Comment by seaknoll
5 years ago
This movement is about centuries of unjustness. To me, it is appropriate that the occasional bystander and business is overlooked. That doesn't mean that if you were my sibling, or friend, or business that I wouldn't be entitled to express personal pain. But the magnitude of my pain is nothing next to the pain that's led up to this, and no it wouldn't be appropriate for it to get remotely equal attention.
Sure, ideally bystanders and local businesses (in particular) would be spared. But nothing about the historical events leading to now is ideal.
Where was this movement when Justine Damond was shot in the gut by a black cop in Minneapolis? I don't recall any protests, let alone riots or burning down the city.
And if your expression of pain includes looting booze from a liquor store or a TV from Target, what exactly are you trying to say? By the way, those bystanders and local businesses owners are people of color too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Justine_Damond
> Noor was ultimately arrested and charged with second-degree manslaughter and third-degree murder following an eight-month investigation by the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension and the Hennepin County Attorney's Office. In April 2019, Noor was convicted of third-degree murder and manslaughter, but acquitted of intentional second-degree murder. In June 2019, Noor was sentenced to 12.5 years in prison.
It seems like the system ended up working to a degree, at least putting the murderer behind bars. So why would one expect significant protests?
The outrage in these cases isn't over a white cop killing a black person per se, it's that the system immediately moves to protect the murderers because they're cops. Rather than arresting the criminal, fellow corrupt cops were stationed outside of his house to protect him. That the main perp has finally been charged is a product of the protests rather than the justice system moving slowly - witness that the conspirators have yet to be charged. Anyone who believes in law and order should be sympathetic to the protestors, even in spite of race.
Furthermore, ascribing the motives of a few looters onto the whole protest is ridiculous. Especially as at least some of that destruction was led by agents provocateurs.
That shooting was an isolated incident, and someone actually went to jail for it, for a long time. That doesn't happen when a white cop shoots a black person.
That shooting wasn't part of a system of institutional and deep rooted racism. Neither was it part of a system where white cops routinely harass black people with no basis other than the colour of their skin; where white cops use horrifyingly excessive violence and all too often murder black suspects, bystanders and innocents - a system where the perpetrators of that violence and murder are almost guaranteed to face no repercusions at all. A system of ingrained inquality that spans decades.
Black people are harassed, racially abused, set upon and shot frequently by white cops in the USA - and the videos we see pretty much on a daily basis in the news and on twitter are only the tip of the iceberg.
As someone in the UK, the the inequality and racism that still exists in the USA, "land of the free", is mind boggling, sickening even. Something has to change, so yes, I can fully understand protests and rioting.
And justice was done in that case. In the next Minneapolis case, Philando Castile, a black man, it wasn't.
Again, the rioting isn't a good thing, but it's understandable.
Unfortunately, both you, the media, and the looters keep forgetting the events are, as you said, history.
> Unfortunately, both you, the media, and the looters keep forgetting the events are, as you said, history.
But history can be important. Literally everything that's known and has been done is now history, including recently committed crimes.
The history that we're talking about still has clearly identifiable painful consequences in present-day communities, so it's not something that can just be filed away and ignored as no longer relevant.
What does "history" mean? The suffering of innocent bystanders in past riots is history. In a year the innocent bystanders of these riots will be "only history".
Many of the immigrants who have created new businesses in the US have experienced terrible histories themselves, but they have been able to put these behind them, because their antagonists are not in the US.
I don't think historic injustices should be simply ignored, but the problem is even more severe when the systemic abuses your community is experiencing is not only in the past, not only occurring in the moment, but there is realistic prospect that conditions will to improve.
Private companies militarizing police forces never face liability, and sworn, armed officers belong to unions, and neither of those seems on a course to changing.
It is a completely untenable situation for American citizens to be extra-judiciously killed by government employees. Rioting doesn't help, peaceful protests don't help, you can't even respectfully kneel during the national anthem without being treated as though you're rejecting everything about the country. Petitions? Hunger strikes? Self-immolation?
If it were purely history, we wouldn’t be seeing the violence, injustice, and disparity we see today. The problem is that isn’t “history”, it’s ongoing.
It's history and it's the present. You sound like the people who claim racism must be over since Obama was elected.
What about this event indicates racism was involved? Because the cop is not behind bars? That is most likely due to union rules and procedures which have to be followed.
Until it happens again, and again, and again, and again....