Jump to content
MunoRN MunoRN (Member)

Out of bounds protesting

Politics   (3,379 Views 53 Comments)
64,237 Visitors; 3,948 Posts
If you find this topic helpful leave a comment.

Protesting and etiquette aren't two words that are really meant to go together, protesting isn't supposed to be particularly polite, but at the same time there's been an awful lot of civil disobedience lately that is in no way civil.  

Blocking roads or even interstate highways seems to be a common example these days.  Other than being unwise, I don't see how this is going to sway anyone to be on your side.

I have to say I'm not particularly sympathetic to protestors who menace cars that are driving where protestors have illegally tried to block passage and then are often at the receiving end of a driver who just decides the best option is to flee.  The fleeing driver certainly shouldn't go out of their way to harm anyone harassing them, but protestors shouldn't complain when their own actions get them injured and I don't see how they have a right to take actions against the driver or the car's occupants.  

Some recent examples:   https://www.wthr.com/article/news/local/witnesses-car-drove-into-bloomington-protesters/531-11312841-7d9d-423f-a908-0f3fa677b7b5

https://apnews.com/9148d740c10fcd784867eda74055aaa5

https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2020-07-04/2-women-hit-by-car-on-seattle-highway-closed-amid-protests

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, MunoRN said:

Protesting and etiquette aren't two words that are really meant to go together, protesting isn't supposed to be particularly polite, but at the same time there's been an awful lot of civil disobedience lately that is in no way civil.  

Blocking roads or even interstate highways seems to be a common example these days.  Other than being unwise, I don't see how this is going to sway anyone to be on your side.

I have to say I'm not particularly sympathetic to protestors who menace cars that are driving where protestors have illegally tried to block passage and then are often at the receiving end of a driver who just decides the best option is to flee.  The fleeing driver certainly shouldn't go out of their way to harm anyone harassing them, but protestors shouldn't complain when their own actions get them injured and I don't see how they have a right to take actions against the driver or the car's occupants.  

Some recent examples:   https://www.wthr.com/article/news/local/witnesses-car-drove-into-bloomington-protesters/531-11312841-7d9d-423f-a908-0f3fa677b7b5

https://apnews.com/9148d740c10fcd784867eda74055aaa5

https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2020-07-04/2-women-hit-by-car-on-seattle-highway-closed-amid-protests

 

MLK blocked roadways and bridges.

So, this is an old tactic.

The Sons of Liberty, destroyed private property, when they dumped tea into Boston Harbor.

The point of protesting, is to cause discomfort.

I have participated in protests over the years. I never did so, thinking it was away to change anybody's point of view.

It is done, again, to cause discomfort to a society, while drawing attention to an important topic.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, MunoRN said:

Protesting and etiquette aren't two words that are really meant to go together, protesting isn't supposed to be particularly polite, but at the same time there's been an awful lot of civil disobedience lately that is in no way civil.  

Blocking roads or even interstate highways seems to be a common example these days.  Other than being unwise, I don't see how this is going to sway anyone to be on your side.

I have to say I'm not particularly sympathetic to protestors who menace cars that are driving where protestors have illegally tried to block passage and then are often at the receiving end of a driver who just decides the best option is to flee.  The fleeing driver certainly shouldn't go out of their way to harm anyone harassing them, but protestors shouldn't complain when their own actions get them injured and I don't see how they have a right to take actions against the driver or the car's occupants.  

Some recent examples:   https://www.wthr.com/article/news/local/witnesses-car-drove-into-bloomington-protesters/531-11312841-7d9d-423f-a908-0f3fa677b7b5

https://apnews.com/9148d740c10fcd784867eda74055aaa5

https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2020-07-04/2-women-hit-by-car-on-seattle-highway-closed-amid-protests

 

I would also argue that MLK wasn't trying to change the hearts and minds of White southerners when he blocked those roads and bridges.

He knew that was a near impossible task.

That was why those bridge blocking protesters wore their Sunday best, and King had women and children protest, so that White southerners would see just how vile they were, when they turned water hoses on people who possessed more humanity than their attackers.

From an occupant of the WH, who believes Bubba Wallace should "apologize" for the noose "hoax," that we all know wasn't a hoax, to cops continuing to kill innocent Black men, we can see MLK changed few minds.

But he held up a mirror to Whites, that didn't allow them to turn away from their ugliness, and brought about change.

Anger is an energy, but shame is an effective tool.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Watts riot in 1965 and Black urban riots of 1967 were touched off by local police violence. Martin Luther King Jr. did not encourage rioting, looting, or property damage, but he did try to analyze their message, even as he argued such tactics would not prove victorious. 

Dr. King wrote the following in 1967:

"This bloodlust interpretation ignores one of the most striking features of the city riots. Violent they certainly were. But the violence, to a startling degree, was focused against property rather than against people. There were very few cases of injury to persons, and the vast majority of the rioters were not involved at all in attacking people.

The much publicized “death toll” that marked the riots, and the many injuries, were overwhelmingly inflicted on the rioters by the military. It is clear that the riots were exacerbated by police action that was designed to injure or even to kill people. As for the snipers, no account of the riots claims that more than one or two dozen people were involved in sniping. From the facts, and unmistakable pattern emerges: a handful of Negroes used gunfire substantially to intimidate, not to kill; and all of the other participants had a different target—property.

I am aware that there are many who wince at a distinction between property and persons—who hold both sacrosanct. My views are not so rigid. A life is sacred. Property is intended to serve life, and no matter how much we surround it with rights and respect, it has no personal being. It is part of the earth man walks on; it is not man.

The focus on property in the 1967 riots is not accidental. It has a message; it is saying something.

If hostility to whites were ever going to dominate a Negro’s attitude and reach murderous proportions, surely it would be during a riot. But this rare opportunity for bloodletting was sublimated into arson, or turned into a kind of stormy carnival of free-merchandise distribution. 

Why did the rioters avoid personal attacks? The explanation cannot be fear of retribution, because the physical risks incurred in the attacks on property were no less than for personal assaults. The military forces were treating acts of petty larceny as equal to murder. Far more rioters took chances with their own lives, in their attacks on property, than threatened the life of anyone else. Why were they so violent with property then? Because property represents the white power structure, which they were attacking and trying to destroy. 

A curious proof of the symbolic aspect of the looting for some who took part in it is the fact that, after the riots, police received hundreds of calls from Negroes trying to return merchandise they had taken. Those people wanted the experience of taking, of redressing the power imbalance that property represents. Possession, afterward, was secondary.

A deeper level of hostility came out in arson, which was far more dangerous than the looting. But it, too, was a demonstration and a warning. It was designed to express the depth of anger in the community."

https://woborders.blog/2012/03/24/mlk-on-riots-and-property-destruction/

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Lil Nel said:

MLK blocked roadways and bridges.

So, this is an old tactic.

The Sons of Liberty, destroyed private property, when they dumped tea into Boston Harbor.

The point of protesting, is to cause discomfort.

I have participated in protests over the years. I never did so, thinking it was away to change anybody's point of view.

It is done, again, to cause discomfort to a society, while drawing attention to an important topic.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry but no, he did not, and he certainly didn't engage in blocking roads for the purpose of physically attacking and terrorizing anyone who unknowingly finds themselves in an ambush.

The idea of blocking the roadway leading to the 1964 was proposed, but MLK as well as the NAACP opposed the idea as being counter-productive.

I've heard others point out that the march on Selma blocked the highway when they crossed the Edmund Pettus bridge, which isn't correct.  They intentionally crossed on only half the bridge, leaving the other half open to two-way traffic.

1160721315_Selmabridge.jpg.d7fb9f42c07fa4481ce4ed241c253aba.jpg

 

And then as they waited everyone moved over to the sidewalk:

927765680_Selmabridge2.jpg.400f0706f98a2b765d56ac4a83eef622.jpg

 

The purpose of protests is to make people with ideas or beliefs one finds offensive, biased, racist, etc feel uncomfortable with those beliefs, it's not to make people scared or fearful regardless of whether they hold those beliefs you disagree with, that's called just being an a-hole.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, MunoRN said:

Sorry but no, he did not, and he certainly didn't engage in blocking roads for the purpose of physically attacking and terrorizing anyone who unknowingly finds themselves in an ambush.

The idea of blocking the roadway leading to the 1964 was proposed, but MLK as well as the NAACP opposed the idea as being counter-productive.

I've heard others point out that the march on Selma blocked the highway when they crossed the Edmund Pettus bridge, which isn't correct.  They intentionally crossed on only half the bridge, leaving the other half open to two-way traffic.

1160721315_Selmabridge.jpg.d7fb9f42c07fa4481ce4ed241c253aba.jpg

 

And then as they waited everyone moved over to the sidewalk:

927765680_Selmabridge2.jpg.400f0706f98a2b765d56ac4a83eef622.jpg

 

The purpose of protests is to make people with ideas or beliefs one finds offensive, biased, racist, etc feel uncomfortable with those beliefs, it's not to make people scared or fearful regardless of whether they hold those beliefs you disagree with, that's called just being an a-hole.

Where have protesters blocked roads and threatened people?

Not here, in KY.

Although a White guy, riding in an Uber, in Lexington, did threaten protesters.

One picture you provided sure looks like a blocked roadway to me! 

Do you not see blocked lanes of travel?

While I have certainly read on FB, accounts of "ambushes" as you state, I have yet to read actual, verified accounts of these "ambushes."

Sorry.

Protesters blocking roads don't scare or worry me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, herring_RN said:

BLM have done this several times in recent years since the killing of Eric Garner. I do NOT think it is OK.

BLM stopped traffic last week, on the bridge between Louisville and southern Indiana.

They hung a sign from the bridge, for Breonna Taylor.

No was threatened or ambushed.

Some people were inconvenienced, but compared to being murdered by police, like Ms Taylor, well, there is no comparison, is there?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Lil Nel said:

Where have protesters blocked roads and threatened people?

Not here, in KY.

Although a White guy, riding in an Uber, in Lexington, did threaten protesters.

One picture you provided sure looks like a blocked roadway to me! 

Do you not see blocked lanes of travel?

While I have certainly read on FB, accounts of "ambushes" as you state, I have yet to read actual, verified accounts of these "ambushes."

Sorry.

Protesters blocking roads don't scare or worry me.

I included three in the first post, are you referring to there being no examples other than those?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MunoRN said:

I included three in the first post, are you referring to there being no examples other than those?

It happened in Denver too.  On the interstate and city streets.  In one case a group of loud rowdy protesters surrounded a car, the driver decided to go, one protester ended up getting hit after he had moved but the driver decided to take a run at him.

Blocking the roads is at the least an inconvenience.  Probably makes some people agitated, late for work (hourly workers cant afford that), delays them getting to a hospital, etc.  In that moment I'm sure it doesnt garner any support for whatever the protest is about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, MunoRN said:

I included three in the first post, are you referring to there being no examples other than those?

Your Seattle example, is not an example of what you refer to as an ambush."

The driver wasn't threatened. The driver intentionally drove through and area that was blocked.

That is NOT an ambush.

I didn't read your other examples.

Perhaps they are more of the same, such as insisting MLK didn't block roads, when I can see lanes of travel blocked, in your example.

Again, no drivers ambushed or threatened by blocked roads in KY.

But protesters have been threatened.

In Lexington, a driver who brandished a gun at protesters was arrested.

A little inconvenience, to make the masses uncomfortable with police killings.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
×

This site uses cookies. By using this site, you consent to the placement of these cookies. Read our Privacy, Cookies, and Terms of Service Policies to learn more.