I said "Elections are utterly trivial in political terms" as in the political task is over by the time of the election, the dye is already cast the election is just to see what colour the cloth turns out. — Isaac

:roll: This is a confusing answer. What task is over and when?

The populace demanding it, however, is far from trivial. — Isaac

Hence if the democratic system works, at least some party will respond to it. Or then the people can form their own political movement.

You seem to have decided (without any prior reason) to have interpreted ambiguity in my comment from the presumption that I'm probably a totalitarian dictator. Seems a bit uncharitable. — Isaac

No. What just rang to ear was this attitude that elections are trivial and nothing happens without people protesting in the streets. That it has to be a precursor for any change simply doesn't show much if any trust in the democratic system. Or then you simply have come to the conclusion that democracy doesn't work in your country. I would agree that there are many problems, but is all lost so much that elections are trivial?

So I can't help feeling that we'd just jump from Orwell to Kafka if we did involve the public more in national politics? — Isaac

I dunno how to envision what's likely and what's not from the space of all possible representative democracies. The only speculative principle I can come up with is the one I already said; if a state does not tend to change its behaviour based on expressions of the public will, then that's a defeater for it being a representative democracy. That's a very strong condition; as there's always questions of speed of change and amount of public will expression involved that would make it count. If you define state response to protest as part of representative democracy, that would count.

I'm inclined to think that the default state of a government in a representative democracy should be enacting policy to achieve public will (or public interest) in order for it to count as a representative democracy. It seems to me that when a state's populace isn't in uprising, the default state tends towards serving the interests of wealthy private interests; which is problematic for calling that state a representative democracy. It's more of a "We'll fuck you as hard and as long as we can get away with-ocracy"; mixed with economic and social conditions that strongly inhibit prolonged advocacy with tractable goals from the public, that's a recipe for formal representation but little functional representation.

There isn't too much functional difference between only land owners being politicians and having the vote and only the wealthy being able to vote with their dollars + influence and constrain the autonomous policy advocacy of a state's politicians. The wealth filter on social capital politically alienates racialised groups in that regard too.

So maybe in the spirit of "a state is as free as its least free person", the default state of a representative democracy should also be to increase the agency of those groups in it which are least free. Lifting the agency of all is essentially democracy through ameliorating subjugation. If it fails to do that I'd be convinced to stop considering it a democracy... Not that they're listening.

Because when you say that "elections don't matter" and representative democracy doesn't do anything at systemic racism, the fact is that you aren't looking at countries were that representative democracy works at least SO MUCH that the majority of the people actually are satisfied with it. — ssu

So with the above in mind, the US state is a failure of representative democracy - IE, it isn't one:

(1) Its default behaviour does not increase the agency of its most marginalised groups; at best it sustains their agency, at worst it diminishes their agency.
(2) It takes an uprising to change state behaviour marginally and slowly; even widespread violent expression of public will is not enough for the state to get its shit together and address the problems adequately.
(3) Its socio-economic conditions render the most marginalised least able to turn their concerns into actionable policy.

And we've got the nerve to be haughty at the rioters; if we live in violence, expect us to speak in it.

Reminder that this thread will be kept strictly on topic and low-quality posts will be deleted or moved. Thanks.

What task is over and when? — ssu

The task of changing public opinion. For, me, this whole section of this thread has been about the legitimacy of methods for changing public opinion on some matter (in this specific case, riots and statue defacing as means of changing public opinion about efforts to deal with systemic racism). By the time of an election, the political campaign (to garner support for the new candidate, or the old candidate's new ideas) has either worked or not. If the new candidate or the new ideas don't get the support they need, the other guy will get into power and the politician's ability to change the course of events will be massively reduced.

Hence if the democratic system works, at least some party will respond to it. Or then the people can form their own political movement. — ssu

Yes. If they demand it. The question here is what if they currently don't.

Let's say I'm a person who thinks we should do more about systemic racism than we currently do (I actually am, but I want to keep this hypothetical, not personal). I think people should take more action against it than they currently take. So what are my legitimate options to bring that about? Elections won't do that - they are just going to return the current state of affairs, the one I already would like to change. Political campaigns won't do that because they are focused on appealing to the very electorate I've just established are not taking as strong a stance against systemic racism as I would like them to.

(we should add in here the issues with politicians being in the pocket of big businesses and so not yielding any options even for an issue with majority support, but we don't even need it to make the argument).

I could debate, stand on my soapbox perhaps, but media attention is not distributed on the basis of strength of argument, and I don't own my own newspaper. I could write a book but can neither afford to publish nor publicise it. I could write to my MP, but he quite rightly doesn't care (he's been elected on the mandate of the very people not taking the issue seriously enough.

So what are my options? Deface a statue, occupy the street, shut down a supermarket. Now the media pay attention. Now I get a voice. Now I get a chance to persuade people that they should take this issue more seriously. Did I have any other realistic choice?

if a state does not tend to change its behaviour based on expressions of the public will, then that's a defeater for it being a representative democracy. — fdrake

Yeah, I get where you're coming from. I think I'm most interested in one step back, what if the public's will is not even where it should be on the issue, but if the state isn't even going to find out, then I agree, that's perhaps problem number one.

It seems to me that when a state's populace isn't in uprising, the default state tends towards serving the interests of wealthy private interests; which is problematic for calling that state a representative democracy. It's more of a "We'll fuck you as hard and as long as we can get away with-ocracy" — fdrake

Ha! Indeed. It's a bit of a mouthful for the politics textbooks, but it has accuracy to it's credit.

I'm probably excessively cynical (I think it might have been mentioned before), but I'm just not sure I'd limit the insidious role of big business to hoarding political influence in terms only of the substance of government. They have both the means and the incentive to influence the populace to no lesser a degree. But if they succeed at that then it won't matter a jot if the system is representative or not. All it will represent is the will they put there in the first place.

(2) It takes an uprising to change state behaviour marginally and slowly; even widespread violent expression of public will is not enough for the state to get its shit together and address the problems adequately. — fdrake

But is this a historical fact?

If so, what were the widespread violent expression, no correct that, the uprising which in the end you got the Civil Rights act of 1964 and the Voting Rights act of 1965? That was started actually being pushed by JFK and yes, there indeed were protests that made JFK to respond (The Birmingham campaign and the March on Washington in 1963), but those weren't violent. Watts riots happened after the voting rights act was signed to law.

Please elaborate, I'm not such an expert on American history.

I agree that the US democracy does have problems, but I'm not so sure about that it doesn't work at all. But then I may have misunderstood you.

Yes. If they demand it. The question here is what if they currently don't. — Isaac

The majority of Americans DO support change.

Most Americans, including a majority of President Donald Trump’s Republican Party, support sweeping law enforcement reforms such as a ban on chokeholds and racial profiling after the latest death of an African American while in police custody, according to a Reuters/Ipsos opinion poll released on Thursday.

82% of Americans want to ban police from using chokeholds, 83% want to ban racial profiling, and 92% want federal police to be required to wear body cameras.

It also found that 89% of Americans want to require police to give the people they stop their name, badge number and reason for the stop, and 91% support allowing independent investigations of police departments that show patterns of misconduct.

Or excessive force by the police isn't the issue anymore?

I think people should take more action against it than they currently take. So what are my legitimate options to bring that about? Elections won't do that - they are just going to return the current state of affairs, the one I already would like to change. — Isaac

So basically what you are saying is that nothing changes in elections.

Political campaigns won't do that because they are focused on appealing to the very electorate I've just established are not taking as strong a stance against systemic racism as I would like them to. — Isaac

How have you established that the electorate is not against systemic racism? You have only said that elections don't work, people aren't interested, politicians won't do anything. It might be good to explain this.

So what are my options? Deface a statue, occupy the street, shut down a supermarket. Now the media pay attention. Now I get a voice. Now I get a chance to persuade people that they should take this issue more seriously. Did I have any other realistic choice? — Isaac

And what would be your options in a fully functioning democracy? You are not above others, you know. If you want to change peoples thinking and influence the community, yes, you have a hell lot of work to do!

The majority of Americans DO support change. — ssu

That's irrelevant to the argument. Firstly the fact that most Americans support change doesn't have any bearing on the argument about which courses of action are legitimate in the case that they don't. Secondly, it's reasonable to assume that the kinds of change some protest group might want are not the kinds of change most Americans support. Just supporting 'change' sensu lato is not enough.

So basically what you are saying is that nothing changes in elections. — ssu

No. I'm saying nothing changes in elections without a change first occurring in the electorate. The question is how to bring about that change.

How have you established that the electorate is not against systemic racism? You have only said that elections don't work, people aren't interested, politicians won't do anything. It might be good to explain this. — ssu

Because there is still systemic racism.

And what would be your options in a fully functioning democracy? You are not above others, you know. If you want to change peoples thinking and influence the community, yes, you have a hell lot of work to do! — ssu

Indeed. I'm asking you what that work consists in if not protest.

Please elaborate, I'm not such an expert on American history. — ssu

Neither am I. It's not like I've got any formal training in it. So you're not speaking to someone who's actually a domain expert. My exposure to it mostly comes from Wiki walks and bits of post colonial theory I've read.

I think that there was a really big organised labour movement driving it. That famous picture of the March on Washington:



Wasn't some decentralised network flashmob, it was organised. When MLK gave "I Have A Dream", in some respects he was already preaching to the converted; the members and affiliates of the huge NGO and lobbying group the Leadership Conference On Civil and Human Rights; which was a gigantic coalition of unions and human rights organisations.

JFK's and LBJ's contribution I think was legislative judo and putting in concessions to make it pass.

Remember why it was necessary; blacks already had the formal legal right to vote long before the civil rights movement in the 1960's. But there were literacy tests, a poll tax and other filters that were put in place intentionally to keep the descendents of the slaves "in their place". As an aside: those people who think formal legal equality is sufficient for equal treatment either do not realize or intentionally occlude the historical fact that the American state institutionalised allegedly "race neutral" measures intentionally to disempower non-whites; they understand the issues of systemic discrimination less than the politicians they vote for - who know how to keep it going under a cover of plausible deniability.

So there was an anti antifa protest in the Netherlands. Am I to infer these people are in favour of fascism? :shade:

"We are not poison, we are simply anti not poison"

That's irrelevant to the argument. Firstly the fact that most Americans support change doesn't have any bearing on the argument about which courses of action are legitimate in the case that they don't. — Isaac

Isaac, the the whole issue of democracy is to get a majority support something, even if it is the rights of a small minority and hence an issue that doesn't effect the majority at all.

The question is how to bring about that change. — Isaac

And that change usually happens through political movements that even can organize themselves into political parties. That's how the system ought to work.

Because there is still systemic racism. — Isaac

And the question is what to do about it? How? A simple issue like to be against excessive use of force from authorities is a genuine start. You have to say what is needed to change. Or you just oppose 'systemic racism' just like a Republican opposes socialism, or better yet, cultural-marxism, which is created as this catch-all term for everything. Which naturally doesn't even imply any real suggestions what to do etc.

Indeed. I'm asking you what that work consists in if not protest. — Isaac

Isn't this taught in school?

You can organize into associations, you can form political parties, you can join political parties and be active through them. You can run in elections in your community or so. You can write opinions etc. to the media. You can write to the Parliamentary Ombudsman here and engage with authorities directly. You can speak to members of Parliament or elected officials in the community. And also, you can hold political demonstrations. My son was this spring on the fifth grade was taught about these things.

If you think that all that above is just too complicated and it's easier to attack someone or some property to get media attention, then well, that's the way that terrorists think also.

I think that there was a really big organised labour movement driving it. That famous picture of the March on Washington: — fdrake

Hmm. I did mention the March on Washington in 1963, or to be more correct to say "March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom", where King did deliver his famous speech. At least that I did know about US history.

But the question is, that was peaceful, wasn't it? And king promoted non-violence in the protests. So why say then:

It takes an uprising to change state behaviour marginally and slowly; even widespread violent expression of public will is not enough for the state to get its shit together and address the problems adequately. — fdrake

But the question is, that was peaceful, wasn't it? And king promoted non-violence in the protests. So why say then: — ssu

I think for him it was a question of tactics? @boethius had original source stuff regarding MLK and nonviolence.

Keep in mind; the possibility of success of nonviolent actions in a political circumstance is not an argument for the necessity of nonviolent actions in any political circumstance. This is effectively an independent question of the utility of violent (against property!) protest right now.

The question is how to bring about that change. — Isaac

And that change usually happens through political movements that even can organize themselves into political parties. That's how the system ought to work. — ssu

But those political movements have to take some action to persuade the electorate. Simply existing isn't sufficient. So it seems we're back to ideas of the sanctity of property. You seem to be saying that political parties can 'protest' (called an election campaign) using their own suff, but protests groups can't protest using anyone else's stuff. So it seems to be entirely about the sanctity of property ownership. You're basically saying that the protection of private property is more important than political persuasion - because otherwise I can't see any difference between a political campaign and a protest.

You have to say what is needed to change. Or you just oppose 'systemic racism' just like a Republican opposes socialism, or better yet, cultural-marxism, which is created as this catch-all term for everything. Which naturally doesn't even imply any real suggestions what to do etc. — ssu

I don't think the details are at issue here. I could produce a list of things I think need addressing. The point here is that my list would be unlikely to be the same as everyone else's. So I still have some job of work to do to convince others of my list.

You can organize into associations, you can form political parties, you can join political parties and be active through them. You can run in elections in your community or so. — ssu

None of this has any bearing at all on influencing the electorate. Simply offering them the option has virtually no influencing power. You have to persuade them its the best option too.

You can write opinions etc. to the media. You can write to the Parliamentary Ombudsman here and engage with authorities directly. You can speak to members of Parliament or elected officials in the community. — ssu

Yet more uselessness in the face of an electorate who currently do not care about the issues you care about.

The media do not publish the opinion of anyone who writes to them. They publish the opinion that suits their editorial objectives. If yours doesn't you might as well write to santa-claus. If it does then you needn't bother as all commentry will be in that vein already.

Why would your MP pay the slightest attention to you? If I wrote to my (Conservative) MP about increasing taxes, for example, all he's going to think is "most of my electorate want lower taxes".

you can hold political demonstrations. — ssu

So this is all we have left. The rest of this is just deflection. The only means of effecting public opinion available to the working class is demonstration.

The question then is simple, is the protection of private property more important than the additional attention destroying it might bring? Depending on the issue, the answer is clearly no. A couple of high street stores are not more important than ensuring that the issue of police violence is given attention.

https://www.nu.nl/281371/video/blm-demonstrant-in-londen-redt-gewonde-tegendemonstrant.html

Some footage of a totally awesome grandpa saving the life of a racist hooligan after an altercation between BLM protesters and the hooligans in London. :strong:

I think for him it was a question of tactics? boethius had original source stuff regarding MLK and nonviolence. — fdrake

So was for Gandhi too: tactics. But those tactics did work. Or are you dissappointed that there wasn't more bloodshed?

Keep in mind; the possibility of success of nonviolent actions in a political circumstance is not an argument for the necessity of nonviolent actions in any political circumstance. This is effectively an independent question of the utility of violent (against property!) protest right now. — fdrake

Sure. Nonviolent actions would likely not have deterred Stalin from annexing my puny country to the Soviet Empire in 1939, so yes, there are those political circumstances when the system doesn't work without violence: passive resistance didn't work, we can look at what happened to the Baltic States. But are you genuinely saying here that the situation in the US cannot be improved without violence?

I think your question comes down to just when is violence acceptable. Even in basic law there are those situations were the use of violence is allowed. My question, and I hope you manage to read to my point here: How much do you believe in your democracy to be able to function without relying to violence or breaking the law?

You seem to be saying that political parties can 'protest' (called an election campaign) using their own suff, but protests groups can't protest using anyone else's stuff. So it seems to be entirely about the sanctity of property ownership. — Isaac

Using other's stuff? Oh yes, just like it isn't "car theft" anymore but "illegal use of a vehicle". :shade:

So is your argument here that you cannot make a change without braking the law? That those constitutional rights that I and you have isn't enough or what? That the existing laws are so bad, so outdated and wrong, that there is ABSOLUTELY NO OTHER WAY than to resort to breaking the law?

How much do you believe in your democracy to be able to function without relying to violence or breaking the law? — ssu

Now we're on the same page. But from my perspective that brings us to the start of the discussion again, I don't really want to go around the loop once more. If you read what I write as an argument for the permissibility of violence against property and in self defense against police in this instance, due to a history of failure and concessions only being forced by direct action, you'll find my argument in its intended context.

So is your argument here that you cannot make a change without braking the law? That those constitutional rights that I and you have isn't enough or what? That the existing laws are so bad, so outdated and wrong, that there is ABSOLUTELY NO OTHER WAY than to resort to breaking the law? — ssu

Yes. In some cases that is absolutely my argument. The population (be they politicians, wealthy elites, or just ordinary people) who just sat back and let systemic racism lead to thousands of deaths each year...those people, they're not just lacking a pamphlet on the matter. They're not just about to dismantle the institutions which perpetuate this violence as soon as they receive a stern letter to that effect. They're not going to do anything unless there's some serious threat to their comfortable status quo.

Yes. In some cases that is absolutely my argument. — Isaac

Some cases.

Right.

Isaac, I come from a country that was for some incredible reason selected this year as being the "The Happiest Country in the World" for the third year in a row. If you would know anything about Finns and the Finnish society, you'd understand why that sounds so strange and actually awkward.

Yet, you have to go only to the generation of my great grandparents and Finns were quite eager to kill each other thanks to the Russian revolution. Sometimes brothers were killing each other literally. Hence being the "happiest" country in the World now seems incredible.

Yet I don't think at all that Finns are better than other people and I genuinely believe people are the quite the same. I also don't think that the generation of my great grandparents were so much more different from us. And that is my point. If we glorify violence, if we think it's the only option and aren't careful, we really can get violence and lawlessness on a far larger scale that we ever did imagine in our now seemingly peaceful society. And people, unfortunately, will adapt to it.

The United States has enough firearms to turn this into a really bad tragedy. If you are entranced by the French "to the barricades!"-protest culture, remember that the American way is to hunker down and buy a gun. In France people simply don't have so many guns.

Your fellow citizens?


Besides, the Trump team just hopes for the protests to turn violent and the looting and vandalism to spread. That will get Republicans otherwise now displeased about the corona-virus response (etc.) to turn to their "Law & Order President". Yeah, what were they thinking in voting Joe Biden???

Please watch this and share your thoughts.

If we glorify violence, if we think it's the only option and aren't careful, we really can get violence and lawlessness on a far larger scale that we ever did imagine in our now seemingly peaceful society. — ssu

22,000 children are killed at work every year in positions of slavery working to produce the crap that supports our 'peaceful society'.

I'm not advocating violence, but it's willful blindness to pretend that violence isn't already happening. Its just neatly hidden away.

:point: When tRump calls Anti-police Protesters "Antifa", he is also calling the police "fascists".

The night a NYC grand jury failed to indict any of the 6 police officers who, in broad daylight with witnesses present and video recorded, summarily executed Eric Garner, I tried to think through (some reasonable) National Reforms to US Policing, and then wrote the following on another forum: [ ... ] — 180 Proof

Follow this link (and the next) and keep in mind that the genealogy of US Policing begins about 1701 with establishment of SLAVE PATROLS and continues at the end of the Civil War and then Reconstruction in 1877 with the rise of KLU KLUX KLAN vigilante-terrorists (mostly, but not exclusively, below the Mason-Dixon Line) and which, even after the demise of Legal Segregation, has culminated today in the militarization of most large metropolitan police departments since the early 1970s chiefly driven by Federal "War on Drugs" policies that predominantly target - TERRORIZE - Nonwhite & Poor urban communities.

THIS IS WHAT SYSTEMIC RACISM in US law enforcement and US criminal justice LOOKS LIKE. A day doesn't go by, especially living for years in Atlanta, that I'm not reminded that the world's largest monument to WHITE SUPREMACY is the Confederacy Monument at Stone Mountain, Georgia. Is it any wonder that RACISM & prejudice is so common in the US that kneeling in protest to police profiling & killings during the National Anthem is perceived to be anti-US "disrespect of the American flag" - especially by those who wear & wave the OLD SOUTH'S FLAG OF TREASON?

Either you are Anti-racist (Anti-fascist) or you are not. :chin:

I'm a bit late to the forum (approximately two years due to being in graduate school) however I can touch upon systemic racism and why it exists and what we can do about it. This is perhaps a topic I greatly touched upon a bit in graduate school especially when it relates to ethnic intersectionality in relation to societal equity. Now in regards to systemic racism we must acknowledge the system to which it spurs from creation since the founding of the 13 colonies (as well as abroad in primarily European societies). Clearly, in the Deceleration of Independence "all men are created equal" with the parenthesis that denotes (except people of color). Fast forward til now we still see this. I have a theory as to what we can do to change systemic racism. The direct action we can take politically is to erect politicians who have everyone's best interest including those among the disenfranchised population.

These politicians must first decriminalize drugs that have placed predominantly people of color in jails, revamp laws such as the differences in sentencing of powdered cocaine users versus crack cocaine users. Provide equitable housing opportunities starting with the banks (as there is research to substantiate the claim that banks deny African-Americans more than whites). Make university education free and/or affordable. Provide occupational opportunities for those in urban communities along with free medical and mental health. This is just the basic. Furthermore, we must implement progressive ideals that have an egalitarian end which must be the futuristic foundation of our society. However, to ultimately change any residual affect that racism can creep its ugly head in, generations must die.

What I mean by generational death is the fact that generations that have propagated racism along with those who have suffered under racism must die. The reason behind my idea is because those who were raised in a racist household and live must eventually die and those who are influenced by such individuals must die as well. To those who suffered under racism they too must die to prevent any ideas of racial retribution through dissent.

...The population (be they politicians, wealthy elites, or just ordinary people) who just sat back and let systemic racism lead to thousands of deaths each year...those people, they're not just lacking a pamphlet on the matter. They're not just about to dismantle the institutions which perpetuate this violence as soon as they receive a stern letter to that effect. They're not going to do anything unless there's some serious threat to their comfortable status quo. — Isaac

Those complicit regarding matters of institutional racism and it's residual effects/affects will remain so as long as doing so poses no threat to their own lives and/or livelihoods.

Is that a good summary?

I mean, do I understand you correctly?

Clearly, in the Deceleration of Independence "all men are created equal" with the parenthesis that denotes (except people of color). — Anaxagoras

Not just people of color either. It was also except those who owned nothing of financial(market-based) value. It was also except women, regardless of color. Although white women were clearly held in much higher regard than minority women, and of that, there is no doubt. Women's role in the world is still a contentious subject matter, across the board. But the point here is to support what you say, and add a bit more context regarding the framework of this nation. The Declaration of Independence also includes a key phrase...

"in order to form a more perfect union"...

That phrase is clear. We strive to form perfection. Those in power must believe that all people are created equal in order for the saying to carry acceptable conventional meaning in today's times. Those in power must believe that all citizens are to be treated equally under the law, and work to ensure that that is case when and where need be.

Who here would say that ending the influence of racist belief systems is anything other than a step in the right direction towards forming a more perfect union? We all know what's been going on. It sickens me, personally.

However, to ultimately change any residual affect that racism can creep its ugly head in, generations must die.

What I mean by generational death is the fact that generations that have propagated racism along with those who have suffered under racism must die. The reason behind my idea is because those who were raised in a racist household and live must eventually die and those who are influenced by such individuals must die as well. To those who suffered under racism they too must die to prevent any ideas of racial retribution through dissent. — Anaxagoras

This, while stemming from perhaps the most noble of intentions, sets out a criterion that is literally, physically, mentally, and figuratively impossible to meet. Your aiming in the right areas, but you need to sharpen the focus just a wee bit.

Belief systems are what must die my friend. The thoughts and beliefs that some have about others get passed on from generation to generation. This includes all kinds of belief about others, racist belief notwithstanding.

The reason behind my idea is because those who were raised in a racist household and live must eventually die and those who are influenced by such individuals must die as well. — Anaxagoras

Surely some of those people who were raised in racist households knew and/or learned of better, and in doing so helped others to do the same...

That, my friend, is what it takes... in part at least. It's not enough, but it's certainly necessary.

Look at the last forty years worth of generational change. The youth are ahead of the curve here!

Belief systems are what must die my friend. — creativesoul

I agree, however the beliefs are attached to the person and unfortunately generational beliefs do not change easily. As a black man myself, despite my ideals of egalitarianism I am left with the memories of my mother, father, and grand-parents of their struggle and the affect of their wariness implanted on my soul. Because of that, I'm left with the reality that I may indirectly implant the wariness of "non-persons of color" upon my potential children despite also implanting upon them the love for all humanity. with that said like I stated earlier I think my death would suffice in helping promote egalitarianism (at least hopefully) however good points.

I agree. However there is still the question of complicity despite those who do not share the racist mentality. That itself is just as dangerous as the racist mind. the recent protests have given me hope for the future in that there are multi-ethnic people champion the cause of a minority group. To see LGBTQA+ community come out in solidarity with BLM, to see whites, Asians, Muslims, Jews, Christians, nurses, doctors, professionals, and even policemen and women themselves come out in solidarity gives me hope.