Only in America... | Page 4 | Vital Football

Only in America...

"As part of the long game civil disobedience has to be backed up by unrelenting pressure via the democratic process."

History tells us that civil disobedience from those with no power ends up being crushed by those with power.
That's why Ceaucescu rolled out the military in Rumania, that's why China rolled out the military in Tianamen Square and that's why peaceful and unpeaceful protesters alike are being gassed, assaulted and arrested in cities across the US right now.
 
Sincilbanks said:
What do you think the chances of those laws being enacted are when the National Security Advisor of the US has this as his history?
https://twitter.com/x/status/1267232162882912257
Click to expand...

See my previous reply to Notty about solutions - I'm not saying there is an easy fix or there will ever necessarily be one but civil disobedience and democracy
is the long game. Violence has been tried many times before on this issue and failed every time creating incalculable loss to many caught up in it along the way. Democracy and civil disobedience do not cause that as a by product.
 
Sincilbanks said:
"As part of the long game civil disobedience has to be backed up by unrelenting pressure via the democratic process."

History tells us that civil disobedience from those with no power ends up being crushed by those with power.
That's why Ceaucescu rolled out the military in Rumania, that's why China rolled out the military in Tianamen Square and that's why peaceful and unpeaceful protesters alike are being gassed, assaulted and arrested in cities across the US right now.
Click to expand...
There is a difference though between those regimes and the USA. The examples you use are totalitarian states that do not recognise democracy in any way, shape or form. The US for all it's faults is democratic and the problem comes back to somehow finding the difficult solution to ensure that the laws that are already in place are implemented and those that break them are punished.
 
So Notty, I've answered your questions (repeatedly) would you care to answer mine on whether or not you support violence and murder as a legitimate response?
As you say to Alaska on another thread
.
..
...
....
.....
Can't have it both ways old boy :wave:
 
Sincilbanks said:
I didn't ask if it resolved the problem, I asked if it was justified?
Click to expand...
Sorry Sincilbanks missed that one whilst fielding the other questions and PMs.
In my opinion simply no. In the case of SA I believe it was successfully solved by non violent means, Romania could and should have been solved by non violent means, and in China there is no hope of a peaceful solution but neither is there hope of a violent solution so it is wrong to create additional innocent victims caught up in the crossfire.
Violence/warfare should be a last resort used in the face of extreme threat where all other methods of resolution have failed, the response is directed, and a swift overwhelming victory is an assured outcome; in my opinion.
 
hulloutpost said:
Sorry Sincilbanks missed that one whilst fielding the other questions and PMs.
In my opinion simply no. In the case of SA I believe it was successfully solved by non violent means, Romania could and should have been solved by non violent means, and in China there is no hope of a peaceful solution but neither is there hope of a violent solution so it is wrong to create additional innocent victims caught up in the crossfire.
Violence/warfare should be a last resort used in the face of extreme threat where all other methods of resolution have failed, the response is directed, and a swift overwhelming victory is an assured outcome; in my opinion.
Click to expand...

"In face of extreme threat"
So this isn't ok?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/dec/23/romania-ceaucescu-goes-down-in-blood-1989

What were the citizens supposed to do? Use harsh language?
 
hulloutpost said:
So Notty, I've answered your questions (repeatedly) would you care to answer mine on whether or not you support violence and murder as a legitimate response?
As you say to Alaska on another thread
.
..
...
....
.....
Can't have it both ways old boy :wave:
Click to expand...

My 'phone ran out of charge! I think it switched off to stop me posting. :lol:

Like you, I wish this issue could be resolved peacefully.

But it hasn't been 70 years after the civil rights movement in the US started. So, I think the violence is completely understandable and represents the frustrations of people who feel they have no other choice.

You say violence doesn't solve anything, but that's clearly not correct. There are many movements throughout history that have used violence successfully to oppose and remove oppression. The US itself is founded on violent, armed struggle, arguably against an oppressive Imperialist Great Britain and, arguably, in the name of some form of greater freedom.
 
Sincilbanks said:
"In face of extreme threat"
So this isn't ok?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/dec/23/romania-ceaucescu-goes-down-in-blood-1989

What were the citizens supposed to do? Use harsh language?
Click to expand...
I take your point on this particular example when the situation had deteriorated so badly with the regime openly, deliberately attacking it's citizens en masse, and still maintain it was a shame that the Ceascescu regime was tolerated as long as it was without meaningful sanctions from other countries.
In the case of The US though I refer back to it being a democracy and these incidents are regularly happening against the existing laws which are not being effectively enforced. In effect the issues are not being addressed and there are too many people in authority turning a blind eye to what is happening which is wholly unacceptable but falls short of deliberate co-ordinated open warfare on it's own people. It is imperative to find a way of consistently applying the law to the people that are individually responsible when it happens and taking meaningful steps to change the culture perpetuated by those failing to deal with the issue. Random looting, violence and arson in these circumstances doesn't deal with the individual who was the catalyst (note, he has been charged with murder though) nor does it hurt the people who are not addressing the culture. The people who do actually suffer as a result of the violence are random ordinary people and that is why it is not acceptable.
 
NottyImp said:
My 'phone ran out of charge! I think it switched off to stop me posting. :lol:

Like you, I wish this issue could be resolved peacefully.

But it hasn't been 70 years after the civil rights movement in the US started. So, I think the violence is completely understandable and represents the frustrations of people who feel they have no other choice.

You say violence doesn't solve anything, but that's clearly not correct. There are many movements throughout history that have used violence successfully to oppose and remove oppression. The US itself is founded on violent, armed struggle, arguably against an oppressive Imperialist Great Britain and, arguably, in the name of some form of greater freedom.
Click to expand...
I'm not generalising about every conflict in history; we were originally talking about this specific incident. A suspect has been charged with murder (let justice run it's course) and the extreme violence has harmed numerous ordinary innocent people who were nothing to do with the original incident which for me still makes it totally unacceptable and inexcusable.
 
hulloutpost said:
I'm not generalising about every conflict in history; we were originally talking about this specific incident. A suspect has been charged with murder (let justice run it's course) and the extreme violence has harmed numerous ordinary innocent people who were nothing to do with the original incident which for me still makes it totally unacceptable and inexcusable.
Click to expand...

Ah, so sometimes violence is justified, then? Do you think the violence of the American Revolution was justified? It was a lot more extreme than the current violence we see in the US and many more people died.

I'm just trying to pin down what you think is, and isn't OK, in terms of using violence to solve problems.
 
NottyImp said:
Ah, so sometimes violence is justified, then? Do you think the violence of the American Revolution was justified? It was a lot more extreme than the current violence we see in the US and many more people died.

I'm just trying to pin down what you think is, and isn't OK, in terms of using violence to solve problems.
Click to expand...
We've already established that I begrudgingly believe violence is sometimes justified as a last resort in very extreme circumstances during my previous replies, which was a reasonable point of reference for Sincilbanks to establish where my base line is on violent resistance by a civilian population.
Having established my baseline I am content to restrict my views to the original subject matter. I only know the basic outline of The American War of Independence and it happened over 200 years ago so I'm not going to judge people either way by how the world conducted itself then, based on my most rudimentary knowledge of the subject. It doesn't correlate to the modern day and separate issue of black people too often dying at the hands of some US police officers.
 
hulloutpost said:
We've already established that I begrudgingly believe violence is sometimes justified as a last resort in very extreme circumstances during my previous replies, which was a reasonable point of reference for Sincilbanks to establish where my base line is on violent resistance by a civilian population.
Having established my baseline I am content to restrict my views to the original subject matter. I only know the basic outline of The American War of Independence and it happened over 200 years ago so I'm not going to judge people either way by how the world conducted itself then, based on my most rudimentary knowledge of the subject. It doesn't correlate to the modern day and separate issue of black people too often dying at the hands of some US police officers.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, although I think that's probably a cop-out on the question of the AWI.

As to black people in America, I suspect many of them feel they are using violence as a "last resort" in "very extreme circumstances".

I doubt many of those folks would agree with your idea that they should wait another 70 years for a system that is loaded against them to somehow magically deliver equality. I'm actually amazed they don't riot more over there, given what goes on!

I also disagree with your point that - in historical terms - such outbreaks of violence don't help. Certainly the riots in the 80s in this country (I followed them on the news as a young man) changed the dynamic of politics and race-relations in a way that hadn't happened previously and didn't seem possible for many black people over here at the time.

There's a saying: walk a mile in another man's shoes. I think you'd be well advised to try it.
 
NottyImp said:
Fair enough, although I think that's probably a cop-out on the question of the AWI.

As to black people in America, I suspect many of them feel they are using violence as a "last resort" in "very extreme circumstances".

I doubt many of those folks would agree with your idea that they should wait another 70 years for a system that is loaded against them to somehow magically deliver equality. I'm actually amazed they don't riot more over there, given what goes on!

I also disagree with your point that - in historical terms - such outbreaks of violence don't help. Certainly the riots in the 80s in this country (I followed them on the news as a young man) changed the dynamic of politics and race-relations in a way that hadn't happened previously and didn't seem possible for many black people over here at the time.

There's a saying: walk a mile in another man's shoes. I think you'd be well advised to try it.
Click to expand...
Let's not open up the white privilege debate eh. I've only got so many hours in a day to spend on here;)
 
hulloutpost said:
Let's not open up the white privilege debate eh. I've only got so many hours in a day to spend on here;)
Click to expand...

I wasn't going to. Just pointing out that systemic racism is a hugely corrosive influence on many black people's lives in the US and if you don't take that it account, you probably don't understand their responses to it.

It seems a pretty obvious point to me, but if you don't want to talk about it of label it as something else, that's fine.
 
And it looks like George Floyd's official autopsy was rigged, who'da thunk it eh?
An independent autopsy ordered by George Floyd's family suggests that he died of "mechanical asphyxia".

Two medical examiners said the compression on Floyd's back and neck prevented the bloodflow to his brain and airflow to his lungs.

The second examiner, Dr Michael Baden said the autopsy showed "no underlying medical problem that caused or contributed to his death".

A preliminary medical examiner report cited in the criminal complaint had suggested a number of factors, including Floyd's underlying heart conditions and potential intoxicants had played a role in his death.

Benjamin Crump, an attorney for Floyd's family said: "George died because he needed a breath of air."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-us-canada-52876499
 
You must log in or register to reply here.