Clyde_Style wrote:2010 wrote:ellobo wrote:
These statements are impossible to prove or disprove, but I vehemently disagree. Chauvin and the other officers were arrested because enough people were outraged that George Floyd was callously murdered while he was helpless, and enough of those people were outraged enough to make their voices heard. So what does it mean that they "made their voices heard?" People protested peacefully AND people damaged property and looted. So what caused the authorities to respond? We can't conclusively disentangle the causes.
BUT, I believe that the decisive factor is the scale of outrage at the moral offensiveness of the crime.
Why were so many outraged at the tear gassing of protestors in Trump's church stunt? Because the protestors were peaceful and were violently attacked.
Why were so many outraged at the 75 year-old in Buffalo being knocked to the ground. Because he was unthreatening and was violently attacked.
When protestors can say to militarized police, "There's NO RIOT HERE. Why are you in riot gear?" people seeing that just might question the militarization of police. But when people see looting and broken windows, a lot of them are going to not only accept, but demand a violent response.
The powers that be don't actually give a **** about looting and property damage. It doesn't threaten their power one bit and just gives them an excuse to respond violently to any and all civil unrest. Rioting and looting are mosquito bites on the ankles of the power structure. And you deal with a mosquito problem by spraying them with poison and killing them all.
Curfews are not meant to stop looting. They are a means to criminalize peaceful protest by making normally lawful activity criminal.
It isn't the looting that threatens the status quo, it's the groundswell of public opinion that the status quo needs to change. Looting undermines that groundswell and thereby supports the status quo.
Well, here's where I think the opportunity lies in the current moment. Peaceful protest is easy to ignore and dismiss if the only people protesting are a relatively small and historically marginalized group complaining about their own problems. It's when the larger population starts to recognize and empathize with the pain of their brothers and sisters (when they start of look at them as brothers and sisters in the first place), it's when they shift their view of who is "us" and who is "them," that change can happen.
You are making some valid points. But what I will say is your stance rings true now that they rally cry has been heard by the masses.
But I believe the initial response that I am speaking of was just as impactful for that moment. Cuz it was a call for attention. And now we've been heard.
I think in recent occurrences when we took peaceful measures it was brushed aside, misunderstood, or attempted to be discredited.
Which is why I am of the mindset that peaceful protest without the willingness to back it up with defensive/violent protest, property damage, and looting is ineffective. For it will just continually be ignored.
In hindsight, I think the solution lies somewhere in the middle. Maybe now that we have the world's attention, maybe we scale back the more extreme measures. But we still must maintain the mindset of being willing to do whatever is necessary to get what's owed, and what should be a human birthright.
Advocating implied violence as leverage when the deck is stacked against you is not good advice.
I strongly disagree. You don't deter the bully by laying down and letting him know you aren't willing to fight back. If you lose, so be it.
Implied violence is a deterrent. Why do we stand together and raise our arms to make ourselves look bigger/stronger in the presence of the bear?
The deck is no longer stacked against us, because now people who don't look like us, have heard our voices and stand beside us. Strength will always be in numbers.
We all know that the white crackers standing at the side of the road with their semi-automatics is implied violence.
We all know that those same people with weapons on the steps of state capitols is implied violence.
And we all know that if Blacks and Puerto Ricans did exactly the same they'd be beaten to a pulp or murdered by the police.
Agreed. But every living creature on earth has the right to defend itself. Even a deer has antlers. Just because the scale is imbalanced doesn't mean we shouldn't practice our birthright.
So the answer is not burning and looting. It won't work. It will lead to more chaos which is what the bad guys are banking on. They are praying you play right into their hands.
Implied violence is not the leverage you think it is, because you have no ability to organize and weaponize an insurrection that will storm the citadels of power and gain control and set things right. YOU HAVE NO SUCH POWER and you are kidding yourself if you think you do.
All that would do is invigorate Robocop and wipe out thousands of people who get caught up in the chaos.
Which plays right into our hands. Let them wipe out thousands of people with billions of sets of eyeballs watching. America and its entitled contingent are already disliked worldwide. Watch that dislike morph into outright hatred, surpassing the level of prejudice currently held for blacks.
They aren't afraid of you. You're misguided in your assumptions that you can threaten state power with force and get any kind of results. That is not strategic thinking.
The only result that will produce a change of regime is the ballot box. Bullets won't do chit. That's a fantasy.
As you are attempting to outline, even if we are overmatched in weaponry. We are not overmatched in righteousness...even if we resort to defending ourselves. So let them reign their bullets down on us. And watch as the outcome, and the tides, continue to turn in our favor. But what I will not preach is the hugging of those bullets.
RIP mags