That's bit contradictory to say, 'it will take more than peaceful protests', and then say '... oh but violence isn't the answer'.
I relate to the underlying message, wanting of harmony and peace and all of that. The thing though is, what is 'excessive force' and against whom, is way too often a rather complex thing to debate. What some dub 'violence' is for others simply self defense. What some dub violence is for others a key to survival. Or employment. Or a way to feed families. Or so much of the above.
It's really easy to say 'violence isn't the answer' when one has the *luxury* of detaching from situation(s) at hand.

 

[BloomInWinter]

This is my neck of the woods. I have a friend on the Ferguson Police Force. I live about an hour and a half away. This has been such an upsetting time. I never knew how many people I work with and interact with hate African-American people so much. Most of our cops, paramedics, and community leaders here are proud of the ignorance and bigotry, and don't bother to hide it.

We have many people in the KKK around here. I have lost several friends who I have stopped being friends with because I refuse to be silent in the face of bigotry when it is brought up in public. Many of these same people consider themselves "Good Christians."

I have never felt so disappointed in human beings in my entire life. I can't even talk about this without getting very upset so I can't even share the mountain of bullshit we're dealing with. Sorry, I can't talk much about this yet and stay grounded.

There has been no justice for African-Americans, women, and really any non-white men in so long around here the Michael Brown situation is just yet another one in a non-ending vile river of duck-dynasty redneck suck.

 

[catjudo]

That's bit contradictory to say, 'it will take more than peaceful protests', and then say '... oh but violence isn't the answer'.

Black and white thinking much--the cognitive distortion kind, not the racial kind? When reacting to a situation there are most definitely (at least in this country) plenty of options that fall somewhere between just peaceful protests and reacting in violence. Reacting to violence with more widespread violence will not change anything.

What some dub 'violence' is for others simply self defense. What some dub violence is for others a key to survival. Or employment. Or a way to feed families. Or so much of the above.

Hopefully you've just misunderstood the point I was making. A young unarmed black man was killed by a police officer. It may or may not have been in self defense. I don't know. I wasn't there. I don't have all the information. I can't pass a judgement on it.

People who are unhappy, disgusted, or outraged by the event have responded with violent protests, looting and destruction of both public and private property. They are not acting in self defense. Their destruction of private property is not key to their survival, employment, feeding their families or any other such nonsense. They are basically having a huge temper tantrum of the largest kind, committing violent acts against many innocent people in order to protest the death of one possibly innocent person.

 

[anthony]

What do you think about:

 

[rightkindofme]

The thing is, the percentage of protestors who actually engage in looting or serious violence is so small that it is *ridiculous* to get mad at *the movement*. My experiences at protests is that less than 5% of the people present actually act in a violent manner. It may even be more like less than 3% of the people there.

When we shut down the Port of Oakland there were many tens of thousands of people involved. I stood on a train trestle high above the ground and watched them stream into the port. About 25 jerks were responsible for *all* of the destruction.

I don't get mad at those who are violent and who want to break things. I really don't. I understand their anger. I think their anger needs to be covered by people like me in the movement who prefer it done peacefully but I can afford to fix a few hot headed mistakes.

15 years ago I would have been breaking windows. (Ever heard of politics of the broken glass? Activists have used things like breaking windows as a way of getting police to show up at events they are protesting at. It is a long tradition to break things as part of civil disobedience.) Now I'm too old, too settled, and frankly too rich. If I did something that stupid I have a lot to lose in a law suit. :) So I don't break windows any more. I pay to have them repaired because that is no my place in the revolution.

I am feeling *incredibly* upset at some of the tone in these posts. They are having "temper tantrums". That make me want to vomit. They are not having temper tantrums. They are responding to a horrifying tragedy with grief and rage which is TOTALLY APPROPRIATE and their government is telling them to shut up and go home. Most of the protests have started out very peacefully until police in riot gear show up and do the escalation for them.

If I were at a peaceful protest, minding my own business, and some @$$hole in full riot gear got in my face and started screaming at me to move along... when I am following the law...

I'd break some windows. You bet your buttons.

I do not feel the protestors bear more than *maybe* 5% of the blame for things going wrong. The whole rest of the problem rests squarely on the head of a police force that taunts, kills, and covers up the dirty work.

I would be papering the whole city with instructions on how to fire the police force if I lived within 200 miles.

 

[Anarchy]

This is old news, but I don't think it got much coverage in the lamestream media at the time. Back in August the cops were pretty active in throwing CS canisters into residents back yards, and in variously arresting, harrassing and even gassing news crews (an al jazeera crew were gassed approximately 1 mile from the "front lines" - bear in mind that in a war, use of such chemicals would constitute a war crime).

the cops were not at all active in protecting people or property

Protestors and residents spontanaeously organized and did that job - and did it peacefully, using reason and appeals to would be looters better nature.

Be aware of autoplay content in the link:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/16/ferguson-protesters-guard-stores_n_5684042.html

 

[catjudo]

I had a different response typed but I messed it up, didn't save a copy of it, etc so I'm just going to try to make this short and sweet.

@rightkindofme I had thought I had clearly stated that I have no problem with non-violent protesters. And you're just pulling those percentages out of thin air. They're not based on any actual data or statistics. Neither you nor I have any idea if they are even close to being correct. Don't just make up statistics.

Please do not try to paint this like the riots have resulted in nothing more than a few broken windows. Entire businesses have been burned to the ground, reduced to nothing more than a pile of rubble. Small business owners who have absolutely no connection to this case and who have worked their entire adult lives to build their business have had it ripped away from them and reduced to ashes. The people engaging in such violence are not seeking justice, they're seeking vengeance. Mass violence perpetrated against innocent bystanders does not equal justice. It does not bring about positive changes. It only divides a community, it does not unite. That community and our nation as a whole needs to unite against injustices such as police brutality, racial violence and vigilantism.

It must be nice to have the luxury of believing that the aftermath of violence can be completely erased by throwing enough money at it. I'm sure the victims of these riots would not agree. The repercussions and lasting effects of these kinds of violent events surpasses that which money can fix.

I will not bring in specific stories or examples of my friends or the conversations we have and tears we've shared regarding their fears about raising young black men in today's society. But I will say that I do not personally know a single individual...conservative, liberal, Democrat, Republican, old, young, black, white, natural citizen, immigrant, legal, illegal, country, city, suburb, urban...not one single individual that I personally know, regardless of their background, condones the violence of these riots or thinks that it will lead to true, positive change.

Paper the city with instructions on how to fire the police force if you think that would help. That's just one example of a way to initiate change by doing more than just protesting but not resulting in further violence. Educate people on how to peacefully come together and make change. But condoning violence is not the answer.

With that, I will leave this discussion because I'm not interested in continuing to argue back and forth about what seems to me to be a matter of basic morals. I said it before and I'll say it again...Two wrongs do not make a right.

 

[Ronin]

Black and white thinking much--the cognitive distortion kind, not the racial kind? When reacting to a situation there are most definitely (at least in this country) plenty of options that fall somewhere between just peaceful protests and reacting in violence. Reacting to violence with more widespread violence will not change anything.

Those options have been tried, over and over and over. How heard out they are? Basically, if damage to something other group considers important is the only thing that gets anybody to listen or even consider there's a problem that needs resolving and isn't going away, it served as that call for attention that otherwise have not worked. Furthermore, who gets physically harmed and who gets physically killed here? It's really not the police force. It's in every case the protesters. And people who often have nothing to do with 'being violent', yet come support a cause. So let's not look at the theoretical mechanics about this when talking damage, let's talk about what damage is done and in what scales and for which reasons and with which resources, to whom.

Hopefully you've just misunderstood the point I was making. A young unarmed black man was killed by a police officer. It may or may not have been in self defense. I don't know. I wasn't there. I don't have all the information. I can't pass a judgement on it.

People who are unhappy, disgusted, or outraged by the event have responded with violent protests, looting and destruction of both public and private property. They are not acting in self defense. Their destruction of private property is not key to their survival, employment, feeding their families or any other such nonsense. They are basically having a huge temper tantrum of the largest kind, committing violent acts against many innocent people in order to protest the death of one possibly innocent person.

No, I understood you just fine, and I wasn't saying that Mr. Wilson was reacting in self defense even remotely. I was saying Black communities are.
And to be honest I'm personally perfectly comfortable passing a judgment on situations that I wasn't a part of, it's the question of how informed that judgment is and how presented and who to, but not being somewhere doesn't mean I can't take a stance to what is going on in there; that decision making about distant places is pretty important when considering future options imho.

Then there's another question: Do you (general you) value property or human life more?
Because I don't see destruction of property on nearly the same level as killing people. That question would be many shades of different if we were talking weaponry and different potential of lethal risk, if we were talking damage on both axes in the same time, but with this? We're not.

And labeling outrage over decades (longer than) of systematic mistreatment 'temper tantrums'? No. Just.... no.
'Possibly innocent' - he was an unarmed 18 years old civilian, who wasn't threatening anyone, not the officer in question, was cooperating and visibly surrendering, and wasn't preparing any sort of violent act. How do people make that cognitive disconnect of 'only POSSIBLY innocent' (basically saying 'he was guilty I just don't want to think about it') is quite beyond me.