Then after two decades of non-violent protests why is this still a problem?
So uninformed. Most protesters of the '60s were upstanding members of society without extensive personal violent criminal records. Today’s have previous non-protest related criminal records. Relevant? I just don’t understand how the current sympathizer’s brain works. The comparisons are an insult to the injustices of the past and those that overcame them. Talk to any black man that lived through segregation. He’ll tell you that there is no comparison.
Is it possible, however unlikely, that it’s because blacks are more problematic?
Did you hear the story the other day about the white kid who robbed a convenience store, walked down the middle of the street, attacked the cop that quiestioned him, tried to grab the cop’s gun, and got shot and died in the process? Me neither.
Come on. Everyone, everywhere is born equal. How likely you are to riot is 100% dependent on what neighborhood you live in.
IMO It’s the same for black people. White people are the ones ‘noticing’ it more
This isn’t entirely accurate. Malcolm served jailtime for a number of offences in his youth and the whole movement was as disjointed as it is today. Anyway , this reads like a liberal’s fantasy but it is still quite relevant.
Images you will never see about Baltimore riots.
It’s definitely a valid point but at the same time a lot of African-American’s have stories like this. Harased for seemingly innocuous reasons they face a catch-22 situatuon. Do as they say and get the shit kicked out of you or turn and run and get shot in the back.
Are you suggesting “most” were not upstanding members of society? In the '60s, teachers and mothers were in the streets. Simply no comparison. Today’s thugs don’t even know what they are protesting. Now they’re protesting black officers doing their jobs? The picture the world gets of America through the media is comical. And the consumers of that media believe they are informed…silly.
I was watching coverage of the Baltimore protests over the weekend and there was a fairly young, black, male commentator on and he equated the use of the word “thug” with the n-word. Are you f-ing kinding me?
If you are saying that the rioters who smashed windows and took stuff had previous criminal records, that’s one thing.
But there were thousands of other protesters out there protesting peacefully, too, just not flashy stuff for news reporters to put on TV. Are you saying that most of them are thugs with non-protest related records too?
^ I was a viewer (CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, CBS, and about 50 other news networks have yet to repond to my requests to be a guest commentator). That aside, someone else on the panel referred to the looters and rock-throwers as thugs and the above referenced gentleman took issue with the use of the word thug.
oh come on. I highly doubt anyone would call the peaceful protestors holding a sign a thug.
The guy throwing the rock, setting the police car on fire, looting the CVS. there’s your thug.
I went to the dictionary to look up “thug.” Here’s what I found:
As Tupac defined it, a thug is someone who is going through struggles, has gone through struggles, and continues to live day by day with nothing for them. That person is a thug. and the life they are living is the thug life. A thug is NOT a gangster. Look up gangster and gangsta. Not even CLOSE, my friend.
Please. The term thug has been around for generations. Get real. Urban dictionary…that was a joke, right? I love this redefining of language and history. http://i.word.com/idictionary/thug
What about hooligan?
Hooligan:
“young foolish person who gallavants and roams the streets causing trouble. See punk or hoodlum.”
Hooligan is more innocent. Thug is appropriate.
Everyone knows that hooligan is code for British football fan.
Not according to this post…
Yeah, offices were empty in Baltimore because everyone was out holding signs in the streets.
I don’t think all rioting is bad, in fact, sometimes that’s the only option you have to make a point.
But not all riots are equal. MOST riots end up out of control because 1) the rioters are not civilized, 2) they are not united and fighting for the same cause, 3) they aim to make damages for the sake of revenge to the society instead of making a point about the inequality or whatever they are their to protest about.
You see many of these people end up acting selfish and steal and act violently which take away all the good intentions or messages others may be making.
Just my 2 cents
Did you hear about the cop who made up some bulls*it story about the black guy grabbing his gun (or taser, FFS), after the fact? There was no bystander with an incriminating video, and the cop got off scot-free. No wait, that would never happen.
Also, how many white guys have been shot while reaching for a cell phone / wallet / whatever from their pocket? Or for that matter, sodomized with a plunger by the cops?
It’s action and reaction. Except it’s hard to say who acts first and who reacts and therefore, is justified. Plus there is no trust so hair-trigger over-reactions are quick to happen.
Statistically it is true that blacks get caught committing more crimes per capita, and I for one believe that it is because they do in fact commit more crimes; but there is also some possibility that the cops and the justice system treat them more harshly and that magnifies the black-white divide in crime stats.