I suspect that anyone who has “learned” that “large groups of brown people peacefully marching will be baited and beaten by the police without exception or hesitation” has “learned” nonsense. Given that a person as universally reviled among large numbers of whites as Louis Farrakhan could arrange for the Million Man March with a number of predecessor and spin-off marches, including the Millions More Movement march to celebrate the tenth anniversary of the Million Man March, none of which were set on by the police, demonstrates the silliness of that idea. (For that matter, the initial March On Washington in August, 1963, (fewer than fifty years ago), was not attacked by any police (although I suppose one could avoid the issue by noting that whites were present among the marchers).
That racism continues to be a problem in this country is true. That racism has been demonstrated at several points in the Jena situation is true.
This discussion is hardly moved forward by really outlandish claims that serve no purpose.
And as long as people refuse to examine the role of class in society, nothing will change. Gramsci nailed it. The system wants racism. It fragments opposition to it. It played a large role in preventing the emergence of a powerful, coherent labor movement in this country. Viewing the fight against racism as a battle separate from the fight against injustice dooms it to failure.
There is no “the system” that “wants racism.” That sort of broad brush statement fails under the weight of its own drama.
There are people who insist on using race as a classification of humans. Some of these use race for what they consider beneficial reasons–affirmative action in an effort to correct past wrongs, for instance. Others want to use race as a mechanism of creating a group to which they can then belong. Others want to use racial classification to insult or injure or divide–many of the kids in the above story, for instance.
To ascribe any of these or any of dozens of other reasons to some sort of “the system” is meaningless. Within each of us is a need to define ourselves and define a sense of belonging–a family or a tribe. Nothing more. It’s an expression of what is built into our genetic makeup for survival.
Those who want, on the one hand, special treatment of any kind for any racial classification promote the kind of environment that leads to the story in the OP every bit as much as those who promote racial classification for destructive ends.
To the specific questions Monstro asks: Are the sentences being faced unfair and are they racially motivated?:
Wouldn’t you need to wait for actual sentences given the vicissitudes of the legal system? It would be unfortunate to get all riled up over “a virtual life sentence” and then have it turn out to be 24 months… As for charges, how could anyone replying here possibly know if this was a simple two-sided fight or a hostile mugging with intent to seriously injure or kill?
Were the charges “racially motivated?” I am assuming this question is asking whether such charges would not have been brought had all parties been black or all parties been white…or perhaps if the roles of the combatants had been reversed. How could anyone answer that without knowing what charges have been brought by that prosecutor in similar cases of violence without racial classifications involved?
Well, I meant that racism needs to be fought along with all the other kinds of prejudice and discrimination. I’ve had this same argument over sexism, for example. By fragmenting the opposition, its much easier for discrimination to continue.
Well, not if your only method of communication is violence or threats.
But to give your point more serious attention than it deserves, the only way violence or the threat of violence is an effective method for a minority to communicate is if the message you want to send is “Yoo-hoo, somebody come shoot me!”
Black revolutionaries need to get a grip (not you specifically). If it ever came down to a race war in the US, blacks are going to lose.
I’m not trying to pick a fight with you, and I certainly can’t speak for Honesty, but I really, *really * don’t think he meant what you think he meant. I offered my own interpretation in post #39.
Sure, he did advoate violence by “brown people,” but he did so, it seems to me, only in the context of self-defense when violence is visited upon them without provocation. He remembers, like many people do, the way that civil rights advocates were brutally attacked by both average White citizens and White law enforcement officers.
(And just in case you bring it up, yes, I do agree with **tomndebb’s ** point that that kind of thing doesn’t happen today–or at least not as frequently and/or dramatically as it used to.)
My reading of his words is that he was *not * advocating a kill-every-whitey-you-can-get-your-hands-on race war. Why your reading differs so radically from mine, I don’t know (and I won’t even attempt to WAG), but I don’t think it was necessary for you to go there.
Oh, and he is most certainly *not * saying that the **only ** tool with which Blacks are *capable * of communicating with Whites is violence. How could you not understand that?
At any rate, if my interpretation proves incorrect (if **Honesty ** ever returns to the thread and clears things up), I’ll offer all necessary apologies.
Here is what I consider the relevant paragraph of post #39 -
I understand you to be saying that there are a lot of blacks, yourself included, who believe that a majority of whites don’t take black complaints about discrimination, police brutality, and so forth, seriously. And you (or Honesty, perhaps) feel that the only way to get whites to take the complaints seriously is thru violence or the threat of violence. Is that a fair statement of your position?
Here’s the quote again -
I don’t see how this can be interpreted other than as stated - the only way blacks can effectively communicate with whites is thru violence or threats. (Emphasis in original). He (and I) didn’t say that this was the only way blacks are capable of communicating with whites - he said that it was the only effective way of communicating their complaints about racism.
I disagree. MLK and the civil rights movement achieved much, not thru violence or threats but by moral suasion. The response to Bull Connor and the fire hoses was not bullets, and yet Bull and the hoses are one with Nineveh and Tyre.
To the extent that the violence in the OP’s case was a response to the nooses, it was ineffective. Regardless of the original merits of the case, six black guys beating Justin Barker unconscious is not a response that gains anyone a whole lot of sympathy for racism.
My point was that any series of incidents that could escalate into a true race war is going to be very much to the disadvantage of blacks. I doubt if that would ever happen, mostly because as the incidents proceed, sympathy for both sides diminishes to the point that the general public (at least among whites IMO) simply doesn’t react very strongly to trying the escalating parties for attempted murder.
Yes, the noose incidents were hateful and probably racist. That is not a good enough excuse (in my view) for violence by anyone.
I concur. But I would go to say what I have said - the notion that whites are going to ignore everything unless they are threatened is silly and counter-productive. People, even white people, don’t react to threats with the urgent desire to try to succor the threateners with whatever they want.
Maybe the beating of Rodney King was horrible and racist. Assume it is for the purposes of the discussion. That doesn’t mean Reginald Denny deserved to have his head smashed in, or that whites were going to do nothing until the South Central riots went down.
I didn’t think he was advocating a race war, specifically. I thought he was saying that nothing could be accomplished until blacks responded to racism with violence.
And if they do, and it leads to real race war, then blacks are SOL. Because even if the incident that triggered a riot was a genuine instance of racism, I will still be rooting for the police to put down the riot and arrest the rioters.
Okay, thanks for the explanation. I was expecting you to call for something a lot more radical than a march where the attendees defended themselves against violence based on your original post.
I think that if you had been on the receiving end of that beating, you would think differently. They could very easily have killed their victim.
I have been subjected to a similar attack and was lucky that I did not end up in the hospital. I was attacked by 4 guys at school. Due to luck or divine intervention, the knock out blow (from behind) missed my head and made two of my attackers collide with each other. I was able to avoid any serious injury. My brother was also attacked in a similar way and received a concussion. A close friend was hit in the face hard enough to detach his retina. No retaliation was possible because one of the attackers was armed.
On a separate incident, I was spit on and hit in the back of the head with a brick. That was enough for a trip to the emergency room to get stitches.
All of these incidents were done by black people to white people and were random and unprovoked. It was made clear in each incident that being white was our sin. No one was ever prosecuted due to the age of the offenders or lack of ability to locate the attackers. No snitchin was the policy back then too.
I am not racist in the least. I see these acts performed by individuals, not a whole “race”. However, one of my friends who witnessed the detached retina attack is a racist due to these and other events. He sees black people as savages and inferior genetically and culturally.
Back to my point; if these crimes had been prosecuted and examples made of these thugs, the community would have been better off and had at least one less racist.
In closing, prosecute these criminals to the fullest extent of the law.
I’d argue that a tennis shoe could certainly be a deadly weapon, as could any number of otherwise safe objects. It comes down to context. Throw a trainer off the side of someones head, nope it’s not a deadly weapon. Kick a man repeatedly in the head while they’re unconscious on the ground, then yes it certainly could be.
This is a total hijack, sorry. I just wanted to note that I’ve never understood how so many people can firmly believe that the government cannot be effective in fighting the eternal problem of drug abuse but that it will somehow be effective fighting the eternal problem of poverty. Isn’t poverty another enduring condition to which the government has never found solutions?
OK, I’ll rephrase just for you. Racism (and other discrimination) is extremely beneficial the capitalist system, and those who gain most from that system. Many of those who gain most from that system have both the interest, and the power, to attempt to prolong racism and other discrimination. Of course, it can go too far, and risk jeopardizing the beneficial effects it is seen as bringing. At that time, you get reforms.
Nope, when the political/economic structure is threatened with destabilizing forces that risk profits, those who previously were not interested in reform start to support it. Kind of like a pressure valve.
Because it is one factor that has reduced labor solidarity. Because it is easier to keep people placid if they don’t feel they are at the bottom of the social structure. Because having a pool of people who are paid less because of factors such as race, religion or sex allows you a greater threat against the ‘privileged’ part of the workforce.
Racism is both divide and conquer as well as a facilitator of labor discipline.
Can you be a bit more specific? I’m really curious to learn just how many of those capitalist have a direct interest in prolonging racism and discrimination in addition to learning about how they implement their evil plans.
Not really - it just requires, as does neo-classical economic theory, that people act in their own self interest. It doesn’t require groups of capitalists sitting down to discuss how to perpetuate racism. Not, of course, that groups of capitalists don’t sit down to further their own interests at times. But it isn’t needed here.
Unless of course you don’t think, for example, that sectarianism was encouraged and exploited in Scottish coal mines in order to attempt to break the nascent mine worker’s union through the importation of Catholic miners from Ireland. Just as one example.
