myPlanetGanja.com

the police DID NOT do their job!


they spent the first hours observing and retreating as the white supremicists attacked under cover of their assault rifled armed members

you are right ben, the police did not do there job.
could have went a lot smoother than it did.
Lrus007

I waited to reply weighing the insanity. I see evil and racism on both sides.

Wasn't sure what was true? Why the insanity?

but it don't matter. It's the world we live in. So.

They both are wrong and seeking confrontation.

Over names on statues. MYself I hate statues. That politician voted for that bridge and road named after him? I paid the taxes.

Name it after me MR and MRS TAXPAYERS.

bentech wrote:the police DID NOT do their job!

I do not see it that way.

I see the whole situation much the same as MMM...

MadMoonMan wrote:I see evil and racism on both sides.
They both are wrong and seeking confrontation.

A monument to history is slated for removal.
Some groups oppose this and plan a rally to voice their objection. They make their plans widely known in the hope for confrontation...because confrontation is free publicity.
And groups from the opposite side respond, many anticipating and prepared for confrontation...because confrontation is free publicity.
First set of groups proceed with planned rally activity...second set of groups then physically blockade the first set from their legal rally...confrontation ensues

Now some would say the police should have arrested all the counter protesters at this point for violating the civil rights of the first groups...others would say the police should have arrested the initial protesters for forcing their way through...but instead the police simply monitored the situation, without taking sides.

Someone drives a vehicle into a crowd of protesters...police arrest him.
Some protesters on both sides go too far with their violence...police arrest them.
Police could have been all jack booted and beat everyone....but would that have been better?

“It’s easy to criticize, but I can tell you this, 80 percent of the people here had semiautomatic weapons,” McAuliffe said Saturday...
The governor stressed that “not a shot was fired” and there was “zero property damage.”

With so many guns present, no one fired a shot.
With so much volatility, no property damage occurred.

Regardless of anyone's viewpoint of the police actions (or inaction), one thing can not be ignored...the overall outcome was aboot as good as anyone could hope for.

Or do you think police should have escalated the volatility of the situation. which would likely increase the violence and caused collateral property damage?

no bob, i just think they could have done a better job
of keeping the two apart. not jack booted just better planning maybe.
i agree except the jerk in the car.. it did go pretty smoothly.
wonder in a way if all the guns kept it from becoming a riot.
i do not like the statues being removed. they are part of our history.
guess it's yanks 1 rebels 0 with about of 100 years of halftime.
only time will tell
Lrus007

now how can you say that statue is "part of our history" when it wasnt installed until 1948???


lee is part of our history
and he isnt going anywhere

that statue was errected to rub the nose of every black person in that town in the dirt and remind them that jim crow was still in full effect
nothing more

Lrus007 wrote:no bob, i just think they could have done a better job
of keeping the two apart.

I don't view it to be the police's responsibility to babysit grown adults. Placing themselves in the middle just antagonizes both sides.

bentech wrote:now how can you say that statue is "part of our history" when it wasnt installed until 1948???

Memorials are put up after the fact.

Personally, I think all confederate references should be done away with...not because of a color issue, but because they fukkin lost. But that's just my opinion. And I certainly understand other folks have a much different opinion. So I'd be willing to concede that confederate symbols/memorials be allowed at civil war sites...sites specifically involved with and dedicated to the civil war...but not at institutional sites like government buildings, schools, or parks in the center of towns.

However the deed has already been done, so care should be taken not to offend either side as we strive to correct the situation. Perhaps the "confederates" should be more helpful in locating a more suitable location for these statues and such.

All this media hoopla of "us vs them" just polarizes folks into choosing sides, instead of coming together.

Leloudis notes that there were two main flurries of Civil War monuments being erected across the South. North Carolina, which has 90 such monuments, is tied with Georgia for the second most Civil War monuments. Virginia has the most.

The first wave came in the 1870s and 1880s and those monuments were typically placed in graveyards as symbols of mourning. The next wave came in the 1910s and ’20s and were aimed at public squares.

They were forward-looking monuments rather than backward-looking ones, especially at a time in which black Americans were beginning to make progress, Leloudis said, noting that a block away from the Durham monument Black Wall Street was thriving in 1924.

“The monuments that went up in the ’teens and 20s had a far more overtly political purpose,” he said. “If you look at the dedication addresses, speaker after speaker is very clear that those monuments are aimed at the rising generation of young North Carolinians who were coming of age, and who were born after the white supremacy struggles at the end of the 19th century.

“The funders and backers of these monuments are very explicit that they are requiring a political education and a legitimacy for the Jim Crow era and the right of white men to rule.”

‘Anglo Saxon race’

In 1913, at the dedication of the Silent Sam statue on the UNC campus, Julian Carr, a wealthy tobacco and textiles manufacturer from Durham, praised Confederate soldiers for preserving white hierarchy.

“The present generation ... scarcely takes note of what the Confederate soldier meant to the welfare of the Anglo Saxon race during the four years immediately succeeding the war, when the facts are, that their courage and steadfastness saved the very life of the Anglo Saxon race in the South,” Carr said at the time.

Carr, who died 11 days before the erection of the Durham monument, was given a “touching tribute” before the unveiling of Durham’s Confederate statue.


http://www.heraldsun.com/news/local/cou ... 19947.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Confederate statues defended by Trump were not innocent manifestations of civic pride, but intentional assertions of white supremacy. As historians and journalists have amply documented, the first wave of statues and monuments were erected decades after North had won the Civil War. As the South in the 1890s and 1900s began to codify segregationist Jim Crow laws and deployed mob and state-sanctioned violence to keep African-Americans subjugated, states erected dozens of public tributes to the cause of the Confederacy. Confederate statues and monuments served as cultural expressions of white supremacy, painful reminders that the nation’s racial hierarchy survived the emancipation of African-Americans from slavery.


https://www.yahoo.com/news/confederate- ... 13450.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

A second wave of monument construction coincided with massive white resistance to the nonviolent civil rights movement. From 1955 to 1965, Southern (and some non-Southern) states put up dozens of Confederate-glorifying monuments. In reality, then, the Civil Rights Act (1964), the Voting Rights Act (1965) and affirmative action, among other policies aimed at fostering racial equality, never adequately addressed the stubborn persistence of racism in the society and the subtle appeals to white supremacy in the political culture, long after the civil rights revolution had run its course.