Kimberly Jones has an eloquent answer to the question "Why are they looting?" Listen to her

[StarfishSaver]

People are like, "What did you get? What do you gain?" But I think as long as you're focusing on the what, you're not focusing on the why. Some say well (looters) are not people who are legitimately angry about what's happening, they're just people who just want to get stuff so let's go with that and say what it is.

Let's ask ourselves why in this country in 2020, why the financial gap between poor blacks and the rest of the world is at such a distance that people feel their only hope and only opportunity to get some of the things that we flaunt and flash in front of them all the time is to walk through a broken glass window and get it.

That they are so hopeless that getting that necklace, or chain, or TV, or bed or phone, whatever they want to get is that in that moment when riots happen that's their only opportunity to get it.

Why are people that poor? Why are people that broke? Why are people that food insecure, clothing insecure that they feel their only shot is walking through a broken glass window and getting it.
...
And they are lucky that all black people are looking for is equality and not revenge.

[spicysista]

1. The last sentence.

[A HERETIC I AM]

2. I watched John Oliver's show that ended with this vid.....

And was going to post it.

You beat me to it and did a better job of it than I would have.

"And they are lucky that all black people are looking for is equality and not revenge."

Used to be on DU that you could use an HTML code and change the color and size of text. After the hacking, they did away with that.

I bring that up, because if I could have, I would have made the above HUGE and bright red!

What she has to say should make every single white person stop and think for a fucking second.

[Thomas Hurt]

4. I think that is what scares the bigots the most...

What if, the current minority groups have the same black-hearted hatred as the white supremacists do when and if they are in the majority?

They don't want to have to face all the ugliness inside them. scares the crap out of them.

[alwaysinasnit]

3. k&r for visibility

[customerserviceguy]

5. All of the apologists for bad behavior

will come to regret it, if it gets the Dotard re-elected.

[StarfishSaver]

7. I don't think they will

Most of them obviously aren't in serious danger if he wins - their lives won't change much.

And they'll just blame it on the tiny sliver of black people who protested in the wrong way and supposedly scared another tiny sliver of white people into voting for Trump (which is bullshit, but let's play along for a minute), not the tens of millions of other white people who voted Trump back in.

[customerserviceguy]

8. I remember 1968

Even with George Wallace siphoning off the most racist voters that year, Nixon still managed to win. And this was after Lyndon Johnson won four years earlier with a landslide.

You underestimate the size of the "sliver" of suburban white people who will pick the side that scares them the least.

[StarfishSaver]

9. This isn't 1968

Things are very different. Among other things, unlike Nixon, Trump is not running against government as an outsider promising to come in and fix the mess the incumbents created and are failing to fix. He IS the incumbent.

This Isn't Just like 1968

I’ve heard and seen several people compare today to 1968 and to suggest that Trump, like Nixon, will benefit from the social unrest to win the election. But this is very different.

Among other things, Trump is not comparable to Nixon. 1968 Nixon was outside of government and capitalized on that, promising to step back in to restore the “law and order” he claimed the current government had failed to provide. He was running against the sitting vice president and, by proxy, the incumbent president, whom he painted as responsible for and unable to contain or correct the mess they created.

Conversely, 2020 Trump is the sitting president who is seen by pretty much everyone as deeply involved in and largely responsible for the chaos. Unlike Nixon, he’s not running against the current regime. He IS the current regime. He can’t promise to give us law and order or to step in and fix the mess because he’s already in position to solve the problem but has failed and refused to do so.

Not only that, but unlike in 1968, it is impossible for him to successfully employ Nixon’s tactic of painting this as anti-American hippies and violent blacks threatening a peaceful, patriotic “silent majority.” That won’t work because the right is widely and correctly seen as a hostile group, prone to violence and disruption just as much and, in fact more than, those on the left.

In 1968, Nixon was able to convince frightened white people that he could protect them. But any white person who believes Trump can protect them is already wearing a MAGA cap. But I am pretty sure that very few white people who feel frightened about what’s going on but haven’t decided to vote for Trump are likely to vote for the man who has proven himself incapable of protecting them from all of this because he himself has caused all of this.

On the other hand, Joe Biden is much more in the position Nixon held in 1968: a former vice president who has stepped back into the arena. He is offering an alternative to the madness we’re engulfed in.

But Biden’s no Nixon – he doesn’t have to fear monger or divide or demagogue about law and order because Trump has already done that and has led us to the brink of disaster. He needs only show us how he plans to return us to decency and competence and honesty and voters on the fence will flock to him.

This is not just like 1968.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100213512044

[customerserviceguy]

10. Yes, I've read that

But I still fear the return of 1968. Trump has managed to continue to look like an outsider, his recent dust-ups with military people who served under him is part of that.

Maybe you think that the 1960's were love, peace, dope and rock-and-roll. Yes, all those things were there, but the United States was transformed from a relatively unified people after the Eisenhower Administration to a very divided nation. These divisions have only grown wider in the last fifty years. And Trump got elected by using those divisions.

[StarfishSaver]

11. No, I don't thin the '60s were love, peace, dope and rock-and-roll

I was there. That's one of the reasons I know that 2020 is nothing like 1968.

I also know that pre-1960s under Eisenhower wasn't "relatively unified." Not even close. Ask anyone who wasn't white working, middle or upper class how "unified" things felt before the Civil Rights Act of 1958 and 1964, the Voting Rights Act, Brown, Loving, Hansberry, the Fair Housing Act, etc. I'm sure they would not share your nostalgia, nor would they think we're .ore divided as a nation than we were then.

[customerserviceguy]

12. At the end of the Eisenhower Administration

things were certainly not perfect, but Americans were still basking in postwar prosperity, and the cynicism spawned by the Vietnam War was only getting started.

Maybe my experience of that time was not representative of the nation as a whole, but I feel that it is representative of the swing voters that we're going to need desperately this year. They got pissed that their state and local tax deduction was capped at $10K, it is possible that they've shifted blame from Trump and the GOP to the Democratic legislators and governors who are taxing them that much.

In any case, I'm glad that Joe Biden is not spending any time trying to justify burning and looting.

[StarfishSaver]

13. I don't know a single black person who would trade today for 1960.

Not one.

And any swing voter who does is probably voting for Trump anyway - and if they're not, they're not going to suddenly switch to him because they feel the country is too "divided" after they saw someone steal something from Target.

But if you think you know people who actually feel that way, why not expend some of the energy you're using to complain that we're doomed because 2020 is a repeat of 1968 talking with them to convince them not to vote for Trump?

[customerserviceguy]

15. I do that

but it often falls on deaf ears, since I moved to SC.

And stealing something from Target is minor compared to seeing the Target in your neighborhood burn down. That's what the Wendy's burning represented to the swing voters. If white suburbanites feel personal fear from the unrest, it may well reflect in their voting preferences this fall.

And I didn't say "we're doomed", I am just glad that Joe Biden is not saying the kinds of things that could be twisted to make him look like he's in favor of looting and burning.

[StarfishSaver]

16. So, if it falls on deaf ears now, this "looting and burning" you keep referencing

that occurred in the last couple of weeks (and most of which seems to have been done by white people) has nothing to with it.

And if you can't convince them, perhaps you should stop trying to blame their insistence on voting for a white supremacist on a few black people not behaving nicely enough.

Trust me. White people may be voting for Trump out of fear of black people, but that kind of fear has nothing to do with anything that black people actually are or aren't doing.

[customerserviceguy]

23. Agreed

And that's the way it was in 1968. Irrational fear of black people, articulated by George Wallace, still got Nixon elected with help from some of the same people who voted for LBJ just a few years earlier. Nixon was savvy enough to look like a "sensible" middle choice between Humphrey and Wallace. And it wasn't just black people that white suburbanites feared, it was the antiwar movement that scared them, too.

Trump clearly has the ability to divide people, it's how he got to where he is today. And I feel that he will use any sympathy for rioters, looters and arsonists that can be twisted out of a Democratic political leader's statements to do his dirty work.

[StarfishSaver]

27. White people have had irrational fear of black people for centuries

That's on them. Not on black people.

Trump doesn't have any ability to divide people. He has an ability to make racists feel good about themselves. Racists are going to vote for him anyway. If any white people who believe they're not racist decide to vote for him, that's their fault. It is not the fault of black people, whether we behave peacefully or not.

And why are you obsessing over whether Biden expresses any support for "rioters, looters and arsonists"? He hasn't done anything remotely close to that nor has he given any indication at all that he plans to do so, so why do you keep talking about it as if it's a thing? If I didn't know any better, I'd think that you are worried, not that he'll express any support for people behaving lawlessly, but that he will openly support the people who are peacefully fighting for civil rights and social justice. Otherwise, what's your point?

[customerserviceguy]

39. My "obsessing"

as you put it, is because Joe Biden seems to be politically flexible as of late. He backed away from his support of the Hyde Amendment, which while it was viable, kept a fair number of Catholics voting Democratic.

I'm just thinking that there will be massive pressure on him to say things that will alienate swing voters that we will need. If he even utters the word "reparations", he's going to come out on the short end this November. Barack Obama was rather skillful when he was asked about the subject, Biden does not seem to have the President's deftness in answering tough or tricky questions.

[uponit7771]

41. Cauase the left cares more about property than persons?

[customerserviceguy]

42. I don't totally understand the distinction

If someone came to your town, and destroyed your workplace and/or your home, could they also be said to have no concern for your life? That Wendy's that burned down put a lot of people out of jobs that they needed to feed their families. That's a human tragedy, not just simple property destruction.

[uponit7771]

43. No, I'm still be more concerned with my life I'm black. I wish I could afford your stance

... my skin color disables that

[Loki Liesmith]

6. That's some quality mental gymnastics

[kentuck]

14. She is more "radical" than Angela Davis, imo...

She raises deeper philosophical questions like: Why is there poverty?

In my opinion, she is right on target with her realizations.

The wealth proportionality is out of balance. Where you work and where you live and what you do, usually has a lot to do with the very air you breathe. If it is about wealth disparity, then it is about economics.

Is it true that we have always had that struggle? Isn't that the way of capitalism?

Of course, there is anger. Who is not angry?

I do not think Dr King would agree with her tactics, even though he might agree with her, in principle, on every one of her points?

Just my opinion.



peace

[StarfishSaver]

17. What "tactics" of hers do you have a problem with?

And please, can we stop deciding how Dr. King of 60 years ago would judge how people deal with the situation today? You probably don't mean it that way, but it sounds simplistic and patronizing. Not only are all black people not somehow required to conduct ourselves according to what they think one particular black man in history would have counseled, that assumption is often based on a very shallow understanding of Dr. King's philosophy and beliefs.

[kentuck]

18. Neither of us know what Dr King would have thought.

In my opinion.

[StarfishSaver]

20. True. That's the point

But I'm not going around telling people what Dr. King would or wouldn't think, even though I am more familiar with Dr. King and his views and philosophy than most people on this site.

I find that most of the people doing the "Now, now, now, Dr. King wouldn't LIKE that!" finger wagging have a barely rudimentary knowledge of Dr. King's views and philosophy, so their insistence on lecturing others on how to behave according their shallow understanding is, as I said, patronizing - especially when directed to people with a much deeper knowledge of it than they have.

Moreover, those entreaties assume that Dr. King was some kind of magical Negro upon whom all black people must model our behavior and approach and, if we don't, somehow we're doing it all wrong.

No.

[kentuck]

22. As I recall, Dr King preached non-violence?

Am I wrong about that?

By the way, I agreed with her in principles. I reserve the right to not agree with looting and fires.

[StarfishSaver]

24. Dr. King also understood and tried to explain looting and rioting

Just like she's doing. She's not excusing it. She's trying to get people to understand why it's happening. That's exactly what Dr. King tried to do but, of course, many people ignore that part of Dr. King's legacy because it doesn't fit within the whitewashed, homogenized version of him created after his murder.

[kentuck]

25. Isn't that what I said?

???

[StarfishSaver]

28. You said you disagree with her tactics, but haven't said what tactics you have a problem with.

[kentuck]

29. In my opinion, it is wrong to loot and burn....

But, in a world of lesser of two evils, burning and looting is not as bad as murder. But they are both evil. In my opinion, evil does not give us the progress we are looking for.

Just my opinion.

[StarfishSaver]

33. She never said it wasn't wrong. She was explaining why people do it.

You think trying to explain things is a "tactic"?

If so, you must have a problem with Dr. King's "tactics," as well since he also tried to explain why people were rioting in the 1960s. Explaining is not condoning or endorsing.

But it is not enough for me to stand before you tonight and condemn riots. It would be morally irresponsible for me to do that without, at the same time, condemning the contingent, intolerable conditions that exist in our society. These conditions are the things that cause individuals to feel that they have no other alternative than to engage in violent rebellions to get attention.

And I must say tonight that a riot is the language of the unheard. And what is it America has failed to hear? It has failed to hear that the plight of the negro poor has worsened over the last twelve or fifteen years. It has failed to hear that the promises of freedom and justice have not been met. And it has failed to hear that large segments of white society are more concerned about tranquility and the status quo than about justice and humanity.

Both she and Dr. King and many others did exactly what the Kerner Commission did in 1968 - tried to focus attention away from the WHAT so people would understand the WHY since, until people understand why this is happening and begin to redress the the real cause, we will never be able to prevent it.

This young woman is trying to foster greater understanding about what's going on in communities and why people are reacting the way they are. Unfortunately, some people refuse to understand it, just as they did 50 years ago when Dr. King, the Kerner Commission, and many others tried to warn America about the price to be paid if it continues to ignore racism and poverty.

[kentuck]

34. What do you see as justice?

I would agree with some that progress has been made since the 1960's but there is still racism, poverty, and police brutality.

Much more needs to be done to fulfill America's dream - which is an ideal, not a place.

How can we have a peaceful society with equality, justice, and laws we can all agree upon?

Is it possible?

[StarfishSaver]

35. What do you think?

What steps do you thjnk we can/should take - beyond simply saying everyone must do better, be nicer to each other, etc. - to be a more just and peaceful society?

[kentuck]

36. Peacefully, I believe we start with reform of the police state...

In my opinion, no cop is better than a dirty cop. I believe we have to take advantage of the opportunity in front of us. We need to be focused. We should not permit ourselves to be distracted with issues like statues and looting and burning. Someone once said something about the arc of justice bending slowly. I think we should keep our eye on the prize. Nobody said it was going to be easy.

We should be careful not to give Trump another term. There is that danger, in my opinion.

[StarfishSaver]

37. That's an important step

We also have to deal with the courts - which means making sure, as you said, to get Trump out and also to take back the Senate.

We won't get anywhere unless we put back into place measures that prevent or remedy discrimination. Republicans and right wing judges, with an unfortunate assist from many so-called progressives, have helped to eviscerate constitutional remedies and turning the 14th Amendment on its head. We have to restore that and stop allowing remedies to be dismissed as "identity politics" and "reverse discrimination."

As for the distractions, one of my frustrations is when people insist that the small amount of violence is a distraction from the cause - and then spend all their time and energy talking about the violence. It is THEY who are causing the distraction, not the rioters, since anything can be a distraction if you focus all your time and attention on it.

It was Dr. King who talked about the arc. He said, the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice." I also see the journey toward racial equality and justice not as a continuum, but believe it moves like a pendulum – sometimes swinging forward, sometimes swinging back. But throughout our recent history, the pendulum always moves a little bit further forward with each swing. Even when we move back by several degrees - as we are now - we always make up for it by moving even further forward when it swings back.

[kentuck]

38. Absolutely right!

We have to take back the Senate and throw Trump out or everything is for naught.

People do get the vapors when there is the least bit of black violence. But we have to avoid too much distractions and do our best to make changes politically, if at all possible.

[meadowlander]

19. When I was really poor

I used to daydream all the time about waking up with superpowers like being invisible or being able to stop time for everyone else but still move myself and what I would do with those powers (hint: it wasn't bettering humanity). Since I've clawed my way up into the middle classes, I haven't had one of those daydreams for years.

I think people who have never been really poor don't understand the cumulative impact of watching thousands of hours of advertising for goods that you will probably never have enough money to own yourself. How it feels to "work and pray, live on hay" while literally the entire society you live in is organised to convince you you need to buy things to be happy while denying you the means at every turn to ever do so.

And I agree that the social contract was broken and not by the looters. When the President of the United States can "shoot a person on Fifth Avenue" with no consequences, when corporate looting is normalised, when cops protect coworkers who plant evidence or fire tear gas or knock down old men who were no threat to them, where does society find the moral high ground to say "you're a bad person who deserves years of punishment because you stole a video game console"?

[StarfishSaver]

21. Thank you. This is so thoughtful.

[Blasphemer]

26. +1 Well said. nt

[chowder66]

30. K & R

[Delphinus]

31. Well said.

Thank you.

[chowder66]

32. K & R.

[Happy Hoosier]

40. Who is the "they" in that last sentence?

That bothers me a tad.

Many of these shops are small and locally owned.

The people working in larger stores are not big shareholders.