"The law is reason, free from passion."
Baltimore is no stranger to riots.....
The Baltimore bank riot of 1835 was a violent reaction to the failure of the Bank of Maryland in 1834. The riot, which lasted from 6–9 August, was aimed at the homes and property of a number of former directors of the bank, who had been accused of financial misconduct and fraud. The Baltimore bank riot was one of the most violent and destructive events in any American city prior to the Civil War.
Baltimore bank riot - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Baltimore riot of 1861 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Great Railroad Strike of 1877 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Baltimore riot of 1968 was composed of black Baltimoreans lasting from April 6 to April 14. The riot included crowds filling the streets, burning and looting local businesses, and confronting the police and national guard. The immediate cause of the rioting was the April 4 assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. in Memphis, Tennessee, which triggered riots in 125 cities across the United States. These events are sometimes described as the Holy Week Uprising.
Baltimore riot of 1968 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Baltimore's unemployment rate in July 2012 was 11%, and the 2012 closure of a major steel plant at Sparrows Point is expected to have a further impact on employment and the local economy. One quarter of Baltimore residents (and 37% of Baltimore children) live in poverty.
Baltimore - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Last edited by Moot; 04-28-15 at 12:28 AM.
Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin to slit throats. It is inaccurate to say that I hate everything. I am strongly in favor of common sense, common honesty, and common decency. This makes me forever ineligible for public office. H.L Mencken
I think this paragraph ties it all-together very nicely:
That said, my greater source of personal concern, outrage and sympathy beyond this particular case is focused neither upon one night’s property damage nor upon the acts, but is focused rather upon the past four-decade period during which an American political elite have shipped middle class and working class jobs away from Baltimore and cities and towns around the U.S. to third-world dictatorships like China and others, plunged tens of millions of good, hard-working Americans into economic devastation, and then followed that action around the nation by diminishing every American’s civil rights protections in order to control an unfairly impoverished population living under an ever-declining standard of living and suffering at the butt end of an ever-more militarized and aggressive surveillance state.
I think that the Middle Class are being told that if they don't want to protect those most vulnerable within our society, then the Poor Folks need to show the Middle Class just how vulnerable the Middle Class really is.
Is there any instance in history where the Ruling Class ever gave anything to the Lower Class without the threat of violence?
All this talk about peaceful protest is propaganda taught to us in grade school.
Martin Luther King preached non-violence because he was being threatened with arrest for inciting riots. So he kept his powder dry. But, in the backgroud there was violence all over the American South.
President Johnson introduced the voting rights act and other programs for minorities because protesters were bringing cities to a standstill.
In 2006, the "Peaceful" immigrant protests shut down several major American cities. Within 4 days, the government began to talk about "Comprehensive" immigration reform.
Does anybody really think that Roosevelt introduced the "New Deal" because it was "Kind To Animal Week"? There were huge protests and threats/plots to take over the Whitehouse.
Business Plot - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"And, it didn't happen because FDR was a great guy. It happened because people in this country were so radicalized, were so determined, were so organized, that he was able to sell the new deal to the elites as a compromise because the alternative was revolution."
--Naomi Klein, National Conference for Media reform, June 07, 2008--
Before the New Deal was introduced, Eisenhower and Patton were sent in to set fire to the unemployed camps.
Everybody talks about Ghandi and peace .... but when Ghandi was walking around with his hands folded in prayer, the British military was being attacked on every front.
All this "Jibberish" about non-violence is sold to us as a "Religion" and it is all a myth.
The Ruling Class never gave the Lower Class anything without the threat of violence.
All the social gains made during the 60's and 70's was because the Ruling Class were under threat.
Without the threat of violence, the Ruling Class ignores you.
I think that we are going to witness huge protests as we witnessed in the 1960's and 70's.
I'm convinced that Martial Law will be declared in North America within the next five years and that is why every police force has been militarized.
I believe that the visible minorities in the U.S. had been keeping their powder dry and not protesting because they don't want to shame Obama, the first black president. Thus the reason why the visible minorities did not fully support the Occupy Movement.
The media is just selling the narrative of The Ol' Rodney King trip of "Can't We All Just Get Along"?
The anger and economic pain within the minority community in the U.S. is huge.
I would want to point out that the population or demographics of young people (16-24) of North America was huge during the 1960's and 70's.
Today, the segment or demographics of young people is not quite large as it was during the "Hippie-Daze", but today young people are twice as angry at least. Young people are facing the worst economic prospects since at least the 1940's.
During the 1960's the parents of Hippies did not actively encourage their children to protest, but today the parents are encouraging their children to protest and in fact want to join them on the streets.
And there was more respect for law and order during the Hippie Daze.
Anyways, getting back to the specific subject, black people didn't riot over Stop & Frisk, black people didn't riot even after it became known that overwhelming majority of people released by the Innocence Program are black. Black people didn't riot after the hundreds of other police brutality incidents around the country in which the black person is a victim. Mostly because the mentality is that these issues will simply be settled eventually. However, the reality is that they are not and that's starting to clash with the outrage at these police brutality incidents. People are becoming convinced (and with good reason) that the system is indeed 'rigged' against black America. You add on to that the racial baggage our founding fathers left us with, and we have:
A) A view of racial benefits shaped by historical policies
B) The demonstrably different treatments that the justice system gives depending on race today
C) The perception that the demands made by Republican voices and supposedly fulfilled by Democrats administrations have fallen short of their intended purpose
In other words, people are angry because they're coming to the conclusion that things haven't changed all that much and police officers can still be violence against blacks without concern for any real punishment. When that happens, it leads to riots and it's not a white or black thing. It's a human thing. People riot and protest when they feel the state has not fulfilled its duties or lived up to its claims of reform. That is what I feel is happening here.
I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK
Quotes And Interesting Commentary On This Topic:
“In the history of secrets, withheld from the American people, this is the biggest secret: that there are classes with different interests in this country. To ignore that — not to know that the history of our country is a history of slaveowner against slave, landlord against tenant, corporation against worker, rich against poor — is to render us helpless before all the lesser lies told to us by people in power.”
"There were two main trends or tendency within the African-American Freedom Movement of the Sixties (and other Freedom Movements inspired by it).
One was the non-violent resistance exemplified by King and Rosa Parks.
The other was the militant, in-your-racist-face resistance of Robert Williams, Malcolm X and the Black Panthers (who, of course, originated in Oakland).
It's interesting but not surprising that the former gets all kinds of validation in the schools and holidays today while the other is scarcely mentioned or honored if at all.
In any case, King and Malcolm, despite their different ideologies and approaches, appreciated the value of each other. They were like a "good-cop"/"bad-cop" routine against the ruling elite, without which the achievements in the ways of Civil Rights during that era would not have come about.
I believe Malcolm said it straight-out in his visit to Selma speaking to the southern racists: "If you don't want to deal with King, you're going to have to deal with people like me."
And his words were already starting to be backed-up by urban rebellions."
--VermontLeftist, Comment, February2012--
Why #OWS Needs to Denounce Violent Tactics on Display at Occupy Oakland | Alternet
The Black Freedom Movement and Chris Hedges' Misuse of History
By Jay Moore
February 16, 2012
Jay Moore, "The Black Freedom Movement and Chris Hedges' Misuse of History"
How Nonviolence Protects the State (e-Book)
Since the civil rights era, the doctrine of nonviolence has enjoyed near-universal acceptance by the US Left. Today protest is normally shaped by cooperation with state authorities-even organizers of rallies against police brutality apply for police permits, and anti-imperialists commonly stop short of supporting self-defense and armed resistance. How Nonviolence Protects the State challenges the belief that nonviolence is the only method to fight for a much better world. In a call bound to stir controversy and lively debate, Peter Gelderloos invites activists to take into account diverse tactics, passionately arguing that exclusive nonviolence normally acts to reinforce the exact same structures of oppression that activists seek to overthrow.
Contemporary movements for social change face lots of hard questions, but occasionally matters of technique and tactics obtain low priority. Numerous North American activists fail to scrutinize the role of nonviolence, never posing important questions:
Is nonviolence effective at ending systems of oppression?
Does nonviolence intersect with white privilege and also the dominance of North over South?
How does pacifism reinforce the exact same power dynamic as patriarchy?
Ultimately, does nonviolence protect the state?
Peter Gelderloos is a radical community organizer. He is the author of Consensus: A New Handbook for Grassroots Political, Social, and Environmental Groups along with a contributor to Letters From Young Activists. He is the co-facilitator of a workshop on the prison system, and is also involved in independent media, copwatching, anti-oppression work, and anarchist organizing.
Semi-Abridged 2nd Edition
By Peter Gelderloos
"Stop The Machine" Or How To Demoralize A Movement
By John A. Murphy
October 07, 2011
Nonviolence: Its Histories and Myths
By Professor Michael Neumann
February 08, 2003
Nonviolence: Its Histories and Myths - Professor Michael Neumann
A Conversation About Nonviolence
Eric Stoner responds to Stephen Zunes: Yes, nonviolent movements have achieved important democratic and political reforms. But if they fail to address the divide between rich and poor, are they really success stories?
By Eric Stoner
November 13, 2009
A Conversation about Nonviolence and Poverty :: Eric Stoner Responds to Stephen Zunes
Its interesting how far some will reach in order to make excuses for these people. Pandering to their endless claim of victimhood when in reality, they are the victims of their own culture. When everything in their culture glorifies violence and crime, from music, to peer pressure to commit crime, its easy to see that they have cultivated this culture on their own and continue to marinate themselves in it. I have absolutely no remorse for these people. I think if they continue to be violent, they should continue to be targeted and profiled. Sorry, that is just my honest opinion.
- There was never a good war, or a bad peace.
- Idealistically, everything should work as you planed it to. Realistically, it depends on how idealistic you are as to the measure of success.
- Better to be a pessimist before, and an optimist afterwords.
The way I look at it the rioting has nothing to with culture. It is about incessant police brutality to the extreme so much so rival gangs has united against the police.
While I'm really not seeing the people who are making excuses for "those people," the ones who are causing violence should be dealt with swiftly and without remorse.
The people who are legitimately upset over what happened to Freddy Gray have a point. Those are not the people who are rioting. The people who are rioting are criminals.
Freedom of speech is not freedom from criticism.