You do realize that the Police are union members for the most part, especially those in the big cities.I have been too busy dealing with personal drama and building for our May Day event to pay much attention to the Baltimore Uprising, but here's a neat-o Facebook page:
And here's some exciting news for lefties recycled from my Fun-Timey Revolutionary Socialism thread:
And here's some shameless socialist self-promotion:
Lowell, MA: May Day action against low wages and police terror!
which we originally initiatied in the wake of the April 15th low-wage workers protest, but quickly added to in light of the ILWU/SC AFL-CIO call for action.
Finish the Civil War!
Smash Racist Police Terror!
For Black Liberation Through Socialist Revolution!
That doesn't fit the narrative. Be quiet! :D
I'm not sure there was any doubt about it being an accident in the first place. From what I've heard, he was fine when he got put in the car. Somehow I doubt his spinal cord just decided to sever itself.CNN was/is going with a little bit of epistemic nihlism, saying he stopped running because there was something wrong with him, we don't know what happened, he was put in with another prisoner who may have done something....
The other prisoner was put separated from him by a cage.
What does this tell us, that the people who are supposed to protect and serve the public generally do not.Your story actually tells us that you had two specific bad experiences with law enforcement figures. Anecdotes like that in no way indicate the general predilection of anything.
Now, by this I'm not saying the abuse of power is statistically insignificant. I suspect it's quite significant, actually. But I've not seen anything yet that has persuaded me that the MAJORITY of police officers in the United States are abusive or corrupt.
Whatever your personal experiences with police officers or other law enforcement, don't throw the baby out with the bath water, man.
If these supposed good cops do nothing when the abuses happen, they are just as culpable and their hands are just as bloody.
Thejeff has a good point. It would think such feeds up the chain, and originates in a corrupt and unjust legal system, which focuses on money and maintaining an unethical social structure rather than actually seeing real justice done. If those in power are ethically bankrupt, then just like a cancer, it spreads its way down through the chain until you reach local law enforcement, who is responsible for implementing law at ground level.
Also just remembered another tale of law enforcement's bad behavior. Pretty minor one, but a friend and I were driving out to go camping in the Adirondacks one summer day, and on the way there we were pulled over by a state trooper vehicle. Sad part is, my friend was driving and was given a ticket for speeding, and I know for a fact (was looking right at the speedometer at the time) he was NOT speeding, he was doing 56 in a 55, OH NO!!!
So what happens when he pulls over and stops, two NY state trooper emerge from their SUV with the GUNS DRAWN. And bare in mind, we did not flee, had no weapons, just a car packed with camping gear, and it turns out the car ahead of us was speeding quite obviously, but "somehow" the radar gun put us as going 70 MPH. My issue is, what about this situation merits the need for two men to have glock 9mms ready on a routine traffic stop, and to boot, one were the suspects in question (us) were not even guilty of the minor violation in question. Did that stop them from making us sit there for an hour and half with no reason as to why, and giving my friend a very expensive ticket he didn't even warrant, NO.
What does this imply in general, that law enforcement has forgotten who pays them, and who it is they are supposed to serve and protect, not harass, terrify, beat, or kill. Also every decent cop that ignores or lets slip in the name of "brotherhood" the abuses of his fellow officers is just as guilty as those who abuse their power. I wish people would stow the "cops are heroes" rhetoric that I hear all to often and open their eyes. Someone aught to remind them of what the word hero means, sure as heck is not shooting men in the back, or having them die mysteriously in police custody of a broken spine, no, not at all.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would put the deception logo on cop cars, but that would be counterproductive.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You can't see because I'll wager that you're probably not the right skin color, or whatever, to be at the wrong side of a prejudiced police force, or know someone personally who was.
"Not the right skin color?" Implying that there is a wrong one? How telling of you.
Let me ask you: do you know what being a female white European Christian aid worker in the Middle East is like? No? Well then, I suggest you read the rather graphic spoiler below and I'll tell you. I know very well what discrimination is, but I do not blame people who did not participate, unless they explicitly support those actions, not just passively have a 'meh' attitude about them.
So tell me, LazarX, is that not discrimination? Or does that not count because I am not one of a particular group? If the latter, then what is the difference? Votre réponse?
EDIT: Why is J#*ya distorted? It's not a curse word, as far as I know. J-i-z-y-a is the word, minus the -'s.
EDIT 2: And just so we're clear, the first two out of those events in the spoiler were perpetrated by the equivalent of a police officer, while the third was pretty much done by police and civilian alike, and the fourth happened while an officer was standing RIGHT THERE.
The other prisoner was put separated from him by a cage.I'm not sure there was any doubt about it being an accident in the first place. From what I've heard, he was fine when he got put in the car. Somehow I doubt his spinal cord just decided to sever itself.CNN was/is going with a little bit of epistemic nihlism, saying he stopped running because there was something wrong with him, we don't know what happened, he was put in with another prisoner who may have done something....
I didn't say they were doing a GOOD job of it...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not sure I see how it justifies burning buildings and looting stores of people not even involved. I also don't see how attacking ALL of the police accomplishes anything.
Yeah, there's reason to be angry, but keep it focused on those involved. This is simply mob violence.
You can't see because I'll wager that you're probably not the right skin color, or whatever, to be at the wrong side of a prejudiced police force, or know someone personally who was."Not the right skin color?" Implying that there is a wrong one? How telling of you.
Let me ask you: do you know what being a female white European Christian aid worker in the Middle East is like? No? Well then, I suggest you read the rather graphic spoiler below and I'll tell you. I know very well what discrimination is, but I do not blame people who did not participate, unless they explicitly support those actions, not just passively have a 'meh' attitude about them.
** spoiler omitted **
So tell me, LazarX, is that not discrimination? Or does that not count because I am not one of a particular group? If the latter, then what is the difference? Votre réponse?
EDIT: Why is J&&ya distorted? It's not a curse word, as far as I know. J-i-z-y-a is the word, minus the -'s.
EDIT 2: And just so we're clear, the first two out of those events in the spoiler were perpetrated by the equivalent of a police officer, while the third was pretty much done by police and civilian alike, and the fourth happened while an officer was standing RIGHT THERE.
Ange de la Nuit:
Are you trying to justify systemic discrimination and brutality by a American police force against persons of color by the discrimination and brutality of brown police against white people ten thousand miles away?
And don't you think that the complete obliteration of two countries in the last decade (Iraq and Libya) by Europeans and North Americans, let alone the last few centuries of 'meddling'...
I think you guys are taking this thread in the wrong direction...
* Offers Freehold some popcorn.
Like there was ever any doubt that would happen?
no popcorn. Just wrong headedness.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Are you trying to justify systemic discrimination and brutality by a American police force against persons of color by the discrimination and brutality of brown police against white people ten thousand miles away?
If you would read what I was replying to, you would clearly see that I am not trying to justify anything. I was replying to a post inferring that the reason that I 'could not see the issue' was because I have never been discriminated against because of my race or some other factor. The fact that you think I am trying to make this a white vs. black shows what you are trying to prove, that anyone who disagrees with you must be a racist trying to couch their terms in sympathetic wordage. Am I wrong?
Also, you are aware that the reigning ethnic groups over there are not black, right? Just saying.
And don't you think that the complete obliteration of two countries in the last decade (Iraq and Libya) by Europeans and North Americans, let alone the last few centuries of 'meddling' by said Europeans and North Americans in African and Middle Eastern affairs is going to cause just a little bit of anger from the people who live in the region?
As opposed to the systemic discrimination and brutality of the indigenous people towards others, which was the very reason that Europeans even began their own discriminations and brutalities in the region in the first place? What about the conquest of Spain? The enslavement of pilgrims, and countless other travelers, to Jerusalem? Or is that part of the history to be ignored, simply so you can prove a point?
EDIT: Read the first quoted portion of this post before you reply to the first sentence of the above paragraph. Context is important.
What we are seeing is a war of class, not race. It is cast as a race issue by the media (wholly owned by the rich) to deflect attention from what is really happening.
But everyone that belongs to a social class cannot be generalized as good or bad, which is something that people don't seem to understand. Maybe in big cities it is different and all police are corrupt, but in my little corner of America, there is only one or two crooked cops on the whole squad, if even that, and they mainly are just overzealous writing speeding tickets. To say that every cop is bad is just as simplistic, and erroneous, as saying that every poor person is a thuggish drug addict, every homeless person is a bum, and every middle class person is a brain-dead worker drone for the system.
I think you guys are taking this thread in the wrong direction...
I will agree that it is being derailed. I simply made one statement and I have already had people try to tear apart what I said and make it something that it most clearly was not. If people would actually read what I said and stop making presumptions of 'oh, she disagreed, so she must be a privileged white woman who doesn't know what it's like to be discriminated against', which is precisely what it sounds like to me. I have done aid work, went to places to help people of all ethnic groups that many would not even give the time of day, paid for it dearly, and yet, people presume that, because I have a different way of looking at things than them, I'm one of 'those' people.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ange de la Nuit, welcome to the paizo boards, and internet in general. Seems to be rule of thumb these days to skim a post and assume it means something other than what is actually being said. Something I and my fiance have experienced a LOT of around here, and why I only hang out in very few threads in the off-topic these days, and even now I'm considering saying $*%# it and washing my hands of the place.
But, as I said, it's a common thing in all of the internet these days, particularly among... What's that term going around? Social Justice Warrior or something like that? Back when the whole "Black lives matter!" thing was starting with the major Furgeson riots, my fiance and I had the unfortunate displeasure of dealing with someone claiming they were a "general activist for all", yet focused primarily on Furgeson. The hate and rage spreading was probably not a SJW thing, but about everything else this fellow did was, though he was one of those "You should fight hate with hate, and violence with violence, peaceful protest accomplishes nothing". Anyway, as we're sitting here trying to point out all lives matter, he accuses us of being racists, hatemongers, and most amusingly, decided to stop talking to us because my fiance (half mexican/caucasian) called herself a 'halfer'. All this while taking single sentences out of entire paragraphs, certain words, and stringing them together as if that was the entire point of what we were saying. When we were referring to one specific thing, were specific about it, and even stated we weren't referring to what he kept trying to bring it back to (our discussing verbal abuse while he responded as if we were speaking of all abuse, and we were very clear it was JUST verbal we were speaking of), he goes and structures his entire argument off of maybe three words and a sentence and doesn't even address our point.
Basically, the piecemeal selection of a text seems to be what passes for conversation on the internet these days. People, as general, only skim, and thus only pick out words that stand out to them, therefore they miss the entire meaning of what you say. Buzzwords are especially easy to pick up on. How one takes what you say and responds in such situations often is, I find, rather telling about that person's psychology and mood at the time of reply. It happens on Facebook, it happens on other websites, and it sure as hell happens here.
Depressing really... I blame media and particularly twitter for that kind of thing. Attention spans are dropping like flies everywhere. Oh, and the whole deal of the sudden increase of people who are extremely defensive of their worldviews and opinions and lash out at anything foreign or contradictory.
As someone said in my gofundme thread when I was asking for help... It's much easier to demonize and dehumanize someone, because if they're different from you, then you're safe and secure and nothing that happened to them can ever happen to you... Or something to that extent. Thus why you get the whole "Get a job!" getting shouted at bums...
As for the topic of Baltimore... Gotta feel sorry for the street cleaners and garbage guys... I doubt they get paid more based on how much they wind up picking up, and boy are they gonna have a lot to do.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Violence solves nothing, and it's only making it harder for the people really working for justice and serving the community.It's telling when the Crips and Bloods unite to tell people to stop the violence.
I pray after this that Baltimore's city council's efforts to get bodycams on cops and other precautions are no longer blocked.
Main sources for the above: Baltimore Sun, WJZ, and WYPR.
The truth of it is, 'real justice' only works in a system that is actually just and fair. When people spend enough time seeing the system not work, or simply work against them, violence is inevitable. We can idealize the peaceful non-compliance type protests, but that again, only works if there is a system in place to temper the response. The system isn't fair. It isn't just. We have a problem that cant be solved within the system itself.
To say violence never solves anything is pretty naive. Without the violence of the Civil War, there is no Civil Rights movement. Without the violence of the Revolutionary war, there is no US Constitution. In both cases, people did attempt non-violent solutions first, but in order to take power from those who have it, generally there has to be violence somewhere along the line. The violence may not directly result in positive change, but it fascilitates it. We remember violence. We forget peace quickly.
In this particular case, it doesn't seem that the violence previously expended on civil rights is sufficient to support the cause. The human animal is forgetful. 200,000 people can march down 6th avenue in new york and we forget in a week. Knock down a single block of buildings in new york though, and the effects are still being felt 14 years later. Violence is remembered, it affects change. Not always good in the short term, or even in the long term. But real, fundamental and systemic...
Interesting enough, non violence is statistically more likely to succeed. While violence can produce change, it's success rate is relatively low.
A short talk discussing this question.
Things like the American Revolution are in the minority. Also, the Civil War wasn't the result of using violence to end slavery, but rather a product of violent resistance to maintain slavery. The federal government didn't declare war, southern states did.
The population threshold to produce change in a society is only 3.5%. Non violent movements that are smaller than this rarely produce change. Movements that are bigger than 3.5% tend to snowball larger and quickly become crippling to governments.
Your off-the cuff dismissal of 200,000 people marching down 6th Ave is accurate. If it's an issue limited to just NYC, the population threshold is 300,000. If it's a statewide issue, the number jumps to 700,000. If it's a national issue it's 6,000,000.
While not all those people need to march, a non violence campaign needs to be more than one afternoon of marching. It needs to be sustained and impactful. Even when the population size is meaningful and the protest has impact, it can take a long time to elicit change. For example, in the South during the 50's, boycotts by the black community were effective, but often times took many months to have an impact.
In contrast to those exact same non violent movements in the South, whites engaged in violence. Either in the form of police brutality, using the legal system to incarcerate people or vigilante violence. In the short term these were often effective at quieting protest, but the never ended the movement and history already tells us which side prevailed (it didn't end the concept of racism in our country, but it did effect change and improve things).
Psychologically, I suspect that it can be pretty easily explained why non violence is effective. Consider for a moment American history and two extremely violent attacks on American soil, Pearl Harbor and 9/11. While Pearl Harbor crippled our ability to respond in the short term, but it also served as a rallying point for the country. Suddenly we had a common enemy who had struck us and people who might not agree on other issues agreed on striking back. You get similar aspects with 9/11. The country as a whole united, with approval ratings of politicians sky rocketing (Giuliani and Bush benefiting greatly) and wholehearted support for things like the Patriot Act.
The violence didn't convince us to not respond, but rather united us and gave us purpose. It became an easy beacon for politicians to manipulate and rally people around.
Conversely non violence does nearly the opposite. It diffuses aggression over the long term. It does not unite the opposition, providing no easy touchstone to rally around. It highlights the injustice of violence used against it, which makes some people uncomfortable supporting that violence and actually erodes support for the opposition.
Violence is only guaranteed to work when it is overwhelming and complete.
"You should fight hate with hate, and violence with violence, peaceful protest accomplishes nothing".
He has a point on this one. The votes been rendered pointless by gerrymandering and it doesn't help when the police won't let you protest, they just arrest you (illegally) and then don't pay the fine when the court tells them to years later. What other options do people have?
Dismissing people a either social justice warriors or too white to understand is an ad hom. It circumvents whatever points they may have rather than addressing them.
Until people stop thinking of events like Baltimore, Ferguson and the experiences you had in the Middle East as race related and realize that it is about control by a small number of very wealthy people over the rest, nothing can or will change for the collective better.
Again, I wasn't making it a racial issue, but over there, unless one is obviously of Arabic descent (And I'm 1/4 Armenian, if you know what that is,), they are targets. It was not my point to make it a racial issue, but since I was being dismissed on racial grounds earlier as not 'being the right color to understand', I felt it prudent to note that I have.
Interesting enough, non violence is statistically more likely to succeed. While violence can produce change, it's success rate is relatively low.
You live up to your name, sir! If more people thought like you did, humanity would arguably be much better off than it is now.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Artemis, check your PM box. I have questions about your Gofundme page. And I feel much as you do about what I see on the forums. Too many instances of people ignoring context so they can make their own point look better, assuming they even take the time to see the context anyway.
EDIT: Thank you for the welcome! :)
If one really wanted to send a message to corrupt old uncle Sam, and all of his flunkies everywhere in the US, the best thing I can think of is no one pay your taxes for a year. Big brother runs on our money, and without such, it grinds to a halt. Every bad or dirty cop is payed by your taxpayer funds, thus no funds, no pay. I can think of nothing more that sends a clearer message to those in power than that. They only have power as long as the 99% of us pay their way, and if we don't, so crumbles their lofty ivory towers. There is not enough prison space to put even 15% of the US population in jail or prison, so what would Uncle Sam do, send in the army. Oh wait, they are paid by taxpayer dollars as well. This also applies to unethical and destructive corporate interests, without your money, the are nothing. Somewhat off topic I suppose, but this is my answer to "what do we do besides riot and loot, or on the other side just engage in non-violent traditional protest. I suspect this will never happen, but it spurs thought at least. We the American public are not helpless, we just need to realize that, and be willing to face what ever backlash the government/big business might have in store. The only ist I gave a damn about is humanist. color, race, gender, sexual orientation, etc are all just tools of the few used to incite and divide the many, who would otherwise realize their common cause. Never forget that it is our hard earned money that in fact powers the machinery of governmental repression and funds all of its crimes.
Getting off my soap box now...
Bernobog, that doesn't work. The money simply vanishes out of your paycheck. If you don't pay that, it will simply vanish out of your bank account. If you don't have one, it will vanish from your paycheck when you try to cash it. If your business is cash and carry you're probably not paying taxes on most of it anyway.
And if it works they just put you in jail.
Lots of things wuld be great if everyone could act as one coordinated hive mind, but it simply doesn't work like that.
You do realize that the Police are union members for the most part, especially those in the big cities.I have been too busy dealing with personal drama and building for our May Day event to pay much attention to the Baltimore Uprising, but here's a neat-o Facebook page:
And here's some exciting news for lefties recycled from my Fun-Timey Revolutionary Socialism thread:
And here's some shameless socialist self-promotion:
Lowell, MA: May Day action against low wages and police terror!
which we originally initiatied in the wake of the April 15th low-wage workers protest, but quickly added to in light of the ILWU/SC AFL-CIO call for action.
Finish the Civil War!
Smash Racist Police Terror!
For Black Liberation Through Socialist Revolution!
Yes. Why do you ask?
If one really wanted to send a message to corrupt old uncle Sam, and all of his flunkies everywhere in the US, the best thing I can think of is no one pay your taxes for a year. Big brother runs on our money, and without such, it grinds to a halt. Every bad or dirty cop is payed by your taxpayer funds, thus no funds, no pay. I can think of nothing more that sends a clearer message to those in power than that. They only have power as long as the 99% of us pay their way, and if we don't, so crumbles their lofty ivory towers. There is not enough prison space to put even 15% of the US population in jail or prison, so what would Uncle Sam do, send in the army. Oh wait, they are paid by taxpayer dollars as well. This also applies to unethical and destructive corporate interests, without your money, the are nothing. Somewhat off topic I suppose, but this is my answer to "what do we do besides riot and loot, or on the other side just engage in non-violent traditional protest. I suspect this will never happen, but it spurs thought at least. We the American public are not helpless, we just need to realize that, and be willing to face what ever backlash the government/big business might have in store. The only ist I gave a damn about is humanist. color, race, gender, sexual orientation, etc are all just tools of the few used to incite and divide the many, who would otherwise realize their common cause. Never forget that it is our hard earned money that in fact powers the machinery of governmental repression and funds all of its crimes.
Getting off my soap box now...
I'll second your idea of passive resistance. It's not guaranteed to work, but it does have a chance to work. And if it all goes to hell in a hand basket it could be a useful first step for the serious head butting that would be needed.
Kinda tired from flyering for our rally after work, so I've only skimmed today's postings in this thread but I felt like recycling a link from a former Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (if you don't know who they were, look it up) field secretary who will be speaking in Lowell this Thursday, but I'm not sure if I will be able to go. :(
Guns and the Southern Freedom Struggle: What's Missing When We Teach About Nonviolence
Never seen my name spelled quite that way before ;). And yes, I realize there are issues to such an action, hence the "likely never happen bit."
One would have to take quite a few very outlandish acts to keep the tax man away, such as liquidation of all non cash monetary assets, closing out all bank accounts, and much more (not a fun prospect for anyone, and in some cases nigh impossible). But, it could be done, and I do maintain if enough people acted in such a manner, the impact would be profound. A hive mind of humanity, again, rightly not a thing that would happen. But people can and do join in common cause. Pipe dream, 99.9% yes, but stranger things have happened. I mean heck, a bunch of colonists rose in rebellion against the imperial power of the day, and won (France did indeed help, thus all Americans who rail against the french and want freedom fries, etc, etc, yeah, your nation exists partly thanks to those "frogs" you go on about in ethnocentric BS rants)
Soap box is getting work out tonight.
However, the counterpoint is much appreciated BigNorseWolf, such is what good and meaniful discussion and debate is founded on.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Glad I moved back to Florida.
You win the prize for creating a sentence never thought or uttered by another human being before you. Congrats!
Yes. Why do you ask?You do realize that the Police are union members for the most part, especially those in the big cities.I have been too busy dealing with personal drama and building for our May Day event to pay much attention to the Baltimore Uprising, but here's a neat-o Facebook page:
And here's some exciting news for lefties recycled from my Fun-Timey Revolutionary Socialism thread:
And here's some shameless socialist self-promotion:
Lowell, MA: May Day action against low wages and police terror!
which we originally initiatied in the wake of the April 15th low-wage workers protest, but quickly added to in light of the ILWU/SC AFL-CIO call for action.
Finish the Civil War!
Smash Racist Police Terror!
For Black Liberation Through Socialist Revolution!
So you want the police to go out and protest the police?
No, not really. Why?
EDIT: Why is J~%ya distorted? It's not a curse word, as far as I know. J-i-z-y-a is the word, minus the -'s.
Apparently, it's too close to "j@#z," as in, slang for semen.
I didn't know that was on the proscribed word list, either.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No, not really. Why?
I know I do.
As long as there are good cops protecting bad ones, nothing is going to change.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Kinda tired from flyering for our rally after work, so I've only skimmed today's postings in this thread but I felt like recycling a link from a former Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (if you don't know who they were, look it up) field secretary who will be speaking in Lowell this Thursday, but I'm not sure if I will be able to go. :(
Guns and the Southern Freedom Struggle: What's Missing When We Teach About Nonviolence
Except of course that he gets part of his history wrong. A quote from Dr. King:
Meanwhile I reconsidered. How could I serve as one of the leaders of a nonviolent movement and at the same time use weapons of violence for my personal protection? Coretta and I talked the matter over for several days and finally agreed that arms were no solution. We decided then to get rid of the one weapon we owned. We tried to satisfy our friends by having floodlights mounted around the house, and hiring unarmed watchmen around the clock. I also promised that I would not travel around the city alone.
Bold emphasis mine. Yes, King did apply for a concealed carry permit, but he did not then go purchase more guns for the home and rather divested himself of the one gun he did own.
As for the historical accuracy of CO Chinn, mostly all I can find on the internet is the one article you linked and what sounds like a bunch of white libertarians who reference it. It might be right, but something seems fishy.
I'm just trying to figure out what point Citizen Canockers is trying to make and what he thought he saw in the post to which he initially responded.
No, not really. Why?I know I do.
As long as there are good cops protecting bad ones, nothing is going to change.
Freehold gets it, F#%!ing A man well said :-)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
No, not really. Why?I know I do.
As long as there are good cops protecting bad ones, nothing is going to change.
I've been saying this for years.
But as of late I've given up on the notion of (and up unitl recently it was a notion I held on to for a looooooong time) "good cops."
If the entire black community can be blamed for the actions of a few? Then I think, especially since the police hold the greater burden and responsibility due to their position, the same can be said of the police. As long as they stand silent and watch their brethren break the law and murder unarmed civilians they're pretty much ALL suspect.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Except of course that he gets part of his history wrong. A quote from Dr. King:
Meanwhile I reconsidered. How could I serve as one of the leaders of a nonviolent movement and at the same time use weapons of violence for my personal protection? Coretta and I talked the matter over for several days and finally agreed that arms were no solution. We decided then to get rid of the one weapon we owned. We tried to satisfy our friends by having floodlights mounted around the house, and hiring unarmed watchmen around the clock. I also promised that I would not travel around the city alone.
"Rev. King knew the risks. In fact, after the Jan. 30, 1956, bombing of his home in Montgomery, he applied at the sheriff’s office for a permit to carry a concealed weapon. He was denied the permit, but this did not stop him from having firearms in his house."
I don't see how this is getting history wrong. Yes, he doesn't go on to say that MLK later got rid of his guns, (according to another article I just skimmed, it was the influence of Bayard Rustin that got him to give up his guns, not a heart-to-heart with Coretta, but that's besides the point), but that's not really germane to his argument.
As for the historical accuracy of CO Chinn, mostly all I can find on the internet is the one article you linked and what sounds like a bunch of white libertarians who reference it. It might be right, but something seems fishy.
I've yet to read the book Cobb wrote so I don't know if he's got citations, but he's putting in quotes from well-established CORE activists, (Flukie Suarez, for example, is a name that has come up in my recent readings on Malcolm X) and the article is on a pretty well-established rad-lib activist site. I'm sure white (or any color, really) libertarians would be all over the article, but it doesn't seem fishy to me at all.
Not exactly wrong, but the emphasis is on leading the reader to think that King relied on guns. It's misleading not to mention what followed.
It also doesn't look like it was really that he "later got rid of his gun(singular)". That paragraph in his autobiography immediately follows the denial of his application.
Putting in the whole paragraph this time:
"Rev. King knew the risks. In fact, after the Jan. 30, 1956, bombing of his home in Montgomery, he applied at the sheriff’s office for a permit to carry a concealed weapon. He was denied the permit, but this did not stop him from having firearms in his house. Indeed, there were few black leaders who did not seek and receive armed protection from within the black community. They needed it because both local law enforcement and the federal government refused to provide it."
I thought it was interesting that some dude named Rev. Smiley described the King household as having an "arsenal," but then he got rid of his one gun. This coupled with his attributing his getting rid of his gun(s?) to a discussion with Coretta rather than the influence of Bayard Rustin leads me to wonder how reliable his version in the Carson "autobiography" is.
EDIT: Not that this really matters. I don't think Cobb is trying to argue that King "relied" on guns. I think he is pointing out, correctly, and this is why I posted the article, that there has been a whitewashing of the historical record of the Civil Rights Movement that has sought to obscure the role played by people like Robert F. Williams, the Deacons for Defense, some woman named Richardson or something in Maryland, and the unnamed local leaders and rank-and-file activists Cobb discusses.
Btw, and apropos of nothing, Carson also wrote an excellent history of SNCC that I can highly recommend, In Struggle: SNCC and the Black Awakening of the 1960s.
Going through the articles I skimmed, haven't re-found the "arsenal" quote yet, but here's one:
When Martin Luther King gave up his guns
Passage I found interesting, although it doesn't answer the question at hand:
"Ultimately, he never embraced the complete pacifism of A. J. Muste [former Trotskyist, by the way]; later, in the Black Power years, King made a distinction between people using guns to defend themselves in the home and the question of 'whether it was tactically wise to use a gun while participating in an organized protest.' But, for himself, King claimed nonviolence as a 'way of life,' and he maintained his resolve under conditions that would make many others falter."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No, not really. Why?I know I do.
As long as there are good cops protecting bad ones, nothing is going to change.
Police unions should ensure that due process is followed in internal disciplinary actions when police officers are accused of crimes or other behaviors. That's part of their job. They do it well. This probably should extend to representation in criminal cases.
Police departments, prosecutors and judges however should not be in the business of protecting or covering up for criminal behavior by police officers. That's where the root of the problem lies, not with the unions.
I must disagree.
The unions ate a party of the problem here. I am not saying its time to go union busting, but the police union will happily make sure a paid vacation is as comfortable as possible when an officer is accused of a crime.
And that's all I'm gonna search for right now. I'd like to draw attention to the edit in my third post up from here and restate that I don't think Cobb was trying to mislead readers into thinking that even MLK "relied" on guns. I think he's saying that King, like the CORE activists described in the article, benefitted from the protection of armed followers, even if he embraced a personal code of nonviolent resistance.
I must disagree.
The unions ate a party of the problem here. I am not saying its time to go union busting, but the police union will happily make sure a paid vacation is as comfortable as possible when an officer is accused of a crime.
My opinion of police unions is largely the same, but I am holding off on commenting about them until I can figure out what contradiction or stupidity or whatever that Citizen Canockers thinks he sees in that original post.
And then I'm going to step away from the thread so that others can discuss Baltimore in 2015 rather than Montgomery in 1956, if they so desire.
