|
Lib and let die posted:Id like to take a moment and draw a parallel here between the current student protests and the sit-ins of the civil rights era - I suppose under your framework that the operators of whites-only restaurants were justified in calling in the police since the civil rights protesters were acting on private property where they weren't welcome? Legally, yes they were and that created confrontations with authorities that drew attention to unjust laws and potentially laid the groundwork for court cases that could overturn those laws. Similarly Rosa Parks intended to be arrested to draw attention so laws could be changed. Absent a response from authorities it’s merely mildly disruptive and nothing changes - the response and confrontation is the entire point of the exercise.
|
#
?
May 2, 2024 10:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 15:15 |
|
|
PT6A posted:No, it's quite true, I say this as CanPol's favourite punching bag. I'd rather not continue that derail at all beyond confirming for you that that claim is false. studio mujahideen posted:So you haven't actually read any of the actual demands written by the organizers of any of the protests, that all of the students at the protests are there to support. The biggest demand in nearly all of these cases is control over their schools' endowments. Endowments exist and are managed with the goal of ensuring that the associated institution can continue operating over the long term, and catering to a lunatic fringe of students who will be gone in four years is inherently incompatible with that objective. I realize that every freshman thinks to some extent that they know more about how to run their college or university than the administrators, but there's no reason for the administrators to pretend that's remotely true.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2024 13:19
|
|
|
Papf posted:I never denied that those individuals exist, but I assure you they are few and far between and constitute a silent minority. Walk into your average university in the country (or, hell, just read the front page of CNN), and you'll see a whole swath of tent-bound trespassers—calling mommy and daddy as they get dragged away into cop cars—but very few (if any) peaceful protestors trying to raise funds diplomatically for a cause they believe in. Ultimately, if the latter were significantly more plentiful, you wouldn't be hearing about any of this because that doesn't produce lucrative headlines. The protests aren't about raising funds, they're about getting the universities to divest from defense contractors and israel. Protests are basically never about raising funds. Protest is about being so disruptive and so loud that you're unignorable, that the conversation must turn towards your actions and thereby your cause. It sounds like you just hate protest in general. tagesschau posted:I'd rather not continue that derail at all beyond confirming for you that that claim is false. Your argument seems to boil down to some sort of implicit claim one has ever run a sustainable portfolio without investing in war and apartheid states and the cold intellectual fund managers know better. This isn't a protest about allocation of funds for a better return, it's a moral stand. Surely this time the activists are wrong about boycotting the apartheid state, surely the universities won't look like the people who scoffed at boycotting South Africa. Kagrenak fucked around with this message at 13:51 on May 2, 2024 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2024 13:47
|
|
|
studio mujahideen posted:So you haven't actually read any of the actual demands written by the organizers of any of the protests, that all of the students at the protests are there to support. This idea has little to no merit. Every protest in history—regardless of its productivity—has had demands, as there would be no point in congregating in the first place if nothing would come from it. Hell, snot-nosed toddlers have demands for their parents. Does that make them champions of democracy? Hostage-takers and terrorists all compose a list of demands. Does that make the 9/11 hijackers justified in their pursuits and/or negate all of their misdeeds as long as they hope to achieve something noble? Unless you believe the ends justify the means, which is an inherently flawed philosophy, the answer is no. At the end of the day, simply writing a formal list of demands is neither difficult nor impressive. And it certainly doesn't excuse committing crimes for a good cause, especially when said crimes interfere with a bystander's ability to access buildings that they pay thousands of dollars to enter.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2024 14:03
|
|
|
Kagrenak posted:The protests aren't about raising funds, they're about getting the universities to divest from defense contractors and israel. Protests are basically never about raising funds. Protest is about being so disruptive and so loud that you're unignorable, that the conversation must turn towards your actions and thereby your cause. It sounds like you just hate protest in general. If that's what you believe a protest is, I believe we have fundamentally different definitions of what constitutes a protest. Were civil rights activists in the '50s and '60s "loud and disruptive?" Of course not. They were civil and well-spoken, which was the whole point and entirely why MLK is so revered. Papf fucked around with this message at 14:11 on May 2, 2024 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2024 14:07
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Also if you believe that following the law is "remaining neutral" on something then I don't even know where to begin. The law is a position someone else has taken, you are not refraining from moral judgement you are adhering to somebody else's moral judgement, and doing that does not absolve you of the impact of that judgement. I can only assume you do not teach history because that is a staggeringly ignorant position to take. Even then, you still have to make a moral judgment on which laws are good and which are bad to follow. Otherwise we'd have to agree with the massacre of Tianenman Square protestors who were, after all, breaking the law.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2024 14:21
|
|
|
Papf posted:If that's what you believe a protest is, I believe we have fundamentally different definitions of what constitutes a protest. This is an absurd whitewashing of MLK and MLK wasn't the sole actor in the civil rights movement. MLK was fairly fastidiously non violent but he sure as hell wasn't non disruptive or quiet. He in fact was jailed many times for disrupting service at white only establishments by demanding service. All of his matches were severely disruptive to the normal business of the towns where they occurred, as marches are. King was unpopular during his time yet still made progress on his goals because of his disruptive tactics. He also supported student led sit-ins like the one that got aggressively cleared from the building at Columbia: https://kinginstitute.stanford.edu/sit-ins This is all without even mentioning Malcon X, who undoubtedly provided a violent reminder of what was waiting of you didn't take King seriously.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2024 14:52
|
|
|
Owling Howl posted:Legally, yes they were and that created confrontations with authorities that drew attention to unjust laws and potentially laid the groundwork for court cases that could overturn those laws. Similarly Rosa Parks intended to be arrested to draw attention so laws could be changed. Absent a response from authorities it’s merely mildly disruptive and nothing changes - the response and confrontation is the entire point of the exercise. Absent a response from the authorities, segregation would be ended, since there would be no one stopping black people from going into whites only establishments, sitting in bus seats reserved for whites, etc. (And that did happen occasionally, some restaurants did give in and start serving everyone to make the sit-ins stop, some Southern cities did negotiate an end to segregation, others did not). The point of the exercise was ending segregation, the protestors did not want to be beaten to expose the immorality of the authorities, but they were willing to be, if necessary. Important difference. Beating and jailing black people for defying segregation may have been legal, but was it moral? Was it the right thing to do, or would it have been better to have changed the law without beating anyone. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 15:00 on May 2, 2024 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2024 14:58
|
|
|
I think it's more accurate to characterize arrest and potential violence inflicted against you as a protestor as a calculated risk you take. It's not the point and you can still have an effective protest without it, but history shows that it's an exceedingly likely outcome of any protest action. One has to be prepared for it and ideally have media embedded to make the most of it if it does happen
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2024 15:03
|
|
|
Papf posted:If that's what you believe a protest is, I believe we have fundamentally different definitions of what constitutes a protest.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2024 15:06
|
|
|
Papf posted:If that's what you believe a protest is, I believe we have fundamentally different definitions of what constitutes a protest. 
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2024 15:07
|
|
|
Papf posted:I hate to rain on this parade, but I think something worth acknowledging here is the demographic we're discussing. i.e., a vast majority of the protestors are impressionable high school and college students, many of whom likely could not identify Palestine (or the Levant in general) on a map before October 7. Why are we already proclaiming these kids martyrs and revolutionaries even though 99% of them could not give the slightest poo poo about the conflict before it became glamorized in the cultural zeitgeist? More so, many of them are just Caucasian bourgeois silver spoon-wielding suburbanites, which just makes them disingenuous white saviors at best. Your posts here aren't to make any sort of argument or try to convince anyone but yourself of anything -- they're a self-soothing coping technique because you desperately want the genocide conducted by the apartheid ethnostate to be something other than it is. Your appeals to "exploiting suffering" are fully cynical; you don't care about the suffering, nor do you actually believe that students are just protesting to be popular or find it "glamorous". You desperately wish for these things to be true, because it would untangle the knot you feel in your gut when you see another Palestinian parent holding the ruined body of their child or the tiktok of laughing, dancing IOF soldiers destroying another home or hospital that can't be reconciled against your warm feelings for israel. You can't square this with students (or anyone else, really) putting their educations, careers, and bodies on the line to protest this injustice. They must be wrong about this somehow. They can't really be doing this with any sense of moral clarity, because what would that say about me? This is why you (re)registered, this is why you're posting here. You know, on some level, that what you're saying is ridiculous, completely ahistorical, cynical, and outrageously reductive. None of that matters because it's not written for anyone but yourself. Before you go and smash that report button, please understand that I am only extending to you the same regard and intellectual courtesy you are extending to these students and faculty. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2024 15:47
|
|
|
Pentecoastal Elites posted:Your posts here aren't to make any sort of argument or try to convince anyone but yourself of anything -- they're a self-soothing coping technique because you desperately want the genocide conducted by the apartheid ethnostate to be something other than it is. Your appeals to "exploiting suffering" are fully cynical; you don't care about the suffering, nor do you actually believe that students are just protesting to be popular or find it "glamorous". You desperately wish for these things to be true, because it would untangle the knot you feel in your gut when you see another Palestinian parent holding the ruined body of their child or the tiktok of laughing, dancing IOF soldiers destroying another home or hospital that can't be reconciled against your warm feelings for israel. You can't square this with students (or anyone else, really) putting their educations, careers, and bodies on the line to protest this injustice. They must be wrong about this somehow. They can't really be doing this with any sense of moral clarity, because what would that say about me? This is why you (re)registered, this is why you're posting here. You know, on some level, that what you're saying is ridiculous, completely ahistorical, cynical, and outrageously reductive. None of that matters because it's not written for anyone but yourself. Isn't it about time you beg for some fellatio from your senile old mother, you pseudo-psychologist prick? (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST) (USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2024 16:34
|
|
|
cat botherer posted:Wow, you have no goddamn idea what you're talking about. Whatever lets you sleep at night.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2024 16:35
|
|
|
Papf posted:Isn't it about time you beg for some fellatio from your senile old mother, you pseudo-psychologist prick?
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2024 16:36
|
|
|
Papf posted:Isn't it about time you beg for some fellatio from your senile old mother, you pseudo-psychologist prick? Again, I am only extending to you the same regard with which you treat these students and faculty. If it feels bad and unfair that should be a signal for you to engage in a little introspection.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2024 16:38
|
|
|
Papf posted:Whatever lets you sleep at night. You are saying that because the legacy of the civil rights movement has been recuperated, which is the name for the process by which radical, dangerous political ideas which are (at least partially) successful, are turned into support for the legitimacy of the governing powers. MLK was not universally respected, the civil rights protests were not non-disruptive, and certainly were not considered to be so at the time they were occuring. What has happened since then is that their legacy has been co-opted, their tactics have been mischaracterised, and they are now held up by people like you as "the good ones" to disparage and denigrate future radicals who follow the same tactics. The state is good, and kind, and magnanimously bowed to the respectful petition of the good kind of protestors when they politely pointed out that it was wrong. This is the proper process, if you do not follow the proper process then your demands simply do not deserve consideration.  What you are displaying is simply your own ignorance of history.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2024 16:45
|
|
|
If nothing else, the notion that somebody can be so universally revered that they get shot in the loving neck and murdered, raises questions about what you think reverence means.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2024 16:56
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:If nothing else, the notion that somebody can be so universally revered that they get shot in the loving neck and murdered, raises questions about what you think reverence means. I posted quotes from the MLK white moderate speech (apparently that’s trolling!) earlier in the thread in regards to Apartheid Academic. I think the new regreg guy gave himself away by doing the MLK post but he does seem to be posting like someone who is actually angry and white moderates are incredibly loving stupid so who knows maybe it’s not a bit.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2024 22:57
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:MLK was not universally respected, the civil rights protests were not non-disruptive, and certainly were not considered to be so at the time they were occuring. What has happened since then is that their legacy has been co-opted, their tactics have been mischaracterised, and they are now held up by people like you as "the good ones" to disparage and denigrate future radicals who follow the same tactics. to enhance the point, in 1966 martin luther king was polled at 63% unfavorable, and that includes 40% of all americans rating him as the maximally allowed unfavorability rating. for the majority of americans he was a horrible domestic terrorist intentionally bringing chaos and unnecessary violence to unseat important american norms, a person who needed to be denounced in the strongest possible terms. two years earlier he was almost the most loathed public figure, just ahead of george wallace always in commentary and polls he was 'doing more harm than good' and his actions were regrettable and radical and probably an infiltration of foreign destabilizers. even when he got murdered one in three americans was like "eh he brought it on himself" it would take a long time for history to vindicate his actions, then turn him into an icon, then in degrees turn him into a Magical History Negro that modern day regressive scolds can point to and say "why couldn't you have done this in the respectable way, like our hero Martin Luther King Jr, a goodly well spoken fellow who would no doubt be shocked and appalled with the same things i disagree with" i just want to put all that out there as a preface to the part where i loving hate, just actually viscerally hate when people like papf play into that sort of thing, and can't really respond to it very fairly beyond this because i won't maintain a requisite level of civility towards tenacious whitewashing and tokenizing of civil rights era figures to selectively justify modern day contentious issues, like the current anti-israel protests that will have to exist in similarly poor popular reception, force change through disruption and disorder from popular protest of ongoing atrocities, and be similarly retconned in history so the less MLK comes up like this after this, the better
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2024 23:22
|
|
|
Genocide and apartheid supporters are generally uncool hangs imho
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2024 00:21
|
|
|
Papf posted:Were civil rights activists in the '50s and '60s "loud and disruptive?" Of course not. They were civil and well-spoken, which was the whole point and entirely why MLK is so revered. idiot
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2024 07:09
|
|
|
World Famous W posted:don't care if you're banned, i ain't been able to stop laughing at this since i read it Oh Don’t worry he’ll probably send you some really funny PMs if he hasn’t already
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2024 08:16
|
|
|
I thought "revered MLK" was a bit? 
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2024 08:42
|
|
|
Butter Activities posted:Genocide and apartheid supporters are generally uncool hangs imho I think they are very cool hangs like Benny M
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2024 09:01
|
|
|
Fish of hemp posted:I thought "revered MLK" was a bit? It is sort of a necessary conclusion if you believe the apparently sincerely advanced position earlier that only non disruptive protests should be tolerated.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2024 09:39
|
|
|
Edit: repeating point nvm
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2024 19:27
|
|
|
I can't summarize the current moment better than Eli, so I'll just re-post him here:      Source: https://jewishcurrents.org/campus-in-crisis
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2024 21:04
|
|
|
Papf posted:If that's what you believe a protest is, I believe we have fundamentally different definitions of what constitutes a protest. have you.... have you actually read any history from that time? like at all!? Martin Luther King Jr was stalked by the FBI and assassinated. What is revered is a sanitized distorted version of him that stripped him of his more radical views on economics or the Vietnam War, another appalling travesty our ruling class forced on us.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2024 23:08
|
|
|
Papf posted:This idea has little to no merit. Every protest in history—regardless of its productivity—has had demands, as there would be no point in congregating in the first place if nothing would come from it. Hell, snot-nosed toddlers have demands for their parents. Does that make them champions of democracy? Hostage-takers and terrorists all compose a list of demands. Does that make the 9/11 hijackers justified in their pursuits and/or negate all of their misdeeds as long as they hope to achieve something noble? Unless you believe the ends justify the means, which is an inherently flawed philosophy, the answer is no. Won't somebody think of the landscaping?! There was grass that was walked on! There was even a sign saying not to!
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2024 23:16
|
|
|
Pentecoastal Elites posted:nor Gazans: That made me cry. Edit I am going book mark this and shove it in the faces that say protest does not matter. Because those encampments matter to those kids in Gaza. side_burned fucked around with this message at 03:51 on May 4, 2024 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2024 03:47
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Absent a response from the authorities, segregation would be ended, since there would be no one stopping black people from going into whites only establishments, sitting in bus seats reserved for whites, etc. (And that did happen occasionally, some restaurants did give in and start serving everyone to make the sit-ins stop, some Southern cities did negotiate an end to segregation, others did not). The point of the exercise was ending segregation, the protestors did not want to be beaten to expose the immorality of the authorities, but they were willing to be, if necessary. Important difference. Of course it would be better to not use violence. However, when laws enjoy wide popular and political support it is naive to think force will not be used to enforce them. Segregation at least locally had popular and political support. You challenge it to highlight injustice which may or may not lead to some form of change but in doing so you challenge the authority of the state which has a power monopoly. Look, when Climate Rebellion glues themselves to an intersection we don’t just declare the intersection lost lest we interfere with free speech. I think it is pretty clear that society can’t function if anyone can shut down an institution or piece of infrastructure to protest their chosen cause. I completely respect it is as a tactic to bring the issue to the forefront of public discourse but there’s necessarily limits to the disruption the state can tolerate.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2024 10:24
|
|
|
Owling Howl posted:
Why though. Climate change is a legitimate emergency, wouldn't it make more sense to address the very real problems that are prompting people to protest in the first place? Instead of just jumping to cracking skulls? Aren't you just agreeing with the Chinese government here? The Tinanmen protesters were trespassing after all. And their presence was disrupting an important state visit by the head of the Soviet Union! What were they supposed to do, just declare the square lost forever because some students weren't satisfied with writing a polite letter outlining their grievances? *sound of rounds clicking into chambers*
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2024 21:43
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Why though. Climate change is a legitimate emergency, wouldn't it make more sense to address the very real problems that are prompting people to protest in the first place? Instead of just jumping to cracking skulls? Well what if it causes you don’t agree with? There were protesters blocking the entrances to schools when the segregation of schools ended. What if it is anti-abortionists occupying a clinic or hospital? Or the alt-right blocking a trans event? Surely you’re making a value judgement as to what protests should be accommodated or it is simply mob rule. Society is compromise. It is deeply flawed because people are flawed. We are bigoted, racist, prejudiced, biased, dumb, self-serving and greedy and somehow we have to live together. Sometimes the majority of your fellow citizens will favor choices that are deeply amoral and harmful. You can violate the law to express your dissatisfaction and it is possible that the state will back down - flower revolutions do happen - but without a strong popular majority backing it, it is unlikely to succeed.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2024 22:49
|
|
|
Owling Howl posted:Well what if it causes you don’t agree with? There were protesters blocking the entrances to schools when the segregation of schools ended. What if it is anti-abortionists occupying a clinic or hospital? Or the alt-right blocking a trans event? Surely you’re making a value judgement as to what protests should be accommodated or it is simply mob rule. Stopping or hindering genocide is a cause that should be accomplished through any means necessary. Wanting to commit genocide or apartheid is a bad cause that should be opposed by any means necessary. Thank you for making sure we consider such an important question as "what if this was about something else, entirely?!?!?!" good luck on that comprise I'm sure you'll work something out with the mob of hooting proud boys
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2024 23:27
|
|
|
Owling Howl posted:Well what if it causes you don’t agree with? There were protesters blocking the entrances to schools when the segregation of schools ended. Was a single one of those people tear-gassed and beaten by riot cops? From what I know of the era, fire hoses and dogs were used on the people protesting against segregation. People who were for were treated with kid gloves, typically. Didn't the US Marshals just escort Ruby Bridges into the school. The only violence there was attacks on black students by whites later on when the National Guard wasn't around. Or when George Wallace blocked the door the USNG just convinced him to move by reluctantly informing him it was their "sad duty" to ask him to step aside lol. Is there a specific incident you're referring to where brutality was necessary? And... what do you think of Tianemen then? Was the government right to crush the demonstrators who had already spent months breaking the law
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2024 00:50
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Absent a response from the authorities, segregation would be ended, since there would be no one stopping black people from going into whites only establishments, sitting in bus seats reserved for whites, etc. (And that did happen occasionally, some restaurants did give in and start serving everyone to make the sit-ins stop, some Southern cities did negotiate an end to segregation, others did not). The point of the exercise was ending segregation, the protestors did not want to be beaten to expose the immorality of the authorities, but they were willing to be, if necessary. Important difference. Absent a response from the authorities, the local populations were often more than willing to enforce segregation themselves. Ending segregation didn't just require ending the authorities' active support of segregation - it also required getting the authorities to intervene against segregation supporters who would have otherwise sought to maintain it with regardless. Private businesses that intended to maintain segregation, local mobs that intended to enforce segregation on their own, and terrorist groups like the KKK...the authorities had their work cut out for them in protecting desegregation initiatives from those who sought to disrupt them by any means necessary. To end segregation, it wasn't enough for the authorities to just stop beating and jailing anti-segregation black people - the authorities also had to start beating and jailing white people. That's especially true when it came to school desegregation, where there were a number of particularly high-profile cases of needing to send in the authorities to prevent protesters from disrupting the schools. For example, this is what school desegregation looked like in Little Rock, Arkansas: federal troops sent in by order of the president to protect the Little Rock Nine, escorting them to and from school while preventing pro-segregation protesters from obstructing the students or disrupting the school.     Of course, Arkansas had first sent the National Guard to obstruct the students' attendance. But when the National Guard was withdrawn, the hundreds of angry protesters at the school were beyond the ability of the local police to control (to their credit, the police did appear to have actually tried), and that was what led to federal troops being sent in. Let's look back through historical coverage at what reporters from the North saw that day: quote:It was exactly like an explosion, a human explosion. Even if the authorities hadn't been there, there were still plenty of people willing to act on their own to remove black people from whites-only spaces...and they might very well have succeeded if the authorities weren't out there beating pro-segregation protesters who tried to invade the schools.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2024 01:30
|
|
|
Violently attacking people isn't nonviolent protest, by definition. Still haven't heard a good justification for beating non-violent protestors, even ones I may happen to disagree with. E: the problem for reactionaries is that their goals typically can't be achieved by non-violent means. They aren't protesting for their own rights or against unjust laws that can be broken passively. They want to enforce their will over others, which can really only only be done using violence. That's why a principled commitment to the rights of speech and assembly and protest is not a problem for me, even when people I don't like do it. It's only a problem for authoritarians who want to oppress others. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 01:39 on May 5, 2024 |
|
#
?
May 5, 2024 01:35
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Was a single one of those people tear-gassed and beaten by riot cops? From what I know of the era, fire hoses and dogs were used on the people protesting against segregation. People who were for were treated with kid gloves, typically. Oh yeah, absolutely. In the anti-integration Ole Miss riot of 1962, federal marshals sent to integrate the University of Mississippi, used up all the tear gas they had trying to drive off the protesters. And when that still wasn't enough, federal troops were sent in - first to rescue the besieged marshals, and then to bring the riots under control by force, with helicopters coordinating the troops as they charged groups of rioters organizing in the alleys, and hundreds of people arrested in the aftermath. Let's pull another piece of contemporary reporting from the archives: quote:Ole Miss enrolls Meredith after riots kill 2, injure 75 It might not be remembered quite as starkly as Bull Connor's brutality these days, but anti-segregation authorities were in fact willing to use tear gas, physical violence, and arrests in order to keep pro-segregation protesters from disrupting school integration. As for George Wallace, that was a bit of a special case, because he was just there to put on a political show and everyone knew it (especially the Kennedy administration, who he'd privately informed in advance). Wallace had in fact taken measures beforehand to ensure that there wouldn't be any major protests there to distract the reporters away from his grand defiant speeches. In return, the administration played along and let him have his show, a show that resulted in him stepping aside voluntarily.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2024 01:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 15:15 |
|
|
"Before troops were ordered to fire tear gas, some one hurled a huge rock through the window of an Army truck and a man on a balcony dropped a log on another truck." "Rioters hurled fire bombs at Army vehicles and chased cars containing Negroes." Again that wasn't non-violent protest. It's not an example of cops gassing and beating non-violent segregationists who were simply trespassing or blocking roads or any of the other excuses being offered to justify beating students this week. I don't see what any of that has to do with this situation. If the students were firebombing zionists and dropping logs on cops without provocation that would have been a completely different situation now wouldn't it.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2024 05:24
|
|