Am I the only person who thinks that all of the build up to the grand jury decision is just a bit racist? It seems that the message being sent is "Hey, black folks, we don't think you can react to news that you don't like without violence. So, we're going to assume and prepare for the worst."
Seriously, don't we teach our kids how to react to disappointing news? In what culture (subculture) is violence an appropriate response to disappointment? Were folks really worried about the white folks rioting of the grand jury indicted?
I'm sorry, it just seems like expecting the worst based entirely on the race of the people involved is an incredibly shallow and racist position to take.
For the record, I'm not taking a position on what "should" happen beyond hoping that the members of the grand jury diligently and honestly examine the evidence and make their decision based on the evidence, not based on the possibility that folks will react badly if they don't choose the "safe" route.
EDIT:
I guess the folks in Ferguson decided after calm and rational discussion that the best way to air their grievances was to get a sniper to take shots at two innocent men. Thank God, they weren't killed.
8 comments:
Do you understand that strong reactions are not arising from a sense of "disappointment," but a deep and serious concern about justice and oppression?
As long as folk (especially privileged white folk) don't even understand what the reaction is about, we still have a long ways to go.
It's like you're not even understanding or even speaking with anyone who understands the actual problem.
Dan,
It seems that you have missed my point. So, I will re state it again.
It seems racist to assume before the fact that (in this case) black folks will resort to violence in response to a grand jury decision.
Surely you would agree that to assume that any group of people will respond in a particular way to events that haven't happened is inappropriately judging the group as a whole.
Further, the fact that these folks response to this deep serious concern about justice and oppression, by burning, robbing and pillaging other black folks businesses seems to suggest that they really don't care that much.
Oh, and knock of the superior "you can't possibly know anything about this because you're conservative (or whatever)". It's a bunch of crap any you know it.
Had you read that actual post and responded to what I actually wrote, which was a criticism of apparent racism in the media reporting on the events (something about which I my undergrad degree has given me a bit of experience with), maybe your response might have been more relevant.
I notice you've left this one alone.
I guess the fact that the Obama/Holder led justice department couldn't prove the "Hands up, don't shoot" myth, which led a bunch of idiots to riot and pillage (black owned) businesses. Is a bit inconvenient.
"Now, the DOJ report and Attorney General Eric Holder have admitted that the catch phrase was based on false witness accounts."
So, it seems as though the entire batch of "righteous" indignation was all based on a myth.
It seems strange to think that something helpful and good and positive can come from a violent rampage based on lies.
The media (the actual topic of this post) should be ashamed. They used the power of their positions to fan the flames, repeat the lies, and most importantly to NOT DO THEIR JOB.
The looters and pillagers should be ashamed because they willingly swallowed the lie, and they used the lie as an excuse to harm their friends and neighbors in the name of "justice".
How in the world is "justice" done when virtually the entire media, "civil rights" race pimps, and most of the left wing facebook world engaged in the collective libel/slander of an innocent man.
Will we see apologies? No. Will we see changes, no? Will we see riots, and pillage the next time this group of folks gets some news they don't like, of course.
Why, because all, y'all who decided not to wait for the facts to come out, not to wait for the whole story, but instead decided to buy into a lie, just encourage the same thing next time.
Who are you talking to, Craig?
Just responding to your bizarre comment which was unrelated to the actual post.
...and your comments are unrelated to anything I have said, so... there ya go.
My question to you seems to be a reasonable one, to me.
And no, I have not missed your point. I think you have missed mine, though.
"Do you understand that strong reactions are not arising from a sense of "disappointment," but a deep and serious concern about justice and oppression?"
This is your exact question.
While I can address it, if you like, my actual post was about how the media established the expectation that the residents of Ferguson would react violently when the grand jury result was announced. My actual point is that to assume (and promulgate the narrative) that people of a certain race will react in a certain way to news that they don't like, is perpetuating racism.
The fact that you chose not to respond to what the post actually said, but instead to impose your own version of the dominant narrative on it, is your problem.
This is, of course, made worse when all of the actual evidence demonstrates that virtually the entire narrative was "myth". It was false. The witnesses lied.
So, if you'd like to interact with what I actually wrote, feel free. If you are going to continue to impose your own version of the narrative on what I wrote, then don;t waste your time.
Now, even though you choose to ignore what I actually said, I'll deal with your off topic blather.
"Do you understand that strong reactions are not arising from a sense of "disappointment," but a deep and serious concern about justice and oppression?"
I understand that this is the narrative being put out there.
However, while I can understand that it is possible for past "injustice" (real or perceived) can motivate people to act. It seems counterintuitave to get even for injustice by burning and looting the businesses of innocent bystanders. It seems counterintuitive to protest violence, with violence. It certainly seems foolish to invest so much symbolism in something or someone before all of the facts are known. In this case, this entire episode erupted over a lie.
"As long as folk (especially privileged white folk) don't even understand what the reaction is about, we still have a long ways to go."
As long as we keep ascribing motive and intent to people solely because of their race, then we do have a long way to go.
"It's like you're not even understanding or even speaking with anyone who understands the actual problem."
It's like are imposing your version of the narrative on what I wrote, even though what I wrote has nothing to do with your response.
So, feel free to justify the violent over reaction (which seems hypocritical), while ignoring the actual topic of my post.
Post a Comment