Rioting in Baltimore...

[eyenon15]

I think most protesters would agree with that and do it that way.

[Jaxom 1974]

I don't accept it. From my perspective, I'm just saying what we already know. But yes, anyone who does accept things for how they are at present would be counterproductive. Every day, I'm actively working to make it less true.

I'd hope so. But the comment you made that I quoted had an air of resignation about it whether you intended that our not.

[Shryke]

Shryke,

Why is the destruction of people's property, people who have nothing to do with Mr. Gray's death, "irrelevant"?

Because it has nothing to do with the actual problem here, the cause of the unrest or the way to stop it. It's not even treating the symptoms, it's cleaning up the snotty kleenexes.

Further I stand by my statement that rioting gives ammunition to people who see nothing wrong with the action of police in this case, Ferguson, and other cases where Blacks have been the victim of Police abuse. As such saying rioting is counter-productive is highly relevant.

No, it's not. Cause blacks were already the victims of massive police abuse before and will be after. The rioting will change nothing in that respect.

Again, you are spending all your time wringing your hands over the 3 steps removed issues from the actual problem. It's rather tiring.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Shryke,

Okay. I disagree.

[Shryke]

Also, Obama doing a good job calling people on this shit:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/obama-freddie-gray-media-baltimore

President Obama told reporters at a White House news conference on Tuesday that the media ignored peaceful protests in the city until violence erupted, and gave his views on the broader problems facing American cities.

"Frankly it didn't get that much attention," Obama said of the peaceful movement sparked by the death of black man Freddie Gray, who died in police custody. "One burning building will be looped on television over and over and over again. The thousands of demonstrators who did it the right way, I think, have been lost in the discussion."

The President added that unrest in cities like Baltimore will not go away until solutions are found beyond law enforcement.

"This is not new, and we shouldn't pretend that it's new," he said.

"If we think we're going to send police to do the dirty work of containing the problems that arise there — without as a nation and society saying what can we do to change those communities, to help lift up communities, and give those kids opportunity — then we're not going to solve this problem," he added.

"We'll go through the same cycles of periodic conflicts between the police and communities, and occasional riots in the streets. And everybody will feign concern until it goes away," Obama added. "Then we'll go about our business as usual."

[all swedes are racist]

RRL,

Cute. I'm not saying patience is ideal. I'm saying they have few other options. So, yeah, the damage done by members of their own community to others in that community is similar to the postion all those frustrated with the pace of police reform feel.

Ser Scot,

Yeah, ok, that was flippant, apologies for being a bit dicky.

But these exhortations of patience (as a whole, not specifically on your part) I think are more damaging than not. Sitting by, waiting for change, does more to put & keep power in the hands of the police and the broader system that gives rise to the injustices committed towards the most underprivileged. We agree that profound change must happen, but that kind of radical change does not happen without some kind of radical impetus. The destruction visited upon these businesses -- and by extension their proprietors -- is unfortunate, (especially so considering many are actual members of the community, and thus likely to have a disproportionally harder time rebuilding their business) but it pales in comparison to the awful, systemic abuses suffered by the community at large.

I'm not convinced that the protestors and rioters are all one and the same, but the rioting does serve as a powerful message. See how much media coverage has been devoted to the situation because of the riots, if nothing else. It raises awareness, opens dialogues about the state of affairs affecting the black population in the US. Inaction and waiting patiently for change is only going to reinforce the status quo which more and more people are coming to realize is both real and terrible.

[Dr. Pepper]

CD,

I'm not saying "Sit down and shut up". I'm saying, protest but don't break things owned by people who aren't hurting you particularly people in your own community who are sharing the same problems.

Looked in another way, rioting in one's own community where residents face institutionalized bias might go a long way towards addressing complacency. A way of saying, "not only are they murdering our boys, they also aren't willing to protect your property." No comparable message is conveyed if they bussed themselves into white Baltimore and rioted, leaving aside the fact that transportation was shut down.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

Rioting and looting are expected consequences of the breakdown of social order, and it should not be a surprise that the police's ability to kill mostly young, black men with apparent impunity is going to result in social alienation for particular groups of people.

That's not to say it's okay or justified. But that is to say that, in the context of the discussion that we should be having about the accountability of the police and their interactions with these communities, I find the fact that an extreme minority of people engaged in this kind of behavior to be almost beneath discussion.

[awesome possum]

CD,

I'm not saying "Sit down and shut up". I'm saying, protest but don't break things owned by people who aren't hurting you particularly people in your own community who are sharing the same problems.

Scot,

You keep repeating this as these people were protesters who suddenly decided to riot when it's been fairly well proven that the vast majority of protesters remained peaceful and even at points stood in lines between the rioters and police. By continuing to preach that "this is how they should protest" you are pushing forward the narrative that they somehow stopped protesting that way.

And that's just not true.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

AP,

Then please allow me to clarify. Those rioting ought not riot but protest rather than loot and burn their neighbor's property.

[TerraPrime]

And, to repeat and to further that point, unless we know that the damage to property and the looting were actually planned, then it is a wrong narrative to castigate the movement for "using a wrong strategy to achieve the goal." Worse, it's a wrong narrative that actually adds to the injustice that is being protested against in the first place.

[Shryke]

And, to repeat and to further that point, unless we know that the damage to property and the looting were actually planned, then it is a wrong narrative to castigate the movement for "using a wrong strategy to achieve the goal." Worse, it's a wrong narrative that actually adds to the injustice that is being protested against in the first place.

It don't even make sense anyway since it presupposes that the riots had a purpose rather then simply being an expression of anger.

[TerraPrime]

I know.

Here's someone else doing a rather thorough tackling of misguided, deliberate or otherwise, narratives of the event:

http://chrisbrecheen.blogspot.com/2015/04/controlling-narrative-case-study-in.html

It's well worth the read.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

TP,

Interesting link. This part in particular:

Look, is there anyone here who watches Star Wars and thinks the rebels should just fucking obey the law. Or (among Americans) who thinks they wouldn't have been a revolutionary during the colonial revolt? (You do know we didn't just reasonably protest until King George let us be our own country, right?) Or who watches The Hunger Games or Divergent and thinks that if they were there, they would just quietly be respecting the proper authorities? The only way to think violence is always wrong is to suggest that America is always completely just. And that is demonstrably untrue.

He's right. The US is a nation founded on a violent revolt against the sitting government. Is it time for a violent revolt to overthrow the existing governments in the US? Was that what the rioters were attempting? Or were they, as President Obama claimed "thugs"?

Also, out of curiosity, how is my intial statement in this thread different from what the President said today:

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/240316-obama-blames-criminals-and-thugs-for-baltimore-riots

From the link:

President Obama on Tuesday delivered a sharp-tongued rebuke of rioters in Baltimore, denouncing the actions of "criminals and thugs" who he said were exploiting the death of Freddie Gray.

There is no excuse for the kind of violence we saw yesterday. It is counterproductive," Obama said. "Theyre not protesting. Theyre not making a statement. They are stealing.

[drawkcabi]

I don't know if my opinion as stated in the first couple pages of this thread has changed, but many of you have given me serious food for thought. Thank you for that.

[TerraPrime]

TP,

Interesting link. This part in particular:

He's right. The US is a nation founded on a violent revolt against the sitting government. Is it time for a violent revolt to overthrow the existing governments in the US? Was that what the rioters were attempting? Or were they, as President Obama claimed "thugs"?

Also, out of curiosity, how is my intial statement in this thread different from what the President said today:

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/240316-obama-blames-criminals-and-thugs-for-baltimore-riots

From the link:

lol ok.

Care to wager what Obama really thinks? Maybe we could actually use the anger translator he had at the press dinner.

Honestly, that's as far as a President can go in a speech, and further than what a non-black president would go probably. Of course he condemns rioters and calls for calm and peaceful solutions. He's the fucking POTUS. He can't very well call for an uprising that destablizes a major US city now can he.

But one difference is that in his entire speech, Obama also clearly laid the responsibility on the rest of us, who didn't pay much attention to the situation until there's a riot. You, on the other hand, seemed pretty one-toned in your castigation of the rioters, without really giving us much insight on what you understanding of the bigger picture.

And to be frank, you're still tunnel-visioning on this singular aspect of "how does rioting help the cause?!" when the rest of us pretty much answered "we know it didn't but it is both inevitable and it may serve as an essential step moving forward."

[CelticBrennus]

The destruction visited upon these businesses -- and by extension their proprietors -- is unfortunate, (especially so considering many are actual members of the community, and thus likely to have a disproportionally harder time rebuilding their business) but it pales in comparison to the awful, systemic abuses suffered by the community at large.

Out of curiosity, I wonder how many of the businesses destroyed were actually owned by "members of the community." How many were owned by people who do not live or participate in the local community or large corporations. In many parts of the inner city, liquor stores, convenience stores and the like are not owned or run by anyone in the community, but rather members of other racial or ethnic groups. I live in Cleveland, and if I see a gas station or liquor store or cell phone store, or convenience store in East Cleveland, Kinsman or Buckeye areas, chances are its owned by a Middle Eastern or Indian immigrant, not a member of the community the store is located in. This paradigm is often harmful to the local community as it prevents any multiplier effect of the money spent from benefiting the people living in the area.

[Shryke]

He's right. The US is a nation founded on a violent revolt against the sitting government. Is it time for a violent revolt to overthrow the existing governments in the US? Was that what the rioters were attempting? Or were they, as President Obama claimed "thugs"?

Also, out of curiosity, how is my intial statement in this thread different from what the President said today:

You might want to read the link I gave that gives a much better look at his views by actually quoting more of what he said:

Also, Obama doing a good job calling people on this shit:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/obama-freddie-gray-media-baltimore

"Frankly it didn't get that much attention," Obama said of the peaceful movement sparked by the death of black man Freddie Gray, who died in police custody. "One burning building will be looped on television over and over and over again. The thousands of demonstrators who did it the right way, I think, have been lost in the discussion."

The President added that unrest in cities like Baltimore will not go away until solutions are found beyond law enforcement.

"This is not new, and we shouldn't pretend that it's new," he said.

"If we think we're going to send police to do the dirty work of containing the problems that arise there — without as a nation and society saying what can we do to change those communities, to help lift up communities, and give those kids opportunity — then we're not going to solve this problem," he added.

"We'll go through the same cycles of periodic conflicts between the police and communities, and occasional riots in the streets. And everybody will feign concern until it goes away," Obama added. "Then we'll go about our business as usual."

[TerraPrime]

CB:

I take your point.

But, to be clear, are you saying that Indian/Middle Eastern immigrants who own these stores are, by default, not members of the community? Maybe things are very different in Cleveland, but from what I have seen, these immigrant store owners often live right at the store to save on rent. I also don't see why assume that the live far enough away from the store that the money they make from their stores is legitimately considered to be spent elsewhere and not within the community. Can you clarify?

[Summah]

There's a lot I want to say, now that I can find more words and not just rage. Baltimore is a poor city, Sandtown is a poor and "bad" neighborhood, even by Baltimore standards, Mondawmin is a place many white people are afraid to shop. The mom & pop shops (at least of the corner store, liquor store, beauty supply store type) are most likely not owned by people from or who live in that neighborhood or are really part of that community. Most of these types of small businesses in black Baltimore are owned by people from other communities. I'm not defending what happened or minimizing the loss, the property damage to these places, but it's not the case that people were literally destroying businesses owned by their neighbors.

I also want to talk about the two Baltimores again and point out that although the mayor and many other city officials and politicians are black, many (but not all) of them, if they came from black Baltimore, separate themselves once they become successful start to identify with the other Baltimore, the one of privilege. Having black people in control on a city level does not mean that they will necessarily make changes that will benefit the black community or other poor communities generally.

I also found it interesting that more than half the photos I saw of looters showed people carrying toilet paper, diapers, paper towels, food and that sort of thing, when I see things like this, I think that people who steal things like this are probably poor and desperate and I cannot fault people for taking basic necessities in this type of situation, especially when it was unclear when it would end. I am also reminded of the media narrative of photos taken after hurricane Katrina where black people taking things from stores were "looting" and white people who did the same were "finding".

I know the article Ta-Nahesi Coates published yesterday about the situation has been linked, but a couple weeks ago he wrote another article in the aftermath of the Walter Svott killing which I think is good commentary about something that plays into these situations generally. Coates can say this much better than I can, so I'm just going to quote him here.

There is a tendency, when examining police shootings, to focus on tactics at the expense of strategy. One interrogates the actions of the officer in the moment trying to discern their mind-state. We ask ourselves, "Were they justified in shooting?" But, in this time of heightened concern around the policing, a more essential question might be, "Were we justified in sending them?" At some point, Americans decided that the best answer to every social ill lay in the power of the criminal-justice system. Vexing social problems—homelessness, drug use, the inability to support one's children, mental illness—are presently solved by sending in men and women who specialize in inspiring fear and ensuring compliance. Fear and compliance have their place, but it can't be every place.

...

Police officers fight crime. Police officers are neither case-workers, nor teachers, nor mental-health professionals, nor drug counselors. One of the great hallmarks of the past forty years of American domestic policy is a broad disinterest in that difference. The problem of restoring police authority is not really a problem of police authority, but a problem of democratic authority. It is what happens when you decide to solve all your problems with a hammer. To ask, at this late date, why the police seem to have lost their minds is to ask why our hammers are so bad at installing air-conditioners. More it is to ignore the state of the house all around us. A reform that begins with the officer on the beat is not reform at all. It's avoidance. It's a continuance of the American preference for considering the actions of bad individuals, as opposed to the function and intention of systems.

The person who instituted zero tolerance policing in Baltimore was O'Malley, so those of you who inexplicably support him for president or vp please keep this in mind, because in Baltimore this policy has had devastating effects.

And I also wanted to respond to a couple posts.

A chronology of yesterdays events from the Sun.

Seems entirely possible that it was the aggressive police force that showed up that triggered the violence yesterday as anything else. Kind of sick of 90% of the comments showing up on FB.

Hoping this spurs some actual police reform.

I didnt have a lot of this to begin with, but I ruthlessly pruned my social media contacts during the Ferguson protests and this time I've had a total of two questionable (but not truly offensive) comments my feeds.

On Sunday- if memory serves- Tucker Carlson- of Fox News stupidity- had on the show the Baltimore Chief of Police and scolded the Chief for NOT doing more arrests and allowing the protests to go unanswered.

Now, my VERY LARGE liberal bias said, "The police are doing it the right way; we saw what happened when police intervened in Ferguson; they made things much. much worse. The Chief is completely correct here; the police are showing incredible restraint. BY doing this the protests will NOT turn violent and will peacefully march on."

I think you're reading this entirely wrong, please read the link Larry posted, then check out this and this. I'm not linking this to absolve a minority of protesters of violent acts, but to point out that this is more complicated than you're giving it credit for being. Virtually all large protests have small factions that want to use violence, this is no exception. When Dr King, Gandhi, Mandela are brought up to show this, I want to point out that violent protest played a large part in all of those movements, because there was the Black Panthers, Nation of Islam and Black Power movement generally, some people who would have been horrified by King's demands for justice, equality etc began to see him as the more moderate faction of the civil rights movement and more likely to support him, and this was something he knew, understood and took advantage of, the same dynamics occurred in South Africa and India.

I recommend patience. If patience will not work I would say work to change the system itself and unfocused violence will not accomplish that much more difficult goal.

Fuck patience, we've been waiting for hundreds of years, and please see what I wrote above.

This is just another exsampel of how mass media creates problems, if the media had not reported on this as they do with most other police shothings, there would not be rioting or at least at this scale

No the problem is that the police routinely kill, beat, injure black people, especially young men, and have been doing so for a very long time. This is something, I've always known, my father, grandfather, brother and every other black person I know has always known. We didn't need the media to tell us about police brutality against black people, we already knew, we already experienced it.

The media does not report about most police killings, if anything it's usually relegated to a paragraph buried somewhere in the back of the local section of the paper, most of these killings recently covered have made the news because there was video, no video usually means no coverage. The media ignoring the situation as you propose will not change anything, we will still experience police brutality and shootings, only with your proposal White America will be able to go back to ignoring it.