Perhaps saying there was no violence is overstating it but it was a very different scale with very different intent abhorrent in either case.
People are undoubtedly angry because they are seeking to be treated equally. To not be murdered by the police. There’s still such an astonishing amount of injustice and yet they didn’t try to overthrow the government.
The crux of my argument is that these two groups are not comparable. One seeks equality and the other seeks to go against democracy and attempt a coup. This is what i mean by false equivalence.
I find it weird the article didn't mention the violence - violence during the protests. I mean several people got killed, I imagine quite a lot got beaten up.
There were a handful of events like what you describe, but the violence was overwhelmingly inflicted upon protesters by police. This came in the form of physical violence, aiming projectiles at protesters' heads, and of course the various chemical weaponry that was used in such quantities that it appeared on NASA weather satellites.
To me the comparison is very accurate. On both occasions there were mostly peaceful protests and some opportunist. The fact that you call one a protest and another a riot is quite telling of your bias.
I believe there’s a suitable MLK speech in which it explains property violence in response to human violence is an attempt to push the majority to action using loss of property when it is clear loss of life means nothing.
Given that it’s clear literal loss of life meant very little to people but property damage gets multiple multiple news coverage and POTUS coverage etc etc. it’s hard to consider burning down a police station when the police killed someone on camera to be completely improper. All attempts to appeal peacefully to the people who are supposed to deliver justice have failed, and in fact, those who are supposed to deliver justice have done the unjust thing...
"the strikers, marching to the City Hall to-day to protest to the Mayor, stormed through the Lower Broadway, destroyed 30 cabs and assaulted 25 chauffeurs, leaving the men for the most part stripped of clothing lying in a bloody and dazed state in the streets. They then staged a final riot within sight of Laguardia's chambers, dragging men and women passengers from the taxis and beating the drivers unconscious."
Not to mention the paid violence anti Trump protests/riots executed by members of the Democratic left. The recent case is in the realm of 3rd degree murder. The premeditated paid violence is far more troubling.
edit
I mean troubling at a social/political level. The death of a non-violent protester is no less sad or serious.
It’s telling that when the favored side has protests fraught with arson, destruction, violence, and even multiple deaths, it’s “mostly peaceful” and “the vast majority didn’t commit crimes”.
Whereas when a single act of violence occurs on the disfavored side, that’s used to paint the entire protest as violent, and indeed, the entire disfavored political demographic as irredeemable.
I believe both of those things. I'm confused by the contrast you're drawing here, because the reason I believe them is the same in both cases: many participants made angry, public declarations that violence was needed and they'd like to see it happen. Questions of how many nonviolent people were involved, how long the violence took to kick off, or who made the first escalation don't strike me as very relevant.
Actually the situation and the violence against demonstrators in the 1930's was far worse, very often fatally worse. Commies and labor unions, you know. Little sympathy from anyone. Police riots were the norm back then and prosecution for their murders was unheard of.
That's not to excuse what's happening, just offering a bit of perspective.
Violence did break out. When protesters weren't armed. And black and white civil rights supporters were beaten and lynched while local police watched. Lynchings were avoided when either Feds showed up with arms or local blacks organized with arms.
The difference between the civil rights movement and say, the ELF is that MLK jr, smartly pushed for nonviolence and all armed violence was encouraged only as a retaliatory measure.
I agree that the message can and most likely will get drowned out with escalation to violence, but if the courts fail you, if the state fails you, the only recourse you really have is a credible threat of violence. If that violence is in the form of disruption or rioting or if it's simply, non compliance backed by guns- without that threat, you will be ignored, or worse.
reply