"US Black
history should have a basis in African Cultures such as the Mali Empire
and the Kingdom of Benin (not the modern country)."
And something along the lines of my wanting to be Kosovar to feel European, which sort of relates to the meat of today's post.
Meet the Bozo people!
Yes, there is an African ethnic group called the Bozos. They are part of the larger Mande ethnic group located predominantly along the Niger River in Mali.
And Mali has a long tradition of slavery:
The slave trade in Mali has a long
history, with slavery existing since before the Mali Empire and
continuing through the Trans-Saharan slave trade. Today, an estimated
200,000 people in Mali are still held in forms of servitude, often
linked to descent-based slavery practices that persist in various forms. Slavery in Mali exists today, with as many as 200,000 people held in direct servitude to a master. Since
2006, a movement called Temedt has been active in Mali struggling
against the persistence of slavery and the discrimination associated
with ex-slaves. There were reports that in the Tuareg Rebellion of 2012, ex-slaves were recaptured by their former masters. Moreover, the phenomenon of descent-based slavery still persist in different ethnic groups.
As I said, the issue of reparations is much more complicated than most people realise.
But back to the Bozos! I wonder how many "African Americans" have Bozo in their genetics?
This is gonna make the discussion of the slave trade far more interesting because Africa is like the Balkans in that there are loads of ethnic groups with even more sub-groups like the Mande and the Bozos.
Hey, Bring it if we are going to have an open, honest, and unbiased discussion of race in the US. But the object here isn't to do that: the object is to make "wippl" uncomfortable. But before we start having this discussion, we need to have a definition of what exactly "racism" happens to be since I'm seeing that some people are unclear on the subject:
racismrā′sĭz″əm ►n.
n. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
n.Discrimination or prejudice based on race.
n.The belief that each race has distinct and intrinsic attributes.
So, we might want to have some self-examination before we start criticising.
I was tempted to call this "CRT, BLM, and Black Conservatives" since not all black people like CRT. Except not all the black people who dislike this theory happen to be conservatives. In fact, there are a couple of different critiques of CRT in the black community, which I'm not going to discuss here (I've done it a bit in other posts).
Additionally, Critical Race Theory came from something called Critical theory. Critical Theory believes that everything in our world is power. Systems and structures are created to
maintain and build upon that power. Governments, organizations,
businesses, and even hobby clubs exist solely to maintain and build
power. Critical Theory’s goal is to intellectually emancipate society
from oppression.
Take it or leave it.
Critical Race Theory takes this argument and posits that power struggle is limited solely to race. Although true CRT looks at ALL races. The problem with CRT is that it's nebulous, sort of like "Black Lives Matters". Both are things which are out there, but no one has a real understanding what the fuck either one actually happens to be. To be quite honest, a racist organisation could take over the slogan "black lives matter" for their program of genocide.
In other words, these two concepts are out there and they are whatever the fuck anyone wants to make of them. Worse, they attack anyone who questions them, which is amusing. But as I point out, proper CRT looks at all races, not just "wippl", but that's not what is going on here.
In fact, the honest assessment of the racial situation isn't happening. If anything, this is a sick parody of the situation.
After all, how does one account for systemic racism if blacks are a significant part of the system? Additionally, how does one account for the current situation if that has been the case for 50 years or so (possibly more)?
People need to remember I support regulating firearms, even if I am on the outs with a good portion of the GVP crowd these days (there's a post about that simmering). Look at this from the point of how common mass shootings happen to be in the US.
And then toss in that the blacks being armed may have been a contributing factor to all this.
Are you really serious that you think people are going to care about this in the long run?
Come on!
Other countries may react to mass shooting, but they are just another day in America. Especially if blacks are involved.
I'm enough of a historian to know about the whatever you want to call what happened in Tulsa 100 years ago. Additionally, I have enough skills that I could research the incident. I do have to add that some of the primary source material has been deleted. I would also add that maybe a lot of that material has been deleted. Additionally, the neglect of the incident allows for some details to be ignored.
One of which is particularly troublesome to me is that both blacks and whites were armed. The source for the passages is Wikipedia, but it's probably the most unbiased:
A few blocks away on Greenwood Avenue, members of the Black community gathered to discuss the situation at Gurley's Hotel.Given the recent lynching of Belton, a White man accused of murder, they believed that Rowland was greatly at risk. Many Black residents were determined to prevent the crowd from lynching Rowland, but they were divided about tactics. Young World War I veterans prepared for a battle by collecting guns and ammunition. Older, more prosperous men feared a destructive confrontation that likely would cost them dearly. O. W. Gurley stated that he had tried to convince the men that there would be no lynching, but the crowd responded that Sheriff McCullough had personally told them their presence was required. About 9:30 p.m., a group of approximately 50–60 Black men, armed with rifles and shotguns, arrived at the jail to support the sheriff and his deputies in defending Rowland from the mob.
I think the previous passage is important to understanding the events of those days because the sight of armed blacks led to whites feeling the need to "tool up". That is important for a lot of reasons, especially given the debate about firearms in US society. But the people you would think would raise this issue, the "gun violence prevention" crowd are oddly silent about this. Anyway, armed blacks led to the following.
Having seen the armed Black men, some of the more than 1,000 Whites who had been at the courthouse went home for their own guns. Others headed for the National Guard armory at the corner of Sixth Street and Norfolk Avenue, where they planned to arm themselves. The armory contained a supply of small arms and ammunition. Major James Bell of the 180th Infantry Regiment learned of the mounting situation downtown and the possibility of a break-in, and he consequently took measures to prevent. He called the commanders of the three National Guard units in Tulsa, who ordered all the Guard members to put on their uniforms and report quickly to the armory. When a group of Whites arrived and began pulling at the grating over a window, Bell went outside to confront the crowd of 300 to 400 men. Bell told them that the Guard members inside were armed and prepared to shoot anyone who tried to enter. After this show of force, the crowd withdrew from the armory.
OK, I don't really want to point fingers here as to who was responsible especially since it is unclear how the violence escalated. But, as I pointed out, the "gun violence prevention" crowd is silent about this aspect of the incident. That is strange since the escalation of violence was a definite factor in the massacre. The following is conjecture, but it is the closest I have seen to what may have happened.
Shortly after 10 p.m., a second, larger group of approximately 75 armed
Black men decided to go to the courthouse. They offered their support to
the sheriff, who declined their help. According to witnesses, a White
man is alleged to have told one of the armed Black men to surrender his
pistol. The man refused, and a shot was fired. That first shot might
have been accidental, or meant as a warning; it was a catalyst for an
exchange of gunfire.
Now, firearms violence doesn't happen when firearms aren't present. That is a simple fact that when something doesn't exist, it can't effect anything. On the other hand there was a combination of hot heads and firearms. There is something called the "weapons effect" which is where the mere presence of weapons may increase aggression. Wouldn't you think the GVP crowd would be mentioning this? Especially since this pretty much makes their argument.
The upshot was that the gunshots led to an immediate escalation of violence with both sides firing on the other. The first "battle" was said to last a few seconds but resulted in ten Whites and two Black men lying dead or dying in the street.
The Black men who had offered to provide security at the jail ended up retreating toward
Greenwood. A rolling gunfight between both sides ensued. The armed White mob pursued the
Black contingent toward Greenwood, with many stopping to loot local
stores for additional weapons and ammunition. Panic set in as the White mob began firing on any Black people in the
crowd. The White mob also shot and killed at least one White man in the
confusion. The two groups squared off in gunfights throughout the night. At around 1 a.m., the White mob began setting fires, mainly in
businesses on commercial Archer Street at the southern edge of the
Greenwood district.
The problem with this is that the incident is covered, but not very well. There was a Grand Jury investigation into this in 1921, but I don't think it led to much. Although it does make interesting reading. There are lots of gaps in what is known.
There were no convictions for any of the charges related to violence. The silence about the terror, violence, and losses of this event went on for decades. The riot has been omitted from most local, state and national histories: It was not recognized in the Tulsa Tribune feature of "Fifteen Years Ago
Today" or "Twenty-five Years Ago Today". A 2017 report detailing
the history of the Tulsa Fire Department from 1897 until 2017 makes no mention of the 1921 massacre.
"The Tulsa race riot of 1921 was rarely mentioned in history books, classrooms or even in private. Black and White people alike grew into middle age unaware of what had taken place".
I'm not going to get into the details about this since they are quite frankly under dispute. Neither side is very helpful since copies of one of the newspapers involved have pretty much vanished from the face of the earth. There was a reward offer for copies of this newspaper during the 1990s investigation, but none could be found. Likewise, the reports of mass graves are being investigated, but it sounds like these may indeed rumours.
Anyway, it seems odd that an armed group of black people are marching on Tulsa to commemorate this event. I have to wonder how much of what happened was due to an armed populace and hot heads. Dick Rowland, the person whose arrest started this chain of events, was well known among attorneys and other legal professionals
within the city, many of whom knew Rowland through his work as a
shoeshiner. Some witnesses later recounted hearing several attorneys
defend Rowland in their conversations with one another. One of the men
said, "Why, I know that boy, and have known him a good while. That's not
in him."
On June 3, 1921, a group of over 1,000 businessmen and civic leaders met,
resolving to form a committee to raise funds and aid in rebuilding
Greenwood. Judge J. Martin, a former mayor of Tulsa, was chosen as the
chairman of the group. He said at the mass meeting:
Tulsa can only redeem herself from
the country-wide shame and humiliation into which she is today plunged
by complete restitution and rehabilitation of the destroyed black belt.
The rest of the United States must know that the real citizenship of
Tulsa weeps at this unspeakable crime and will make good the damage, so
far as it can be done, to the last penny.
Sadly, Most of the promised funding was never raised for the Black residents, and they struggled to rebuild after the violence.
Virtue signalling doesn't cost anything, real actions do. Additionally, there is a certain irony here of an armed black parade in commemoration if a major factor in the incident was that the blacks had chosen to arm themselves 100 years ago.
This is coloured by the fact that I have practised criminal law for over 30 years now.
Most of the riots, er "peaceful protests", have related to people resisting arrest. Maybe excessive force was involved, but I see active resistance happening.
I don't care who you are or where you are, but the cops do not take that lightly. A little "blackplanin'" here:
The example that comes to mind was when I was a student at University of Exeter in England. Exeter is a nice little town in the Southwest of England. The place I was at, Gandy Street, is supposedly the inspiration for Diagon Alley in the Harry Potter books.
But one night in that lillywhite setting, a drunken white guy decided to resist arrest. Literally about six cops were fighting with him to try and subdue him. And he was a skinny little guy.
What people miss is that one person who is fighting arrest can create a lot of disruption.
Yeah, the amount of force used needs to be the minimum to stop the threat, but when exactly does the threat stop. Anyway, whether the force was reasonable is a question for the jury: not the general public.
Especially not a general public which is highly polarised to the extent they can't see straight.
You can't go around saying you support "first responders" and "essential workers" and then try to second guess them when they do their job. You either want them to run into that building with an active shooter, or live with the fact that they don't want the liability.
Which gets to my next point. Daunte Wright had an open warrant for a firearms offence where he threatened a woman.
Should the people who want to regulate guns and get them out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them support someone like that? Isn't there a serious amount of hypocrisy going on here? Or is this a case of blinders being so blinding that the people who blindly support Daunte Wright neglect that he is someone they should hate more than Donald Trump?
OK, maybe we should say he is alleged to have done these things. Likewise, Derek Chauvin is alleged to have killed George Floyd until he is found guilty if we are going down that road.
The bottom line is that if you run around saying no one is above the law, maybe you shouldn't be giving support to people who are videotaped resisting arrest and have long criminal records.
Especially if the result of that silliness is that you end up supporting someone who is what you claim to want to see ended: a man who beats women and carries guns which are used in crimes.
Bottom line, there is a legal system, which is where the question of whether the arrest was legal, especially if there was resistance, should be decided. I know that the outcomes would have been vastly different if the legal system had been where this was decided instead of the street.
The concept of Gun rights equalling freedom seems as close to propaganda as one can get: especially if one sits down to look at it objectively. Totalitarian regimes wave around firearms in the same way that people who proclaim this to be a sign of freedom do in the US.
Let's also get down to the reality of the German Reich under Hitler, which liberalised its gun laws. That is the opposite of what the Gun rights crowd want to believe, but it is the truth. The best known case of dissension in Nazi Germany, the White Rose Group, had a firearm with 150 rounds of ammunition. And Operation Valkerie, the largest plot to kill Hitler, was run by military officers.
This is what I call the Cold-Dead-Hands Test. If the only way to get
someone's gun is to pry it from their cold, dead hands (literally or
figuratively), that's not gun control. When Grant disarmed the Confederates at
Appomattox, that wasn't gun control; that was taking prisoners. When the
Soviets disarmed the remnants of the German 6th Army at Stalingrad, that wasn't
gun control either. Mao didn't come to power in China by tricking the populace
into surrendering their arms. He pummeled his well-armed opponents in a
stand-up fight. There's a big difference between unable to fight back, and
fighting back but losing...
Frankly, this list is a pitifully weak argument against gun control, simply
because most of the victims listed here did fight back. In fact, if
there's a real lesson to be learned from this roster of oppressions, it's that
sometimes a heavily armed and determined opposition is just swept up and crushed
-- guns or no guns.
There is another aspect to the relationship of gun rights, propaganda, and totalitarianism which is why do people tolerate authoritarian regimes, which I am not going to get into.
My real interest is in the concept being pushed of "gun rights" which is not that common despite its adherents wishing it were. This blurb from Wikipedia:
Inclusion of this right in a written constitution is uncommon. In 1875, 17 percent of constitutions included a right to bear arms. Since the early twentieth century, "the proportion has been less than 9 percent and falling". In an article titled "U.S. Gun Rights Truly Are American Exceptionalism," a historical survey and comparative analysis of constitutions dating back to 1789, Tom Ginsburg and colleagues "identified only 15 constitutions (in nine countries) that had ever included an explicit right to bear arms. Almost all of these constitutions have been in Latin America, and most were from the 19th century"
Wikipedia lists the following as recognising the concept of gun rights: Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Czech Republic, Switzerland, The United Kingdom, Sharia law, and Yemen. Amusingly, the Ginsburg article says, "We code only Mexico, Guatemala and the U.S. as having a right to bear
arms." While the constitutions of Haiti and Iran do mention guns, "the
provision was too ambiguous for us to consider it a true right to bear
arms."
Indeed, looking at the list, we see the person trying to make this argument that these nations have "gun rights" is making a stretch. Let's start with The United Kingdom, which anyone vaguely familiar with the UK and its legal offspring knows doesn't really have "gun rights". Australia and New Zealand are the best examples of how common law offspring have handled "gun rights".
Let's go to Guatemala, Honduras, and Mexico. Anyone who has had an argument with someone who supports "gun rights" knows that these are brought up when discussing the United States' gun problem. Maybe the advocates for regulation need to point out that the countries with the high rates of gun violence also enshrine "gun rights" in their constitutions!
The European Countries are a bit more problematic since while the Czech Republic and Switzerland may believe in "gun rights", they also don't hand out guns willy nilly. And Switzerland does have mass shootings, but the Swiss are so law abiding that they obey the gun laws, which they do have. The Zug Parliament mass shooter didn't use his service rifle, but used a civilian version instead! I would toss in that the Swiss have been working on legislation that would require military members to store their weapons in armouries. And military service is not "universal" and hasn't been for a while.
And the money shot on Switzerland from Politifact (that whole article is useful to the argument about gun rights and failed states):
Switzerland does not have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms, Kopel said.
But even the wikipedia article admits that the nine country list is a stretch.
Which including Sharia Law and Yemen highlights. I was under the impression that Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan also believe in gun rights. And I have heard that Iraqis also kept guns. Having to mention any of this highlights the failed state nature of the concept of gun rights. I really shouldn't have to mention that Yemen and Afghanistan have been war zones for a while now.
And they have shitloads of guns...
Toss in that the Northwest Frontier of Pakistan is gun maker heaven. Look up Darra Adam Khel. I'm not sure if this place is history yet, but there is a long tradition of gun making in that region.
In fact choosing most of those countries for trying to push the concept of gun rights highlights the point I am making: places with gun rights don't really have effective governments. And places with effective governments don't really believe in gun rights.
I've already mentioned the characteristics of a failed state in a previous post, but will do so again since part of the "gun rights" belief hinges on this.
A failed state is a political body that has disintegrated
to a point where basic conditions and responsibilities of a sovereign
government no longer function properly (see also fragile state and state
collapse). A state can also fail if the government loses its legitimacy
even if it is performing its functions properly. For a stable state it
is necessary for the government to enjoy both effectiveness and
legitimacy. Likewise, when a nation weakens and its standard of living
declines, it introduces the possibility of total governmental collapse.
The Fund for Peace characterizes a failed state as having the following
characteristics:
Loss of control of its territory, or of the monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force therein
Erosion of legitimate authority to make collective decisions
Inability to provide public services
Inability to interact with other states as a full member of the international community
Common characteristics of a failing state include a central
government so weak or ineffective that it has an inability to raise
taxes or other support, and has little practical control over much of
its territory and hence there is a non-provision of public services.
When this happens, widespread corruption and criminality, the
intervention of state and non-state actors, the appearance of refugees
and the involuntary movement of populations, sharp economic decline, and
foreign military intervention can occur.
One thing I have noticed with people who believe in gun rights is the tendency to talk about government having an inability to protect people. Also the failure of government to enforce laws. In fact gun rights people basically talk as if we already live in a failed state.
A major part of the rush on firearms is based on the fear of lawlessness, which was somewhat fatuous in regard to covid. On the other hand, the riots did provide an apparent slide toward being a failed state. Especially when people were running around talking about dismantling the body which provides security and order.
I'm sure that someone can take this argument and run with it since there is more than enough evidence that the concept of gun rights really has no constitutional basis (something else I have gone into in depth). Any true "originalist" can rip that argument to shreds even without having to go beyond the text of the US Constitution and decisions interpreting it.
On the other hand, I haven't seen too many people pointing out how bankrupt the concept of "gun rights" happens to be when one examines it. But even the Heller and McDonald decisions pointed out how limited in scope this concept should be if it is to be considered a reality (again, something I have gone into detail about).
Think about it "pro-gun" types: your beliefs rest upon the US being a failed state. The government is ineffective and cannot protect you. That defines a failed state.
I remember driving through Western Pennsylvania a few days after the 2016 election. It was obvious why Trump won then. The Dems didn't bother to reassess what happened and are now set to fuck up even worse than in 2016.
First off, running Joe Biden who was a train wreck to begin with, but continues to show WHY he is correct when he tells people to vote for the other guy. Biden lost the election when he told the UAW Worker in Detroit he didn't need an assault rifle among other things, but it gets us to.
The Riots, while the Dems would like to pin everything on Trump. The "Trump is Bad" strategy was a loser in 2016: it's even worse in 2020. Toss in the riots happened in Democratically controlled areas for the most part. Nixon won as the law and order candidate in 1968. Trump will win because the Dems are the party of disorganisation.
The fall out from the riots. Loads of people bought guns. Assault rifles vanished from the marketplace both brick and mortar as well as internet. Gun control, firearms regulation, gun violence prevention, or whatever you want to call it is going to be a dead letter for some time as armed bands troop around left and right: literally.
Let's add in the talk of defunding or disbanding the police, which is one of the worst imaginable cases of branding an idea that anyone could have come up with at this time. Armed groups from all sides of the political spectrum are walking the streets: what could go wrong here? Police reorganisation might have made more sense.
But it doesn't matter since Biden has made it clear that he's not on board.
Let's not forget the Covid-19 thing, which was another disaster. It was something that pointed out the need to "medicare for all", universal basic income, or just good leadership.
In fact, the past few months have been an advertisement for why the Democrats are on the wrong track and running the wrong candidate. But I am not expecting much change. Especially when the candidate who is running is one who really isn't going to change a thing.
Casey Jones is driving the train full speed ahead high on cocaine, And there might even be speed involved.
I guess the H&K MR556 or SIG516 are AR-15 variants.
So, number one deterrent was price. The SIG is the less expensive of the two, but still in the four figure range. We are talking a price of US$ 1400+. Ouch. Toss in that I am leaning toward the H&K compared to the Sig.
And that's the price if you can find one.
Assault Rifles and guns in general are a hot commodity these days. For good reason given the chaos of the past week. Some people have seen it on TV. Other people have lived it.
And people want to protect themselves. And what better way than with a weapon that was designed for the battlefield and proven in mass shootings across the country. Las Vegas was a good advertisement. The chaos of the past week are the perfect advertisement for a weapon like this.
I may not like it, but it is hard to say that people shouldn't be able
to own these weapons when the cities are under siege. That makes me
different from a lot of people on the left, but I am also much more
pragmatic than a lot of people on the left.
Those are the ones who are moaning about the militarisation of the police, like this article in the Guardian. But it misses something that this post is pointing out. Civilians can buy the 5.56 Assault Rifle with no problem. Shouldn't the cops be as well armed as the civilians if they are going to keep the peace?
Defunding, said activist Jeralynn Blueford, is the logical response from leaders in this moment of unprecedented unrest. “If police had been serious about reform and policy change, then guess what? People would not be this angry.”
What The Fuck? Serious What the Fuck?
We have seen chaos and looting in US cities over the past week. Gun stores have lines that wrap around the block as people scramble to buy weapons to defend their homes.
While I support keeping guns out of the hands of people like criminals and the looters, it is thoroughly insane to prevent the law abiding to their safety. And for the most part I am sceptical of firearms for home defence, I can get why some people would want them.
It's the image in this Tommy Gun ad from the days when they were freely available. The ability to protect your home against marauding bands of evil doers.
And the do gooders (I can't really say the left since there are some of us who get what needs to be done) who would defund the police and try to make assault rifles illegal. The argument that "no one needs one of these in a civilian world" rings hollow these days.
The chaos of the past week ISN'T the civilian world and toleration of those who are destroying US cities is wrong. It's turning the "silence is consent" argument back at them. Even worse, it's not silence, but outright appeasement.
Black Lives Matters lost any relevance the moment the fires and violence broke out. They could have salvaged their effort if they stood down and denounced the violence. But allowing violence on either side is wrong.
I find the above bumper sticker amusing since I have lived in a lot of places which are dependent on tourism (tourist traps?). Nothing like inviting in a bunch of people from California to see your house and say "we don't have anything that old,"
Or watching people come and gawk at the place you buy your groceries. Although, I do have to admit to doing some "supermarket tourism". it is fun to see what is on sale.
I've jokingly thought, "should I go to where these people live and act the way they do?"
But the reason I am saying this is that some people have distance from where the rioting is taking place and don't understand the scope of the looting and destruction. In particular, the destruction of people's homes or potential homes. the destruction of where people live.
While the people who are missing the scope of the destruction might dismiss the fire in the Starbucks at Philadelphia's Dilworth Plaza since it was just a building. There were cylinders of compressed gas which could have gone off. Not to mention the Starbucks was across from an apartment building.
There was another fire at 17th and Walnut in Philadelphia that lasted through the night. This was an apartment building which again might be dismissed because of the location. One the other hand, fire claimed an 189 affordable housing unit in Minneapolis.
How would the people who are neglecting the scope of the violence react if it were their home and nieghbourhoods being destroyed.
Let's not forget that some of the destruction has moved from what I would consider "strategic areas" which might make sense, if this could make sense, to the deprived areas that the people who claim that "black lives matter" also claim they want to help.
Raiding a supermarket in a deprived area only ensures that it will remain a food desert. Likewise the economic destruction will cripple any recovery made from the riots of the 60s.
Are these well meaning fools causing the Detroitification of US cities? While the do-gooders claim to care about black welfare, they will instead condemn poor city dwellers to an underclass existence.
The problem is that the peaceful protests should have ended the moment the destruction began. The fact that people are having this discussion shows that the destruction changed the dialogue for the worse. Economic power also brings political power.
The movement could have continued in a constructive manner, but it has now been overwhelmed by other concerns.
