The problem isn't the substance of what their saying, but the words their choosing. Take for example, Holder was saying that he was "dissapointed" in what happened. People's lives were ruined last night as their businesses were vandalized and in some cases burned to the ground. In all of the cases you mentioned, it just doesn't seem like their's any convinction in their belief. Besides, we all know what the father said? He was very emotional and understandably so, but he did a lot to instigate what happened last night, and if it wouldn't case another firestorm, I'd have him brought in for inciting a riot.
Maybe it doesn't seem like there's much conviction, but all the same I don't know how an eloquent person could've put it any better than any of the individuals I've cited. I think the President said it best when he urged police officers to be very diligent when trying to separate the violent individuals from the otherwise peaceful crowd.
Thing is, there is a lot of anger out there, which as you've said is understandable. One way or the other for this particular case, we are dealing with a systemic problem in the United States, and it's not going to be easy to resolve.
Honestly, it's a pretty tough line for anyone to walk.
We live in a far different world than we did back in Germany. With today's social media, and a press that tells both sides of the story (not on the same channel mind you, but flip around and you get the whole picture). I feel like if you want people to know what your about, you can do that without resorting to violence, at least in the Western World.
Good points, all.
Ultimately, I believe that people are generally good in nature. Sometimes knuckleheads sure but when there is a wrong in the world, generally, we in the US act against it as a people. I mean any time there's a major disaster, Americans are right there contributing money and help. MLK knew this about Americans, and was why he took the route that he did.
I also agree with this, and would go further to say that this is THE most tolerant and free nation in the world. By that I don't mean to say that there aren't problems in the U.S., but I definitely agree with you here.
But ultimately, the whole purpose should always be to draw attention to the problem, and not distract from it. The looting and stuff distracts from the larger issues at play here, they don't highlight a problem. A good example of this was Mandela's Terrorist outfit, that before he went into prison, bombed some power facilities and empty government offices. Again, he we wanted to wake people up to his people's plight, not to get vengence or whatever.
That is also a great point, and Mandela is a perfect example.
I suppose my main point is that, although legally we aren't looking at the same type of oppression as we were looking at say 100 years ago, or even sixty years ago, there is still a lot of institutionalized racism. Granted, there are no longer laws official condoning racism and to some extent it has been pushed beneath the surface, but perhaps that is part of what is making the next step difficult.
When it's difficult for the oppressed to point at this or that specific cause for the problems [segregationist laws for example], I can see where frustration would stem.