I’m fairly certain that there were non-elite slaveholders. If you own one slave, you’re a slaveholder. And it wasn’t only the elite that “believed in” slavery; the entire southern society–and even the North–benefitted from slavery in the south.
I wasn’t referring to slavery in America per se; I was referring to Western European slavery and how indentured servitude was being confronted with the growing philosophical movement toward basic individual rights. If indentured servitude was wrong, then how would land owners and other members of the aristocracy earn profits? The solution was to make some humans more equal than others.
I was explaining how “racism” and the system of creating a social hierarchy based on racial characteristics started during the time of colonialism. As I mentioned before, there has probably always been tribalism and ‘us versus them,’ but racism was inextricably tied to Western colonialism and commercial trade, which later evolved into modern capitalism.
The distinctions between racism and other forms of tribalism are subtle, but it’s still important to acknowledge because it helps us understand where we are today. It’s vitally important to acknowledge the relationship between America’s founding, the establishment of its political system, the establishment of its economic system, and the evolution of its society - and also important to understand where black people as a marginalized group in American society fit into this context. Unlike other groups who’ve been marginalized (immigrants, religious minorities, Native tribes, etc), black people were at the heart of America’s economic system – as property, as chattel, as livestock investments. They were also cheap labor that sustained regional economies and trade. With perhaps a few exceptions, this place on the social totem pole was almost exclusively reserved for black people.
What’s even more important to know is that the legacy of slavery long outlived slavery itself. There was no way that a society founded upon white supremacy was going to recognize black people as equal, and yet for people to achieve economic parity, social and legal equality has to exist to some degree. So if we care about things like
The problem is all of the people who were ignoring the reality that the police (and police wannabees) were killing black people. All these people want is to stop the rioting and looting so they can go back to the status quo of ignoring the killings. If we’re going to condemn rioting and looting as unacceptable crimes, shouldn’t we also condemn killing people as unacceptable crimes? Shouldn’t stopping people being killed be a higher priority than stopping property crimes?
Chauvin McNecksitter and the other clowns will have their fate decided by the court system. I don’t see another form of lawlessness being at all justified and dramatically weakens their cause, IMHO.
And what would have happened to Chauvin McNecksitter had there been no videos? Just ask the cops in Ferguson, Mo.
But would they have their fate decided by the court system, if there weren’t any protests?
I very much doubt that they expected to wind up in court. Why would they have behaved like that in public and on camera, if it hadn’t been that they were assuming they’d never be significantly penalized for it?
Stupidity? Arrogance?
Or maybe the video bears out the cop’s version of the events had it existed? Of course we’ll never know.
Hey, I I’ll hereby pronounce publicly that looting is bad. And is unjustified 100%
But how the fuck does that weaken their case against people being systematically killed by their own government?
IMHO it weakens their credibility. More proof why we “need” the cops.
You think they’re lying? You think the majority of the movement is instead just interested in looting?
Only the lying ones. 
When white people act badly it only reflects badly on the individuals committing mayhem and not on anyone else.
When a minority person acts badly it stains all the other people in that minority.
That’s how you know who has power - a member of the powerful group is judged as an individual. A member of the not-powerful group results in judgement of the entire group to which they belong.
I seriously doubt you would get any rational person to equate all protestors with vandalism and looting but they are certainly hidden among them, and defining who they are so they only target the vandals is uhh problematic. When riot behavior starts to happen, protestors (the peaceful ones) are now directly in the way of the police doing their jobs. Disperse the crowd so that they can target the people doing the looting, IMO.
Your serious doubts reflect a faith in the rationality of the right wing today which is quite misplaced. Also, don’t you imagine that “dispersing the crowds so the police can target the looters” might be a perfect excuse for the police to break up the protests wherever they occur? Do you understand that the protests are AGAINST THE POLICE and their brutality toward even innocent people such as, for example, people who are legally and rightfully publicly demonstrating their solidarity against police brutality?
Does the irony escape you entirely?
I seriously doubt you would get any rational person to equate all police with racism and abuse but they are certainly hidden among them, and defining who they are so they only target the bad cops is uhh problematic.
Exactly
I think a lot of things are ironic, but the people not seeing it are usually the second or third ironic thing. Telemark just hit it in one.
It isn’t easy is the rational approach, if things (protests) devolve into looting and vandalism (less so I suppose) then the “protest” needs to be reorganized, moved, or figure out a different approach because clearly the ones looting and vandalizing aren’t doing the protestors any good.
Police forces are the same way, if they devolve into killings, brutality, and racism, then they need to be reorganized, investigated and removed from service
I think this is a good question.
Before people started looting, society was apparently willing to look the other way while black people were being killed. Now the people who were willing to look the other way are scared; so scared they’re willing to begin taking some action against the people who killed black people.
The protests alone didn’t do it. Colin Kaepernick, for example, led peaceful protests for years and all people did was get annoyed at him. It was only when an element of looting and vandalism was introduced that people became scared enough to start doing the right thing about the killings.
So what happens if the looting stops? Will people keep acting against the killings? Or will they go back to ignoring them? Does society need the goad of looting to focus their mind on the problem of killing?
As somebody on this board said, if you’ve got 10 bad cops and 1,000 good cops shielding them, you’ve got 1,010 bad cops.
I certainly can understand fraternity in the face of adversity but if the police are wanting larger segments of the public to trust them again, they are going to have to step up their game of expunging the bad ones from their ranks.