[RD] George Floyd and protesting while black

[Zardnaar]

Zimmerman's violence was regulated, self defense is legal.



A drunk who attacked 2 cops, stole their taser and fired it at the cop chasing him.

We had a police shooting here yesterday. Cop died. Our police got the shooter alive. First cop killed since 2009.

They got the accomplice. Alive she's brown

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national...ond-fugitive-captured-murder-accused-in-court

The guy who shot up mosque last year. Killed 51 people. Taken alive.

 

[red_elk]

I posted video earlier, armed man attacked two Russian road cops, wounded both of them. They shot him once to neutralize and captured alive.

 

[Hrothbern]

Yesterday a man was shot down by Dutch police. That guy was threatening with a big knife. Not many details yet.

But the article mentioned that he was shot in the legs.

 

[JohannaK]

I'll read the article... but at this point, the desperation to protect the beloved Confederate stuff is so high, that I'm not willing to dismiss the possibility that this is a false flag operation anyway.

In other news... there is currently a renewed fight to change the Mississippi State flag... which of course is the sole remaining flag that shamelessly contains the infamous Confederate battle emblem. There are other flags that still contain obvious, but subtle nods to the Confederacy, like Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Arkansas, North Carolina, Texas, Tennessee and Missouri, with Georgia being the 2nd worst, having essentially adopted a clear adaptation of the less famous, official Confederate flag, as their emblem.

I have to argue that the Cross of St Andrew in the Floridian and Alabamian flags is ostensibly a nod to their Spanish heritage, since the very similar Burgundian cross was the symbol most associated with Spanish armies and such and so before the adoption of the current flag. That said, it wouldnt surprise me if they just used that excuse to retain some measure of a Confederate symbol around.

I also have to question the Missouri flag connection to the CSA, since the only commonality is that there are three bars and a circle of stars. Similarly Tennessee's is so different, and so very unique. It is indubitably one of the best state flags and it never occurres to me that there was a CSA connection at all. I dunnow though. I'd like you to tell me more about it. I am always happy to learn more about flags.

What I do know is that the Texas flag predates the CSA and indeed Texas itself, besides being the second or third best known US flag after the Union flag and the Confederate cross, so I dont see that one changing.

 

[Estebonrober]

Oregon? Even if it was they could just change the name if they wanted.

I thought it was in Washington my bad, yes they could just change the name. I don't really care fwiw, I just think it alienates more then it helps.

They'll complain about it and then in 5 months they'll vote for a government who won't try to douse fires with gasoline.

Spoiler But in my humble opinion... :

Given all the horrifically brutal snuff films that American police and racists have created for us this year alone.. after all that.... if someone is seriously swayed away from the movement against that evil by some old f-ing statues being knocked over then go ahead get out. Good riddance. To hell with their alleged "support." They know where their side is.

Yea its not losing my support, I'm just worried we aren't getting anything and this kind of thing does more harm then good. Which I get is a similar argument to the CSA statues, but I think the amount of people you annoy is much larger. People don't know their own history.

 

[Bugfatty300]

Yea its not losing my support, I'm just worried we aren't getting anything and this kind of thing does more harm then good. Which I get is a similar argument to the CSA statues, but I think the amount of people you annoy is much larger. People don't know their own history.

I know. I put the rant in spoilers because it wasn't directed at any specific poster here. To be fair there's not a lot of confederate statues in the Pacific Northwest and at the very least statue tipping gives the more active protesters better things to do. Destroying and looting locally owned businesses was far worse PR and Trump's spider hole führerbunker was impenetrable (no one thought to bring an acetylene torch) so tactics seemed to have adjusted accordingly.

I just don't think many people will get bent out of shape over these statues.

 

[Bugfatty300]

Yesterday a man was shot down by Dutch police. That guy was threatening with a big knife. Not many details yet.

But the article mentioned that he was shot in the legs.

Fun fact: the infamous North Hollywood bank robbery was ended by police shooting the last guy the in legs. He wasn't taken alive though. They just refused to allow medical treatment so he slowly bled to death lying the street on national television.

I remember the great liberal Bill Maher talking about it years later on his show and his attitude was "Who cares! he deserved it!"

 

[Hrothbern]

Fun fact: the infamous North Hollywood bank robbery was ended by police shooting the last guy the in legs. He wasn't taken alive though. They just refused to allow medical treatment so he slowly bled to death lying the street on national television.

I remember the great liberal Bill Maher talking about it years later on his show and his attitude was "Who cares! he deserved it!"

A police officer is just the strong arm of the Law.
Not the Law
Not the Jury
Not the Judge
Not the Executioner

Just the strong arm.

 

[Kyriakos]

I know. I put the rant in spoilers because it wasn't directed at any specific poster here. To be fair there's not a lot of confederate statues in the Pacific Northwest and at the very least statue tipping gives the more active protesters better things to do. Destroying and looting locally owned businesses was far worse PR and Trump's spider hole führerbunker was impenetrable (no one thought to bring an acetylene torch) so tactics seemed to have adjusted accordingly.

I just don't think many people will get bent out of shape over these statues.

If people don't think it's their fight, they won't bother. And while police brutality is everyone's (apart from the actual oligarchs) fight, it will get diminished if it keeps being presented as a strictly BLM issue. The CSA statues just aren't realistically tied to police brutality - the current police don't take their orders from the CSA but the USA.

 

[gay_Aleks]

Yes, but despite the attempts at differentiating the "good" US from the "bad" CSA, the matter of a fact is that the two exist in the same historical continuum - you cannot have the CSA without the USA, and since the reconstituted Union did not purge the Confederates from its administration in a meaningful way, the same beliefs and notions that they held before the ACW remained in the South. Therefore, you seem to be misplacing the issue. The CSA is merely the clearest example of white supremacy, and the statues exist to glorify it, and furthermore, intimidate Black people. Do you believe that you would receive justice in a courthouse with a statue dedicated to a man who died for slavery? Clearly, not. But the U.S and the CSA, at the end of the day, exist within the same framework, save for the latter's temerity to secede and try to keep the interests of the Southern planter class intact. This led to a - necessary! - interelite conflict, that we know as the ACW.

 

[Bugfatty300]

If people don't think it's their fight, they won't bother. And while police brutality is everyone's (apart from the actual oligarchs) fight, it will get diminished if it keeps being presented as a strictly BLM issue. The CSA statues just aren't realistically tied to police brutality - the current police don't take their orders from the CSA but the USA.

The elderly man who had his head cracked open was white and boomer (the literal beating heart of good ol' American values). Virtually everyone including BLM came out in support for him. The chads who stormed the Minnesota Bastille were multi-colored. BLM is leading the movement because Black Americans are disproportionately victimized by police but where is the attitude that police brutality is only a black issue?

 

[Kyriakos]

The elderly man who had his head cracked open was white and boomer (the literal beating heart of good ol' American values). Virtually everyone including BLM came out in support for him. The chads who stormed the Minnesota Bastille were multi-colored. BLM is leading the movement because Black Americans are disproportionately victimized by police but where is the attitude that police brutality is only a black issue?

I get all my news from Oliver, and he presents this as an entirely BLM issue

Of course those non-minority people who would be around with BLM, will stick around even if it is seen as a primarily BLM issue, but I doubt it will be enough to reform the police.

 

[Joij21]

Does anyone think that maybe this is going too far? They are now wanting to pull down Gandhi statues.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/thousands-sign-petition-to-remove-racist-gandhi-statue

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...ogizes-for-desecration-of-gandhi-statue-in-dc

 

[Joij21]

The elderly man who had his head cracked open was white and boomer

There's liberal boomers, he was most likely one of them. That however doesn't mean its the majority of boomers, or white people for that matter. You need the majority of white people on your side to make a difference because most of the politicians are white and will only act if the majority of their white base petitions against them.

Personally I don't think it angered most white people. Many whites on the right who are the same age as him will probably just call him a l.i.b.t.a.r.d. for being of the opposite side of the political spectrum.

 

[Hrothbern]

Does anyone think that maybe this is going too far? They are now wanting to pull down Gandhi statues.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/thousands-sign-petition-to-remove-racist-gandhi-statue

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...ogizes-for-desecration-of-gandhi-statue-in-dc

In 1990 a statue of Gandhi was made and put in place in Amsterdam in a street named after Churchill.

Triveda a Hindu organisation had taken the initiative and paid for it. Every October 2 the birthday of Gandhi is celebrated.

Already at that time there was controversion about it because of the racist behaviour of Gandhi.

But there was also the argument that this Gandhi statue located in the Churchill-street countered Churchill (those two being arch-enemies)
And forbidding the Gandhi statue and then re-naming the Churchill-lane was no option despite Churchill clearly being controversial as well.

As context: when Surinam got independency in the 70ies, many Surinam people moved to the Netherland. There are now 600,000 people in Surinam and 400,000 Afro-Surinam and Hindu-Surinam people in the Netherlands. Many Hindu-Surinam people left Surinam with as argument that besides the economical choice, they were also afraid of discrimination in Surinam. The problems that Hindu minorities had in English African (former) colonies were not yet that long ago in history. Like with Idi Amin who expelled early 70ies the Hindu minority.

So
Which group is now served best ?
* The traditional older population wanting to keep Churchill for the name of the street
* The traditional population wanting Gandhi as "example" that rebellion can be done peacefully
* The activist Hindu minority group wanting Gandhi
* The activist antiracism minority groups (except Hindu) wanting neither Churchill or Gandhi

The compromis decision was to have that Gandhi statue in the Churchill-street.
When the city council of Amsterdam would now decide to remove Gandhi, the Hindu minority organisations will feel discriminated and angry, and could demand to rename the Churchill street.

My personal opinion is to rename the street and remove the Gandhi statue out of the public roads and squares space to the park of a museum.
And Churchill can get a (new) statue in the war museum (Overloon) in the Netherlands if too many people are still attached to Churchill because of WW2.
(but then as should happen in museums, including the story of the Englandspiel of Churchill where many Dutch resistance people were betrayed (and died) by Churchill as desinformation to the Nazi's on D-Day, and a good balanced general story but also including the Ireland Black and Tans)

 

[Joij21]

In 1990 a statue of Gandhi was made and put in place in Amsterdam in a street named after Churchill.

Triveda a Hindu organisation had taken the initiative and paid for it. Every October 2 the birthday of Gandhi is celebrated.

Already at that time there was controversion about it because of the racist behaviour of Gandhi.

But there was also the argument that this Gandhi statue located in the Churchill-street countered Churchill (those two being arch-enemies)
And forbidding the Gandhi statue and then re-naming the Churchill-lane was no option despite Churchill clearly being controversial as well.

As context: when Surinam got independency in the 70ies, many Surinam people moved to the Netherland. There are now 600,000 people in Surinam and 400,000 Afro-Surinam and Hindu-Surinam people in the Netherlands. Many Hindu-Surinam people left Surinam with as argument that besides the economical choice, they were also afraid of discrimination in Surinam. The problems that Hindu minorities had in English African (former) colonies were not yet that long ago in history. Like with Idi Amin who expelled early 70ies the Hindu minority.

So
Which group is now served best ?
* The traditional older population wanting to keep Churchill for the name of the street
* The traditional population wanting Gandhi as "example" that rebellion can be done peacefully
* The activist Hindu minority group wanting Gandhi
* The activist antiracism minority groups (except Hindu) wanting neither Churchill or Gandhi

The compromis decision was to have that Gandhi statue in the Churchill-street.
When the city council of Amsterdam would now decide to remove Gandhi, the Hindu minority organisations will feel discriminated and angry, and could demand to rename the Churchill street.

My personal opinion is to rename the street and remove the Gandhi statue to the park of a museum.
And Churchill can get a (new) statue in the war museum (Overloon) in the Netherlands if too many people are still attached to Churchill because of WW2.
(but then as should happen in museums, including the story of the Englandspiel of Churchill where many Dutch resistance people were betrayed (and died) by Churchill as desinformation to the Nazi's on D-Day, and a good balanced general story but also including the Ireland Black and Tans)

But was there an actual proven case of Gandhi being a racist? I know Churchill was.

 

[Crezth]

I thought it was in Washington my bad, yes they could just change the name. I don't really care fwiw, I just think it alienates more then it helps.

Yea its not losing my support, I'm just worried we aren't getting anything and this kind of thing does more harm then good. Which I get is a similar argument to the CSA statues, but I think the amount of people you annoy is much larger. People don't know their own history.

Yeah they also tore down a Ulysses S Grant statue. Generally I think iconoclasm is inevitable in a situation like this, which is why I was so blasé about the idea of the protestors moving on to the Founders. But if you look at the Francis Scott Key video:

https://twitter.com/jrivanob/status/1274189302151299073?s=21

They’re acting like they’ve already won. What kinda chant is “next one” lol.

I’m sure the elites would rather the people were tearing down statues than, well, tearing down the system. So this may seem like a good distraction but it’s momentary. Eventually there won’t be any more statues to tear down, or people will realize tearing down statues doesn’t do much.

The major concern should be that black voices are centered. White iconoclastic hangers-on may have good intentions but BLM isn’t about statues.

 

[AmazonQueen]

But was there an actual proven case of Gandhi being a racist? I know Churchill was.

https://www.theweek.co.uk/98519/was-gandhi-racist

He certainly made racist statements during his time in South Africa. He also supported the setting up of the ANC.

 

[Hrothbern]

But was there an actual proven case of Gandhi being a racist? I know Churchill was.

That's what I remember already from the 80ies.
I mentioned already Idi Amin and the tribal racism at the expense of Hindu people. There is a lot of racism going on in Africa around that time against brown people. There was also economical class difference because brown people had often small shops and were small middle-class. There was also religuous difference.
My outspoken opinion in the 80ies on for example South-Africa was that all those "tribes" there (whether of the same color or not) should learn to live together, which was clearly not the case. Much of the perception was that it was between whites and african blacks. But it was everybody against everybody in South Africa. The white-black and communist against non-communist dominating the global media.

 

[Joij21]

https://www.theweek.co.uk/98519/was-gandhi-racist

He certainly made racist statements during his time in South Africa. He also supported the setting up of the ANC.

The ANC was the party of Mandela, so I don't see why that's particularly racist. Most of the other claims seem to be a casual kind of racism, plus you also have to remember that he probably didn't care too much about them due to the fact that he was preoccupied with liberating his own people. Which if you think about it probably would have taken away from his own cause if he were to focus on them instead of his own race (he likely wouldn't have gotten support from his people if he were trying to help Africans, as most Indians probably where racist towards them at the time). Also the point of him believing in the Aryan brotherhood is complete made-up b.u.l.l.s.h.i.t. , he never would have believed whites were superior to his own Indians. The whole Aryan brotherhood belief system believes whites are superior to Indians.