The always "special" Remii is trying to make this a "white people vs black people" issue when it really isn't one. There were stupid white people in the riots just the same as there were stupid black people in the riots.....there are stupid white people and stupid black people in sports related riots as well. It's not a "black people" issue or a "white people" issue, it's a "stupid people" issue. Rioting is fun, so all stupid people need is an excuse and they start tearing things up. I completely understand it.....that said, those with fully functioning brains realize the damage it causes and the harm to the community so despite it being tons of fun, they don't join in.
Not too many black people in Ferguson actually 'own' anything so they're not actually trashing their 'own' stuff. You need to check and see how many of those businesses were black owned before you accuse them of destroying their 'own'...
This is just glorious isn't it. So not only are you a champion of violent riots in general, you also specifically support these people committing crimes on others' properties. You wanna comment on the earlier article posted of the Bosnian man killed by a gang of angry black males shouting "kill all whites!" or does that not align with your agenda enough for you to bother?
Hi guys, all about education, this country has so many uneducated people although it is a top rich country. You just can not deal with the people who lack a basic education. When a family could have many kids, you need educate them first. By the way, CNN just sucks, people in CNN become very annoying, even Barkley knows this.
Nope _ I've already stated I'm against protesting and riots. I believe there are other ways that people can be heard without all of that.
Interesting to note that Martin Luther King once described riots as "the language of the unheard." Of course, in the larger context of a discussion about the need for non-violence as the best weapon in the struggle for freedom and equality, and violence as both impractical and immoral. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/mlk-a-riot-is-the-language-of-the-unheard/
I have a slightly different view of riots than Dr King, I see them as nothing more than the tool of the anarchist....and as we all know, anarchists are the r****ded 5 year old children of politics. When it comes to protesting, I'm generally against it, but there are obviously situations where it is appropriate. That said, when a dumb kid robs a store than attacks a cop and ends up dead, that's not the time to protest anything unless you want to set up shop outside his house and protest the poor job his parents did raising him.
Why am I not surprised... Hmm... seems a country I am somewhat familiar with began with a series of riots. Was our country founded by anarchists, the 5 year old children of politics? And throughout history there were many social injustices that were overcome in part by riots. From the various tenant riots, to the civil rights movement in the fifties and sixties, to the antiwar movement in the sixties and seventies. Were these examples of anarchists?
Those riots were not entirely popular at the time either. Concerning the recent riots.... find a better example than Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown and the public at large won't shake their collective heads and view it as Watts all over again.
A lot of the time riots are examples of when protests go wrong because there are too many idiots in the crowd. I suppose however I shouldn't have generalized because there have been a few examples of "good riots" in the history of the world, it's just that the VAST majority of riots, to the point where it is nearly all, are foolish and counter productive. I'm glad you are standing up for that ever so tiny minority of "good riots" that I ignored. For the most part, if you can't get your point across in a peaceful manner, it's probably because of one of just a few options 1. It's not a point worth getting across 2. It's not an intelligent point/it's not actually a point 3. It's an issue that requires a full scale revolution or war I don't see how anyone could confuse a lynch mob burning a town with anything "good" or justifiable.
That's a very good point, if people were rioting because of an actual example of a cop mistreating an innocent and then walking, then I'd have a LOT more sympathy for the rioters.
No doubt. I am sure the British were highly critical of those that rioted against them. The southern Whites were probably very critical of those that rioted during the Civil Rights movement. Etc. While not necessarily attaching the discussion of rioting and the Brown and Martin cases, but perhaps it makes sense to re-read King's "language of the unheard". I am not an African American (instead, Native American) and so it isn't possible for me to fully know the frustrations and anger felt in both those cases. But I am afraid that unless people more effort in understanding and resolving those frustrations and anger, such cases will continue in the future.
It wasn't just the British highly critical of the riots, a majority of the people living in America at the time were critical. It took a lot for the public perception to become more 50/50. Let us not forget that even during the American Revolution there were as many Loyalists as Patriots. Concerning the Civil Rights Movement, most Americans did not care at first. It wasn't just the South, but the rest of America by in large did not care until the cops turned the hoses on. We read history books and the narrative is often viewed as clear cut but in reality most things are very divided.... Slavery, WWI, WWII, Vietnam, American Indians, Civil Rights.
True on all points. It will be interesting to see how folks in the future will view this period of time.
What almost always turns the tide is when people are being unfairly treated. If the British were only mistreating rioters or the hoses were being turned on rioters instead of peaceful protesters then it wouldn't have had the same effect. Of course in those instances, on top of all of the other differences there was a just cause, there isn't one in this case.
Police investigating if Michael Brown's stepfather intended to incite riot <iframe width='416' height='234' src='http://www.cnn.com/video/api/embed.html#/video/us/2014/12/02/nr-michael-brown-stepfather-inciting-ferguson.cnn' frameborder='0'></iframe> Quote: (CNN) -- Authorities are investigating whether Michael Brown's stepfather intended to incite a riot last week when he urged a crowd in Ferguson, Missouri, to "Burn this b**** down" after the grand jury's decision was announced, the city's police chief said Tuesday. No charges have been filed against Louis Head in the incident, but police have interviewed people who know Head and who were with him November 24, the day a prosecutor announced that Officer Darren Wilson (who has since resigned) would not be indicted in the August 9 shooting of Michael Brown, Police Chief Tom Jackson said. Police have not spoken to Head about his actions, but they intend to do so, Jackson said, adding that multiple law enforcement agencies were involved in the investigation. The police chief told TV and radio host Sean Hannity something similar Monday, but he didn't classify the probe as formal. "We are pursuing those comments, and there's a lot of discussion going on about that right now, but I really can't get into that at this time," he said. But police aren't singling out Head, Jackson told Hannity. "We can't let all that happened in Ferguson and Dellwood and the community die. Everyone who is responsible for taking away people's property, their livelihoods, their jobs, their businesses -- every single one of them needs to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law," he said.
