No.
“A riot is the language of the unheard”
― Martin Luther King Jr., March 14, 1968
Maybe, I don’t know. But I do know that America has a tradition of responding to perceived oppression with violence and rioting. I guess if a person sees the Boston Tea Party as justified, then he, or she might have to view Baltimore similarly. Peaceful protest hasn’t been getting attention to what is a real problem, but rioting did.
My preference would be for the US to take the concerns of black communities who say they are treated poorly by the police seriously and not just assume they are all a bunch of career criminal whiners who got what they had coming. Since we don’t seem willing to do that, I guess we’ll have to accept riots as a consequence.
No, but simplistic reductions of Dr. King’s body of work into absolute standpoints are:
a) wrong about what Dr. King believed in general,
b) not practicable in the real world, and therefore
c) believed to be valid and useful only by those who benefit from the status quo.
And bombs, and shooting people, and war.
Exactly, I think you have to see the Baltimore riots in the context of America’s traditions of violent resistance.
Rioting is, to put it mildly, not a good way of convincing people you are not criminals.
That’s what the (insert country here) ruler said, right before he started killing his people.
It seemed to work for the American revolutionaries.
All I know is that I grew up in Virginia where there are plenty of statues of violent men who killed lots of people to protect their rights to own other people. We teach kids that the resistance of the colonists to the British was noble, even though there were plenty of examples of violence and the destruction of property (resistance to the stamp act often involved destroying property, for example). Maybe someday, we’ll be teaching kids about how the brave freedom fighters of Baltimore changed America for the better.
Like I said, I’d prefer if we didn’t let the hateful bigots run things and dismiss the concerns of black communities with smug affirmations of their hateful bigotry. But if we can’t go that route, I guess we go with good old fashioned American violence.
It is telling that, in 2015 America, there is a demographic that must continually prove they are not criminals.
Look at why Freddie Gray was stopped by the police: he made eye contact with an officer and then ran according to the people who apparently killed him. We expect poor blacks to shuffle along and know better than to make eye contact with the police; do they think they’re people?
There is ample evidence that blacks are often mistreated by police, but the bigots don’t see it. Meanwhile, the right is convinced there is a war on Christmas because some people say happy holidays.
If you believe the only way you can advance your cause is through mob violence, then either your cause is wrong or you are.
“I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a “more convenient season.” Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.”
-MLK, Letter From Birmingham Jail
Or, to put it another way, this.
It’s possible to believe that both mob rule and tyranny are both wrong.
Yes, it was obviously the eye contact that was the problem, not the fleeing…
What there isn’t is significant evidence that blacks are mistreated because of their skin colour. This isn’t 1965. If a violent, threatening black man is shot by the police (or anyone else), the focus should not be on his skin colour but on the violent, threatening actions taken.
For whatever reason, young black men are many times more violent than any other group, as I stated before, including older black men or black women (both groups that are less violent than young white men). Why is it so unexpected that they would receive far more attention from the police? Don’t want to be “harassed” by the police? Stop committing so many crimes, especially in public, for fuck’s sake.
Ah, yes, then, he was wrong. Thanks for clearing that up. Order may not necessarily be justice, but it is a necessary prerequisite for it.
New Jersey policeman Orlando Trinidad speaks about a traffic stop for which he is being indicted.
Naturally, Marcus Jeter describes the incident rather differently (video).
So MLK would have condoned looting and arson in the name of a man who fled police and resisted arrest. Gotcha.
If your goal is to reduce my respect for the man, then you’re on the right track.
Shocking you would have a problem with MLK. So I need to know, the American colonists who opposed British rule, do you see them as thugs? They did after all, disrupt order.
I recently learned that “thug” apparently has racial implications. Given that the founding fathers tended towards the whiter side of things one supposes that “thug” is an inappropriate use of the word.
Have a fucking guess. Of course I do. I suppose it should be no surprise that a country founded on disrespect for lawful authority should have such problems with it now, though.