Black lives matter

[Richie B.]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ears-on-confederate-memorials-across-the-u-s/

So I wanted to know people's opinion on the group and the recent event that I linked above to.

I hope there isn't already another thread for this.

 

[Kaane]

This is tantamount to defacing a grave site, regardless of who fought for what side. This was set aside for a piece of American history that needs to be remembered, and most importantly, for the people who were a part of it, who died for it, that need to be remembered.

Whoever did this should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

 

[Brandon Rhea]

For the record, this was 14 months ago.

 

[Nor'baal]

I think we can all agree, that black lives matter.

The methods the movement uses are questionable, but again it's a minority of them doing it, much like its a minority of police that are discriminatory trigger happy loons.

Once again, the media on both sides of this has blown out of proportion the acts of a very small group of people, and this has lead to an incredibly terrible perception of BLM and the Police.

 

[+SpaceJesus+]

Quoting Barbara Reynolds, a prominent1960's civil rights activist,

"Many in my crowd admire the cause and courage of these young activists but fundamentally disagree with their approach. Trained in the tradition of Martin Luther King Jr., we were nonviolent activists who won hearts by conveying respectability and changed laws by delivering a message of love and unity. BLM seems intent on rejecting our proven methods.

At protests today, it is difficult to distinguish legitimate activists from the mob actors who burn and loot. The demonstrations are peppered with hate speech, profanity, and guys with saggin pants that show their underwear. Even if the BLM activists aren’t the ones participating in the boorish language and dress, neither are they condemning it."

I think this states the point fairly well without me having to say much.

 

[Nameless]

Quoting Barbara Reynolds, a prominent1960's civil rights activist,

"Many in my crowd admire the cause and courage of these young activists but fundamentally disagree with their approach. Trained in the tradition of Martin Luther King Jr., we were nonviolent activists who won hearts by conveying respectability and changed laws by delivering a message of love and unity. BLM seems intent on rejecting our proven methods.

At protests today, it is difficult to distinguish legitimate activists from the mob actors who burn and loot. The demonstrations are peppered with hate speech, profanity, and guys with saggin pants that show their underwear. Even if the BLM activists aren’t the ones participating in the boorish language and dress, neither are they condemning it."

I think this states the point fairly well without me having to say much.

The internalized racism of respectability politics is more harmful to the movement than any amount of pants sagging and profanity. One does not need to dress and act “correctly” in order to be afforded agency. Not to mention the fact that “respectable” members of both BLM and the black community at large have also been unjustly jailed and murdered despite their efforts. Even Dr. King, the very model of a respectable black man, was assassinated.

Also, proven methods? You know what methods have also been proven? The methods of violent resistance and bloody uprising. Such as the Haitian Revolution, the French Revolution, and even the Birmingham riot of Dr. King's own time period which many have cited as the actual cause for the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Hell, the first Pride parade could be considered to be the Stonewall riots, and it is because of those riots that we were able to get to the point where gay marriage could be legalized. Also, I feel like there was one that had something to do with tea and Boston Harbor, but maybe I'm remembering incorrectly.

I'll let Dr. King speak for himself on the subject:

“But it is not enough for me to stand before you tonight and condemn riots. It would be morally irresponsible for me to do that without, at the same time, condemning the contingent, intolerable conditions that exist in our society. These conditions are the things that cause individuals to feel they have no other alternative than to engage in violent rebellions to get attention. And I must say tonight that a riot is the language of the unheard.”


As far as the original topic of this thread: I say more power to them. Burn all the confederate flags and tear down all the monuments. The only place those names should exist is in history books next to the words “traitor” and “bigot”. If they really want to immortalize the assholes that tore the country apart because it was suggested that perhaps people shouldn't be viewed and treated as less than human based on the color of their skin, then I suggest plastering images of their faces onto the backs of urinals and inside toilet bowls so that they may be pissed and shat on for the foreseeable future.

 

[+SpaceJesus+]

The internalized racism of respectability politics is more harmful to the movement than any amount of pants sagging and profanity. One does not need to dress and act “correctly” in order to be afforded agency. Not to mention the fact that “respectable” members of both BLM and the black community at large have also been unjustly jailed and murdered despite their efforts. Even Dr. King, the very model of a respectable black man, was assassinated.

Also, proven methods? You know what methods have also been proven? The methods of violent resistance and bloody uprising. Such as the Haitian Revolution, the French Revolution, and even the Birmingham riot of Dr. King's own time period which many have cited as the actual cause for the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Hell, the first Pride parade could be considered to be the Stonewall riots, and it is because of those riots that we were able to get to the point where gay marriage could be legalized. Also, I feel like there was one that had something to do with tea and Boston Harbor, but maybe I'm remembering incorrectly.

I'll let Dr. King speak for himself on the subject:

“But it is not enough for me to stand before you tonight and condemn riots. It would be morally irresponsible for me to do that without, at the same time, condemning the contingent, intolerable conditions that exist in our society. These conditions are the things that cause individuals to feel they have no other alternative than to engage in violent rebellions to get attention. And I must say tonight that a riot is the language of the unheard.”


As far as the original topic of this thread: I say more power to them. Burn all the confederate flags and tear down all the monuments. The only place those names should exist is in history books next to the words “traitor” and “bigot”. If they really want to immortalize the assholes that tore the country apart because it was suggested that perhaps people shouldn't be viewed and treated as less than human based on the color of their skin, then I suggest plastering images of their faces onto the backs of urinals and inside toilet bowls so that they may be pissed and shat on for the foreseeable future.

http://m.therightscoop.com/portland...-openly-advocates-for-murder-of-police-video/

This is not acceptable in any way shape or form. At this point it's borderlining glorified gang worship.

I think that this mentality is what's part of the problem. This us against them mentality that makes white people an enemy to be defeated rather than humans that need to be awoken to a truth. Honestly, the movement itself doesn't promote much positive at all.

No one is arguing that BLM is wrong in being concerned about racial politics. Trying to pass civil rights movements through bloodshed leads to long term animosity and short term ridicule of a movements legitimacy, as is happening right now. This movement is taking honest African Americans concerned about racial politics and turning them into punks and terrorists by urging them to take up violence and their own flavor of prejudice against anyone with a badge or light skin. Not to mention that destroying public property and rioting in places that endanger people who haven't even done anything wrong is questionable in any context. He was not condoning violence, he simply understood why people turn to it. The guys a pacifist. Some are good people, some are honest people, but many in this group are the complete opposite, and their presence has been so ingrained into the movement as to not be considered a minority'.


This next link leads to one of the single most beautiful and effective deconstructions of BLM and the subject of racism today I have ever read. It is done by a black cop in the aftermath of five policemen being killed. I recommend reading the whole thing, even if it takes a bit. It really put things into perspective for me at least.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...r-racist-police-myths-in-viral-facebook-post/

As a side note, I would like to say that blocking out an entire part of history to ash and ridicule because of its controversy is unhealthy. Yes, the Confederate states had delved into an unforgivable participation in slavery that was horrid even within the context of slavery. But this is history. There are a lot of important moments on both sides that do indeed need to be commemorated. And the motivations of some of these people are extremely complex, many not even caring one way or the other about slavery. Some were responding to a long string of events that made the south feel isolated from the north. This side of the story reflects a dark and intriguing part of American history that needs to be examined in a non biased way, and looking into the confederate world we can see very clearly just how nations can fall apart, and better understand how to approach a national divide over civil rights in the future, something Martin Luther King understood perfectly. What I'm trying to say is, as wrong as the confederate states were in the support of slavery, and it's unarguably wrong, there is no reason to block out this segment of a time period for the sake of moral indignation.

 

[Nameless]

http://m.therightscoop.com/portland...-openly-advocates-for-murder-of-police-video/

This is not acceptable in any way shape or form. At this point it's borderlining glorified gang worship.

Eh, I guess murdering people over and over again pisses them off. Who knew?

I think that this mentality is what's part of the problem. This us against them mentality that makes white people an enemy to be defeated rather than humans that need to be awoken to a truth. Honestly, the movement itself doesn't promote much positive at all.

It is us against them. Only in this case the “us” is people who don't think it's okay to systematically murder and entire race of people, and the “them” is people that do. Turns out the majority of the people that do are white people so yes white people as a whole bear the brunt of the blame. Guess what though! We deserve it. You obviously haven't been paying much attention if you think there isn't much positive speech and action coming from BLM, and the fact that you treat a leaderless and essentially cell-based group as such a homogenized mass is further proof of that.

No one is arguing that BLM is wrong in being concerned about racial politics. Trying to pass civil rights movements through bloodshed leads to long term animosity and short term ridicule of a movements legitimacy, as is happening right now.

Did you not read the part where I talked about the Civil Rights Act of 1964 being a direct result of the Birmingham riots? I welcome you to go do some research if you don't believe me. The precedent has been set for violent resistance leading to change, and one could argue (and quite successfully at that) that the precedent for violent resistance is greater than the precedent set by non-violence.

This movement is taking honest African Americans concerned about racial politics and turning them into punks and terrorists by urging them to take up violence and their own flavor of prejudice against anyone with a badge or light skin. Not to mention that destroying public property and rioting in places that endanger people who haven't even done anything wrong is questionable in any context. He was not condoning violence, he simply understood why people turn to it. The guys a pacifist. Some are good people, some are honest people, but many in this group are the complete opposite, and their presence has been so ingrained into the movement as to not be considered a minority'.

Not even going to respond to this part because it's patently ridiculous.

This next link leads to one of the single most beautiful and effective deconstructions of BLM and the subject of racism today I have ever read. It is done by a black cop in the aftermath of five policemen being killed. I recommend reading the whole thing, even if it takes a bit. It really put things into perspective for me at least.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...r-racist-police-myths-in-viral-facebook-post/

Racist police myths? Haha, no. There's no myth. One needs to look no further than the arrest rates, incarceration rates, and extrajudicial killing rates of people of color (and black people specifically for the purposes of this discussion) to see that the judicial system of this country is, in fact, racist. When white kids get six months for rape while black kids get murdered for daring to walk down the street it becomes obvious that there is a problem. Not every police officer is racist, but every police officer is lending their support to a racist institution. Until more cops start turning in their compatriots when they steal, and rape, and kill; until they stop abiding by the thin blue line the police forces as a whole are complicit in these actions. Though since the rare cops that do turn in their fellows are often met with suspensions, firings, and death threats I doubt that will happen. When people wearing a specific uniform are responsible for the murder of your people time and time again you are forced to fear that uniform whenever you see it no matter who's wearing it, or you may end up losing your life.

Also, the whole “this one black person disagrees with BLM so it must be completely wrong!” rhetoric is tired and, frankly, disgusting.

As a side note, I would like to say that blocking out an entire part of history to ash and ridicule because of its controversy is unhealthy. Yes, the Confederate states had delved into an unforgivable participation in slavery that was horrid even within the context of slavery. But this is history. There are a lot of important moments on both sides that do indeed need to be commemorated. And the motivations of some of these people are extremely complex, many not even caring one way or the other about slavery. Some were responding to a long string of events that made the south feel isolated from the north. This side of the story reflects a dark and intriguing part of American history that needs to be examined in a non biased way, and looking into the confederate world we can see very clearly just how nations can fall apart, and better understand how to approach a national divide over civil rights in the future, something Martin Luther King understood perfectly. What I'm trying to say is, as wrong as the confederate states were in the support of slavery, and it's unarguably wrong, there is no reason to block out this segment of a time period for the sake of moral indignation.

When did I say I wanted to block it out? I agree that the history should be known. I don't agree that monuments should be erected to immortalize people that fought for the right to own people they considered less human than themselves. Idolization is dangerous in any context, but the idolization of the disgusting people that fought for the south in the Civil War is even more so. Did they not tear down statues of Hitler and Saddam Hussein after their deaths? Do they still fly swastikas in Berlin to commemorate that period in history?

 

[+SpaceJesus+]

Are you seriously making the claim that killing people, innocent people, is okay, so long as that person is a cop? You literally brushed off blatant assaults against law enforcement, all law enforcement, with two sarcastic sentences. That's not right. You're making all of these justifications for horrid behavior and then condemning the same behavior on others. Explain to me why encouraging people to become an urban version of a terrorist isn't disgusting as well. Explain to me how I'm supposed get behind a group that supports the rhetoric and mentalities that makes officers of the law afraid to go into black neighborhoods for fear of being labeled a racist and being attacked. Even if many aren't saying it themselves, they refuse to condemn it, and let it perforate their core message. You can't expect people to take this group seriously after that. Stuff like this validates racism. How are we supposed to make the claim that black people aren't violent and aren't criminals by encouraging them to become criminals and act violently? How can we change the prejudice that black people are all gang members or dumb or disrespectful when members dress like gangsters, act indecently and yell about problems in society incoherently? It's counterintuitive. That's why Martin Luther King always advocated peaceful and cooperative action. It made you respect them, as it made you respect Ghandi or Mandella. They wanted permanent and revolutionary mentality changes that would shift the way the world saw itself. They didn't want just temporary change, they wanted to defeat the root of the problem and destroy stereotypes through their behavior and the behavior of those who followed them.


What do you want the "them" group to do, by the way? Disappear, or agree with you? The former isn't going to happen, and the latter can't happen when you demonize them and then create more social divides to isolate the group that is us and the group that is them. All it does is deepen hatred between groups instead of inviting cooperation.

Honestly, with all of this going on, I expect cops to be using their guns more and more against black people, not because they need to or that they are justified, but because this movement is scaring them. It's making people fear for their lives and respond dramatically in accordance to this l mentality. You can't watch people openly advocate for murder and then act like this group is justified. It's reported that crime is going up across the country. Why? There is a hesitance to act that is starting to creep into police forces. This is what happens when people say "f@&$ the police" and threaten them every time they come into their neighborhood. Black deaths due to violence are on a huge spike because the "racist cops" are unable to perform their jobs without putting themselves or their families at risk of being skewered by the media.

I don't deserve a thing. My family doesn't deserve a thing. The white kid across the street from me doesn't deserve a thing. My friend in Ohio, my neighbors, the guy I talk to who takes the garbage down the road, all don't deserve a thing. They alI haven't done a thing to promote racism. Hundreds of thousands of white people are completely unbiased and completely open to change but are put on the defensive by a culture that labels us racist because we are white. You contribute to racism because you are white too, right? You're part of the problem right? This is the kind of self defeatist stereotyping that makes people hostile to change.

I know you seem passionate about fixing problems in society, and I am too. I care about every life that is lost pointlessly every day. I'm sitting here watching as my country is slowly consumed by violence and I wonder what we can do. But why this? Killing more people doesn't change anything. How about two innocent police officers being shot in Brooklyn, or five being shot in Dallas? Do their lives matter? The reason this mentality of us vs them is terrible is it clouds judgment. Suddenly every officer is an enemy. Suddenly criminal groups feel affirmed in defying them because they are all racist. Suddenly white people need to die because they deserve it because they are white people they deserve it. You can't add this rhetoric and then expect people, especially a decentralized and disorganized group like BLM, to behave rationally.

As for those statistics

http://www.dailywire.com/news/7347/7-statistics-show-systemic-racism-doesnt-exist-aaron-bandler

 

[Jabonicus]

In my opinion, killing someone is wrong, even if they are racist. Lives have value, and if everyone is supposed to be equal, then you simply can't kill someone for disagreeing with you. Though you may see them as wrong, murder is not the answer, even if they have acted against people.

 

[Eccles]

As for statistics, I can't really back them up with links atm and don't really care enough to look for the specific relevant articles.. but the statistics in that article linked to proof that systemic racism doesn't exist are kinda bullshit. I know my post here won't convince anyone from that fact, but when you say:

"blacks were significantly underrepresented in prison for homicide compared with their presence in the arrest data."

and use it as a way to argue that there should be more blacks in prison, then you're not seeing all the options. If arrest rates are much higher than the amount of convicted murderers, then there's too many false arrests. If this difference is significantly larger for african-americans then there's a disproportionate amount of false arrests when put against their caucasian counterparts. That is the same statistic, but used to argue that systemic racism does indeed exist.

Now, systemic racism by the police is a natural consequence of systemic racism in society. It's a sad fact, but for a large part very hard to deny. It doesn't mean that you're racist, or that your parents are racists, but that the times of segregation haven't completely gotten cut out of our societies and that's a process that unfortunately takes time. Acknowledging it is a step in that direction, but it won't solve the problem. Whether a more aggressive approach from the Black Lives Matter movement will speed up that process or slow it down, I'm just not sure.

 

[Nameless]

Again you both put words in my mouth and ignore what I'm actually saying, but I'll do you the favor of doing neither of those things and actually responding to your post.

Are you seriously making the claim that killing people, innocent people, is okay, so long as that person is a cop? You literally brushed off blatant assaults against law enforcement, all law enforcement, with two sarcastic sentences. That's not right. You're making all of these justifications for horrid behavior and then condemning the same behavior on others. Explain to me why encouraging people to become an urban version of a terrorist isn't disgusting as well. Explain to me how I'm supposed get behind a group that supports the rhetoric and mentalities that makes officers of the law afraid to go into black neighborhoods for fear of being labeled a racist and being attacked. Even if many aren't saying it themselves, they refuse to condemn it, and let it perforate their core message.

As I've already pointed out I didn't make the claim that violence against innocents was justified, but for the sake of the discussion let's say I was advocating violence against police officers. If that was the case then I would say that responding to rampant state violence with civilian violence is perhaps one of the best methods for showing that you aren't going to take it anymore. When a racist group like the police is so freely able to use violence against you and they show no signs of stopping or even slowing then it becomes obvious that no amount of peaceful protest will change their perceptions. Especially when that peaceful protest is almost always responded to with violence. That's not even mentioning that some of the reasons for these protests are because of the police responding with violence to inherently non-violent situations.

This has become an “any means necessary” situation, and it was not BLM that made it that way. It was the police and the silent consent of the government backing them and the civilians that blindly support them. Some of those means could certainly be peaceful, but we would be remiss to ignore the efficacy of more direct methods as well.

You can't expect people to take this group seriously after that.

Yes I can. In fact, the potential danger posed by the group could possible lead to people taking them more seriously. Especially since direct action seems to be the only thing the state actually understands.

Stuff like this validates racism.

No it doesn't. Nothing validates racism and to say otherwise implies an extremely questionable thought process on your part.

How are we supposed to make the claim that black people aren't violent and aren't criminals by encouraging them to become criminals and act violently? How can we change the prejudice that black people are all gang members or dumb or disrespectful when members dress like gangsters, act indecently and yell about problems in society incoherently? It's counterintuitive.

Again, patent ridiculousness. Also, already addressed by my admonishment of respectability politics in my first post.

That's why Martin Luther King always advocated peaceful and cooperative action. It made you respect them, as it made you respect Ghandi or Mandella. They wanted permanent and revolutionary mentality changes that would shift the way the world saw itself. They didn't want just temporary change, they wanted to defeat the root of the problem and destroy stereotypes through their behavior and the behavior of those who followed them.

First: I don't respect Ghandi he was a racist, hypocritical asshole and to include him in the same breath as Dr. King and Mandella is to do both of those men a great disservice. Second, and, again, something I already addressed: permanent change has been achieved by both violent and non-violent means throughout history. To deny that fact is to wander into the territory of the willfully ignorant.

What do you want the "them" group to do, by the way? Disappear, or agree with you? The former isn't going to happen, and the latter can't happen when you demonize them and then create more social divides to isolate the group that is us and the group that is them. All it does is deepen hatred between groups instead of inviting cooperation.

Sometimes people must be forcefully shown the error of their ways, and if you glance at a history book you'll see that it is often the only thing people in power will understand. Why would they willingly give up their privilege? That makes no sense. They must have it removed from them. Look no further than the Civil War to learn a bit about that lesson. If not for the violent actions of the north do you really think the south could've been gently guided into seeing the error of their ways with peaceful talks and gentle actions?

Honestly, with all of this going on, I expect cops to be using their guns more and more against black people, not because they need to or that they are justified, but because this movement is scaring them.

Except you just gave them justification, and they should be scared. Their unchecked aggression against black people is finally being checked. Occasionally violently. They sowed these seeds and now they must reap their harvest.

It's making people fear for their lives and respond dramatically in accordance to this l mentality. You can't watch people openly advocate for murder and then act like this group is justified.

Why not? The government does it all the time. Ever heard of the military? Or, hey! The police force!

It's reported that crime is going up across the country.

Except it isn't. The crime rate has actually been slowly declining since the 90s.

Why? There is a hesitance to act that is starting to creep into police forces. This is what happens when people say "f@&$ the police" and threaten them every time they come into their neighborhood. Black deaths due to violence are on a huge spike because the "racist cops" are unable to perform their jobs without putting themselves or their families at risk of being skewered by the media.

The blue flu has been around a lot longer than BLM. Cops are always whining and not doing their jobs in response to every perceived insult and injustice they face. Also, the murder rate of black people by police hasn't seen a spike. It's been pretty steady for a long time. Though the evidence of that is hard to compile because the government only just passed laws requiring police departments to report their arrest-related homicides (i.e. when a cop kills a civilian). Personally, I'm glad the media magnifying glass has been turned on the police departments of this country recently. Perhaps it will lead to officers taking a little more accountability for their actions.

I don't deserve a thing. My family doesn't deserve a thing. The white kid across the street from me doesn't deserve a thing. My friend in Ohio, my neighbors, the guy I talk to who takes the garbage down the road, all don't deserve a thing.

They certainly deserve not to be murdered by the police for no reason. Luckily, due to their skin color, that's rarely a problem for them.

They alI haven't done a thing to promote racism.

If they are silent in the face of racism of supportive a racist judicial system, then yes they have.

Hundreds of thousands of white people are completely unbiased and completely open to change but are put on the defensive by a culture that labels us racist because we are white. You contribute to racism because you are white too, right? You're part of the problem right? This is the kind of self defeatist stereotyping that makes people hostile to change.

Every white person is racist, because the society we are brought up in has racism as one of its cornerstones. Yes this includes me, yes I do contribute to racism, and yes I am part of the problem. I also recognize that fact and work every day to combat those perceptions within myself. I know that I suffer from racist socialization and I recognize the privileges I am afforded simply because I am white. Hopefully in the future our society will have moved past this, but the only way that can occur is through the recognition and actions of the white people that currently live in this society. A large part of that is listening when black people speak about the issues they face. Even if their grammar isn't up to your standards or if they hurt your poor little feelings.

I know you seem passionate about fixing problems in society, and I am too. I care about every life that is lost pointlessly every day. I'm sitting here watching as my country is slowly consumed by violence and I wonder what we can do. But why this? Killing more people doesn't change anything. How about two innocent police officers being shot in Brooklyn, or five being shot in Dallas? Do their lives matter?

Of course their lives matter, and the difference is that it was never in question. When Micah Johnson killed those five officers in Dallas he was executed as rapidly as possible. He was blown up with a fucking bomb for Christ's sake. However, when black people are killed by police the perpetrator is given a slap on the wrist. Do you see the difference there?

The reason this mentality of us vs them is terrible is it clouds judgment. Suddenly every officer is an enemy. Suddenly criminal groups feel affirmed in defying them because they are all racist. Suddenly white people need to die because they deserve it because they are white people they deserve it. You can't add this rhetoric and then expect people, especially a decentralized and disorganized group like BLM, to behave rationally.

Refer back to my other posts for answers to everything here.

As for those statistics

http://www.dailywire.com/news/7347/7-statistics-show-systemic-racism-doesnt-exist-aaron-bandler

The Daily Wire is a right-wing media source found by Ben "Friends of Hamas" Shapiro. I can't take anything from such a biased source seriously. If you look at any sort of reputable source like the Justice Department or USA Today (citing the police departments' own statistics) it becomes obvious that the systemic racism inherent in the justice system definitely exists. As ever, I encourage you to do more research and be sure to look into the sources that research is coming from as well.

 

[Cainhurst Crow]

Citing the haitian and french revolutions as successes seems really dumb to me, considering that both revolutions saw the near collapse of their respective states. With the french revolution resulting in the deaths of thousands of innocent people by the guillotine and a return of Neapolitan to power, essentially falling to dictatorship. While the Haitian revolution saw the complete collapse of haiti to the point that it has still not recovered from it, and one could see a regression in education and medicine as they rejected outside influences to embrace local knowledge and solutions.

 

[Cainhurst Crow]

Anyone else getting a bit weirded out by Nameless's racist and self-hating rhetoric? Just me? Alright then.

 

[Jabonicus]

@Nameless

At no point did I put words in your mouth. I simply stated my opinion on the matter of BLM and their history of killing.

 

[Nameless]

@Nameless

At no point did I put words in your mouth. I simply stated my opinion on the matter of BLM and their history of killing.

I wasn't talking to you.

Citing the haitian and french revolutions as successes seems really dumb to me, considering that both revolutions saw the near collapse of their respective states. With the french revolution resulting in the deaths of thousands of innocent people by the guillotine and a return of Neapolitan to power, essentially falling to dictatorship. While the Haitian revolution saw the complete collapse of haiti to the point that it has still not recovered from it, and one could see a regression in education and medicine as they rejected outside influences to embrace local knowledge and solutions.

The goal of the French Revolution was escaping the control of the monarchy, and it was successful in that capacity. As for Haiti, the outside influence since the revolution is the cause for the majority of their problems. One such example is the shackling of the Haitian government by the US and French after the fact. Again, what came after is not really the issue. That could've gone any number of ways that would've been impossible to accurately predict at the outset. The slaves wanted freedom both as people and from the oppressive French government and they earned that freedom with their blood, sweat, and tears. That is what matters here. The violent revolution gained them their freedom. In both instances. The meddling of others after the fact is hardly relevant.

Anyone else getting a bit weirded out by Nameless's racist and self-hating rhetoric? Just me? Alright then.

Ha, I don't hate myself, and I've already admitted to the racism I learned from being raised in America. Good attempt though.

 

[Jabonicus]

Before I do this, I just want to say, I respect your opinion, I simply disagree with it.

As I've already pointed out I didn't make the claim that violence against innocents was justified, but for the sake of the discussion let's say I was advocating violence against police officers. If that was the case then I would say that responding to rampant state violence with civilian violence is perhaps one of the best methods for showing that you aren't going to take it anymore. When a racist group like the police is so freely able to use violence against you and they show no signs of stopping or even slowing then it becomes obvious that no amount of peaceful protest will change their perceptions. Especially when that peaceful protest is almost always responded to with violence. That's not even mentioning that some of the reasons for these protests are because of the police responding with violence to inherently non-violent situations.

However, this would hypothetically be based on the idea that every police officer is racist, which simply cannot be statistically true.

This has become an “any means necessary” situation, and it was not BLM that made it that way. It was the police and the silent consent of the government backing them and the civilians that blindly support them. Some of those means could certainly be peaceful, but we would be remiss to ignore the efficacy of more direct methods as well.

I disagree. While I'm not going to ignore the issues with the current police system and the bias against the black and minority communities, I do not believe violence against the police (assuming this is still based on your hypothetical scenario of you supporting the violence) is the best way to deal with the issues, especially when several other options remain on the table.

Yes I can. In fact, the potential danger posed by the group could possible lead to people taking them more seriously. Especially since direct action seems to be the only thing the state actually understands.

In my opinion, and from the way Police Officers are now told to deal with Sovereign Citizens (IE: Call for backup due to the overwhelming number of Sovereign Citizens becoming violent against the Police), the violence is only going to widen the gap between the Black Community and the Police, as they are going to have a similar approach to black crime if they truly believe that they are in danger, simply for arresting someone who is black.

Again, patent ridiculousness. Also, already addressed by my admonishment of respectability politics in my first post.

Purely curious on this point, what makes it ridiculous?

First: I don't respect Ghandi he was a racist, hypocritical asshole and to include him in the same breath as Dr. King and Mandella is to do both of those men a great disservice. Second, and, again, something I already addressed: permanent change has been achieved by both violent and non-violent means throughout history. To deny that fact is to wander into the territory of the willfully ignorant.

Beliefs on Ghandi are based on personal opinion, so I won't pick apart that. An issue I face isn't that violent approaches won't bring change, which no one is arguing, my issue is simply "Is this the right way to do this, especially when we can explore alternate options?"

Sometimes people must be forcefully shown the error of their ways, and if you glance at a history book you'll see that it is often the only thing people in power will understand. Why would they willingly give up their privilege? That makes no sense. They must have it removed from them. Look no further than the Civil War to learn a bit about that lesson. If not for the violent actions of the north do you really think the south could've been gently guided into seeing the error of their ways with peaceful talks and gentle actions?

I disagree on the fundamental statement of "Forcefully shown the error of their ways." I do not believe anyone should be forced to change their beliefs. The closest thing I would find acceptable is stopping their actions should they become harmful.

Except you just gave them justification, and they should be scared. Their unchecked aggression against black people is finally being checked. Occasionally violently. They sowed these seeds and now they must reap their harvest.

You're making a statement based on the belief that the Police Force is a singular entity with a singular set of beliefs, which seems a bit odd to me. They are a group of people with various backgrounds, beliefs, and moral systems. They should be treated as such, with those who act and harm others being punished, while those who do their jobs in an unbiased fashion be rewarded.

Except it isn't. The crime rate has actually been slowly declining since the 90s.

I figured I would give a bit more explanation to this in case people didn't read your link and didn't have the full story. Yes, crime and war and all that has gone down, but media perception of it has risen at an alarming rate, due to the viewers it draws when they fear-monger.

The blue flu has been around a lot longer than BLM. Cops are always whining and not doing their jobs in response to every perceived insult and injustice they face. Also, the murder rate of black people by police hasn't seen a spike. It's been pretty steady for a long time. Though the evidence of that is hard to compile because the government only just passed laws requiring police departments to report their arrest-related homicides (i.e. when a cop kills a civilian). Personally, I'm glad the media magnifying glass has been turned on the police departments of this country recently. Perhaps it will lead to officers taking a little more accountability for their actions.

I don't believe Cops are 'whining' as much as they are giving legitimate complains that they do worry about. It's a similar vein of "A Black Person shouldn't have to worry about being shot by a police officer." Except it is written as "A police officer shouldn't have to worry about being shot by a black person." Both of which, in my opinion, are equally valid.

Every white person is racist, because the society we are brought up in has racism as one of its cornerstones. Yes this includes me, yes I do contribute to racism, and yes I am part of the problem. I also recognize that fact and work every day to combat those perceptions within myself. I know that I suffer from racist socialization and I recognize the privileges I am afforded simply because I am white. Hopefully in the future our society will have moved past this, but the only way that can occur is through the recognition and actions of the white people that currently live in this society. A large part of that is listening when black people speak about the issues they face. Even if their grammar isn't up to your standards or if they hurt your poor little feelings.

I have to disagree with you here. My personal definition of 'racism' is the bias against another race. So in a basic sense, saying that everyone of a certain race holds a certain belief, in my mind, ironically, is racist.

I'd personally say I'm not racist. I don't view people with separate skin colors as separate races, I see them as humans, just like me. I don't treat people differently for their skin color, and I do actively support the fair treatment of blacks in the justice system, as I do for the fair treatment of all people in the justice system.

But regardless, your beliefs are fine. We're both in agreement that something is wrong with the Police Force, and if there is an agreement on the issue, perhaps the issue can be fixed.

 

[Cainhurst Crow]

The goal of the French Revolution was escaping the control of the monarchy, and it was successful in that capacity. As for Haiti, the outside influence since the revolution is the cause for the majority of their problems. One such example is the shackling of the Haitian government by the US and French after the fact. Again, what came after is not really the issue. That could've gone any number of ways that would've been impossible to accurately predict at the outset. The slaves wanted freedom both as people and from the oppressive French government and they earned that freedom with their blood, sweat, and tears. That is what matters here. The violent revolution gained them their freedom. In both instances. The meddling of others after the fact is hardly relevant.

I have to disagree. If you don't look at the consequences, all of the consequences, then you only have a flawed and incomplete picture. Nuclear weapons are an excellent weapon if we look at the narrow viewpoint of its results, being victory against an enemy nation. But, the consequences of the nuclear bomb, the arms race it created as well as the devastation its radiation caused on survivors, make it a weapon not worth using. Using the viewpoint of only looking at whether it did or did not make an effective weapon against an enemy nation, doesn't show us the entire truth of the matter. Most here probably know Frances's history and bad luck, but Haiti had a lot of problems caused by Haiti, after its independence. Now a new nation takes time to get its affairs in order, and no nation has formed in a state where it wasn't in danger from its neighbors. But if you look at Haiti's internal politics, the amount of political coups, gangs involved in politics, and cults of personality that formed, you see a deep ingrained outlook on how politics should work from its people. That violence and heavy control of the populace is how you rule a country, and that I say can be traced to their origin of violent bloodshed in gaining their independence. It certainly wasn't their education considering the original leader of the revolution and head of state for haiti was a well educated former general of the french. So one has to assume the outlook on how to govern was influenced by the violence instilled by Toussaint Louverture, and the greater ratcheting of violence by his successor Jean-Jacques Dessalines including the genocide of white haitians, before he was assassinated by the future heads of state Henri Christophe and Alexandre Pétion.

 

[+SpaceJesus+]

I'm going to put this in perspective

"You are putting words in my mouth, sir, and that offends me. I'm not calling for disorganized killing of an entire race, but if I was, I would say it was because the Jews have supported a corrupt and inferior society. When a group with such hatred for the master race is allowed to do as they please, acting in such indecent ways, then social injustice is bound to happen. They must be forcefully shown the truth. Why would they willingly give up their privilege? It must be taken."

Are you convinced this man doesn't hate Jews? That he doesn't want to kill them? Because I'm not

We aren't putting words in your mouth at all. You brushed off the deaths of policemen, then claimed to not support it, but then gave a detailed and emotionally invested response supporting it. You said that not all cops are racist, and then generalized all police as racist and called for violent and dramatic responses to "get their attention." You not wanting to see how messed up this is doesn't make it ridiculous. What do you call telling youths to kill police? A happy little love speech? A logical step forward? These things are being encouraged, and they are being encouraged by you too. At least have the decency to address it's existence, like everyone else. There are people advocating for violence, defacing of public property, riots, murder, and above all else racial exceptionism. It's bad to be biased against a race unless they're white in which case they're all racist, oops. All the while they act in ways that promote stereotypes and contempt. There is no truly legitimate justification for racism, but in the minds of onlookers it's affirming their biases and reinforcing prejudice.

Put bluntly, this is dangerous what you are saying. Its ridiculously dangerous. Talk like this is what causes political instability and genocides. I'm not kidding one bit on this.

So you're racist now too? What the heck man? Not be be rude but seriously, I'm with Cainhurst. What kind of self hating oddity of logic are you using right now? We're not all plantation owners whipping black people and forcing Asians to work the rails. We don't all force Mexicans into work camps or exterminate native Americans trying to get on our nice cotton farms. I'm not blind to anything, I try to confront racism wherever I see it. If I see someone in a conversation trying to speak badly of black people, I kindly remind them that they are wrong and I try to persuade them to change their biased beliefs.

I don't take a Hutu extremist seriously when they talk about racism for the same reason I'm not taking you seriously right now. I'm baffled, honestly, with the very little regard you show for the consequences of these actions, and the collateral damage it causes.

Thousands of French deaths and horrid poverty in Haiti don't even seem to really matter to you. You think its okay, because ends justify the means. Well I'm going to tell you they freaking don't. Just because you think a thousand deaths and social upheaval and becoming a terrorist is just good business doesn't make any of us in here any less aware of how terrible it is. Especially when there is another way. Becoming a murderer isn't the only way. It's not even the best way. Unless you legitimately think that burning a country to ash to promote an ideal that could be achieved using other methods, you will have to rethink this whole mess.

Side note, if there are any legitimately black people out there reading this thread I would highly appreciate your input. I find a bunch of white guy's trying to argue over a group called black lives matter to be strange without at least alittle word from an actual black person, regardless of whether they agree with me or not.

 

[TheSilentWind]

First: I don't respect Ghandi he was a racist, hypocritical asshole and to include him in the same breath as Dr. King and Mandella is to do both of those men a great disservice. Second, and, again, something I already addressed: permanent change has been achieved by both violent and non-violent means throughout history. To deny that fact is to wander into the territory of the willfully ignorant.

You are aware that Dr.King respected, and admired Gandhi right?

http://www.thekingcenter.org/news/2012-10-gandhis-birthday-dr-kings-tributes-mahatma