General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums"Sorry Liberals, A Violent Response To Trump Is As Logical As Any"
As a result, a litany of think-pieces and condemnations from liberal media and politicians are making their rounds to make it clear how unacceptable and counterproductive any violence or rioting is, urging people to listen to the other side, and to use legitimate means to fight Trumps riseignoring the possibility of fascism in the US rising with it. Those who stray from this nonviolent narrative, like Emmet Rensin, an editor at Vox who tweeted that people should riot when Trump comes to town, face swift and punitive redress, urging them to fall back in line. Amidst the hot takes and denunciations from liberals, they all seem to miss a few key points. First, they misplace the blame. Second, they misunderstand the desired outcome from violent resistance and those protesting Trump in general. And third, they ignore the history of successful violent insurrection in the US, instead favoring the elementary school version of history in which nonviolence is the only means of struggle thats ever achieved a thing.
Violent resistance matters. Riots can lead to major change (*note the irony of that hyperlink going to a Vox article). Its not liberal politicians or masses that historians identify as the spark underlying the modern movement for LGBTQ equality. Nor was it a think piece from some smarmy liberal writer. It was the people who took to the streets during the Stonewall Uprising. It was the Watts Rebellion, not the Watts Battle of Ideas, that exposed the enduring systemic neglect, poverty, inequality, and racism faced by that community. Similarly, it was the LA Uprising, not the LA Protests, that led to significant changes in the Los Angeles Police Department. More recently, the Ferguson and Baltimore Uprisings both helped prompt the Justice Department to investigate their corrupt police forces. And since were talking about fascism, its worth remembering that it wasnt the election of a moderate centrist (hello, Hillary) or a sanguine protest that stopped its ascent in Europe. It was, primarily, the Russian military, and to a lesser extent the US military; neither of which practiced nonviolence if memory serves.
Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jesse-benn/sorry-liberals-a-violent-_b_10316186.html
What do you think?
doc03
(35,416 posts)carry the Mexican flag or assault anyone.
Rex
(65,616 posts)So no, I don't see the concern.
doc03
(35,416 posts)right wing media uses to unite the Republicans. If anything it hurts us. I am not a Republican and burning the flag
pisses me off and if the immigrants want support from me don't carry the Mexican flag and want to be accepted in the USA..
Rex
(65,616 posts)Good to know.
doc03
(35,416 posts)Say you are an immigrant and you want to stay in the USA, just what reason would you burn the US flag for if you want to stay in this country? If you have a Mexican heritage day or something carry the Mexican fine but if you don't want some nut like Trump deporting you don't carry the Mexican flag in a protest against him. How you can't see that is counterproductive is beyond me and it is pointless to continue with this.
mac56
(17,575 posts)PersonNumber503602
(1,134 posts)is doing it. I just find it hard to fathom what would make someone want to carrying around some other countries flag than the country they are in. I don't even want to carry around my flag while in the US, let alone if I was living in some other country. If I did that I'd probably be considered an asshole by many on here, wouldn't I?
Unless they want parts of the US to join Mexico and they are fighting a battle for that to happen, then I really do not understand the purpose of waving flags around. I suppose some nationalism is better and more acceptable than others. Burning the American flags makes more sense in this situation, and I can understand how that plays into the protest. After all, this is about the US politics and domestic issues.
mac56
(17,575 posts)Certainly you must know that displaying the Mexican flag does not mean someone wants parts of the US to join Mexico. That is ludicrous.
Jim Beard
(2,535 posts)Totally opposed!
I think the pearl-clutchers are upset because no guns were involved.
Rex
(65,616 posts)"Merika...woo hoo...flag burners are commies and those dam furiners and their Mexican flag!" Grrr grrr grrr...
Response to Rex (Reply #7)
Post removed
Ex Lurker
(3,816 posts)Mnpaul
(3,655 posts)supporters of flag burning Amendment
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Breaux (D-LA)
Cleland (D-GA)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Graham (D-FL)
Hollings (D-SC)
Johnson (D-SD)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=2&vote=00048
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Dayton (D-MN)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Johnson (D-SD)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Stabenow (D-MI)
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00189
Hillary must be a Republican as well
The Flag Protection Act of 2005 was a proposed United States federal law introduced by Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Robert Bennett. The law would have outlawed flag burning, and called for a punishment of one year in jail and a fine of $100,000.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_Protection_Act_of_2005
Rex
(65,616 posts)Mnpaul
(3,655 posts)Are those people on the list Republicans?
Rex
(65,616 posts)Are they jealous some liberals are moving in on their favorite pastime?
GeorgeGist
(25,326 posts)Perfectly logical, fuck NO.
joeybee12
(56,177 posts)And from a practical standpoint, it plays right into the right's hands, because the media covers the violence and not the substance of what tRump says.
doc03
(35,416 posts)that is exercising their right to go to a political rally helps. But I guess I am bigot according to them.
joeybee12
(56,177 posts)deaniac21
(6,747 posts)in the same sentence.
Angel Martin
(942 posts)"...theres an inherent value in forestalling Trumps normalization. Violent resistance accomplishes this."
Violent criminal attacks don't "denormalize" Trump, they delegitimize the opposition to Trump.
These guys must want Trump to be elected so they have an excuse for protest for the next 8 years...
romanic
(2,841 posts)Some people just want to see the world burn.
JEB
(4,748 posts)gratuitous
(82,849 posts)And yes, Godwin, blah, blah, blah. But one persistent complaint over the years has been to blame the Jews in part for not rising up violently against the incipient Nazi regime. As if anyone could have predicted in the early stages what Hitler's rule would become for the Jews and others. ("But the warning signs were all there! Hitler even wrote a book about it!" The unspoken point has been that the Jews would have been justified in doing whatever they could - including riots, insurrection, and other violent resistance - to stop the rise of Hitler.
I'm not equating Trump with Hitler or the present-day United States with Weimar Germany. But, there may be some Muslims, some Latinos, some refugees, who take Trump at his word when he talks the way he does. (Are the warning signs there?) If you think the Jews would have been justified in taking whatever measures they could to resist Hitler, even early on, can you really condemn violence from people today who perceive themselves as having the same bead drawn on them as the Jews had 80 years ago?
There were surely some who counseled patience all those years ago: "Oh no, it may be oppressive, but we can manage. It won't be so bad. Decent people will stand with us and stop any real depredations. Keep quiet, don't stir up more trouble. Do you want things to get even worse for us?"
If people really regard the rise of Trump as an existential threat to themselves, can the culture of the United States, steeped as it in violence, really condemn meeting violence with violence?
fried eggs
(910 posts)Angel Martin
(942 posts)30's very well.
The idea that there was not violent opposition to the Nazis is total nonsense. Most of the political parties in Germany in the 1920's and 30's had their own militias - to provide security for their rallies as well as attack the opposition.
As a result there were pitched battles in the streets and hundreds were killed in the years leading up to the Hitler takeover.
good summary https://frenchhistoryonline.com/vichy-france-and-the-second-word-war/political-violence-in-interwar-europe-a-lecture-by-chris-millington/
Also, the chaos and lawlessness produced a backlash that helped the right wing parties (even though they were some of the main instigators).
For the jews in Germany, they were 2-3 percent of the population. Any violent uprising would just have got them all killed. Their only option was to leave. Tragically, a large number moved to Poland so they didn't escape.
For the groups opposing Trump - the more violent they become the bigger the backlash and the better he will do.
For example, only a minority currently favour deporting the 11 million (or whatever) illegal immigrants. I guarantee you that the number favouring deportation has gone up since these riots started. And the more they see people committing crimes while yelling in spanish and waving the mexican flag, the larger the number favouring deportation will grow.
gratuitous
(82,849 posts)But the story about the passivity of the oppressed persists, and many people have internalized the story. Some have adopted it so personally that they themselves have determined that "never again" will they be victimized by an out-and-out demagogue like Donald Trump. They see it as an existential struggle and if they don't resist, they become the 21st century successor to the passive victims of genocide. Whether they are undocumented immigrants or simply look like they might be, they feel they are in the cross-hairs of a very violent faction in our society, and as you note that faction is growing. It's a circle of hatred and mistrust that feeds on itself, and too many responsible voices in our society are silent observers, even when they can see how wrong it's going.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)I understand Latinos in particular being angry, profoundly, existentially angry with Trump.
But don't play into his hands by getting down on his level.
beachbum bob
(10,437 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)liberal N proud
(60,349 posts)and any progressive or liberal cause.
An eye for an eye just leaves both sides blind.
bluestateguy
(44,173 posts)is that I do not condone it.
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)Incitement to violence is, and should be, a crime.
This probably stays on the legal side of the line, but only barely. And it's certainly totally devoid of any merit whatsoever.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)but Benn doesn't strike me as someone who would be within a hundred miles of a place when the shit hits the fan, much less someone who would willingly dive hip-deep in it...
ImLiberalNotLeftist
(24 posts)This article was the reason I went from forum lurker to registered account and was the inspiration for my name. Responding with violence to conflicting political ideology is neither logical nor is it in keeping with true liberal ideals. To restate, Jesse Benn is not a liberal no matter how much he thinks he might be. He is a radical who has let his emotion get the better of him. If he thinks the use of violence against Trump supporters is justified them by that laughably flawed "logic" Omar Mateen's abhorrent acts against those he disagreed with were also "justified". Of course we all know this is simply not the case and so for that reason I judge Jesse Benn to be wrong, his assertion that violence is a representation of liberalism to be wrong, and would challenge him to correct and apologize for his hateful statement.
You cant use hate as a means to justify the opposition of hate. Its as hypocritical as it is wrong.