Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Ganggang wrote (edited )

Reply to comment by videl in by !deleted19869

They’re not taking a lead, that’s your view. They’re simply destroying property, presumably because they want to. And black people are also “taking the lead” (by your view) in this way, as many of them have also begun destroying property.

The effect of your argument intended or not to undermine the radicalism in the protests and undermines any solidarity or unity. This will make them accomplish less. What you’re saying is the same argument coming from cnn, couched in identity politics.

3

videl wrote (edited )

How is initiating something not taking lead?

I don't have a problem with white people going somewhere and joining in on property destruction thats already commenced. That's solidarity.
But for example if white people show up to a currently peaceful BLM March and initiate (are the first ones to start shit) is just shitty disrespectful white bullshit that we're all tired of. And it really doesnt matter if you think a peaceful protest is a waste of time it's just not your risk to take.

1

polpotisevil2 wrote

Initiation does not involve commanding, organizing, or otherwise affecting fundamentally people's actions through some sort of force. Say someone is the first person to break a window. If people after that start breaking windows, it is because they were given courage and motivation, etc by the action. Watching someone break a window will not make you think breaking windows is something you should be doing, you may be appalled and yell at them to stop. On the other hand, if you think vandalism could be helpful in the situation to prove a point, or however you else think of it, then you start getting involved with the original perpetrator, you have not been controlled by anyone or told what to do and are acting on your own real emotions.

Leading is different. Leading is taking the stage and giving a motivating speech and in the same breath telling people how, where, when, and what what to act on. It is forming a mob mentality to police acts the group does not then approve of. This authority to influence policing can be granted to people in many ways, whether by deed, previous fame, or otherwise. Before you say "but these are groups of people who have a shared cause and come together and opportunists take advantage of them" think about what context you are using opportunist in. The organizers and leaders are also opportunists. They see the death of George Floyd and post a poster all around saying "COME PROTEST THE DEATH OF GEORGE FLOYD AND POLICE BRUTALITY AT ___ PLAZA" attempting to attract many people. And it does. Many people with widely different viewpoints on the situation, whom the leaders then try to control to their own interest.

2

videl wrote (edited )

you havent addressed how white people starting shit that puts black people in danger regardless of whether or not they agree with what the white people are doing isn't disrespectful white bullshit that is totally typical of whiteness. just no regard for people of other races. you haven't addressed this white privilege which is the core of the problem.
I appreciate your explanation on the difference between initiation and leading and I mostly agree but what I am describing is a white person comes into an action and fundamentally changes it for everyone via property destruction & the response that it brings from the white supremacist cops: this is the type of thing I'm talking about whatever you wanna call it.
if you're white and you start shit you better be ready to protect black people by any means necessary

2

polpotisevil2 wrote

For one, as has been seen in some protests, and adds on to what I said about the difference between leading vs initiating, the crowd can easily stop something it doesn't like. People have been handed over to cops who started vandalizing in some areas. Initiation does not always start something. If something really starts, it is sometimes because there is something that runs deeper than the first person who "started" it. I understand how police may react to it in some situations and it will affect other people protesting (white and black), but it varies quite a bit. The situation is what will tell if it is/was acceptable or not, not the fact that they are white.

Also, while police brutality and racism are certainly problems, the two are still seperate issues. The militarized police is a problem for all races, although it definitely disproportionately affects people of color. White people are killed as well as black people. I am not diminishing the struggle against racist police brutality, I simply don't agree that white people have no say or ability to act unless black people do so first, because this does affect white people too, although to a far lesser extent.

Especially disagree when many blacks have the same mentality that rioting and looting and violence is fine. You are still putting some black people's opinions over other black people's opinions by putting it in the context of a racial privilege issue.

1