US protests - what would you do?

Priv said - why are the police profiling? because statistically pro-rata, there is more violent crime committed in poor communities with a high concentration of black and minority ethnic people

why?

I read the rest of your, post so I see you are doing your best to be circumspect, you are circumspect in these things. However, this is attitude is an excuse and should be seen as an excuse by any officer of the law,. I know they don't say it publicly , or write it down as policy, but it's a bad that it exists amongst them.

Everydog wrote:

Priv said - why are the police profiling? because statistically pro-rata, there is more violent crime committed in poor communities with a high concentration of black and minority ethnic people

why?

I read the rest of your, post so I see you are doing your best to be circumspect, you are circumspect in these things. However, this is attitude is an excuse and should be seen as an excuse by any officer of the law,. I know they don't say it publicly , or write it down as policy, but it's a bad that it exists amongst them.

Profiling is an endless circle and needs to stop. Police find crime, they profile based on that crime, they investigate more rigorously and find more crime and continue to profile. This will never end unless we commit to abolishing it.

We can also do our best to reduce inequality in other spheres but start with this.

The rationale behind prioritizing some semblance of order in this country is that it's the most primary and basic duty of the state, protecting its citizens and its assets from imminent danger. Racism could be considered part of that duty but right now it's obvious what the larger threat is.

Priv wrote:

ok, so it's pretty clear that threatening protesters (both those exercising their first amendment and those looting) with guns, dogs and the army and using tear gas to get to a church to stage a fake photo is probably making things worse, not helping.

It's easy to criticize those in power - it's harder to offer constructive alternatives. So if you were in the White House, what would you do?

My take would be:

- I understand that you're angry

- I will listen to your grievances

- I will try to help

- But first I need the streets calm

I would say 'Our country has seen bloodshed because of a systemic issue withiin law enforcement and our culture We understand your anger. We will work to overcome this. We do not tolerate looting. Those who participate can expect to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.'

HOOWIE wrote:

Priv wrote:

ok, so it's pretty clear that threatening protesters (both those exercising their first amendment and those looting) with guns, dogs and the army and using tear gas to get to a church to stage a fake photo is probably making things worse, not helping.

It's easy to criticize those in power - it's harder to offer constructive alternatives. So if you were in the White House, what would you do?

My take would be:

- I understand that you're angry

- I will listen to your grievances

- I will try to help

- But first I need the streets calm

^^Seems absolutely reasonable. One could only hypothesize the president has no interest in diffusing the situation.

That is ludicrous. This situation will harm his bid for re-election. I am certain that he wants it over and soon.

[Please Don't Do Itquote]vote in all elections wrote:

. Thus why [Trump] is flashing a Bible to appeal to white evangelical voters[...][/quote]

It occurred to me that this kind of photo op propaganda works because Trump's supporters for the most part are in their own media bubble. They don't believe or even see other media sources.

For those who know, what media outlets would this Bible flashing photo session appear in? I'd be curious to see what the headlines are and what story is associated with them.

I don't mean to derail the thread, which has been good, but I wanted to throw this out there.

Don't Normally Comment wrote:

1. I don't think the violence is being perpetrated by the true protesters

I'm not sure about this. Very few people understand how lefties organize. Organizers usually communicate with each other as to not override each others' demonstrations. It's possible the antifa guys were lone wolves, or were there unannounced. I was covering the riots in my city and I personally witnessed a black man plead with the crowd to stop throwing stuff at cops, because that escalates the situation and cops are probably going to overreact. An organizer (I assume she was an organizer because she had a megaphone) shouted him down and told him to shut up. I just can't believe the organizers aren't at least tacitly approving the destruction. By attempting to (peacefully) assemble for three straight nights now, you have to realize at this point you're only inviting more opportunists and vandals. Again, they condone it or they don't care.

I'm well aware that many protesters have actively tried to do the right thing. I witnessed two white males put their arms out and escort a police officer as he was walking away from the crowd. It was weird, I didn't understand what they were doing at first.

It's also the inverse of the "not all cops" argument which is basically no true scotsman. It's not helpful. We know not all cops are bad and not all protesters are bad. We need to be concerned about addressing the bad ones.

yoyoyoyoyo wrote:

[Please Don't Do Itquote]vote in all elections wrote:

. Thus why [Trump] is flashing a Bible to appeal to white evangelical voters[...]

It occurred to me that this kind of photo op propaganda works because Trump's supporters for the most part are in their own media bubble. They don't believe or even see other media sources.

For those who know, what media outlets would this Bible flashing photo session appear in? I'd be curious to see what the headlines are and what story is associated with them.[/quote]

I found some examples. Reading the comments at the bottom of the article is particularly informative.

However, also in the comments, there appears to be an active struggle amid the right wing regarding whether to base its future prospects on bigotry.

This is a great thread. Good to see everybody really trying to be thoughtful and constructive.

However, it seems that you guys are unintentionally missing the mark a little bit. Three things:

(Bear with me. This is a little lengthy, but those who absorb it may discover a fuller perspective on the current social upheaval that we are experiencing in the United States.)

1) U.S. citizens who are of African descent have a far worse day-to-day experience living in the United States, compared to U.S. citizens who are white. The disparity in actual lived experience is far greater than the average white citizen realizes. I urge all non-black U.S. citizens to do whatever they can to learn what our black compatriots are experiencing. Believe me, if you are able to do this, you will be absolutely shocked and appalled. Forget slavery. Forget Jim Crow. Forget the civil rights movement of the 1950's and 60's. Just try to learn about the past 50 years only; how things have been going from 1970 to now. Really, talk to some African-American citizens and see if they trust you enough to open up and fully tell you what their individual lives have been like.

2a) If the regular normal rural, small-town, backwoods-living white folks from, say, Maine and New Hampshire were subjected to just 1/4 of the abuse, violations of rights, and constant large & small indignities that black U.S. citizens experience, these white citizens would get their guns, swarm out furiously, and begin doing whatever they feel is necessary to make things right. It would take no more than 10 years of experiencing just 1/4 of the above for a very serious uprising to occur. I am not exaggerating in my assessment of this.

2b) If the good citizens of, say the entire state of Kentucky or Tennessee or West Virginia, including just the white folks only, were subjected to just 1/4 of the abuse, violations of rights, and constant large & small indignities that black U.S. citizens experience, these white citizens would get their guns, swarm out furiously, and begin doing whatever they feel is necessary to make things right. It would take no more than 10 years of experiencing just 1/4 of the above for a very serious uprising to occur. I am not exaggerating in my assessment of this.

2c) If the redblooded patriots of Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, and the Dakotas (just the white citizens only) were subjected to just 1/4 of the abuse, violations of rights, and constant large & small indignities that black U.S. citizens experience, these white citizens would get their guns, swarm out furiously, and begin doing whatever they feel is necessary to make things right. It would take no more than 10 years of experiencing just 1/4 of the above for a very serious uprising to occur. I am not exaggerating in my assessment of this.

3a) Let us remember U.S. history. In 1763, the British Empire was arguably the greatest, free-est, most citizen-rights & liberty-loving nation on Earth. British citizen-subjects enjoyed rights such as trial by jury and representative governance, under three branches of government: executive (King and his ministers), legislative (Parliament), and judicial. In the 13 colonies, we essentially had a federal system [definition: a federal government is a system of dividing up power between a central/national government and local/state/regional governments], with each colony having its own governor, legislature, and courts.

3b) In 1763, the long, terrible French and Indian War ended, with the French defeated and the British military & colonials emerging victorious [This was actually the final conclusion to a series of 4 major, brutal wars that had taken place over a period spanning 75 years]. The British Empire acquired all of what is now Canada, and the threat to the British colonial citizen-subjects was gone. One would think that this would usher in an era of national pride and unity (think post WWII) across the 13 colonies. However, the British government began levying a series of taxes and other new laws. Colonial citizen-subjects objected more and more strenuously; tensions mounted and within just a few years British soldiers (remembered in America as "redcoats") were moved into colonial cities such as Boston.

3c) The Boston Massacre in 1770 was the result of a loud, rowdy group of protestors surrounding and vocally berating a small group of British soldiers because of various complaints of unfairness and mistreatment; after some of the protestors began throwing rocks at the soldiers, they fired into the crowd. The Boston Tea Party occurred in 1773, after just a few years of "taxation without representation" (British citizen-subjects residing in the American colonies were not allowed to elect representatives to Parliament in England). After just one year of being forced to house and feed British soldiers within private homes, American colonists shockingly began shooting at British soldiers in 1775! Several somewhat-organized battles were fought in 1775, and then in 1776 -- just 13 years after the great victory together -- the American leadership decided that the people had been so mistreated by the British government that they formally raised an army, hired a commanding general (George Washington), and went so far as to DECLARE INDEPENDENCE from, at the time, the most progressive, liberty-loving country on earth - which, by the way, was also the most powerful military force on earth. Despite various diplomatic overtures from both sides during the Revolutionary War, the American leadership decided that there would be no reconciliation; the British government was not to be forgiven for their actions against the American people; the war would continue; a new nation would be forged.

.... Think about it ….

What if it was you?

What would it take to push you to angrily protest?

What would it take to push you to do more than protest with just angry words only?

If you had already been pushed to the point of serious action, what would it take for you to stop?

…. And ….

If it were you, and if you were at the point of taking serious action, what would YOU think about the other side insisting on beginning the conversation by addressing some relatively minor (in the grand scheme of things) property damage that was only being done by a small percentage of protestors?

Arrest the 3 murderers who are still on the loose.

Charge all officers with First Degree Murder.

Mayor of Minneapolis, Police Chief of Minneapolis, Governor of Minnesota must resign.

Washington, D.C., was the safest place on earth last night!"

Donald Trump, june 2020

"Verordnung des Reichspräsidenten zum Schutz von Volk und Staat"

Berlin, february 28th, 1933, the day after the Reichstag burned

Safe oder Schutz.

Tomato or Tomatoe

Anyone had history in school and learned, but also took a step back to understand?

Priv wrote:

My take would be:

- I understand that you're angry

- I will listen to your grievances

- I will try to help

- But first I need the streets calm

So what do you do after your speech and the riots/looting don't stop?

Do you ask for more law enforcement or just let the city burn?

not a criminal wrote:

Blacks comprise only 12% of the population. A fair number of that population is not calm right now. A smaller percentage of the white population is not calm. I estimate the total in the country that is not calm to be about 10%.

Actually I was just thinking about the people out on the streets , combined protestors and rioters/looters. I agree with your percentage , anyway it around your 10% or lower that are significantly agitated. Almost every adult is concerned from one angle or another , I'd guess.

former West Pointer wrote:

.... Think about it ….

What if it was you?

What would it take to push you to angrily protest?

What would it take to push you to do more than protest with just angry words only?

If you had already been pushed to the point of serious action, what would it take for you to stop?

…. And ….

If it were you, and if you were at the point of taking serious action, what would YOU think about the other side insisting on beginning the conversation by addressing some relatively minor (in the grand scheme of things) property damage that was only being done by a small percentage of protestors?

This is an outstanding post - thank you

If you look around a lot of the other posts on this site (and some on this thread), you see so many superficial analyses where the solution is 'jail the cop; fire the mayor' - and the government's typical solution is 'control the news cycle'. With these as solutions, these problems are never, ever going to be resolved.

So how do we get people the really understand the context and issues? Long-term this might mean a reform of education systems too - though good luck getting Betsy DeVos on board!

The other thread here on 'I live in a white rural community and all the white people have sympathetic facebook statuses and so aren't racist' is a great example of the superficial. In the shorter-term, how do you get people to see beyond the news cycle and the facebook status and actually want to gain a better level of understanding?

Justice for All wrote:

Arrest the 3 murderers who are still on the loose.

Charge all officers with First Degree Murder.

Mayor of Minneapolis, Police Chief of Minneapolis, Governor of Minnesota must resign.

When your car has a warning light on do you remove the light bulb or do you actually try to fix the problem?

what next wrote:

So what do you do after your speech and the riots/looting don't stop?

Do you ask for more law enforcement or just let the city burn?

First, it would need some action, not just a speech

Second, the violence tends to calm down anyway after a few nights when the more reasonable people go home

Third, it's a long-term solution to the actual issues, not just about getting people off the streets this week

What would you do?