Go to What Country Am I In?
- Add a comment
- Go to A Comment On Toledo And The Race Riot
This breaks down to an individual level, Writeroflight. What were the
estimates of participation, between 600 to 1000. No way were they all gangbangers. Bluntly put: each individual that was there bears the personal responsibility of their actions, criminal or otherwise. Ultimately, whether they were led or followed, each individual was responsible for themselves for attending and participating. At the risk of sounding politically incorrect (as if I really care), I didn't see any white people involved in the demonstration against the neo-Nazis and the subsequent violence that ensued -- therefore making it a "race" riot, no matter its breadth and scope. Could things have been done to prevent this? Maybe. Using the 'what if' Monday morning quarterback rule in finding answers to an occurrence may be a good way to prevent future episodes, but it is by no means an excuse for a thousand separate individuals to behave like asses. Let's look at what actually happened and punish the lawbreakers.
posted by
saul_relative
on October 23, 2005 at 9:46 AM
| link to this | reply
To set things straight a bit . . .
This was hardly a "race riot," at least compared to the huge riots of the 1960s. A good many of the "protestors" were gang members who took advantage of an already volatile situation to go on a rampage. The riot escalated because gang members were calling each other on their cell phones to invite more to join the riot and to keep apprised of police actions.
The biggest screwup in all this was in allowing the Nazis to march in a black neighborhood. Wrong though they are, they did have the right ro assemble; but they should have been confined to neutral public property such as a public square downtown.
The second biggest was the mayor ordering the police to stand down so he could try to negotiate with the gangsters, who responded to his good faith by escalating the riot and looting and burning down a bar.
Third biggest was him reminding the rioters that the Nazis had a constitutional right to march. Technically correct, but completely inappropriate.
posted by
WriterofLight
on October 23, 2005 at 2:36 AM
| link to this | reply
I wasn't confused, Glennb, just pointing out the mask of political
correctness used when its expedient and safe as opposed to what is fair and right. And I have mentioned Timothy McVeigh a few times myself when talking about our single-mindedness with regards to narrowing our search for terrorists among Arab or Arabic-looking people. And what the Bush administration calls a terrorist is anyone that opposes the Bush administration.
posted by
saul_relative
on October 22, 2005 at 8:08 AM
| link to this | reply
Saul Relative,
Careful, Timothy McVeigh was not folloeing some radical doctrine! His stated objective was to demonstrate to Americans the "horrors Iraqi Civilization faced" under the thumb of American Imperialism. You seem confused about the implication of DamonLeigh's comment! I think he was trying to point out that "Terrorist" is in the eye of the beholder. Not the words of a lame President!
posted by
Glennb
on October 21, 2005 at 10:04 PM
| link to this | reply
Excellent point, DamonLeigh. Sadly, in America, we pay massive lip
service to free speech and equality while doing our best to undermine both. Protect one group's right to free speech at the cost of another group's civil liberties. I submit that Dubya does not follow through on the white supremacists and extremist groups like the White Aryan Resistance or the Aryan Nation (very white) because, even though these groups are lunatic fringe, they are still American Christians. The Muslim groups are alien and barbaric to his way of thinking, not to mention the religion of terrorists worldwide. And that type of thinking is not only dangerous but ridiculous, considering that before 9/11 the worst act of terrorism committed within the United States was the Oklahoma City bombing, perpetrated by a Christian, white supremacist extremist. At the same time, if they ban white supremacist groups, they'll have to ban groups like Farrakhan's Nation of Islam, which is a black supremacist group -- and that would be a politically incorrect thing to do. Remember, DamonLeigh, we're really into political correctness here.
posted by
saul_relative
on October 20, 2005 at 10:04 AM
| link to this | reply
White Supremicists...
...are Nazis under another name, right?
So here's a question.
How come Bush has happily banned a whole host of Islamic groups (on the basis that they are 'fundamentalist' and could be harbouring 'terrorists)' and yet a Nazi group is allowed to continue to thrive, to strut their stuff on the street, and to understandably inflame elements in the black population?
Europe has embraced the reality of free speech far more comprehensively than America, and yet we ban neo-Nazi groups - membership, websites, public speeches and gatherings, written material, symbols, the whole lot. Why do we ban them? Because they're nasty little thugs with an extreme agenda.
So why does Bush ban Islamic groups and yet leave neo-Nazis alone? And why is this never even questioned?
D
posted by
DamonLeigh
on October 20, 2005 at 9:47 AM
| link to this | reply
A good point, Glennb. I would have to agree that ignorance is not the all-
inclusive umbrella that defines bigots and racists. However, a good portion of racist thinking comes from ignorance, whether it be socio-economic, traditional, learned or willful.
posted by
saul_relative
on October 19, 2005 at 9:48 PM
| link to this | reply
Saul Relative,
I am not convinced that Racism and Bigotry are signs of ignorance! These maladies are more a function of a total disregard for the credibility of the "Brown Race"! That definition keeps me from giving people credit for their moral deficencies!
posted by
Glennb
on October 19, 2005 at 9:27 PM
| link to this | reply
Well said, Glennb. Fighting ignorance with aggression only belittles the
aggressor, engenders resentment, and solves nothing.
posted by
saul_relative
on October 19, 2005 at 8:47 PM
| link to this | reply
Saul Relative,
There are many things wrong with America and the freedom to protest is not among them! I have not heard or read any information that validates the existence of the Racist. However, violently confronting a Racist gathering is not legal protest! I agree we, the victims of "Racism" in America, must become more strategic in planning our protest even when provoked by this blatant and vile humanity! Find out who these people are? Where they work? Petition their employers!! It is Our humanity that saves America!
posted by
Glennb
on October 19, 2005 at 8:07 PM
| link to this | reply