• 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

Starbuck

Starbuck

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 28, 2013
Messages
881
Reaction score
255
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
"You deplore the demonstrations taking place in Birmingham. But your statement, I am sorry to say, fails to express a similar concern for the conditions that brought about the demonstrations. I am sure that none of you would want to rest content with the superficial kind of social analysis that deals merely with effects and does not grapple with underlying causes. It is unfortunate that demonstrations are taking place in Birmingham, but it is even more unfortunate that the city's white power structure left the Negro community with no alternative."
Click to expand...
-MLK

I think it's merely a sad coincidence that we were reading through the above letter last night in Philosophy Class, as part of a chapter titled 'what makes a society just.' Although I do not like the idea of violent protests any more than the next person, I don't believe it's my place to decide what is the right course of action for any group of people faced with something I have neither faced myself or could honestly comprehend.

Two weeks ago my stepson was with some friends in the woods shooting pellet guns at targets. Unfortunately someone in the neighborhood called the police, who responded guns drawn. When they saw the situation and quickly realized that the kids were using pellet guns they quickly holstered their firearms and explained that they couldn't be using airsoft guns in the woods, also mentioning that it is a 'stupid' law anyway.

Now I live in one of the most socially aware areas in the country, but do I think that encounter could've turned out differently, even here? Absolutely. And do I think this per-chance encounters result had something to do with the complexion of the teenagers involved? Unfortunately, yes.

Fortunately I was able to hear this story directly from my stepson, who walked freely from the woods without further injury, and for that I'm forever thankful, especially because I know many other parents, friends or loved ones haven't been as fortunate. In such a situation, or in a place where such situations are regular occurrences, I believe it is solely the decision of those directly affected to determine the response.
 
Starbuck said:
-MLK

I think it's merely a sad coincidence that we were reading through the above letter last night in Philosophy Class, as part of a chapter titled 'what makes a society just.' Although I do not like the idea of violent protests any more than the next person, I don't believe it's my place to decide what is the right course of action for any group of people faced with something I have neither faced myself or could honestly comprehend.

Two weeks ago my stepson was with some friends in the woods shooting pellet guns at targets. Unfortunately someone in the neighborhood called the police, who responded guns drawn. When they saw the situation and quickly realized that the kids were using pellet guns they quickly holstered their firearms and explained that they couldn't be using airsoft guns in the woods, also mentioning that it is a 'stupid' law anyway.

Now I live in one of the most socially aware areas in the country, but do I think that encounter could've turned out differently, even here? Absolutely. And do I think this per-chance encounters result had something to do with the complexion of the teenagers involved? Unfortunately, yes.

Fortunately I was able to hear this story directly from my stepson, who walked freely from the woods without further injury, and for that I'm forever thankful, especially because I know many other parents, friends or loved ones haven't been as fortunate. In such a situation, or in a place where such situations are regular occurrences, I believe it is solely the decision of those directly affected to determine the response.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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?
 
Hamster Buddha said:
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.
Click to expand...

Why is it an insult? MLK adopting peaceful resistance was not the only philosophy in civil rights. There were others and other tactics. They should all be open to being mentioned, debated and discussed or else it isn't a discussion.
 
Starbuck said:
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?
Click to expand...

Yes. Know your audience. If you are oppressed and want assistance from others, then listening to what others would like to see is important.
 
Declan said:
Why is it an insult? MLK adopting peaceful resistance was not the only philosophy in civil rights. There were others and other tactics. They should all be open to being mentioned, debated and discussed or else it isn't a discussion.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Hamster Buddha said:
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.
Click to expand...

That is a good point, he was very specifically non-violent. I'm also quite sure that he carefully instructed protestors to accept any blows dealt to them, without reciprocation. However, as a member of an oppressed group it's his prerogative to say that. Thing is, I don't think it's up to anyone but the oppressed to actually say what type of reaction is warranted.

The parents of Michael Brown have called for peaceful demonstrations, and I believe that's who everyone should really be listening to.
 
Declan said:
Yes. Know your audience. If you are oppressed and want assistance from others, then listening to what others would like to see is important.
Click to expand...

Thing is, the oppressors often don't listen to the oppressed. What should one do if your audience isn't listening?
 
Declan said:
Why is it an insult? MLK adopting peaceful resistance was not the only philosophy in civil rights. There were others and other tactics. They should all be open to being mentioned, debated and discussed or else it isn't a discussion.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that, good point.
 
Declan said:
Why is it an insult? MLK adopting peaceful resistance was not the only philosophy in civil rights. There were others and other tactics. They should all be open to being mentioned, debated and discussed or else it isn't a discussion.
Click to expand...

meeting.jpg​

Kind of illustrates your point.
 
Starbuck said:
That is a good point, he was very specifically non-violent. I'm also quite sure that he carefully instructed protestors to accept any blows dealt to them, without reciprocation. However, as a member of an oppressed group it's his prerogative to say that. Thing is, I don't think it's up to anyone but the oppressed to actually say what type of reaction is warranted.

The parents of Michael Brown have called for peaceful demonstrations, and I believe that's who everyone should really be listening to.
Click to expand...

To be fair, everyone is saying they want peaceful demonstrations, yet do very little to condemn the actions of those who are looting, rioting and the like.

Also, I disagree that the oppressed group is the one who should determine the type of reaction that is warranted. Keep in mind why you are protesting; you are trying to change the minds of people enough so that new laws get passed and the perceived injustices can be corrected. In this country, the majority of people are still white (70% actually). And for anything to get passed in a democratic-republic that we have, that means you need to adjust your messaging to have an appeal outside of just the minority that are oppressed. MLK knew how to do this, but clearly demonstrating that the blacks were the ones who were the victims, he garnered sympathy from many whites and thus got the change he wanted. I'm sure there are many blacks that don't have a problem with the violence in Ferguson, or are at least sympathetic. But blacks only make up 13% of the population, and thus, you're not going to change anything if you are just speaking to them.
 
Starbuck said:

Kind of illustrates your point.
Click to expand...

You have to understand about Malcolm X is that there were two different points in his life; the first was his racist nation of islam period, and the second was when he left it and become more moderate. Also, MLK would shake hands with the head of the KKK if he could, that man just never harbored any hate in his heart.

Finally, keep in mind, there's a reason why we have a MLK day and not a Malcolm X day. Malcolm X did a great job speaking to blacks, MLK did a great job speaking to all Americans.
 
Hamster Buddha said:
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.
Click to expand...

MLK also said, "It may be true that the law cannot make a man love me, but it can keep him from lynching me, and I think that's pretty important." To some people, this issue is about the law now being the ones doing the lynchings. If the law isn't protecting the people, and the people see that the law is oppressing them, then it is a legitimate starting point for discussions IMO. I don't know the answer, but the state of rights in this country is so non-existent in relation to the government that something needs to be done.
 
Starbuck said:
Thing is, the oppressors often don't listen to the oppressed. What should one do if your audience isn't listening?
Click to expand...

Don't know. Keep working the crowd.
 
Declan said:
MLK also said, "It may be true that the law cannot make a man love me, but it can keep him from lynching me, and I think that's pretty important." To some people, this issue is about the law now being the ones doing the lynchings. If the law isn't protecting the people, and the people see that the law is oppressing them, then it is a legitimate starting point for discussions IMO. I don't know the answer, but the state of rights in this country is so non-existent in relation to the government that something needs to be done.
Click to expand...

Discussing is fine. I just don't see looting a 7/11 is going to do that.
 
Declan said:
Don't know. Keep working the crowd.
Click to expand...

I suppose that'd be my first choice, but then I'm not being oppressed.

I know MLK was a big proponent of non-violent civil disobedience, which definitely made way for some very important changes. Others have called for less peaceable action, which has also had the effect of shedding light on less than ideal situations. I'd warrant that the American Revolution could be cited as an example of violent protest.

If you're being oppressed, I suppose it is a question of what you're willing to risk in order to achieve liberty from your oppressors.
 
Starbuck said:
Thing is, the oppressors often don't listen to the oppressed. What should one do if your audience isn't listening?
Click to expand...

It really does depend on what exactly is being "oppressed". I mean, I don't see blacks today as being oppressed whatsoever. The problem in the black community boils down really to economics, which means you don't have a chance at a good education and often turn to alternatives like drugs to fill the gaps.

The one thing that is an issue today is that police aren't as involved in the african american community as they should be. In many places around the country, cops won't even go into black neighborhoods without being in force. This mistrust is what has lead to situations like Ferguson.
 
Starbuck said:
I suppose that'd be my first choice, but then I'm not being oppressed.

I know MLK was a big proponent of non-violent civil disobedience, which definitely made way for some very important changes. Others have called for less peaceable action, which has also had the effect of shedding light on less than ideal situations. I'd warrant that the American Revolution could be cited as an example of violent protest.

If you're being oppressed, I suppose it is a question of what you're willing to risk in order to achieve liberty from your oppressors.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Declan said:
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.
Click to expand...

You're a victim of poor teaching. The expropriation and expulsion of the Tories after our Revolution is a standard topic.
 
Hamster Buddha said:
To be fair, everyone is saying they want peaceful demonstrations, yet do very little to condemn the actions of those who are looting, rioting and the like.
Click to expand...

Actually, to be fair I think most anyone in any type of authority position has actually condemned the violence:

Those who got violent last night, those who acted in a destructive manner do not represent the spirit of Michael Brown
Click to expand...

-Al Sharpton


We respectfully ask that you please keep your protests peaceful. Answering violence with violence is not the appropriate reaction.
Click to expand...

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

I join Michael's parents in asking anyone who protests this decision to do so peacefully. Let me repeat Michael's father's words: 'Hurting others or destroying property is not the answer. No matter what the grand jury decides, I do not want my son's death to be in vain.'"
Click to expand...

-President Obama

Naturally there are other examples out there.

Hamster Buddha said:
Also, I disagree that the oppressed group is the one who should determine the type of reaction that is warranted. Keep in mind why you are protesting; you are trying to change the minds of people enough so that new laws get passed and the perceived injustices can be corrected.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Hamster Buddha said:
It really does depend on what exactly is being "oppressed". I mean, I don't see blacks today as being oppressed whatsoever.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Starbuck said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.

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.
 
Jack Hays said:
You're a victim of poor teaching. The expropriation and expulsion of the Tories after our Revolution is a standard topic.
Click to expand...

Wasn't in my school.
 
Starbuck said:
-MLK

I think it's merely a sad coincidence that we were reading through the above letter last night in Philosophy Class, as part of a chapter titled 'what makes a society just.' Although I do not like the idea of violent protests any more than the next person, I don't believe it's my place to decide what is the right course of action for any group of people faced with something I have neither faced myself or could honestly comprehend.

Two weeks ago my stepson was with some friends in the woods shooting pellet guns at targets. Unfortunately someone in the neighborhood called the police, who responded guns drawn. When they saw the situation and quickly realized that the kids were using pellet guns they quickly holstered their firearms and explained that they couldn't be using airsoft guns in the woods, also mentioning that it is a 'stupid' law anyway.

Now I live in one of the most socially aware areas in the country, but do I think that encounter could've turned out differently, even here? Absolutely. And do I think this per-chance encounters result had something to do with the complexion of the teenagers involved? Unfortunately, yes.

Fortunately I was able to hear this story directly from my stepson, who walked freely from the woods without further injury, and for that I'm forever thankful, especially because I know many other parents, friends or loved ones haven't been as fortunate. In such a situation, or in a place where such situations are regular occurrences, I believe it is solely the decision of those directly affected to determine the response.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom