My position has always been that protests are most successful when they refrain from violence.
I said the civil rights movement was peaceful, not era. If you want to argue with what I say then argue with what I say, please don’t change my words.
My objection was to anger driving decision making. Most obviously anger leading to violence. But also anger causing people to lash out at Trump supporters, or even anger leading them to support slogans like “defund the police”.
“Defund the police” sounds great for marginalized communities who are victimized by police because it frames police as the problem and suggests removing them will remove the problem.
That may be true for those communities, but other communities don’t share that experience. They view police as protectors because for them, they are protectors.
“Defund the police” doesn’t draw those other communities to your cause, it alienates them. And if you want to fix policing you’re going to need those other communities support.
that’s blm’s phrasing. and the fact people are still talking about it, still carrying the weight of explaining it, still processing it… in my opinion that makes it a winner. it’s kept the discussion alive.
Just because some civil rights activists were not acting violent doesn’t mean violence wasn’t a part of it. Ignoring the violence of the state and white people is not a proper historical perspective on the civil rights movement.
Not always, no. Violence can and does work.
King and SCLC was not the entire movement, not even remotely. they were one organization out of many. Some employed violence, such as the Panthers and other similar groups. Many employed self-defense. Ignoring that is white washing history.
You told ME specifically that I should not get angry, and equated anger with violence. YOU said I should not be angry about people living under oppression. That’s some politics of respectability nonsense.
That’s assuming it’s a knee jerk reaction, instead of from years of activism and discussion around these issues or that it means the same thing to everyone who says it, when that’s not the case:
It’s pretty clear to me that you’re just taking republican talking points at face value, rather than actually listening to what protesters have said this past year or investing the longer, connected history of the Movement for equality in America (not just for African Americans). Violence is threaded through all freedom movements, and people have made arguments in favor of the use of violence, such as Franz Fanon and Malcolm X.
And? That doesn’t make the experiences of people who have suffered violence at the hands of police LESS important. Why look to people who are NOT impacted by such things to drive the conversation? That does nothing to help us understand what is happening and how we should change things. If we always let the most comfortable and privileged groups control what we talk about, how we conduct political action or protests, then we’d still be living in monarchies right now.
I am one of those people who fall in the “protected by the police” categories. I don’t want them shooting unarmed Black people not because I am one, but because it is the moral and ethical position! Full stop. I am angry about police violence. I am angry about the assault on my reproductive rights. I am angry about a lot of things… So I support some sort of defunding program, because there are people who have been shot for NO reasons whatsoever and even if they don’t have the same skin color as me, they are still my brothers and sisters, my friends and family, my fellow human beings, my fellow citizens, etc, etc. If people don’t care about injustice because the people being killed don’t look like them, then they are in favor of a racist society, so long as it does not impact them. I am not.
I can’t change other’s minds if they don’t give a shit about others. It’s their moral failing, not mine. All I can do is advocate for the rights of others, support politicians who want to make positive changes (even if it’s incremental change), and let others know when they are wrong.
But look, this is incredibly off-topic… so I’ve said my piece and I’m done. Just stop with the tedious tone policing, okay?
Sadly I think it might get worse if/when it is called for Biden. Because wearing a mask and taking precautions in this pandemic has become so partisan, I sadly expect a sizable portion of Trump’s base to be even bigger jerks about this.
I fear the next wave of the pandemic is going to be spite-driven.
This was not my intent, and I’m sorry if it sounded like I was telling you how you should feel.
[Mod: We don’t tolerate, at all, people suggesting folks are “too emotional” to vote. Especially to users who identify publicly as female - there was an entire movement where that was one of the counterarguments. Do not do this.]
Not at all. I’m talking about perception, and the slogan “defund the police” is a slogan that’s consistent with Republican disinformation.
If police violence affected everyone it would have been fixed decades ago.
It still exists because the people whom it affects are not the people who have the power to fix it.
The people who can fix policing are the people who have nice amicable relationships with police. They have trouble believing the experiences of other communities because it contradicts their own experiences.
Cell phone videos are changing this, but we need to remember we’re trying to convince people with very different life experiences. And that is a fundamentally difficult thing to do.
I think “You shouldn’t make anger-based political decisions” is counter productive. People feel anger when things are unfair, when they are mistreated, when they need to stand up for themselves. If people who are mistreated and need to stand up for themselves don’t agitate for political change to end that mistreatment then what should they do?
I grew up in a neo-liberal culture where economists had thoroughly poisoned public thought by pretending that “things have unexpected consequences” (true) means that “things always backfire” (false) (and if you are a native English speaker I’d bet you did too). That kind of thinking primes to people to accept fascist doublethink/doublespeak.
Most of the time if you want to convince someone of something you should tell them exactly what you think and why you think it and how it makes you feel. I can draw you a graph that proves that the person best able to control their emotion is likely not the smartest person or the person with the best ideas.
I’m not saying do nothing, I’m saying don’t let righteous indignation deceive you into thinking that the injustice is so obvious that everyone exposed to your anger will instantly take your side.
I’d agree with that, but there’s a difference between a community expressing that they’re angry with the police and a community declaring “defund the police”.
Ultimately, I think my philosophy is similar to what I perceive of Obama’s, which is to fight for the change that is good and achievable, even if it’s somewhat small. As long as you can keep making things better at an incremental pace the world will become a better place.
Now this isn’t a philosophy shared by everyone because there’s a lot of people who can’t wait for a better world in a distant future because for them, the world is terrible now.
But I don’t see it as saying those people’s experienced don’t matter, they matter greatly. But rather I see it as a choice of “fixing a little now” vs “fixing nothing”, because if “fixing everything” was truly an option then someone generaly would have already fixed it by now.
Anger, especially righteous anger at injustice, can be a tremendous motivator, and a driver for change. But if you let the anger drive your decision-making, you’re in danger of making poor, even counterproductive, political choices. People pursuing change should have fiery hearts and cool heads.
All that! They don’t want to hear that white people have benefited from years of systemic racism or that they might have done or said something that hurt another person, or that the idealized version of their country doesn’t actually exist, or that they can and must play a role in making the world a better place…
…a very different history with the police, too. There are many who definitely don’t want to believe that police are anything other than the idealized version they see on TV. The enforcement division of the “justice system” has a long history of brutality, criminality, corruption, and demonstrated concern for protecting property over people.
What’s worse is the research into the records of departments large and small across the country shows terrible job performance - across the board. So, those who are against defunding for other reasons might at least admit we shouldn’t pay groups millions of dollars every year when they’re not even solving crimes and catching criminals. Instead, they are doing the bare minimum, manufacturing cases to feed the for-profit prison system and to boost their own case closure rates.
The number of cases that get thrown out every year or don’t proceed because of their corruption and/or incompetence is high. Additional funds have to be spent investigating or repeating what should have been done differently from the beginning. This is a long overdue call to overhaul this broken part of the system and create something with oversight that works for the people, instead of mostly benefiting those who work in law enforcement.
The people who keep rejecting this ideas of defunding the police and keeping them accountable when it is clear they are wasting our tax payer dollars as you note are the same assholes who wish to make social programs like unemployment insurance as difficult to get as humanely possible because it’s a “waste” of tax payer’s dollars.
Cool, what are they and where have they shown to be more effective? Because the clear blunt statement that causes ears to perk up has actually moved the needle in a way that the past 30 years of focus tested mild statements haven’t and historically that pattern holds.
You really need to go read up more on the Long Hot Summer and similar events if you think the Civil Rights Movement lacked violence and the current actions qualify as riots in comparison.
