• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Response to oppression

I feel like it's an insult to MLK to even bring him up in this discussion. Correct me if I'm wrong, but none of his rallys or marches turned into a rioting or looting, and for good reason too.

His commitment to peaceful protest made all the difference in exposing what what happening. If he had have encouraged his followers to assault the cops and throw rocks at them, burn their police cars and loot local businesses, the injustices committed would not have been nearly as starkly displayed.

Here's the problem though, for folks hell bent on perpetuating violence. They know that those scenes would not play out now as they did then so they force violence in a pathetic attempt to blame others for responding to it.
 
But by bringing in violence, using MLK's words to justify the actions that occurred last night, denegates what the man fought for. Had MLK used the same tactics that many blacks seem to want to employ (if not excuse), he would of never succeeded because what he had to do was show the absolute brutality of southern leaders in comparison to the nonviolent and peaceful protests that he used. Had there of been rioting and looting, he wouldn't of garned the sympathy of the rest of the US and never would of gotten enough support for the Civil Rights act. Because people would of said then what they are saying now, that the police are justified in using force to break up these protests due to the looting, vandalism and arson.

****, you didn't need me at all. You got this already.
 
So, as a question I'd ask:

Can someone who's not being [and never has been] oppressed honestly tell members of an oppressed group that they're overreacting, or that any particular course of action is wrong?

I'd like to meet someone who has never been oppressed.
 
Actually, to be fair I think most anyone in any type of authority position has actually condemned the violence:



-Al Sharpton




-Lesley McSpadden and Michael Brown, Sr. Parents of Michael Brown, Jr.



-President Obama

Naturally there are other examples out there.

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.

Isn't that exactly the point though. They are oppressed because the majority [or group in power] wants them to be held back/ down, or otherwise marginalized. And I'd argue that while peaceful steps should always be taken, oppression is an ugly thing that often takes stronger action to resolve, often to the distaste of the oppressors.

When the Jews were being oppressed in Germany, how should they have acted? Do you think peaceful protests would do it?

Besides, the whole point of our constitution is to prevent oppression, regardless of the size of the oppressed group. I'd argue that is the reason we have a judicial branch, so that the rights of the few cannot be taken to a popular vote and subsequently redacted by the greed/ hatred of the many.

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. 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.

Now if we're talking about other countries in the world, or even different time periods, then there are times where violence may be necessitated. 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.
 
It all boils down to opportunity. I mean, during segregation, if you just so happened to be wealthy and black in the south (which was almost impossible mind you) you'd still be treated like ****. Nowadays, you get a good education, get a good job, and you can make something out of yourself. There are plenty of successful black people in the South today. Hell, just look at college football programs, these athletes are almost worshiped down here. Back sixty or so years ago, those same athletes wouldn't of been allowed on the field.

No, you're right and this country has made significant strides in the direction of equality and pushing down the institutional racism that still exists in the United States.

However, we're absolutely not finished yet and to argue that minorities in the United States are not being oppressed is to ignore what's actually going on in this country. You did read the entirety of my OP?

But I will say, a lot of the perception of cops being anti-black stems from the drug laws in this country that disproportionately affects blacks. Fix the drug laws in this country, and you solve that problem overnight.

That's a good point, one which I couldn't argue with a bit. Although I don't think that our current war on drugs is the sole problem with the institutional racism in the United States, I do think it's a primary causal factor. We incarcerate way too many people for something that should be none of the governments business.

This absolutely contributes to the problem, thanks for that observation.
 
We're so spoiled here, we don't know what oppression is. For sure it's not where some kid points a toy that looks like a real gun in the direction of a cop and that cop doesn't wait until he's pumped full of lead before reacting.

Fair statement.

What is oppression?
 
The American Revolution was a civil war. The colonists were the freest people in the civilized world and history textbooks do not teach that tens of thousands of colonists who opposed the revolution were driven from the colonies after the dust settled.

You're a victim of poor teaching. The expropriation and expulsion of the Tories after our Revolution is a standard topic.

The war in the north, (where most of the famous battles, and all including George Washington) was not a civil war, but a rebel army fighting a foreign army. The only place one could accurately say it was a civil war, was in the south, specifically South Carolina. More people died in the revolution in South Carolina than anywhere else during the Revolutionary War. It was bad stuff.
 
The war in the north, (where most of the famous battles, and all including George Washington) was not a civil war, but a rebel army fighting a foreign army. The only place one could accurately say it was a civil war, was in the south, specifically South Carolina. More people died in the revolution in South Carolina than anywhere else during the Revolutionary War. It was bad stuff.

It is certainly true that the war in SC had a savage guerrilla quality all its own, and irregular forces were prominent on both sides. Nonetheless there was a sizable loyalist population in the north too, and they were expelled after the war.
 
The American Revolution was a civil war. The colonists were the freest people in the civilized world and history textbooks do not teach that tens of thousands of colonists who opposed the revolution were driven from the colonies after the dust settled.

The Civil War was a civil war, the revolution was exactly what it is portrayed to be.

The expulsion of loyalists following a revolution may be unfortunate, but that is generally part of the scenario. Besides, tens of thousands would hardly register as anything but a statistically insignificant portion of the population of the original 13 colonies.
 
The American Revolution was a civil war. The colonists were the freest people in the civilized world and history textbooks do not teach that tens of thousands of colonists who opposed the revolution were driven from the colonies after the dust settled.

You're a victim of poor teaching. The expropriation and expulsion of the Tories after our Revolution is a standard topic.

No, you're right and this country has made significant strides in the direction of equality and pushing down the institutional racism that still exists in the United States.

However, we're absolutely not finished yet and to argue that minorities in the United States are not being oppressed is to ignore what's actually going on in this country. You did read the entirety of my OP?



That's a good point, one which I couldn't argue with a bit. Although I don't think that our current war on drugs is the sole problem with the institutional racism in the United States, I do think it's a primary causal factor. We incarcerate way too many people for something that should be none of the governments business.

This absolutely contributes to the problem, thanks for that observation.

I did, but I don't think it had anything to do with your stepson being black. I mean hell, I've had some chancy encounters with police myself, and I'm white. Once was when me and my brother were carrying our Kendos home from a friends place, it made quite a number of people nervous it turned out. Another time when we were camping out and actually Airsoft and had an encounter with a couple of guys who were the owners of the property. At that point the group consisted of 6 whites and 2 blacks. I think in general, people will get nervous if they see a group of armed men, and I can't fully blame them for that.
 
His commitment to peaceful protest made all the difference in exposing what what happening. If he had have encouraged his followers to assault the cops and throw rocks at them, burn their police cars and loot local businesses, the injustices committed would not have been nearly as starkly displayed.

That is very true, and was a core tenant of MLK's philosophy. I think his undying willingness to suffer the blows of his oppressors in the face of unjust laws helped make him a powerful figure in our history.

Here's the problem though, for folks hell bent on perpetuating violence. They know that those scenes would not play out now as they did then so they force violence in a pathetic attempt to blame others for responding to it.

Have you ever considered that the violence [although some of it is absolutely perpetrated by people who seek no other ends than the violence itself] is a symptom of a much larger problem. And also that the people in those crowds are simply humans dealing with anger as most any other humans might?

People are after all simply human.
 
I did, but I don't think it had anything to do with your stepson being black. I mean hell, I've had some chancy encounters with police myself, and I'm white. Once was when me and my brother were carrying our Kendos home from a friends place, it made quite a number of people nervous it turned out. Another time when we were camping out and actually Airsoft and had an encounter with a couple of guys who were the owners of the property. At that point the group consisted of 6 whites and 2 blacks. I think in general, people will get nervous if they see a group of armed men, and I can't fully blame them for that.

No that was the point, he and his friends are white. For him he was able to brush it off, and the cops walked away without any further incident.

My point was that if either he or his friends had been of anything but white complexion, the situation would've been much different.
 
It is certainly true that the war in SC had a savage guerrilla quality all its own, and irregular forces were prominent on both sides. Nonetheless there was a sizable loyalist population in the north too, and they were expelled after the war.

The fighting though was very different. I mean in the North, correct me if I'm wrong, but if they wanted to fight for the British, they joined up and fought shoulder to shoulder with the Redcoats. There was almost like a gentleman's style of war. In SC, it was a mess, and very difficult to determine whose side someone was on. In fact, a large part of the reason that the Southern Strategy failed was because Cornwallis was too busy try to stamp out brush fires that kept popping up all over the place, he didn't have time to finish off the Continentals after they took Charleston.
 
So, as a question I'd ask:

Can someone who's not being [and never has been] oppressed honestly tell members of an oppressed group that they're overreacting, or that any particular course of action is wrong?
Are you an honest person?

Yes. I can tell the rabid dogs who loot and burn that they are wrong. It is really easy if one is actually a thinking, reasoning man. They need to be destroyed as a blight. And maybe, just maybe you need to man up.
 
I think in general, people will get nervous if they see a group of armed men, and I can't fully blame them for that.

And yes, that is exactly what we told him when he got the guns.

Funny how teenagers never listen to their parents.
 
No that was the point, he and his friends are white. For him he was able to brush it off, and the cops walked away without any further incident.

My point was that if either he or his friends had been of anything but white complexion, the situation would've been much different.

Oh okay. But still, cops were called and they came out expecting a fight, despite the fact that they were white. I think when police are called about a bunch of kids with rifles walking around, it doesn't matter if they're black or white. I mean, for all they know, those white kids may be planning a school shooting (after all, 99% of the school shootings hitting the news are done by whites, with the only exception that native american kid from a short time back).
 
Thing is, the oppressors often don't listen to the oppressed. What should one do if your audience isn't listening?
It is true that The One, the Father of Lies, has abused the black community. Therefore what? Until those who have darker skins begin to realize that their allegiance, for no particular reason, to the Democratic party has harmed them, and that they do have options, they will continue to be oppressed.

Blacks murder blacks. Who is oppressing whom?
 
Fair statement.

What is oppression?

To me, oppression is when your basic or natural rights are denied to you, and your ability to be happy (without affecting others of course) is affected.
 
The fighting though was very different. I mean in the North, correct me if I'm wrong, but if they wanted to fight for the British, they joined up and fought shoulder to shoulder with the Redcoats. There was almost like a gentleman's style of war. In SC, it was a mess, and very difficult to determine whose side someone was on. In fact, a large part of the reason that the Southern Strategy failed was because Cornwallis was too busy try to stamp out brush fires that kept popping up all over the place, he didn't have time to finish off the Continentals after they took Charleston.

I don't believe colonists were often placed into Royal regiments, especially since many of those were hired foreign troops, usually contracted out by their European princes.
 
I don't believe colonists were often placed into Royal regiments, especially since many of those were hired foreign troops, usually contracted out by their European princes.

Maybe not into the royal regiments, but they were formed into militia regiments that were then used in battle weren't they?
 
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.
 
I have to get some stuff done, but this statement really crystalizes my point.

How are you, or I to determine if African Americans are being oppressed?
Are you unable to think or reason? Maybe you should spend more time determining what oppression is. Then you can decide if the worst enemy of a black American is another black American, their overall substandard culture, or the Democratic party in general.

I believe their problem is a combination of all three. Is that oppression? If so all it takes it to choose a better culture, to run away from the Democratic party, and to avoid other young, black men.
 
Back
Top Bottom