baltimore
 

My eight year old, this morning, asked me what was going on there.

I had the tv on when he stumbled into the living room and the talkin’ heads were -- for the umpteenth time -- foisting up 'Baltimore'.

I thought about it then asked him this: 'If *Mr. George did sumthin' that pissed us off and we, becuz we were pissed off, burned our own house down, what would you call that?'

'That would be crazy, Uncle’.

I said, "that's what happening over there, Monkey...somebody did sumthin' that pissed off some folks and now those folks are burning down their own houses.'

'But that's crazy, Uncle!'

'Yes, Beast, it is.'

'nuff said.









*a neighbor

Parents needed to get control of their kids. In the pictures I saw, there were too many kids out there doing this shit.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...liance/391640/

Ta-Nehisi Coates:

I am sorely tempted to quote the linked article entirely.

To answer yer 8-yr-old: what's going on in Baltimore is a bunch of people demonstrating that the rest of the country only pays attention to how dire their situation is when they are burning shit.

Burning out the pharmacy where your granddad gets his medicine is the equivalent (to me) of burning down your own house.

Craziness.

I can completely understand why they are rioting, and I agree that the police in many parts of the country need to be cleaned up. But it's still incredibly stupid and self-defeating to burn down your own neighborhood. Who's going to rebuild it for them? Nobody.

That video of the mom smacking her son for throwing rocks at police is both horrifying and awesome at the same time. It's great that she's trying to get control of her kid, but it's also clear who he learned his violence from. But she's doing the best she can, and she's trying to be part of the solution.

This is a complex issue, but one thing that is crystal clear is that the riots are only going to make it worse.

[quote=gvidas;926888]http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...liance/391640/

Excellent article, gv.

Does it make sense to burn down one's own neighbourhood? No. But raw outpourings of emotion are rarely founded on what is sensible.

Rather than mocking the stupidity of those who riot - we need to see the raw pain that ignites such a response.

You can do both. It's not either/or.

Two things:

1. This guy.

2. Your son calls you "Uncle"?

When is the last time white people rioted in America?

Srs question.

Upon a second's worth of thought, prolly after Kentucky got beat in the NCAA playoffs.

:(

"mocking"

Who's mocking?

#

"raw outpourings of emotion"

I understand passion and violence extending out from passion. I don't understand visiting it on yourself.

Borrowing from my anecdote above: George does sumthin' that truly, righteously, pisses me off.

I can...

...be a pussy and keep my mouth shut, do nuthin', let my grievance fester.

...march myself over to George's and seek redress (perhaps burning his house down).

What I will not do is burn my own house down because George pissed me off.

#

"Your son calls you "Uncle"?"

My nephew lives with me...I could not love him more if he were my son...he's not the fruit of my loins but he's mine.

Jesse Williams on the baltimore riots, quoted in full b.c. twitter is a rough medium for complex thoughts:

@henry, w.r.t. to burning ones own home down, the vast majority of businesses in black neighborhoods in America are not black owned.

Of course these people were rioting for something really important ... QTwk-2fKT7o

Sumthin' else: (again, borrowing from my anecdote) George has pissed me off and naturally (for me) I want redress. I would, however, view with great suspicion the interest of strangers in my circumstance.

That is: I got cause to be pissed (just as the family and friends of F. Gray got cause to be pissed) but strangers have no cause to muck about in my affairs. All these folks out and about in Baltimore can't possibly be Gray's family and friends...no, they're strangers using a circumstance to further their own agendas and grind their own axes (axes having nuthin' to do with Gray's death).

#

"the vast majority of businesses in black neighborhoods in America are not black owned."

The vast majority of businesses in black neighborhoods service the folks who live in those neighborhoods (blacks who, in Baltimore, are burning and looting their own neighborhoods)...to burn out the pharmacy where you get your medicines, the grocery where you get your food, and the old folks' homes where your granny lives is craziness.

Nobody actually burned their own house, right? I'm everyone who was burning, was burning other people's houses.

It becomes their neighborhood when they have a stake in it. I'm betting the rioters own no property, no business, no stake.

"Nobody actually burned their own house, right?"

"It becomes their neighborhood when they have a stake in it."

In the context of this thread (my anecdote and Baltimore): 'home' is synonymous with 'town' and 'community'.

As for having a stake: again, 'to burn out the pharmacy where you get your medicines, the grocery where you get your food, and the old folks' homes where your granny lives is craziness.'

But Henry, you've changed the specifics of the situation.

Try stating your case in terms of:
"Mr George is my neighbor cop who beat up my nephew."

"Mr George is my neighbor cop who beat up my nephew."

All more the reason for me to mebbe burn down HIS house (with him in it).

Sure as shit I won't burn down my own, won't burn out the neighbor on the other side of me who has done nuthin.

And: I would still view offers of help from strangers with great suspicion, wondering what they hope to gain ridin’ on the coat tails of MY circumstance.

There's 3 drugstores on every block, but no groceries, you gotta go to whitey's neighborhood for food. Who the fuck can afford to put grannie in a home, she'll die on the sofa in the parlor, where she's been for years.

Bruce, can you post where you got this information ("3 drugstores on every block, but no groceries")?

And: it ain't an old folks home, but a Senior Center got wasted, ya know, where granny goes for bingo.

it's quite amazing henry that you have granted immediate collectivist responsibility to a group of people to the point where their interests are described in ownership terms ("their" house, "their" pharmacy).

~ but you yourself find collective responsibility abhorrent ~

in fact if "your" pharmacy was burning and the fire could be put out with your own water you would say you had no interest in the situation and it is not your business and they should manage their own affairs

Technically, the construction site where granny might eventually have gone for bingo. AND, apparently, might eventually have lived.

Baltimore... Molotov cocktails?

If a man burns down his own home out of anger at another, this is crazy.

If a group of folks burn down their neighborhood (its businesses) out of anger at the cops, this is crazy.

That's my point...thanks for straying from it...thanks for makin' your distaste for me known (again).

The distaste goes both ways, I assure you.

#

"in fact if "your" pharmacy was burning and the fire could be put out with your own water you would say you had no interest in the situation and it is not your business and they should manage their own affairs"

Mebbe...but then I wouldn't have started the fire in the first place, so...

Then, again: if that pharmacy was the only one available to me, if I depended on that pharmacy for medicine, I might very well be on the bucket brigade...it's called self interest.

That's cool. Very cool, in fact. I have a fair amount of respect for people who raise children that aren't "their's". Not too long back I saw a 50-ish year old man moved to tears when the 20 year old beside him referred to him as "my dad for all intents and purposes. He's been more of a father to me than my dad ever was."

Good on ya, Mr. Quirk.

As you were, people.

Rioting is an expression of anger with no outlet - and it is not directed inwards at all. Those who see this in terms of inwardly directed destruction, such as burning down one's own house, or destroying one's own community, presuppose a sense of community which includes shops and businesses. For many people, and I would imagine this is particularly acute for young people, their sense of community is much narrower.

Who started the fires, and how those specific people relate to the "they" whose neighborhood it is? Do you know more than has been reported?

The protest drew people from all over the city, not to mention the country. It drew people who supported the cause, and it drew people who just like to riot at protests. We know nothing about the perpetrators.

Essentially, you lied to your nephew.

Should that be interpreted that it is OK to settle grievances against law enforcement,
so long as only the jails, the police stations, cop cars, or local cop's personal houses
... are torched ?

I assure you it doesn't. Respectful disagreement is what I founded this place for. Mature people discuss issues without considering it personal. I will point out flaws in your argument without finding you unworthy, and I will field flaws in my own argument without feeling diminished.

No "mebbe" about it, if this question had come up in any other thread, you'd be demanding that you have no involvement. I'm not being accusatory here, this is your basic philosophy.

Either they are LITERALLY BURNING THEIR OWN PHARMACIES, or you have constructed a shitty analogy that doesn't even jive with your own basic philosophy. I'm going with B.

And it's a straw man. You have created an analogy that makes no sense: why would someone burn down their own house? It's not their house. It's not their pharmacy. It's not their grocery. I know you agree, it's your basic philosophy. So if you still don't understand, that's entirely on you. You wrote the analogy that you don't understand! Why don't you describe the terms more realistically and see if you understand that?

That's complete bullshit, you're projecting your personal feelings on corporal punishment onto this mother and son. Where's your proof she has EVER hit that kid, in his entire fucking life, until she caught him throwing rocks at the cops? You live a white privilege life in the richest county in the entire fucking country, and don't have a clue what their life is about. So stick your self righteous red herring in your ear.

xoB seems to be on a kick of having people stick things into themselves.

At least for Glatt, it was only his ear.

:D

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...0-2442fe94f7ff

Not just Baltimore, but:

Attachment 51301

Ha!

That is a good point.

People - even reasonable, law-abiding, gentle people, can be very different in a crowd. It shifts the dynamic.

I've been involved in several major demonstrations, mainly when I was much younger. Several of them turned nasty (the big Poll Tax demo in London in 1990, for example - and the anti-racism demo after the first BNP councillor was elected to a seat on the Isle of Dogs).

The poll tax demo turned into a full on riot, with around a quarter of a million marchers and full on riot police, with shields and batons, mounted police and police dogs. It was mayhem. It was terrifying - and was exhilirating.

The sense of righteous anger and collective response was powerful. It is a very strange feeling - being involved in a riot. It's like you become part of some larger organism. Really weird.

"...It was terrifying - and was exhilirating..."

Great expression ! Next time you need to invite all of us too.

Only rarely do I pay attention to the NY Times' "Quotation of the Day"
But I hope they are usually better than this one...

This guy just doesn't get it... it's not about the $

:mad:

,

:litebulb: perfect time to visit the National Aquarium will be over the next few months. I haven't been in about 5 years or so. Wow normally it's impossible to get mid-day tickets. I bet you could get them today.

Dana,

“presuppose a sense of community which includes shops and businesses”

Doesn’t take a sense of community to understand (before you set the fire) that burning out a business you rely on is not in your best interest…what it takes is a little ‘thinking’ and a lot less ‘feeling’.


“collective response”

I see this any time a gaggle of kids get together…the high spirits of one infect the others and before long you got a ‘pack’.

I expect adults (young and old) to resist such impulses…my expectations are, I suppose, unrealistic.

#

Happy Monkey,

“Essentially, you lied to your nephew.”

I answered his question honestly, in a way he can understand, using the information available at the time.

I may be mistaken in my assessments but I didn’t lie.

#

Lamp,

“Should that be interpreted that it is OK to settle grievances against law enforcement, so long as only the jails, the police stations, cop cars, or local cop's personal houses... are torched ?”

You can interpret as you like…what I say is: if you have a beef, take it up with the one who has insulted or damaged you, not with innocent folks and certainly not by doing self-injury (and, mebbe, if you aren't party to the insult or injury you ought to just butt the fuck out).


“This guy just doesn't get it... it's not about the $”

I disagree…but: even if you’re right ‘today’ he will most certainly be right ‘tomorrow’.

#

Toad,

“your basic philosophy”

What is my ‘basic philosophy’?


“I assure you it doesn't.”

I disagree, but: as you like.

Nobody can honestly say we did not see this coming. A Cambridge professor is harassed by a cop because the professor was trying to get into his house. We have seen this both nationally and I have watched local municipal meetings where residents were complaining about same - in an upscale residential community for one.

You have assumed all adults act like adults. A substancial number are still children. So you see them buying miracle herbs at the health food stores, smoking cigarettes to increase health, and actually believing Saddam had WMDs only because that was the first thing they were told - without any facts or numbers.

Many if not most adults still make decisions like children - based in their feelings - reality (or considering the consequences) be damned. These adults live for the moment - like a child.

"You have assumed all adults act like adults."

Yeah, as I say above: 'my expectations are, I suppose, unrealistic.'

Originally Posted by henry quirk
Again, you are changing the basic issue of this thread...

How do you, HQ, settle your "beef" with this neighbor cop
who is "the one who has insulted or damaged you" ?
So far, you have only proposed "mebbe" setting his house on fire
(with him in it).

I posit to you that you can't.
... not without some way of engaging others who "aren't party to the insult or injury",
or relying on laws/rules of society which you usually disdain.

Lamp,

What it is about being a cop that insulates him or her from a bullet to the head?

What is about being a cop that insulates his or her house from burning?

Nuthin' and nuthin'.

I suspect your respect for (or fear of) law enforcers has you thinkin' they're better, bigger, smarter, stronger, than they are.

Cops are just people.

Just ask the families and friends of cops killed on, and off, duty.

And: I'm not the one "changing the basic issue of (my) thread". Go back to my first post, read what follows from others, point (and wag) your finger at them (and yourself).

They rioted, and 5 were killed by authorities. Then they entered a business and destroyed goods that were intended for them to buy. Then they violently attacked the authorities.

What a bunch of a-holes, right Henry?

I wonder why?

So far the violent rioters who deserve universal condemnation have killed fewer people than were killed in the incident that immediately triggered the protest. Let alone the incidents and atmosphere that turned that incident into a trigger.

Sure, cops are human beings that can be hurt/killed
... but not "Nuthin' and nuthin'"

What insulates your neighbor cop who has harmed your family is multi-fold:

1) Primarily the governmental and social structures that protect
and make each individual cop and law enforcement overall
"better, bigger, smarter, stronger" than you.

2) Your self interest of not being killed/harmed/imprisioned by other cops

3) Your self interest for your family being harmed or ostracised by society

4) Your ethics and moral code to maintain your family and property

So repeating myself in slightly different terms...
You, HQ, can not settle your grievance with this neighbor cop who
has harmed you/your family, without in some way of engaging others
who "aren't party to the insult or injury", or relying on laws/rules of society...

And now add this:
5) or, having your nephew say: "But that is crazy, Uncle"

I think I am presenting your own arguments to say the isolated individual
is impotent against the misdeeds of law enforcement.
Otherwise their action is "crazy"
... until they gain a tool or power over something of value to law enforcement.

For those without $ or political resources, this turns out to be
"breaking the peace" (riots) and destroying "sh#t".
So for them in their world, they are not being "crazy"

Spexx,

“What a bunch of a-holes, right Henry?”

I never said that (and I didn’t imply it either).

#

Happy Monkey,

“universal condemnation”

That hasn’t come from me, not directly or by implication.

#

Lamp,

“You, HQ, can not settle your grievance”

Underlining it don’t make it so.

Your laundry list of ‘why you can’t’: each, all, easily navigated (as illustrated by the number of unsolved police deaths).


“I think I am presenting your own arguments to say the isolated individual is impotent against the misdeeds of law enforcement.”

I’m sorry you feel impotent (as an individual), Lamp. Explains a lot, though.

It was clear in context, which remains available for you to read harder.

Stated feelings are not really up for disagreement. "I'm not angry with you." "Yes you are." Well, fuck, where do we go from there? "No I'm not." "Augh, you've got me there." Nice thread we're having?

When your arguments fail, divert to non-sequiturs and ad hominems.

Toad,

"It was clear in context"

What is clear 'in context': you have no clue what I believe (you think you do, but you don't). So: be clear, state what you think my philosophy is.

And: no, I won't be stating it for you. You accuse me of incoherence based on 'my philosophy'. The burden is on you to back it up by stating what you think 'is' my philosophy.

If you can't or won't: your claim of my incoherence is null and void.


"Stated feelings are not really up for disagreement."

Of course they are. I believe you find me distasteful. You claim otherwise. I don't believe you.

We disagree.

However, there's no profit for me or you in dickin' around with it so -- as I say up thread -- 'as you like.'

Lamp,

My point: I, as individual, don't feel impotent.

You, perhaps, do.

Now, beat that drum some more.

HQ: They are burning down their own pharmacy. That is crazy.
UT: It's not their pharmacy.
HQ: In the context of what I'm saying, "their" means the pharmacy in their town.
UT: But if a pharmacy was burning in "your" neighborhood you wouldn't give a shit. That's your basic philosophy: your responsibility absolutely ends at your own self-interest.
HQ: Unless it was the only pharmacy available, in which case I would try to put out the fire, because it was in my self-interest.

~

UT: Look on television, HQ is simply letting his pharmacy burn.
HQ's nephew: Why would he do that? That is crazy.*
UT: I don't know Beast, but by his own definition, it's HIS pharmacy, in HIS town, and he's letting it burn.
HQ's nephew: That is crazy.
UT: You know what's crazier? HQ has described you as HIS child.
HQ's nephew: Oh no! Would Uncle allow me to burn?
UT: It appears so, if you were not in his self-interest.
HQ's nephew: Gosh!** How can I stay in his self-interest?
UT: I guess you should remain the only child available.





*HQ's nephew does not use contractions.
**HQ's nephew is from a 1950s family TV comedy.

I feel you are, but won't realize (or admit to) it.
We disagree.
'nouf said

"'But that's crazy, Uncle!'

'Yes, Beast, it is.'"

That's crazy, right Henry?

God Damn Right.

Today in history... April 29, 1992

In 1992, rioting resulting in 55 deaths erupted in Los Angeles after a jury in Simi Valley, California,
acquitted four Los Angeles police officers of almost all state charges in the videotaped beating of Rodney King.

.

TL;DR: White Americans have a different relationship with the police than black Americans do. So however glib your comment and that captioned picture are there's some merit to the idea. We ask the police to solve too many of our societal problems.

Ta-Nehisi Coates, again and always:
full article:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...reform/390057/

Your mistake is thinking I was being glib. If you followed the thread, reading for comprehension, you would know better. Everyone of those punks should have their mother slap them upside the head.

I don't want them to be social workers. I want them to serve and protect the public, not bad cops who take the law as rules for others, because they know their fellow cops will lie, cheat and steal, to cover for them. In extreme cases the cops are getting away with murder, but the effect on society from those murders is a piss-hole in the snow bank, compared to the millions of lives they ruin with their terroristic behavior.