I didn't know it was 1789. — ssu

Apparently you don't know it's 2020 either.

All these efforts to consign problems to the past ('it was bad back then but now everything's better!') are just feel-good story-tales designed to draw attention away from the present state of crisis. Any honest grappling with what is going on now takes as it's starting point the recognition that the crisis is contemporary and the that crisis is current; not some hangover from the past.

I'm not sure in any case if it makes sense to apply just war doctrine to a situation like this. A group of people is slowly murdered and looted with impunity, it's "enemy" is the society they live in and are supposed to be a part of. It's all rather academic since a majority of people in the US seem to be ready to embrace some of the changes necessary.

The Just War comparison is not a perfect comparison. I adopted it because I was trying to give an opponent an extreme benefit of the doubt (e.g. even if we were at war with the US...) because I know I see things different from those on the far left.

Even so, let's take the examples of the Jews in 1940. Your argument that it wouldn't be effective isn't an argument against the moral right of the Jews back then to bomb and burn buildings indiscriminately as they were murdered indiscriminately by the State apparatus supported by the German people; either actively or by doing nothing. — Benkei

Yes, I argued that it wouldn't be effective but I also made the moral point. There's a scale of responsibility among the German population that needs to be taken seriously and we don't take this seriously when we just treat them as one amorphous blob to be murdered because of their society and complicity.

And there's a parallel there with modern times in that it isn't enough to not be a racist but to be actively anti-racist. It wasn't enough not to be a Nazi but to be anti-Nazi. That's the only way to stop racism. — Benkei

In the case of Nazi Germany being anti-Nazi was a serious, serious risk. You're not just risking yourself, you're risking your family. The anti-Nazis in Germany went above and beyond in regard to moral duty, and IMO it's not realistic to ask everyone to behave like that in a scenario where you're under the thumb of a totalitarian regime. Don't get me wrong, it's wonderful that anti-Nazis behaved like that and risked what they did but in many cases it was downright suicidal.

In the case of race today I consider myself a non-racist. I think racism is stupid. I'm not entirely sure what anti-racism is, but I get the sense that they tend to be pretty vocal. Frankly, as a lighter skinned person, I think my job is just mostly to listen during discussions on the those topics. If I see actual racism I'm happy to call it out, but it can be difficult to know in some cases.

Not just a matter of education...

Any honest grappling with what is going on now takes as it's starting point the recognition that the crisis is contemporary and the that crisis is current; not some hangover from the past. — StreetlightX

Yet you might learn something from the past before thinking that this now everything is so totally different. For starters, perhaps you should ease with the bombastic righteous hubris of declaration like the following:

The ruling class is shitting their pants and if you can't see that you're either not looking or an idiot. Every one of them is scrambling to show some kind of solidarity with the protestors - faked or otherwise. — StreetlightX

In fact, they aren't.

Few people handling the social media pages of politicians in their PR teams having to weigh in their tweets isn't equivalent of "the ruling class shitting their pants". Those making their livelyhoods out of the media circus will naturally be all hyped up, but that isn't everything.

You will never get a socially conscious racist to defend racism. It will always always always be a reaction to negate any specific anti-racist thing. - You will never get a socially conscious politician to defend inequality. It will always always always be a reaction to negate any specific equalising measure. — fdrake

And who are then negating anti-racism or equalising measures? Is there some negating anti-racism here?

you might learn something from the past before thinking that this now everything is so totally different — ssu

What exactly can we learn from the past to understand the meaning of the current protest?
We cannot rely on 1789, 1917, or 1968 events to acquire some reference for a better understanding. Even the Occupy movement of 2011 was completely different.

better police training and screening, there was a video I watched showing that American cops need only 5 months of school after high school but in Norway they need 3 years — Gitonga

:up:

What exactly can we learn from the past to understand the meaning of the current protest? - Even the Occupy movement of 2011 was completely different. — Number2018

It's not about the meaning of the protests, it's just what happens afterwards. When the media focus and our focus is turned somewhere else and when in a few years similar issues rise again.

As I earlier said, as a young boy I saw the huge smoke clouds (which were btw never shown on TV) of "race riot" in Miami in 1980, that was all too similar story: the police killing an African American, Arthur McDuffie and then the police officers being acquitted. Then riots, National Guard called in and 18 deaths reported. Forty years ago the same story, so one can ask what has happened in forty years? I think one important issue to note is how is it that for decades similar events create similar outrage, yet then lead in the end the same issues repeating themselves again and again...

This picture doesn't capture how large the smoke clouds were:


Yes, the OWS was cleared away in the middle of the night in November without any media present in a coordinated operation and then it disappeared after 2012. You can argue that it was different. Well there were similarities...

Occupy Chicago demonstration in 2012:


However George Zimmerman shooting Treyvon Martin in 2012, the victim that President Obama said could have been himself 35 years ago, is quite similar and has links to the present namely with being the start of the BLM movement. (If you ask me what systemic racism is from me, I'd answer acting president Obama's answer tell a lot of the systemic racism.) And then came Ferguson.

What happened after that? Well, various reports and task forces like President's Task Force on 21st Century Policing etc. And now we have Trump's police reform.

Do these help?

Yes, especially if the reforms genuinely lead to supreme court rulings and true change. But if it just leads to new committees and just new people being put on the pedestal of being "movement leaders", the systemic aspect won't be changed. Changing a whole legal system is a daunting task. Doing something about systemic inequality is another. If we just create a new lithurgy how we talk about these issues, there's no real improvement. If we think that now everything will change, we will only fool ourselves.

And the basic reason is that if you don't know the history, you'll make the mistakes as before.

"... a Black Man with power." :worry:

https://youtu.be/AJmD3Pi0SQo

Few people handling the social media pages of politicians in their PR teams having to weigh in their tweets isn't equivalent of "the ruling class shitting their pants". Those making their livelyhoods out of the media circus will naturally be all hyped up, but that isn't everything. — ssu

Maybe begin with the fact that the Minneapolis police department is basically getting gutted and is getting reset from scratch. Or that cities like LA and NYC - cities with some of the biggest and most well funded police departments in the states - have both enacted reforms to both policing and presecutorial processes. Or that numerous other police depratments and banned chokeholds, revised body cam and 'no-knock' raid policy. Or that both republicans and democrats have put police reform on the table of their policy agendas. Or that the murderers George Floyd have now been charged with murder, and the murderer of Breonna Taylor has at least now been fired, and is under FBI investigation. Or that police are getting out of schools all across the country. Or that companies are seeing - just as they did after metoo - reckonings with racist workplace or otherwise toxic workplace culture like like both the NYT, The Philly Inquirer, or Bon Appetit. All sorts of cultural reckonings like the banning of confederate flags at NASCAR, the admission by the NFL that their handling of Colin Kapernick was botched. CHAZ in Seattle - however long it will last before the powers that be look to crush it - has provided a safe place for the homeless to sleep without being subject to 'police sweeps' for the first time in years. The humongous shift in perceptions and acceptance of BLM and racial inequity among American whites. The general shift in the overton window that's leading the displacement of establishment politicians and wins for people like Jamal Bowman in NYC (against whom even Hillary Clinton tried to weigh in). The longer term effects of these shifts in thinking is probably incalculable. I could go on.

So don't tell me about not knowing history when you're completely ignorant of the present. Is the above enough? No, nowhere near. More is needed, far more, and people need to keep pushing, and especially against those like you who have no clue what is happening yet feel qualified to talk on the matter. The only clowns in the media circus are people like you who whine about 1789 yet can't say a goddamn word about the present.

Oh look, the indictment of Ahmed Aubery's murderers.

Justice for Breonna Taylor and Elijah McClain. If you can stomach it: https://youtu.be/q5NcyePEOJ8

When the media focus and our focus is turned somewhere else and when in a few years similar issues rise again. — ssu

I agree with you.

Changing a whole legal system is a daunting task. Doing something about systemic inequality is another. — ssu

It's not about the meaning of the protests, it's just what happens afterwards. — ssu

So what do you think of the current situation? Will be there the significant improvement of the systemic problems? What could make the current protest unique is the broad support of the mainstream media, the considerable part of the political elite, and big corporations. I do not remember any similar cases in the recent history. You can compare it with Hon-Kong. Or, the Yellow Vests Movement in France was brutally crushed by the government, completely backed by the media and the political establishment. The question is if the media and the elite intent to deal with
the problems, or 'they will turn their focus somewhere else'.

Yes, the OWS was cleared away in the middle of the night in November without any media present in a coordinated operation and then it disappeared after 2012. You can argue that it was different. Well there were similarities... — ssu

As far as I know, OWS's message was 'we are 99%'. That meant that they tried to establish
a kind of the alternative democratic community, able to involve the whole society. What is the message of the current protest? What is the implicit meaning of 'Defund the Police'? Does it
intent to demolish the existing institutions?

The question is if the media and the elite intent to deal with the problems, or 'they will turn their focus somewhere else'. — Number2018

I don't think so, well not really anyway, they will want to do just enough so the whole system doesn't crash. That's their interest, to keep a system going that disproportionally benefits them. In that sense, those who don't condemn the violence do have a point... only real threats to that system will prompt a real reaction.

Why not just go after policeman or government officials as opposed to random small business owners if you're fine with violence? If you're fine with violence and you hate cops then why aren't you advocating violence there? Kind of makes sense for you to be anti gun control here.

I'm not advocating violence. I'm not rejecting it either. I simply think the talk of "violence" - and only a certain kind of violence, perpetrated only by certain people (of a certain skin color), totally disproportionate to the scale and range of everything that is happening - is a total distraction and a hijacking of discourse by people who otherwise wouldn't give a shit. People like you, specifically (in short, I think you, and people like you, are virtue signallers par excellence).

And no, I actually think the protestors should be armed to the teeth. It's one of the few things American cops seem to respect, primarily because they are little bitches who only ever prey on the defenceless - as all bullies do.

I've already said I'm on board with certain reforms. I've wanted to end the war on drugs for years. Even if the situation with blacks in America were a billion times worse and black people were being threatened with literal extermination that group remains accountable for its actions. When we strip people of accountability, we strip them of their humanity.

No, I simply don't believe you care an iota about 'humanity'. You're a single-issue energy sink on this topic, and that disproportion of focus tells me everything about the scope of what counts as caring about 'humanity' for you.

that group remains accountable for its actions. — BitconnectCarlos

Why. Why the hell does 'that group' become accountable for its actions and not the whole of society? Are you suggesting they're a completely causally isolated group, because that would be an absurd claim.

Mm, telling that all of a sudden the fact of some protestors being black matters, whereas before, 'its just an economic issue' or whatever rubbish. It's vomitus bad faith.

Why. Why the hell does 'that group' become accountable for its actions and not the whole of society? Are you suggesting they're a completely causally isolated group, because that would be an absurd claim.

I meant that group as individuals.

Responsibility primarily rests at the individual level. I'm aware there could be external factors, but in the end you need to own your actions. There are mitigating factors, for sure.

No, I simply don't believe you care an iota about 'humanity'.

But you do care about humanity so I guess that makes you a good person. You care about all of humanity. You're right to an extent though, I think it's impossible to care about humanity as a whole. You don't know them, and some of them are complete monsters. At the end of the day I care about individuals getting what they deserve.

At the end of the day I care about individuals getting what they deserve. — BitconnectCarlos

Again, no you don't. You care about some individuals getting what they deserve. There's nothing principled about your 'care'.

only real threats to that system will prompt a real reaction. — ChatteringMonkey

So far, it is too early to make any predictions. Some people noted that one of the tangible results of the ongoing protests is the intensification of political correctness. All in all, it could function
as an efficient vehicle of symbolic violence. As a result, the establishment may successfully manipulate the public opinion and suppress any serious discussion and critical discourse necessary for resolving systemic problems.

If there's injustice I'm happy to speak out about it. But I also realize the world's not black and white and that injustice/unjust violence should be condemned where ever it is whether it's from police, black-on-white crime, black on black crime, white on white, white on black, from ANTIFA, from the far right.

You don't get it. Police violence doesn't shatter my worldview. I've already condemned instances of police violence but you don't condemn violence coming from "your" side."

Ah, #allviolencematters #bothsides. Maybe next you'll be asking me about why no one is speaking about white lives. I bet 'you don't even see color'.

I meant that group as individuals. — BitconnectCarlos

Uh huh...

Responsibility primarily rests at the individual level. — BitconnectCarlos

Why? We've just established that there are external factors, so that the activities of some sub-group, result from a combination of the choices they're given, the resources they have to hand and the decisions they make. Why, apart from the fact that it conveniently fits your neoliberal mythology, have you then given primacy to just one of those factors?

It's all meaningless "distraction" violence until someone throws a brick through your business or house or you get mugged.

Luckily, this isn't about me, and I have the lucidity not to fantasize that it is.

I'm not sure why he's condemning or speaking out about any kind of violence, surely it's just the responsibility of the violent actor? We're all primarily responsible for our own actions, you know! Only to paraphrase Orwell, some are less responsible than others, apparently.