When is it morally acceptable to use violence in political/social protest?
Related, what is a "just war"?
I think there's some literature on the topic.
When is it morally acceptable to use violence in political/social protest?
Related, what is a "just war"?
I think there's some literature on the topic.
I really like these questions, because they are so provocative. As for your last example, my own theory (maybe a crackpot one--who knows) has something to do with some hypotheses on the generational impact of addiction, as it's explained by Gabor Mate. Gabor Mate says that there have been studies to prove that if a pregnant mother experiences extraordinary stress in her life, that stress gets imprinted on the fetus at a cellular level. The child is then born with cortisol levels that are all askew and is vulnerable to addictive coping mechanisms as a result.Originally Posted by Yossarian
My belief is that because we stole native African Americans from their homeland and exploited them mercilessly, they are still working that out at the cellular level. I don't think that takes one generation--I think that takes many. Does that absolve them from personal responsibility? Absolutely not. But it helps to explain why sometimes their behavior is reactive and suggests total disenfranchisement. Hello… they are disenfranchised, because the white colonialists disenfranchised them right out their own homes.
This is a general comment--I'm not commenting on Baltimore per se. Just responding to Yossarian's interesting questions.
BTW, bae, I love Jonathan Kozol--haven't read that book, but I'll look it up.
"Do any human beings ever realize life while they live it--every, every minute?" Emily Webb, Our Town
www.silententry.wordpress.com
I could only read a small bit at a time, it was an exercise in anger management for me.
Agreed - I just think the line between protesting and looting and destruction of property gets blurred - when there really should be a clear demarcation, even if the protesters are breaking the law by protesting.
Kids, I see some quibbling, some if....then...yeah, but:....comparing-apples-to-oranges, here. So, just to clarify, and I think I speak on behalf of a majority of Zurrians: 1)People Rioting and Burning and Looting and Interfering with Official Acts and Emergency crews should be shot on sight. This would include people of ANY race, creed, color. This would include rioting after a stoopidball game, too. This would include rioting over ideological issues, as well. That would be the price you pay. I don't know for sure, but the authorities----British would have been justified in using force to deter the tea partiers, or punish them after the fact. Even though some people may claim that the eventual outcome justifies the means, they need to realize just the same that they are placing themselves at-risk by rioting or looting. If some thug wants to risk its' life over looting a package of toilet paper, that is its' problem. The reason they do it, is because they know they WON'T get shot. But, that is the price they should pay. This will sharply curtail the rioting. Just betcha. Two instances that come to mind of terroristic acts by very idealistic fanatics are that of the murder of an MD in Florida by an anti-abortion activist, who was a defrocked minister. Also, you have Tim McVeigh, decorated gulf war vet, who as you remember, blew up the Federal Building in OKC, 20 years ago. While some people----even a good many people---may agree with their idealism, I think that given the outcome of their "activism", most people would agree that if anyone deserved a death sentence, those two did. They paid the price for their "activism" aka terrorist acts. See how that works? We don't excuse that kind of thing because of their self-righteous ideals or acts of vengeance for perceived wrongs. Hope that helps you some. Thankk Mee.
Last edited by Packy; 4-29-15 at 5:51pm.
I have now corresponded with three different friends/associates of mine in the Baltimore area. One of them is an active-duty law enforcement officer there. They each have claimed to me that the situation is:
- worse than is reported in the media, in very small limited areas
- much better than is being reported, in most of the areas
Examination of the photos and videos of the rioting with a careful eye seems to be in agreement with their claims - we are shown the same handful of sites, from multiple angles. We are not shown much the thousands of peaceful protesters, who if they are breaking the law are only breaking parade-permit and free-speech-zone sorta laws, which I place in a different category than burning buildings and throwing rocks at people.
So, I think the media is spinning us up a narrative to get plenty of click-bait, and various interested parties are leaping in to frame the events to advance their particular causes.
"We"? Did I inherit some guilt along with my fair skin and colorblindness?
You can't hang slavery on me. I have an alibi.
On that bunny trail, I find Maté's model to be overly-simple, overly-reductionist, and while an interesting theory it seems to be contrary to the data:
http://www.acestudy.org/files/OriginsofAddiction.pdf
So I have a hard time believing, from the evidence, that the sins and travails of the mother are visited on future generations at a cellular level.
Yeah, see---the States prolly could have achieved independence & autonomy eventually, without resorting to warfare. It just might have taken a longer period of time. That's all. But, it would have saved engaging in at least two wars, one of which(1812) resulted in the sacking of Washington DC and the building now known as the White House.
it helps to have come to the country voluntarily. But ...What are the differences in subcultures that make one a success and another failures. Why do they call the highest level math classes at our school "asian math"? Genetics, or culture? Why do jews have 0.2% of the world population but 20% of the Nobel prize winners? Why do african immigrants do so much better than native african-americans?
the larger (largely white) society has never really wanted to do their part to mend it either. Ok much overt discrimination has lessened. But it seem the one attempt that was really made by the larger society to deal with inner city poverty was the war on poverty, but that kind of fell prey to Vietnam war spending (a few particulars may have also been misguided as well, but no I don't think the whole idea was). Where is the multi-generation commitment in the larger society?My belief is that because we stole native African Americans from their homeland and exploited them mercilessly, they are still working that out at the cellular level. I don't think that takes one generation--I think that takes many.
the peaceful protestors focus on things happening now not history. They protest killings now, it's not just history, it has blood flowing through it (and what history it is may be FAR CLOSER THAN IT APPEARS - ie disproportionate number of African Americans locked up for the same crimes etc.).Does that absolve them from personal responsibility? Absolutely not. But it helps to explain why sometimes their behavior is reactive and suggests total disenfranchisement.
As for rioting being reactive, yea probably, but the whole thing is caught in reactive circles now, police brutality -> riots -> more police distrust of the population -> more likelihood of police brutality -> more potential for riots
Trees don't grow on money
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote