Absolute Zero wrote:I'm not surprised you didn't know that about Malcolm X, it's not something that has ever been broadly acknowledged about him. It has been far easier to hold him up as a boogeyman and argument against black and Muslim movements in America.
Those people who come out with hate and all that, those aren't BLM, they're not even associated with them, a lot of the time, they're not even there for anything other than picking a fight and making BLM look bad. Those groups, they attach themselves to every movement. Hell, several have been linked to white supremacy groups whose goal is to make the protests look bad because they want the protests to be associated with violence and not be supported so nothing will change.
Of all the groups I've heard that have shown up at protests that have not been associated with far right hate groups, has been the Anti Fascist group Antifa. And if you have a problem with Antifa, well, I don't know. It would seem to me that if you're not Anti Fascist you're Pro Fascist, and this country fought a war about that.
Another thing with the protests and violence, I'm not sure how much you have been following or watching them, I am assuming you've not been participating in them given your expressed view points, but once they took the police out of riot gear and acting like the protestors are the enemy of the people they've been peaceful. It's funny that the protests turning violent got a lot of coverage, even on liberal media stations, but it took them a bit before they admitted this, but the police were the instigators of the violence, 100% of the time. Some officers have used the excuse, and I don't remember the exact quote so I'm going to paraphrase it here, but the excuse given was "[We work long shifts (12hrs) and then you have people yelling at us and calling us names, and it's upsetting and sometimes people lash out.]" Now, I don't know a job besides police in America where that would ever ever be an excuse for beating people, or shooting unarmed protestors or people who aren't even protesting but are just homeless and happen to be in the area, and causing them serious injuries (lots of people have lost their eyes, at least two reporters have). How can you see that and wonder why people are pissed off at the police? Nevermind how long 8 minutes and 46 seconds is. It doesn't sound long, but to get a feel for it, set an alarm, and turn everything else off, just sit there in silence. That's how long those cops were kneeling. I could keep ranting about this part, but I think that's long enough.
My final point is the us vs them and how people want to remain neutral and why people get upset about that. There is no neutrality in morality. There's no grey area. You might think that you can be neutral and not choose a side, but by not choosing, you're telling people who are doing evil that it is ok. There was no neutrality in Germany when they were rounding up people for camps, because the people who remained neutral while their neighbors were taken were eventually taken themselves. That is the reason you see people angry at cops, and why people say there are no good cops. If there were good cops, why have they never done anything about the bad ones? Silence is tacit approval of the system of oppression that is directly leading to these protests. “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” ― Edmund Burke That quote remains true even now, and I think sums up my argument in this paragraph perfectly.
I only seem reasonable because I have this thing where I have to respond to posts to me and it took a while, but I eventually learned that if you want to change someone's mind, you can't call them an idiot and dismiss them. You have to make them think.
I'm going to close this out with the long quote from Burke, because I think it's poignant and really gets back to the point above.
"Whilst men are linked together, they easily and speedily communicate the alarm of any evil design. They are enabled to fathom it with common counsel, and to oppose it with united strength. Whereas, when they lie dispersed, without concert, order, or discipline, communication is uncertain, counsel difficult, and resistance impracticable. Where men are not acquainted with each other’s principles, nor experienced in each other’s talents, nor at all practised in their mutual habitudes and dispositions by joint efforts in business; no personal confidence, no friendship, no common interest, subsisting among them; it is evidently impossible that they can act a public part with uniformity, perseverance, or efficacy. In a connection, the most inconsiderable man, by adding to the weight of the whole, has his value, and his use; out of it, the greatest talents are wholly unserviceable to the public. No man, who is not inflamed by vain-glory into enthusiasm, can flatter himself that his single, unsupported, desultory, unsystematic endeavours, are of power to defeat the subtle designs and united cabals of ambitious citizens. When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle." –Edmund Burke, Thoughts on the Cause of the Present Discontents 82-83 (1770) in: Select Works of Edmund Burke, vol. 1, p. 146 (Liberty Fund ed. 1999).
There's a couple points that I want to raise with all that. All of the points made are good, but I have an agreement and a contention.
First off, in regards to BLM, the organization, and the bad actors in it. You're right, and I always try to keep that in mind. The people there with the intentions of starting trouble, they're not BLM. Or at least I hope they're not. As I said before, it's a big banner, and not everyone is necessarily there for the same reason. So i think that we can agree on this. The only question now is what can we do about it.
As for the other point you made, I'm going to whole heartedly disagree with you. I've made a point of saying the most toxic part of this entire situation is the "Us vs Them" "With us or Against us" mindset. There is so much wrong with that. There's always been the problem of defining yourself as anti-anything and that is only compounded when it organizes as a group that can't control the people inside of it. I've already made the point about BLM, but you bring up Antifa and that's an interesting point. I'm actually well educated on Antifa, from their history dating all the way back to WWII europe, their actions throughout the various european theatres, the civil wars, the uprisings, and coming to the US. And I do have a problem with Antifa; I don't think that's a big surprise. I have a problem with the violence associated with BLM, and Antifa arguably has a worse track record there.
The danger coming in is the same though. I won't throw my support behind BLM. Ergo, I MUST be a racist. There can be no other explaination, no other option, no other choices in the matter. The reasons don't matter, the means are irrelevant, just the ends. So too it goes with Antifa. Antifa are Anti-fascist, ergo, if you're not with Antifa then you're just a fascist. There can be no other way. That line of thinking has the same prejudicial elements as the BLM one writing off everything about the person and ending all conversation after that point. It's not helpful, and it's not constructive. It is, in fact, destructive, pre-empting anything further.
On remaining neutral, that's always been the unsteady ground. Most leaders have had to maintain some kind of neutrality. If you completely abandon the other side of the conversation completely then you remove any possability for progress short of subjugation or annihilation. King Jr. knew that. He had his goals, he had his principles, but he never, ever removed the table for discussion. He walked away from it many times, but it was always there for the next time.
It's also dangerous to assume rejection for neutrality. There is no, single way to do anything, no one path that we all must take or else we will never progress. You bring up the example of Germany and say that anyone not actively resisting was complicit. I've heard that arguement before and making it neglects or discounts the people that did what they could in their daily lives to fight back in other ways. Some people, yes, planted bombs, blew up ammo caches, assassinated gestapo, and fought back directly. Others subverted by hiding people, stealing and redistributing supplies, putting up propaganda, and even doing their part to convince the germans to abandon the nazi cause. There are a myriad of ways to wage a war but if we were to just assume those people, for not takng up arms, were guilty of complicity through inaction then the best result would have been losing their support. The worst would have been giving up entirely and actually joining up with the nazis. I've made that point before.
As for the police, I've said it before that the police are exacerbating the problem, but that exacerbation is on both sides and goes both ways. You're right that the overly militarized and decked out police is not helping things and I have seen the cases where the police extend the trust to the protest and show up with a minimal presence. It goes well. But the police do have a job to do. You might not like it, I might not like it, but they do. When they're told to keep order, they have to keep order. When they're told to enforce a curfew, they have to enforce a curfew. I'm with you on the excuses we've gotten. I don't buy them and I don't accept them. As I see it though we are at an impass.
The police have a job to do. We gave them that job. We put their leaders in change, we set the laws. And then we have to abide by them. If you run a stop sign, you have to expect a ticket. If you break down a door, you have to expect an arrest. If you break the curfew, you have to expect them to send you home. Whether or not this is fair or right is better saved for discussing the policies more than the police. The point I want to make is that the police are overly aggressive and the protests are willingly being disobedient. There's no winning here for either side and when civil disobedience is the goal, much as it was for King Jr, then it's going to get ugly. If the police DON'T enforce the laws, then they're blamed for not doing their jobs. If the protesters obey the orders and disperse at curfew, they're blamed for not standing up for the cause. Do you see how there is no way to win here?
In closing I appreciate the quotes, especially the shorter one on the triumph of evil. I do keep it in mind and think on it often, trying to use that to see different perspectives on a situation. I also think it's part of the problem because it assumes first that the person you're contesting is evil. Not misguided, not mistaken, but simply, unquestioningly, and irredeemably evil. True evil is rare and I don't believe we are dealing with a widespread case of it now. Individuals can be, but I will never brand an entire group or organization that way. The moment we do then we may as well build our own concentration camps for all those we oppose. You can see how that would end poorly. It also says when good men do nothing, but we are doing something. We are debating. We are discussing. And after we're done we will share these thoughts. If we're lucky, we'll bring people in from the fringes back towards the center where we can work together.
I don't have a famous quote to leave you so instead I'll leave you with one of my own from my own checkered past, "There is always another way". As much as it may make you grind your teeth, and I'm sure it does, I appreciate the reasonable responses. You are right, we will get nowhere with insults and dismission.
