Civil dissent is only for white people

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

For you folks who think MLK and the movement was the gold standard of protesting.

http://www.theroot.com/articles/culture/2016/07/mlk-would-never-shut-down-a-freeway-and-6-other-myths-about-the-civil-rights-movement-and-black-lives-matter/

Myth 2: The movement’s righteousness was apparent.

The civil rights movement made most Americans uncomfortable. From presidents to ordinary citizens, many regarded it as “extremism.” People regularly called MLK and Rosa Parks communists and traitors, not just in the South but also in the “liberal” North, for their critiques of police brutality and their support of housing and school desegregation. Although our public imagination focuses on Southern-redneck racism, both Parks and King came to see the white “moderate” as key to the problem. As King wrote from a Birmingham jail in 1963, “I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizens’ Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to ‘order’ than to justice […] who constantly says: ‘I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action.’”

[smilesammich 10,727]

even before mlk. though john brown was white..

On October, 16, 1859, John Brown and nearly two dozen comrades seized the armory at Harper's Ferry in West Virginia, hoping to use its massive arsenal in the struggle to forcibly end slavery. Captured and brought to trial at nearby Charles Town, Brown was found guilty of treason. One month before his execution, John Brown addressed a courtroom in Charlestown, West Virginia, defending his role in the action at Harper's Ferry. Henry David Thoreau, although himself did not favor violence, praised John Brown, and when the fiery Preacher was sentenced to death, Ralph Waldo emerson said: "He will make the gallows holy as the cross."

I have, may it please the Court, a few words to say.

In the first place, I deny everything but what I have all along admitted, the design on my part to free the slaves. I intended certainly to have made a clean thing of that matter, as I did last winter, when I went into Missouri and there took slaves without the snapping of a gun on either side, moved them through the country, and finally left them in Canada. I designed to have done the same thing again, on a larger scale. That was all I intended. I never did intend murder, or treason, or the destruction of property, or to excite or incite slaves to rebellion, or to make insurrection.

I have another objection; and that is, it is unjust that I should suffer such a penalty. Had I interfered in the manner which I admit, and which I admit has been fairly proved (for I admire the truthfulness and candor of the greater portion of the witnesses who have testified in this case), had I so interfered in behalf of the rich, the powerful, the intelligent, the so-called great, or in behalf of any of their friends, either father, mother, brother, sister, wife, or children, or any of that class, and suffered and sacrificed what I have in this interference, it would have been all right; and every man in this court would have deemed it an act worthy of reward rather than punishment.

This court acknowledges, as I suppose, the validity of the law of God. I see a book kissed here which I suppose to be the Bible, or at least the New Testament. That teaches me that all things whatsoever I would that men should do to me, I should do even so to them. It teaches me, further, to "remember them that are in bonds, as bound with them." I endeavored to act up to that instruction. I say, I am yet too young to understand that God is any respecter of persons. I believe that to have interfered as I have done as I have always freely admitted I have done in behalf of His despised poor, was not wrong, but right. Now, if it is deemed necessary that I should forfeit my life for the furtherance of the ends of justice, and mingle my blood further with the blood of my children and with the blood of millions in this slave country whose rights are disregarded by wicked, cruel, and unjust enactments, I submit; so let it be done!

Let me say one word further.

I feel entirely satisfied with the treatment I have received on my trial. Considering all the circumstances. it has been more generous than I expected. But I feel no consciousness of guilt. I have stated from the first what was my intention and what was not. I never had any design against the life of any person, nor any disposition to commit treason, or excite slaves to rebel, or make any general insurrection. I never encouraged any man to do so, but always discouraged any idea of that kind.

Let me say, also, a word in regard to the statements made by some of those connected with me. I hear it has been stated by some of them that I have induced them to join me. But the contrary is true. I do not say this to injure them, but as regretting their weakness. There is not one of them but joined me of his own accord, and the greater part of them at their own expense. A number of them I never saw, and never had a word of conversation with, till the day they came to me; and that was for the purpose I have stated.

Now I have done.

"I, John Brown, am now quite certain that the crimes of this guilty land can never be purged away but with blood."

—John Brown's last words, written on a note

handed to a guard just before his hanging

http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/johnbrown.html

[OriZ 3,157]

Actually there is something wrong with it, hence the reason why military folks aren't allowed to disrespect him in public or on social media. There's a UCMJ article that doles out punishment. But for your second opinion, how can you render a judgment on a job you've never done? And I'm thinking running a country is a harder job than you make it out to be. No way I'm qualified to run for that office, and I'm smart enough to know that. I know Trump's case is a bit different since being a bigoted, loud-mouth bully seems to be less of an issue for some than HRC. But I digress.

And I'm not ignoring the peaceful protests, just stating facts. And men and women wiser than all of us here have made that same statement.

“Dr. King's policy was that nonviolence would achieve the gains for black people in the United States. His major assumption was that if you are nonviolent, if you suffer, your opponent will see your suffering and will be moved to change his heart. That's very good. He only made one fallacious assumption: In order for nonviolence to work, your opponent must have a conscience. The United States has none.” Stokely Carmichael.

What's wrong with the Zimmerman reference? If protests didn't take place, he would have never seen the inside of a courtroom since it was deemed he killed a black teen, they didn't even want to get out of bed that night and arrest him.

I don't give a rat's behind about UCMJ. We killed and buried this horse months ago. We are not in the military, we are civilians in a relatively free country. On a personal level to me the fact that exists doesn't even mean there is something wrong with it. If you want to go ahead and bow down to anybody that comes up with a silly rule or see anybody with a rank above you as superior then you go right ahead, but I've already explained how I feel about ranks. Just because the American military happens to believe you should not criticize the president does not make it a must for all of us nor does it make it justified. FYI as a side note - in Israel the military is a-political. Which means you can't take a political position, so, for example, soldiers are not allowed to protest for certain parties and they have to carry out their orders whether they agree with them or not. But I've seen plenty of people in uniform there criticize the PM publicly, and there is nothing wrong with that.

How do I render judgment on a job I've never done? You guys render judgment on cops and this and that all day long so if you don't think you could be qualified to be president that's fine but we don't all have to think alike. Obviously no one was ever president until they were president and obviously to put themselves in that position to begin with they had to think they could do better than others.

As far as the Zimmerman reference, it was obvious from the beginning they did not have evidence to convict him of what they wanted to...gross negligence at worst, yet just as we have seen with recent cop shootings it didn't stop the rioters from rioting and what came out of it in the end? Same as the other cases, nothing. And that nothing is not due to racism, it's due to there mostly being just that - nothing. So not the best example to give. If you want to give examples you should give the ones that were obviously and evidently justified.

MLK was killed for the cause, and even at that time his approval rating among white people was 23%. That's pretty low for a man who preached nonviolence and did it the "right "way.

The problem is this, peaceful protests take years, even decades to take effect. And black folks have been marching and singing we shall overcome for almost 60 years. Even when Dylan Roof murdered those church going folks, we were expected to forgive him. Had that been in reverse, I'm pretty sure forgiveness wouldn't have been on the table.

As a whole, people here have an issue with aggression when it comes to POC only. Because let's be clear, when white men and women get guns and decide to bully a mosque at a time where the Muslims there just wanted to go pray, no one said a word about it. When they had the draw Mohammad convention and those two nutjobs were killed, no one said we should forgive them. Only when we march, protest, or riot for injustice sakes, it makes people angry.

Maybe you should ask yourself why black people wanted police brutality to end is such a problem for you.

No one said a word about it? Are you implying most people were supportive, or even passively indifferent, to anyone taking a gun and shooting innocent people whether in a mosque or anywhere else? Matters not at all to me who does the deed, I do not think highly of violent protests or violence in general, unless it is within the bounds of necessary military action. This is also why I do not support the death penalty no matter the crime, because that does not fall under that category, and I believe in civil life if you have someone in custody you do not have the right to kill them, whether they are Ted Bundy, or Saddam Hussein, or a Nazi, a black person, a white person, I don't care.

are you serious? because i can't take this in bold seriously.

of course it achieved more ultimately, there was and is no convincing argument for the continuance of blatant jim crow. it was going to come down, if for any one reason, christianity. yeah, that's right. i said it. same reason 'uncle tom's cabin' had the impact that it did. in the face of black christians, white christians didn't have a leg to stand on and were forced to look at their hypocrisy.

now what we have with blm is black people giving their experience with racial injustice in this country, asking to be heard and some folks refusing to listen and insisting that if they've not perceived racial injustice in any given situation it doesn't exist and blm are a pack of cop killers (that have killed zero 0 cops) that just want to instigate violence and unrest. bs. blm weren't anywhere close to the first group to call out what's been happening since the civil rights movement..people have been speaking and writing about the new jim crow for years. do some research. or don't, it's all made up by blm.

I have many times in this forum explained why I think BLM is doing nothing but damaging and sabotaging their own cause. Evidently the civil rights movement didn't. I see nothing happening and nothing in your post to change my opinion on BLM. They have less support now than they did when they started, and it is my personal belief that they will achieve nothing, or close to it. Time will tell. As far as the rest - I view the flag, or the anthem as the identity of the country, whereas presidents are a very temporary identity at best. There is nothing constant or uniting about them, just a person doing their job. Just my opinion.

Edited September 7, 2016 by OriZ

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

I don't give a rat's behind about UCMJ. We killed and buried this horse months ago. We are not in the military, we are civilians in a relatively free country. On a personal level to me the fact that exists doesn't even mean there is something wrong with it. If you want to go ahead and bow down to anybody that comes up with a silly rule or see anybody with a rank above you as superior then you go right ahead, but I've already explained how I feel about ranks. Just because the American military happens to believe you should not criticize the president does not make it a must for all of us nor does it make it justified. FYI as a side note - in Israel the military is a-political. Which means you can't take a political position, so, for example, soldiers are not allowed to protest for certain parties and they have to carry out their orders whether they agree with them or not. But I've seen plenty of people in uniform there criticize the PM publicly, and there is nothing wrong with that.

How do I render judgment on a job I've never done? You guys render judgment on cops and this and that all day long so if you don't think you could be qualified to be president that's fine but we don't all have to think alike. Obviously no one was ever president until they were president and obviously to put themselves in that position to begin with they had to think they could do better than others.

As far as the Zimmerman reference, it was obvious from the beginning they did not have evidence to convict him of what they wanted to...gross negligence at worst, yet just as we have seen with recent cop shootings it didn't stop the rioters from rioting and what came out of it in the end? Same as the other cases, nothing. And that nothing is not due to racism, it's due to there mostly being just that - nothing. So not the best example to give. If you want to give examples you should give the ones that were obviously and evidently justified.

No one said a word about it? Are you implying most people were supportive, or even passively indifferent, to anyone taking a gun and shooting innocent people whether in a mosque or anywhere else? Matters not at all to me who does the deed, I do not think highly of violent protests or violence in general, unless it is within the bounds of necessary military action. This is also why I do not support the death penalty no matter the crime, because that does not fall under that category, and I believe in civil life if you have someone in custody you do not have the right to kill them, whether they are Ted Bundy, or Saddam Hussein, or a Nazi, a black person, a white person, I don't care.

I have many times in this forum explained why I think BLM is doing nothing but damaging and sabotaging their own cause. Evidently the civil rights movement didn't. I see nothing happening and nothing in your post to change my opinion on BLM. They have less support now than they did when they started, and it is my personal belief that they will achieve nothing, or close to it. Time will tell. As far as the rest - I view the flag, or the anthem as the identity of the country, whereas presidents are a very temporary identity at best. There is nothing constant or uniting about them, just a person doing their job. Just my opinion.

It's funny that following military protocol is a joke to you when you stay telling me I need to just work past racism instead of fighting it. But that's your opinion.

And you damn right I render judgment on cops for two reasons. One. When there are constant videos of cops arresting men who have guns shooting at them, destroying public property, punching cops in the face, and even killing them, and they are arrested. Not beaten, not killed, but arrested, but you can't arrest black men, women, and in some sad cases, children without using excessive force? Not to mention hiding evidence, lying, turning off cameras, and waiting over a year to give families justice? It doesn't take a genius to see something is wrong with this picture. Two. Being a victim of PB and the countless stops and harassment I've endured, I speak on it because that BS narrative of complying will ensure your safety is just that when you're black. Mr. Kinsley can also attest to this, seeing he was almost killed for trying to save an autistic kid while being as compliant as one could have been.

Zimmerman was never going to go to jail for his crime. That much was certain. I said so here even before the trial. He killed a black teen that was the equivalent of Jack the Ripper to the more conservative folks of 2012. Even to this day, he's considered more dangerous than any mass murderer in the last 4 years, even though he didn't kill a single person. If you think racism wasn't the driving force behind it, you have a lot to learn. Because I've seen more MB and TM zingers here and not one Lanza, Holmes, or any other white person who's murdered people joke. And the Z-man continues to have run-ins with the law, but really funny how he's not called a thug, but another time for that.

I don't have to imply it. It's shown here daily what people think(or lack thereof) when it comes to violence committed by white people. Last article where a white guy killed a cop? No outrage, no pitchforks. Just questions about the race of the killer, since I posted it, they had to be white. But when I posted the one about the black guy killing the iman, I remember you and NB were in there talking mad trash. And it does matter to you who does the deed. Because when we posted about people getting beaten up and spit on at Trump rallies, your reply was yawn. But the protestors who were trying to stop Trump from speaking had folks seeing red. Yourself included. Seems like impeding speech is more important than condemning flat out assault.

But let me point out your racial bias to show why your understanding of issues black people face is skewed. You never answered it because I truly believe you can't, but when you stopped feeling sympathy for those two black men that were killed by the cops because of the Dallas shooter, it proves my point about how folks view black people. You blamed a dead man for the actions of a man who clearly was suffering from PTSD. It's as if you couldn't feel empathy for him based off the actions of another black man even though they had nothing to do with each other. Micah would have gone off the deep end either way.

[OriZ 3,157]

It's funny that following military protocol is a joke to you when you stay telling me I need to just work past racism instead of fighting it. But that's your opinion.

And you damn right I render judgment on cops for two reasons. One. When there are constant videos of cops arresting men who have guns shooting at them, destroying public property, punching cops in the face, and even killing them, and they are arrested. Not beaten, not killed, but arrested, but you can't arrest black men, women, and in some sad cases, children without using excessive force? Not to mention hiding evidence, lying, turning off cameras, and waiting over a year to give families justice? It doesn't take a genius to see something is wrong with this picture. Two. Being a victim of PB and the countless stops and harassment I've endured, I speak on it because that BS narrative of complying will ensure your safety is just that when you're black. Mr. Kinsley can also attest to this, seeing he was almost killed for trying to save an autistic kid while being as compliant as one could have been.

Zimmerman was never going to go to jail for his crime. That much was certain. I said so here even before the trial. He killed a black teen that was the equivalent of Jack the Ripper to the more conservative folks of 2012. Even to this day, he's considered more dangerous than any mass murderer in the last 4 years, even though he didn't kill a single person. If you think racism wasn't the driving force behind it, you have a lot to learn. Because I've seen more MB and TM zingers here and not one Lanza, Holmes, or any other white person who's murdered people joke. And the Z-man continues to have run-ins with the law, but really funny how he's not called a thug, but another time for that.

I don't have to imply it. It's shown here daily what people think(or lack thereof) when it comes to violence committed by white people. Last article where a white guy killed a cop? No outrage, no pitchforks. Just questions about the race of the killer, since I posted it, they had to be white. But when I posted the one about the black guy killing the iman, I remember you and NB were in there talking mad trash. And it does matter to you who does the deed. Because when we posted about people getting beaten up and spit on at Trump rallies, your reply was yawn. But the protestors who were trying to stop Trump from speaking had folks seeing red. Yourself included. Seems like impeding speech is more important than condemning flat out assault.

But let me point out your racial bias to show why your understanding of issues black people face is skewed. You never answered it because I truly believe you can't, but when you stopped feeling sympathy for those two black men that were killed by the cops because of the Dallas shooter, it proves my point about how folks view black people. You blamed a dead man for the actions of a man who clearly was suffering from PTSD. It's as if you couldn't feel empathy for him based off the actions of another black man even though they had nothing to do with each other. Micah would have gone off the deep end either way.

Ah, you're off yet again. It has nothing to do with following protocol. It has everything to do with believing that just because that is the way it is in the military means that A) It must be completely 100% justified and that B) everyone else, even not in the military must follow it. Damn right I'm gonna challenge that because I'm not a sheep.Even when I was doing my own service I was not a sheep.

Mad trash? Dude, I have no idea what you're talking about.

I guess my comment after the Dallas shooting really bothered you that you keep bringing it up weeks later. Nevermind that you completely misinterperated it(and not for the first time) and taken it out f context, nonetheless I am actually happy that you still think about it. Think about it a little longer and you might actually reach the right conclusions.

And again as far as the president is concerned, The way I see it respect as president doesn't come automatically with the job, it needs to be earned like with every other job. Obama has shown he does not have respect for all americans, he will belittle people and insinuate certain things time and time again, he does not deserve to be respected back. But I made a comment that at the end of the day was meant to say that while I personally disagree with what Kirkpatrick did I believe he had every right to do it, and what do you do? As usual try to make a silly comparison to me calling Obama a clown, not respecting my own right to express myself like I respected his, and turned this into yet another conversation where everyone is just going in circles. So like last time, feel free to have the last word because after this next part I need to go do better things with my time:

The point above is not every law means there is a good reason behind it. Do you agree with marijuana prohibition? You personally may or may not I genuinely don't care but I know many of us here don't, but if we all had your perspective we would just think if that's what they decided then it's probably just how it needs to be. Do you think the prohibition in the early 20th century was right? do you feel it's just to lock people up because of pirate dls? so just because someone decides something silly, let alone when it's not even a law but just a military thing, doesn't mean we all have to bow down and say "well gosh darn, they said so so this is how it should be, there must be good reason".

[OriZ 3,157]

*Kaepernick.

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

Ah, you're off yet again. It has nothing to do with following protocol. It has everything to do with believing that just because that is the way it is in the military means that A) It must be completely 100% justified and that B) everyone else, even not in the military must follow it. Damn right I'm gonna challenge that because I'm not a sheep.Even when I was doing my own service I was not a sheep.

Mad trash? Dude, I have no idea what you're talking about.

I guess my comment after the Dallas shooting really bothered you that you keep bringing it up weeks later. Nevermind that you completely misinterperated it(and not for the first time) and taken it out f context, nonetheless I am actually happy that you still think about it. Think about it a little longer and you might actually reach the right conclusions.

And again as far as the president is concerned, The way I see it respect as president doesn't come automatically with the job, it needs to be earned like with every other job. Obama has shown he does not have respect for all americans, he will belittle people and insinuate certain things time and time again, he does not deserve to be respected back. But I made a comment that at the end of the day was meant to say that while I personally disagree with what Kirkpatrick did I believe he had every right to do it, and what do you do? As usual try to make a silly comparison to me calling Obama a clown, not respecting my own right to express myself like I respected his, and turned this into yet another conversation where everyone is just going in circles. So like last time, feel free to have the last word because after this next part I need to go do better things with my time:

The point above is not every law means there is a good reason behind it. Do you agree with marijuana prohibition? You personally may or may not I genuinely don't care but I know many of us here don't, but if we all had your perspective we would just think if that's what they decided then it's probably just how it needs to be. Do you think the prohibition in the early 20th century was right? do you feel it's just to lock people up because of pirate dls? so just because someone decides something silly, let alone when it's not even a law but just a military thing, doesn't mean we all have to bow down and say "well gosh darn, they said so so this is how it should be, there must be good reason".

It's still funny to see you want to challenge things that you don't agree with but have told me on more than one occasion that challenging racism by saying something is a bother and annoying.

Let me refresh your memory:

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/topic/606024-we-blame-donald-trump-for-this-two-dead-including-queens-imam-in-ny-anti-islam-attack/

It was so funny to see the comments completely change when it was discovered the shooter was black. Even Lib waded into the pool once he was certain the killer was black. But that's how it goes here.

And context? I'm still waiting for you to explain what you mean. Your comment was pretty much a straight shot. You said whatever sympathy you had was gone. Why? Because we're talking about two completely different situations. Different cities, states, and circumstances. Only similarities are, both were black men, and had were killed by police. So I'm not sure as to why you would lose sympathy for a man who was killed under less than favorable circumstances by the police due to the actions of another black man who wasn't connected to the previous one in no way, shape, or form. But once again, if you choose not to explain it, I'll take it at face value.

What I find even more interesting is your theory about crime and challenging the law, but in terms of racism, the very kind of attitude seems to be absent. In fact, from your own mouth, you find it annoying when we make noise about it. So which is it?