My head is all over the place; I don't know how to organize my thoughts or even where to share them. When I try to engage strangers in discussion on public Facebook posts, no one responds to me. Or if they do, they stop after my first or second rebuttal. I'm tired of that shutdown in communication. I'm honestly not trying to debate anyone on the facts of what's happening during the protests because none of us are participants of the protests being discussed; and this kind of discussion just becomes a murky pool of he-said-she-said since we don't trust each other's sources. I'm trying to reason with people on why Black Lives Matter is legitimate and worthwhile, and their arguments essentially boil down to something like "Your methods (arson, looting) suck, so your message (BLM) sucks. The feds should beat and arrest all of you."
----
We can agree a bad actor is not a protestor. If the average person is able to logically separate bad actors from peaceful protestors, then why can't the police and federal agents do that as well? It seems some people are claiming that violent force must be used in response to the bad actors hiding amongst the protesters. Okay...
If the officers and agents know who the bad actors are, then they should go after the specific bad actors in a lawful manner; there is no need to go after the peaceful protestors who haven't committed any crimes. Picking nearby people off the street, detaining them for hours, and then releasing them without any charges kinda tells me they don't know who they're looking for and are just grabbing anybody off the street.
If they don't know who the specific bad actors are, then why are they going after anyone at all, especially people who have been shown to be peacefully protesting or just recording the events? Why are tear gas, batons, and kinetic impact projectiles being used against protestors if someone else, the bad actor, is causing damage or harm? If someone committed arson in any other situation and you didn't see who started it, you don't just turn to the person closest to you and start beating them into submission because you don't know if they did anything.
I thought officers and agents were supposed to be trained on how to catch suspects with the least amount of harm caused to the general public. This was what I was taught through the media. If you have a suspect running away from you in a crowd, you don't shoot into the crowd just to get that suspect, unless you think everyone is a suspect and therefore is subject to the same level of force, despite not knowing anyone's level of involvement in any alleged crime. And just in case you weren't sure, while officers and agents are busy rounding up the peaceful protestors instead of the bad actors, the bad actors will continue to cause damage and harm.
I think it's just strange to claim that the violence of some people justifies state violence against all people. It seems like a fear tactic and a diversion tactic meant to deter people from protesting at all and to keep people's focus off of the BLM message of the protests and more on the general state response to the protests, the irony of which is that the protests are against law enforcement's use of excessive force against the Black community.
----
Since it is well-documented in American history, civil disobedience (à la MLK, John Lewis, Rosa Parks, and many others) is a tried and true method of protest for minorities.
Acts of civil disobedience are disruptive and illegal; the purpose is to break laws to draw attention to injustice. Unfortunately, this also draws in the bad actors who are not necessarily in support of the cause (the 1960's non-violent protests also had bad actors employed by the government and others). So the state response is expected. The question is: Is the state violence against the civil disobedience justified? You can't say that the recent state violence is only in response to the street violence occurring during the protests. If that were the case, peaceful protestors and observers wouldn't be targeted.
And if the state violence against civil disobedience is technically justified under current law, I definitely think that needs to be changed. How does it make sense for the government or anyone to punish everyone for the actions of the few that they don't know how to catch? And you can't turn this logic around on our response to police brutality with "Why punish all police officers for the actions of a few bad officers?" We're not seeking to punish all officers. We're seeking to punish the ones who've caused harm and murdered people. We're seeking to change the system that allows police officers to commit crime and murder with impunity and allows their mistakes or ill intent to be overlooked just because they have a badge.
If we are to have law enforcement at all, we need to have a system that we can trust to punish criminals fairly and equally, regardless of their skin color, wealth, or job title.
----
I needed a break from my emotions and from the ridiculous defenses of indiscriminate state violence. So I read about civil disobedience from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/civil-disobedience/. It's an interesting but somewhat long read. It's a summary of philosophical perspectives; what else can you expect?
Here's a paragraph that underscores my understanding of and reaction to "If people just follow the law, then they won't have any problems" 🙄:
"On the assumption that people have a pro tanto obligation to follow the law (or at least those laws that are not excessively unjust), it follows that people then have a pro tanto obligation to use the proper legal channels of political participation before resorting to illegal methods. On this view, civil disobedience can be justified only when employed as a last resort. But since causes defended by a minority are often those most opposed by persons in power, legal channels may be less than wholly effective. Moreover, it is unclear when a person could claim to have reached the situation of last resort; she could continue to use the same tired legal methods without end. To ward off such challenges, Rawls suggests that, if past actions have shown the majority to be immovable or apathetic, then further attempts may reasonably be thought fruitless and one may be confident one's civil disobedience is a last resort."
----
2020 has been an intense and confusing and terrifying and edifying year so far. COVID-19 and Black Lives Matter are the dominating concerns on my mind. What will become of the world as we move forward with the second half of the year? Will COVID deaths rise exponentially? The US is nearly at 150k deaths now. Hadn't someone predicted 200k deaths by the end of summer or something? We're not far off. How much more violence will befall the Black community before we acknowledge our roles in the harm to their community and hold ourselves accountable for the damage done?
Will we all learn to work together and to put the needs of others ahead of our own? Do we all really believe in the greater good, or do we just say we do so that everyone else thinks we're good people? Only our actions will reveal our true natures, right?
----
One last thing: Don't lose focus. Black lives still matter.
Showing posts with label protest. Show all posts
Showing posts with label protest. Show all posts
Sunday, July 26, 2020
Monday, September 25, 2017
A flag is a flag
I guess this could be a political post, but I'm just sharing what's tumbling around in my head.
A symbol is a symbol. I don't necessarily put a lot of value into symbols, probably because I don't always understand them unless they are explained to me haha.
Ultimately, the flag and the national anthem haven't done anything for or to me, except act as government-supported symbols of freedom that I have willingly accepted. I don't reject the flag, but I also don't blindly love and admire it. I understand its purpose and role in our society; it is supposed to represent the American people and country to not only us but also the rest of the world. But I also just see it as what it is. A flag. A piece of cloth designed to instill a sense of belonging, comraderie, loyalty, freedom, patriotism, etc.
A flag is a flag. I wouldn't lose sleep over it. It doesn't have a personal meaning to me other than what I have been taught in school. I have a very detached attachment to the American flag. I think the closest things I've ever owned to a US flag were Old Navy shirts with the flag printed on them. And my mom was the one who bought them.
Anyway, to others, the flag represents a lot of things. It represents different things to different people. It makes them experience different feelings. I've probably felt some patriotic feelings here and there, provoked by some circumstances and situations. They were short-lived because, again, I don't hold much value in most symbols.
At this moment, I just see the flag as a flag. It has a history and lots of emotions attached to it. But when we break it down, it is a cloth and a symbol that will one day disappear and be forgotten. Unless by some miracle, humans live forever and keep a meticulous record of all history (doubtful). To hold onto something so impermanent and to hold onto so much anger toward people who do not think the same, it feels pointless. It changes no one's mind to be so angry.
"I wouldn't" does not equate to "You shouldn't."
"I will not" does not equate to "You cannot."
The wider conversation about the flag has boiled down to what people have to do. I think that's the wrong approach. Give people the freedom to show their true colors, and decide if those colors match your own. Maybe some effort in a constructive conversation will help you find some common ground. If you make a person do something you want them to do, then their action is empty.
I saw a quote somewhere on Facebook that sums up what I'm thinking better than I can say it: "Patriotism isn't about making everyone stand and salute the flag. Patriotism is about making this a country where everyone wants to."
It's like how I approach the words "I love you"; there was once a person who expected me to say it on the spot to prove my feelings, but I could not and would not say it. She got frustrated and upset, but I wouldn't budge. Part of it was we were in high school and I had no idea what I was doing or how I felt. But a major part of it was the obligation would have undermined my intention. If I had said "I love you" when she expected me to, then it wouldn't have meant the same. Sure, I would have said it, she might have felt the impact of it, and she would have appreciated it. But my intention would have been to appease her rather than to express how I felt.
Likewise, forcing people to stand and "respect" the flag would just be a coerced act of appeasement.
People get mad about so many things. But I don't know if it's worth it. My anger won't change other people's mind. It just scares or provokes them; the response is defensiveness or retaliation. When someone comes at me angrily, I tend to absorb that anger and to want to return it immediately to make them stop. That's all that has been happening with this "debate." I don't feel like there will be productive movement in any direction. It's just a topic to be angry about.
I have to mention, when Kap didn't stand up last year and set off the storm, I didn't think much of it. He didn't represent me, but I understood why he did what he did. I didn't necessarily agree with him at the time, but I also didn't disagree. My perspective on the situation was "Oh, I see where you're at. You do you." And I was on my merry way. I suppose this may be more of a testament to how not easily inspired I am haha.
Before anyone thinks I willfully disrespect the troops, I support the troops 100%, and I am grateful for their courage, strength, and sacrifices.
However, I haven't stood and placed my hand over my heart for the flag or anthem in many years. I often stand, close my eyes, bow my head, and thank the troops in my head. And I pray for them. That's how I express my respect and thanks. It might not be as public and showy as saluting the flag and all that. But I know how I feel about our troops, and I feel my way of expression is the best for me. Not for others, just myself. Kinda like how some people believe their private one-on-one conversations with God are more fulfilling than sermons.
Sorry, lots of rambling. It's late, and I should have gone to bed two hours ago. But I just wanted to put some words down somewhere.
Symbols are funny. They don't exist until you want them to exist. Then they don't stop existing until everyone forgets about them.
A symbol is a symbol. I don't necessarily put a lot of value into symbols, probably because I don't always understand them unless they are explained to me haha.
Ultimately, the flag and the national anthem haven't done anything for or to me, except act as government-supported symbols of freedom that I have willingly accepted. I don't reject the flag, but I also don't blindly love and admire it. I understand its purpose and role in our society; it is supposed to represent the American people and country to not only us but also the rest of the world. But I also just see it as what it is. A flag. A piece of cloth designed to instill a sense of belonging, comraderie, loyalty, freedom, patriotism, etc.
A flag is a flag. I wouldn't lose sleep over it. It doesn't have a personal meaning to me other than what I have been taught in school. I have a very detached attachment to the American flag. I think the closest things I've ever owned to a US flag were Old Navy shirts with the flag printed on them. And my mom was the one who bought them.
Anyway, to others, the flag represents a lot of things. It represents different things to different people. It makes them experience different feelings. I've probably felt some patriotic feelings here and there, provoked by some circumstances and situations. They were short-lived because, again, I don't hold much value in most symbols.
At this moment, I just see the flag as a flag. It has a history and lots of emotions attached to it. But when we break it down, it is a cloth and a symbol that will one day disappear and be forgotten. Unless by some miracle, humans live forever and keep a meticulous record of all history (doubtful). To hold onto something so impermanent and to hold onto so much anger toward people who do not think the same, it feels pointless. It changes no one's mind to be so angry.
"I wouldn't" does not equate to "You shouldn't."
"I will not" does not equate to "You cannot."
The wider conversation about the flag has boiled down to what people have to do. I think that's the wrong approach. Give people the freedom to show their true colors, and decide if those colors match your own. Maybe some effort in a constructive conversation will help you find some common ground. If you make a person do something you want them to do, then their action is empty.
I saw a quote somewhere on Facebook that sums up what I'm thinking better than I can say it: "Patriotism isn't about making everyone stand and salute the flag. Patriotism is about making this a country where everyone wants to."
It's like how I approach the words "I love you"; there was once a person who expected me to say it on the spot to prove my feelings, but I could not and would not say it. She got frustrated and upset, but I wouldn't budge. Part of it was we were in high school and I had no idea what I was doing or how I felt. But a major part of it was the obligation would have undermined my intention. If I had said "I love you" when she expected me to, then it wouldn't have meant the same. Sure, I would have said it, she might have felt the impact of it, and she would have appreciated it. But my intention would have been to appease her rather than to express how I felt.
Likewise, forcing people to stand and "respect" the flag would just be a coerced act of appeasement.
People get mad about so many things. But I don't know if it's worth it. My anger won't change other people's mind. It just scares or provokes them; the response is defensiveness or retaliation. When someone comes at me angrily, I tend to absorb that anger and to want to return it immediately to make them stop. That's all that has been happening with this "debate." I don't feel like there will be productive movement in any direction. It's just a topic to be angry about.
I have to mention, when Kap didn't stand up last year and set off the storm, I didn't think much of it. He didn't represent me, but I understood why he did what he did. I didn't necessarily agree with him at the time, but I also didn't disagree. My perspective on the situation was "Oh, I see where you're at. You do you." And I was on my merry way. I suppose this may be more of a testament to how not easily inspired I am haha.
Before anyone thinks I willfully disrespect the troops, I support the troops 100%, and I am grateful for their courage, strength, and sacrifices.
However, I haven't stood and placed my hand over my heart for the flag or anthem in many years. I often stand, close my eyes, bow my head, and thank the troops in my head. And I pray for them. That's how I express my respect and thanks. It might not be as public and showy as saluting the flag and all that. But I know how I feel about our troops, and I feel my way of expression is the best for me. Not for others, just myself. Kinda like how some people believe their private one-on-one conversations with God are more fulfilling than sermons.
Sorry, lots of rambling. It's late, and I should have gone to bed two hours ago. But I just wanted to put some words down somewhere.
Symbols are funny. They don't exist until you want them to exist. Then they don't stop existing until everyone forgets about them.
Sunday, February 1, 2009
Let's protest everything!
In recent years, I've been paying more and more attention to the different protests held around the nation and even the rest of the world.
You can protest just about anything as long as you can get a small group of supporters together. The enthusiasm is bound to spread.
My mom just told me about a teachers' protest down in So Cal. Interesting. Many teachers have been laid off, and so they are protesting. Yep.
I don't get it. What's it gonna do? All this protesting. Yeah, it gets people's attention. Though, I think everyone already knew about the financial problems and their effects on schools, communities and such. I know. I've noticed. You can't really protest against the people who stopped paying you to make them start paying you when they have no money. Not like they're going to give you imaginary money or IOUs. But I think I did hear about the state government handing out IOUs to their employees. Something about taxes. I didn't really clear that up when I heard about it.
Anyway, 2009, everything seems like it's gonna go to hell this year. My mom thinks so. Predictions have it that there's going to be a lot of death and pain. Not that prior years haven't had enough death and pain already. This year, it will be more noticeable and painful.
Whatever happens happens. We do what we can and will. The outcomes will come when they come. We can't pretend to be lucky or unlucky. Things will just happen, and we have to try to take them in stride.
Hm, so I believe in chance, not luck. Chance, everyone has an "equal" chance. Anything can happen. If it happens to someone, then it just so happens to be then and there. It's not because he or she is a certain person. Luck has become so subjective. People think that a person gets all the good stuff just because he is who he is. I don't believe it. Anyone and everyone has the same chances to have or get something.
Yeah, we can talk probability. But probability is just numbers, maybes and mostlys. I tell you that 1 out of 500 people have a certain disease. So, what are your chances of having this certain disease? 0.2%? Really? How do we know it's only 1 out of 500? What if you do have it? What are your chances now? Do you still think it's 0.2%?
I feel like percentages and probabilities help people delude themselves sometimes. Either you become a statistic or you nearly miss becoming a statistic. And that just sucks.
No matter the probability, if you have that disease, you have that disease. What does probability change?
All it does is make you tense and surprised or shocked or happy or whatever, depending on what you're trying to be probable about. And I know, incorrect usage of the word "probable," but I'm trying to make a point.
Probability doesn't tell you what is or isn't; it only shows you what might or might not be. No, I like probability. I do. I just don't like how we try to depend on numbers to determine our worth, our life, our time, or anything. Probability doesn't change facts.
And for all we know, all these numbers we have could be completely skewed, and we just missed the true numbers of people afflicted or not by whatever. I mean, 1 out of 500 people doesn't represent the 500 or more that we miss.
Ok, so I don't think my reasoning really makes sense in this entry. I stopped trying haha. But I'm just trying to say that we shouldn't attribute our successes or failures to just one thing or another. Luck, for sure, is not a proven idea, but people treat it like it is. And that aggravates me because the people with "good luck" take their good fortune for granted and the people with "bad luck" just give up and blame something or someone. With chance, I feel like things just happen to people.
Of course, you could say I'm only arguing semantics.
Hmm, I wish I had a catchphrase :P
You can protest just about anything as long as you can get a small group of supporters together. The enthusiasm is bound to spread.
My mom just told me about a teachers' protest down in So Cal. Interesting. Many teachers have been laid off, and so they are protesting. Yep.
I don't get it. What's it gonna do? All this protesting. Yeah, it gets people's attention. Though, I think everyone already knew about the financial problems and their effects on schools, communities and such. I know. I've noticed. You can't really protest against the people who stopped paying you to make them start paying you when they have no money. Not like they're going to give you imaginary money or IOUs. But I think I did hear about the state government handing out IOUs to their employees. Something about taxes. I didn't really clear that up when I heard about it.
Anyway, 2009, everything seems like it's gonna go to hell this year. My mom thinks so. Predictions have it that there's going to be a lot of death and pain. Not that prior years haven't had enough death and pain already. This year, it will be more noticeable and painful.
Whatever happens happens. We do what we can and will. The outcomes will come when they come. We can't pretend to be lucky or unlucky. Things will just happen, and we have to try to take them in stride.
Hm, so I believe in chance, not luck. Chance, everyone has an "equal" chance. Anything can happen. If it happens to someone, then it just so happens to be then and there. It's not because he or she is a certain person. Luck has become so subjective. People think that a person gets all the good stuff just because he is who he is. I don't believe it. Anyone and everyone has the same chances to have or get something.
Yeah, we can talk probability. But probability is just numbers, maybes and mostlys. I tell you that 1 out of 500 people have a certain disease. So, what are your chances of having this certain disease? 0.2%? Really? How do we know it's only 1 out of 500? What if you do have it? What are your chances now? Do you still think it's 0.2%?
I feel like percentages and probabilities help people delude themselves sometimes. Either you become a statistic or you nearly miss becoming a statistic. And that just sucks.
No matter the probability, if you have that disease, you have that disease. What does probability change?
All it does is make you tense and surprised or shocked or happy or whatever, depending on what you're trying to be probable about. And I know, incorrect usage of the word "probable," but I'm trying to make a point.
Probability doesn't tell you what is or isn't; it only shows you what might or might not be. No, I like probability. I do. I just don't like how we try to depend on numbers to determine our worth, our life, our time, or anything. Probability doesn't change facts.
And for all we know, all these numbers we have could be completely skewed, and we just missed the true numbers of people afflicted or not by whatever. I mean, 1 out of 500 people doesn't represent the 500 or more that we miss.
Ok, so I don't think my reasoning really makes sense in this entry. I stopped trying haha. But I'm just trying to say that we shouldn't attribute our successes or failures to just one thing or another. Luck, for sure, is not a proven idea, but people treat it like it is. And that aggravates me because the people with "good luck" take their good fortune for granted and the people with "bad luck" just give up and blame something or someone. With chance, I feel like things just happen to people.
Of course, you could say I'm only arguing semantics.
Hmm, I wish I had a catchphrase :P
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)