I guess it is a stupid way to get your idea across... and it does tend to alienate people.

[LanternWaste]

"It's not a popular way of getting your ideas across..."

"...it's counter-intuitive if you're looking to win the hearts and souls of mainstream America."

"You will not convince many people that you and your cause are worth supporting if you keep pissing off the average voter"

"It's a great way to piss people off, but not much else..."

"Sure, it's your right to do it, but it still an asshole thing to do"










Maintaining the courage of your convictions is far more often than not, counter-productive in the context of social change, and it alienates many, many people. So I guess it comes down to which is more important to you personally-- popularity or convictions, and then you just take it from there...

[librechik]

1. THANK YOU! n/t

[Bicoastal]

20. IT'S NOT HARD TO FUCKING OFFEND PEOPLE!

Merely being offensive is the dumbest form of political activism, because it takes such little effort and even less guts to do so.

These people put their bodies and lives on the line by quietly, peacefully doing things that other Americans were legally allowed to do. They pissed off some people, but their courage impressed others into supporting them. THAT'S how movements grow, flourish, and get shit done.

NOW--Show me ONE person who is more willing to support OWS because someone destroyed a symbolic object and pissed other people off. And for that matter, name me ONE person who can say with a straight face that flag-burning even APPROACHES the level of courage displayed by the folks in those pictures.

In case I hadn't made my point clear, I think this is one of the worst correlations ever.

[JDPriestly]

98. A few people always get overexcited.

There were race riots during the Civil Rights Movement.

The OWS movement is completely nonviolent. Those who perform even symbolic acts that give a violent message are not part of the movement. They are people who would be doing something angry even if they were not associated with the movement.

The Civil Rights Movement had many different aspects. Some demonstrators were nonviolent -- the great majority. But at times tensions and frustrations got out of control. It was not the fault of the Civil Rights Movement but rather the fault of the inequality and repression that gave rise to the Civil Rights Movement.

The OWS movement is a very good outlet for the frustrations that people feel. Here in LA it was very, very nonviolent.

The City of Oakland, like many of the cities in which riots took place that were linked to the Civil Rights Movement has a lot of problems. In particular, it has a history of the use of excessive force by police officers. That City needs to work on reorganizing its police department. Los Angeles did that after the Rodney King riots and other scandals that took place after those riots, and the entire City of LA has benefited from the changes.

[GeorgeGist]

154. No it isn't hard to offend people.

You're very good at it.

[leveymg]

2. OMG - occupying lunch counters, fronts of buses! How anti-American!

Only a commie rabble-rouser would think of that one. Oops . . . isn't that exactly what J Edgar said and wrote about MLK?

[Lionessa]

45. Not to mention, these folks only started the movement, there was plenty

of flag burning during the 60's Civil Rights Movement, and still the issues rose and solutions were presented, even though I would imagine that flag burning was even more generally accepted as being offensive back then than now.

Now the follow through on those solutions is very much in question with so much racism in our penal and judicial systems, but that's not the point here. The point here is that like OWS, things started more "sensibly" by simply occupying a space that made people uncomfortable, and like the 60s it is blooming into sometimes having a flag burned.

[Skinner]

3. Rosa Parks should have torched a flag on the bus.

It would have helped the cause and sealed her place as a true American hero.

[arcane1]

5. And if she did that, everyone would know exactly what her cause was

All this sitting at lunch counters, riding the front of the bus, it's all too vague. How can we know what they are protesting unless they do something that has nothing to do with their cause?

[redqueen]

9. Oh come on, it's practically the same exact thing!

How is setting fire to a ridiculously popular American symbol in order to say... something... any different from sitting at an area that's unfairly designated as off-limits to you, in order to obtain the right to be treated as equals?

[JDPriestly]

101. A tiny group of people burned the flag in Oakland.

They claimed to be associated with or part of OWS, so they were in that very loose sense. But they were such a tiny majority of the group that protested and marched. It is absurd to focus on what that tiny group of people did.

OWS has been extremely positive and successful. Even Romney talks about the 99% and how much he cares about them. The shift in focus from idolizing the "job-creators" to acknowledging the dire straits of the 99% is a tribute to the good work, focus and non-violence of the OWS movement.

Here in LA, the OWS invited assistance and advice from religious leaders in town including Rev. Lawson. In the afternoons prior to the anticipated arrests, OWS members rehearsed non-violence -- yes, they rehearsed how to avoid resisting the police.

The OWS is a solidly non-violent movement. There are always a few bad apples. Isn't that the argument the police provide when an officer is caught doing something illegal or over-the-top. There are always a few bad apples. (And of course, there always are unfortunately.) Cut OWS the same slack you cut for other groups.

I am not active in OWS but I have visited 2 OWS sites and I marched at the Rose Bowl. But it is my understanding that OWS does not permit people to bring weapons to its assemblies or marches, etc. You can't say that about the Teabaggers.

[redqueen]

103. It is absurd, but that's what the MSM do...

what I find interesting is all the rhetorical gymnastics that are going on trying to paint the tiny minority of people as righteous and principled instead of perhaps misguided and their actions as poorly thought out.

I cut the movement slack, of course I do... like you said, this is a teeeny tiny minority engaging in crap like this. What I don't cut any slack for is people claiming that burning flags is good and smart and a very very important personal conviction and the exact right thing to do and anyone who doesn't think so is a pearl-clutching OWS-hater who hated OWS from the beginning so there.

Oh, and also ridiculous comparisons like the OP... no slack for that, either.

[Union Scribe]

132. ...and what people here help them do...nt

[nobodyspecial]

10. Thank you!

I hate that King's model of civil disobedience has been compared in any way to some of the OWS actions.

[loyalsister]

120. Same here!

There is a huge difference between challenging official and legally codified injustices and using a culturally offensive flag burning to protest inequality.

[LanternWaste]

15. True that both would have been unpopular.

True that both would have been far more unpopular and alienating than merely the one-- which was pretty unpopular and alienating in and of itself. How rude.

[Bicoastal]

37. I don't think you understand--activism is not JUST about offending the other side.

It's also about galvanizing your side and encourage those in the middle to join you.

Are you really going to argue that flag-burning is going to help get the 99% behind OWS? Because so far, it hasn't even worked here.

[Union Scribe]

131. "It hasn't even worked here"

because there are people here threatened by a movement that doesn't wait to work through party politics. Those people were never on board with OWS in the first place.

[Lionessa]

21. It wouldn't have been as appropriate at the time as it is now.

Back then the issues were related to the rights of a minority.

So let me ask you this, what if she had burned the Confederate flag, that which DID IN FACT represent the repression she was under, would you condemn her as stupid and careless then? I think not. That would be the true analogy, not the one you are strawman-ing

[Nuclear Unicorn]

32. I don't see the economic hardship and cronyism today as equal to

the sustained enslavement, oppression, segragation and brutality suffered by African Americans.

As bad as things are we've got it good, all things compared.

[Lionessa]

36. Please refer to our conversations in any other related thread. You and I have covered

all there is likely to be between us on this topic.

[sudopod]

54. Have you ever made less that $10000 a year in your adult life?

See how many civil rights you have at that point, then we can talk.

[cbrer]

136. Look beyond today

Sustained enslavement, oppression, segragation and brutality are taking place. Just in a (barely) legal and more subtle form.

You're quite right to note that we have it pretty darn good. Is it not the proud right of a parent to want to leave a better future for their kids. Despite hardship or struggle?

[Wait Wut]

38. +1

[leveymg]

82. That's the first overt snark I've heard from you, Skinner.

By the way, you're right. It was absolutely the fastest route that the Black Bloc could find to kill OWS, short of kidnapping the Mayor, wrapping her in the flag, and setting fire to both.

[librechik]

111. THANK YOU! n/t

[tabasco]

118. LOL. Good one Skinner.

I'll be keepin' my eye on you.

[tabasco]

119. Especially if she STOLE the flag from a public building!

That would have shown how rad she was and stuff.

[Union Scribe]

130. doing what she did was incendiary

Should she have not done it because it was seen as aggressive?

[Skinner]

140. Of course she should have done it. And, as I said,

it would have been even more effective (and awesome!) if she lit up a flag at the same time. Think about it:

"I have a dream" speech + flag burning = awesome.

Little Rock Nine + flag burning = awesome.

Freedom rides + flag burning = awesome.

All of the key events of the civil rights movement could have been made more effective (and awesome!) with the addition of flag burning.

[whatchamacallit]

147. Clever sarcasm - check

Last edited Thu Feb 2, 2012, 04:27 PM - Edit history (1)

Unconditional disapproval of flag burning - ?

Skinner, these posts only hint at an opinion. As you've determined the subject worthy of chiming in, I'm genuinely interested in your take. I haven't seen anyone call flag burning "awesome", many of us are simply questioning if the response (condemnation of OWS) is appropriate given the act is protected under the first amendment, and is, so far, an isolated incident. Where you at?

-edit
It occurred to me that my framing is wrong. You obviously chose this thread, not to make a general statement on flag burning, but to point out that the civil rights movement is an inappropriate analogy. Which I get.

[Union Scribe]

164. So, just more sarcasm.

Was that worth replying with?

[T S Justly]

142. By that logic, Occupy should sit down. On buses. In this day and age ...

Occupy's targets rarely ride the bus.

[alphafemale]

165. Maybe she should have smashed the bus windows windows as well.

And worn a mask on her face. That would have won average Americans to identify with the cause even sooner.

The premise of this thread is ridiculous.

Sitting down to lunch and wanting a sandwich and continuing to sit while you are humiliated?

Racist hatred heaped upon the heads of school children?

People understood that perfectly.

Burning a flag is no anywhere near those brave actions.

It's a stunt.

nuknuknuk Look we just done!

[joshcryer]

172. Flag burning was taboo until the 1980s. Black people sitting on busses...

...was taboo until the 1970s.

[Cleita]

4. +1000

Pointing out injustice and inequality in a way that makes some uncomfortable and pissed off means you are reaching the people those messages are intended for. Good! Keep up the good work.

[Bicoastal]

6. Yeah! Imagine how much more Rosa Parks would have accomplished...

...if she had refused to get off the bus AND burned an American flag!

[Nuclear Unicorn]

8. heh

[Nuclear Unicorn]

7. Weird. I thought Rev King won by appealing to what was best about people

Not disrespecting what they held dear. These false equivalency arguments are silly.

IIRC, there is a general ban on outright propagandizing on behalf of communist and Marxist movements. Would anyone here claim that the dmins are therefore the functional/moral equivalent of the Nazis/John Birch Society?

[LanternWaste]

11. They are as false or as true as we see them to be.

"These false equivalency arguments are silly."

They are as false or as true as we see them to be.


They are also Unpopular. Counter-productive. Wrong message. Alienating. as we see them to be.

"Would anyone here claim..." I posted no claims other than the claims I posted. If you wish to prognosticate what others would or would not say, by all means-- presume.

[redqueen]

13. No, they are as alienating as mainstream society sees them to be. nt

[LanternWaste]

17. Then we must ask ourselves an unpleasant question

Then we must ask ourselves an unpleasant question-- "which do I give more priority to, mainstream popularity or personal conviction?"

[redqueen]

25. How is that unpleasant? It's very basic PR.

What is the consequence of not burning flags? How is this loss of 'personal conviction' manifested? (And also, what does that even mean? If you don't burn a flag you suddenly lose all your personal conviction and... what?)

What is the consequence of burning flags? Well apparently you piss a lot of people off. Even some people who are already on your side... so how does that square with gaining more support, so that the movement can... you know... be effective and stuff?

[LanternWaste]

58. Censoring a statement or a thing you yourself believe is just and true

Censoring a statement or a thing you yourself believe is just and true due to PR, popularity and marketing is a wonderful example of not living up to the courage of one's convictions. Of course we'll rationalize it, but the bottom line is that we are not being true to ourselves in doing so.

Now, I'm not going to pretend I know precisely how many are offended by this recent flag burning, and I'm not going to pretend to know how many are happy with it. However, if a person who burns a flag believes sincerely in what he or she is doing, then I maintain that the popularity of that action should be given, at best, a secondary role by the person doing it.

This is my whole point-- actions unpopular to the masses, deeds that may alienate many people, are part and parcel of every major social change in western civilization since the Reformation, whether it is burning a flag, sitting at a lunch counter, or nailing letters to a church door.

They are each if them, in and of themselves, benign-- at worst. And I have no doubt that many will indeed place a higher priority on marketing and PR over that of the truest form of what we want to say, that of the two (format and content,) one is predicated on the other in many cases-- especially movements of this scope and scale.

But I also believe that content is necessarily independent of format-- nice to have it, no doubt-- especially the sleek, 30-second sound-byte spots that reek of political commercialization and focus groups. Packaging is wonderful. But in the end, the message, not the format of the message, is the focus.

[redqueen]

64. I can't believe you're comparing stealing and burning a flag

to nailing a letter containing a very specific list of greivances to a church door... or sitting in an area declared off-limits to you in order to demand equal treatment.

Do you really see such a clear and direct message in the stealing and burning of a flag? Because I guarantee you hardly anyone else does.

[JDPriestly]

125. The question is not whether the flag-burning was offensive.

The question is whether the flag-burning was really representative of the OWS movement. I don't think it had much to do with OWS other than that the people who did it claimed to be part of OWS.

OWS decides what to do democratically and does only what is agreed by consensus. I have seen no evidence that OWS agreed to or condoned the flag-burning.

Dr. King did not approve the riots in the streets during the Civil Rights period. But they happened anyway because hotheads got out of hand. That was not part of the official Civil Rights movement. And flag-burning is contrary to the actions of the OWS.

Besides, I am very suspicious about just who was burning that flag. OWS is not an anti-government movement. It is anti-Wall-Street, not anti-government. It is anti-Citizens'-United, but not anti USA. What is more, who in the world burns flags today? It's passe, a kind of a 1960s thing, something someone would do if they had read about the 1960s and wanted to turn people against OWS.

I don't think the flag-burning was an OWS action at all. Looks like the kind of thing that provocateurs would do, if you ask me.

It's either that or, as in the Civil Rights movement, angry people acting on their own.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

16. It will be as alienating as the undecideds determine.

Some people will only buy Ford, some will buy only Chevy. Most just want the damn car to start. But if you work for one manufacturer or the other you don't want to leave the last group's decision to a coin toss or the competitor's framing. I don't understand the evil in pointing-out this fact.

[EFerrari]

23. OWS is not running for office. nt

[Nuclear Unicorn]

29. More is the pity.

[LanternWaste]

31. I'm guessing you'll need to ask yourself that questions.

"don't understand the evil in pointing-out this fact."
Bering that you're the only one using that particular word, I'm guessing you'll need to ask yourself that questions.



That being said, most don't know how a car works, much less a computer-- but we want them to work regardless of the labor conditions used, where they are built, or the social philosophies of management. I've found that what I want and what then right thing is are usually two separate things, and I eventually must decide for myself which is more important-- I may make the wrong choice due to my own weakness, but I won;'t rationalize it to feel better.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

43. Way to get lost in the sauce.

[MADem]

19. That's what I thought as well. nt

[TheKentuckian]

27. King didn't operate in a vacuum. There were radical alternatives that applied pressure to the debate

that made King someone that could be dealt with and comparatively moderate despite from some folk's perspective being an agent of the destruction of the social order.

He also caught a bullet as soon as he really started pushing an economic justice and anti-war message, "negros" at the lunch counter was one thing but messing with the money of the wealthy is a horse of a different color.

[Art_from_Ark]

182. You are right

Radical alternatives to King included the Black Panthers, who were depicted in the media of the time as a particularly scary group, and yes, they made King look comparatively moderate.

[Lionessa]

12. Exactly the right comparison. I've tried to verbally

reference the 60s civil rights era/movement, but this totally and perfectly does the job better than I've been doing.

[nobodyspecial]

41. Not even close.

[MADem]

14. Are they burning flags at that lunch counter or on that bus?

Silly comparison.

What under-represented and oppressed minority coalesces around a burning flag?
Self-important blowhards? People who don't think before they act?

How does said burning flag advance their cause and gain them access to the modern-day equivalent of a stool at a lunch counter or forward seat on a bus?

It doesn't. It just makes them look like disrespectful, immature children.

It's a stupid thing to do--you've every right to do that stupid thing, but it doesn't impress much of the 99 percent.

Those civil rights protests DID impress plenty of people--the only ones who weren't moved were racist scum. Most people I knew thought they were terribly brave.

There's nothing brave about lighting a piece of cloth on fire. It's just DUMB. Go ahead and knock yourself out, though--I won't be cheering you on.

[Lionessa]

28. No, but if they were burning the confederate flag in those instances, would it bother you?

Use a valid comparison. It was the ideas of the Confederacy that were most to blame for what those displayed above were about.

[Bicoastal]

44. So why DIDN'T they burn the Confederate flag?

That would have REALLY gotten people talking. Stupid civil rights pioneers.

[Lionessa]

53. Ultimately we burned the USA flag, and STILL managed to have the issues addressed, go figure.

Probably fear to answer your question. But let us not forget that OWS is walking a similar path. First to simply occupy spaces that make people uncomfortable where they weren't allowed to be, then as time and police and state push back occurred, flags were burned, and even so the public, the politicians, did get on board, did make the changes to the laws, set up agencies to monitor and uphold them, and so on.

[Wait Wut]

47. Why are you comparing the Confederate flag...

...to the American flag? The North won. If the South had won and the Confederate flag was our country's symbol, it would be the same argument. Burning a flag means nothing. It's a desperate attempt to get attention, which it has. The wrong kind of attention. I keep hearing people saying they "don't care" if it alienates others. Well, then they've got nothing to worry about and should stop trying to tell those people that disagree with burning to think otherwise.

If you don't care, then why care? The flag burners got the attention they wanted. End of story, right? Or, were they hoping for a different reaction?

[MADem]

66. That's as silly as saying "If they were burning Barbie dolls would it bother you?"

It's not a question of it bothering me, it's a question of the action making any damn sense relative to the protest at hand. Those people at that lunch counter weren't protesting the display of the confederate flag, any more than they were protesting the unrealistic body image of a Barbie doll.

Those protests had purpose and focus. They were targeting what they WANTED. Any ass who landed on earth from a galaxy far, far away could figure out what they were doing. There was no mystery at all.

They were demanding a place at the counter, and a seat in the front of the bus. Which is why they sat their asses down in those very locations. Only an idiot would fail to take their point.

What does burning a flag say about what people want? Answer--nothing. It's an action designed to upset people who have been taught to have respect for the symbol. "Ha, ha!!! I can HURT YOUR FEELINGS! I'm COOLER than YOU!!! I think what you find important or valuable is SHIT!" That's all it says. And who cares what rude people think, anyway?

Why don't these hotshots really put their asses on the line, and take a crap in the streets and wipe their well-fed behinds with the flag? No guts, no glory, after all. If they want to offend, they should really get down on it.

They're schmucks. They have every right to be schmucks, but they're schmucks. But then, this is what happens with leaderless movements--everyone involved in the effort gets the stink of the few idiot-assholes who do something that is dumb as dirt all over themselves. They, then, will have to try and walk this crap backward, or struggle to put a good face on it, and try to come up with convoluted explanations that just don't pass muster or make a damn bit of sense.

It'll take some time before--or even if--that stench dissipates.

I'd have to say that the flag burning stunt was probably one of the biggest missteps of the OWS effort to date. I initially wondered if it was simply the action of a bunch of morons, or instead, planned and carried out by a group with a vested interest in seeing the air taken out of the OWS tires, as it were...? Like I said--dumb. Made no damn sense.

But this is America--people have the right to act like unfocused nitwits if they'd like. Next time, though, they shouldn't steal a flag, they should open their wallets and buy their own--hopefully one made in the US, so at least an American Union worker will benefit from the mindless theatrics.

[Lionessa]

80. If you can't see the relevance, then there's no ground for us to discuss the matter.

[MADem]

85. I can't see the relevance, and it's pretty clear I'm not alone. nt

[Lionessa]

86. And I'm not alone in seeing it, WTF does that have to do with anything? Afraid to have your own

opinion regardless of others?

I'm not a sheeple and won't bow to the foolishness of the masses, though I don't think the masses are nearly as upset as some here would like to promote.

[MADem]

87. I've made my opinion very clear in this thread.

There's not a shred of ambiguity where I am concerned.

[Lionessa]

89. Then why point out that you're in a group of like opinions if not to make that

a point? It's not like you said anything else in the post. Just look at me, I'm not alone. Whooptido!

You want to be in a group making a mountain out of a mole hill, GO FOR IT! You clearly just don't have a clue, and I'm really done with the righteousness you folks want to heap on a piece of fabric. Mature for crying out loud.

[MADem]

96. I have contributed a number of comments to this thread, that express my feelings on the topic.

If you want to dismiss this matter as "making a mountain out of a mole hill," go right ahead. We'll see, won't we?

You only say that I "don't have a clue" because I'm not buying what you're selling. I'd say the one without one of those little old clues is the one who cannot sell the idea that flag burning "helps" the OWS cause in any way, shape or form.

This isn't about "righteousness you folks want to heap on a piece of fabric." If you believe that's the sentiment in opposition to your unfocused points, you've missed the boat entirely.

[Lionessa]

100. Alas history doesn't support your perception.

Individuals have promoted entirely "peaceful," non-inflammatory protestation, but no movement in history has been without some from within (and provocateurs from without) the movement stepping outside of socially acceptable civil disobedience and most into outright violence from time to time.

OWS, even OC, started as peaceful occupation of a place they were unwanted, just like those pictured above, but grew both in "acceptable" civil disobedience and "unacceptable" civil disobedience (quotations are due to the fact that what is acceptable is obviously very subjective). The Arab Spring started with a man lighting himself on fire, surely a flag is less violent than that, and yet without him, none of the potential for that movement would seemingly have gone anywhere.

Burning a flag is offensive, what's happening to so many of us citizens is offensive. Burning a flag is not violence, what's happening against protesters, not just OWS but all liberal protesters for years and years, is violence.

[MADem]

104. Again, let's get back to this OP and stop wandering all afield to find a hook upon which to hang

your tattered and discredited argument.

The OP compares flag burning to lunch counter/back of the bus protests. That's the baseline, here.

No one on this thread who is pleased with the flag burners is able to tell us how burning a flag accomplishes any goal (like the goals that were achieved as a consequence of the two cited protests in the first post).

As I have said elsewhere in this thread, if you have to give the average citizen on the street a little "mini-thesis" as to why doing a dumbass thing like stealing a flag and setting it on fire is going to somehow "help" them, you've lost the campaign before you've even started.

Your argument, essentially boils down to "You be mean to me? I'll be mean to a large segment of the population, indiscriminately, by burning the flag, a symbol that many of them have an emotional regard for, and hurting people's feelings." It's "acting out" at its most immature:

Burning a flag is offensive, what's happening to so many of us citizens is offensive. Burning a flag is not violence, what's happening against protesters, not just OWS but all liberal protesters for years and years, is violence.

How does burning a flag cure the "offensive" things that are "what's happening to so many of us citizens?"

How does burning a flag stop the "what's happening against protesters....violence?"

The answer is, it doesn't.

How does burning a flag do ANYTHING but piss off a shitload of people, many of whom are the 99 percent, (not in a galvanizing way, but in a "What an asshole" kind of way) and at the very same time, cause those who understand that this stupid Bonfire of the Vapidity is both meaningless AND Constitutional to wonder, very seriously, about the direction that OWS is taking? People who are motivated towards a GOAL (not a bunch of mindless, disjointed, ill-conceived, lazy "actions" but an actual GOAL) of economic parity and social justice just cannot see how a bunch of nitwits swiping a flag and setting it on fire accomplishes ANYTHING, save turning fabric to cinders and alienating supporters.

You want to know how to get things done? Look to Rosa Parks, not a bunch of idiots on the steps of a public building in Oakland. OWS needs to go big and get real, and stop this stupid theatrical and sophomoric bullshit.

If this kind of foolishness is representative of the future of the movement, OWS "activists" are quickly becoming the movement's worst enemy.

And, sorry to disagree with you, but history DOES support my perceptions. That's why we know who Rosa Parks is, all these years later... and still, no one knows the name of the idiot who decided to torch that flag. It's likely his name will appear in a police blotter, but not a history book.

[Lionessa]

108. Bless your heart.

[MADem]

109. Right backatcha, y'all. nt

[Bluerthanblue]

88. no you are not.

and you've made good sense in explaining the situtation imo.

[arely staircase]

95. + a brazilian nt

[JDPriestly]

126. MADem, the Civil Rights movement turned quite disorderly.

Here is an example of one of the riots. I just Googled and pulled this off the internet at random.

The Detroit Riot of 1967 began when police vice squad officers executed a raid on an after hours drinking club or “blind pig” in a predominantly black neighborhoods located at Twelfth Street and Clairmount Avenue. They were expecting to round up a few patrons, but instead found 82 people inside holding a party for two returning Vietnam veterans. Yet, the officers attempted to arrest everyone who was on the scene. While the police awaited a “clean-up crew” to transport the arrestees, a crowd gathered around the establishment in protest. After the last police car left, a small group of men who were “confused and upset because they were kicked out of the only place they had to go” lifted up the bars of an adjacent clothing store and broke the windows. From this point of origin, further reports of vandalism diffused. Looting and fires spread through the Northwest side of Detroit, then crossed over to the East Side. Within 48 hours, the National Guard was mobilized, to be followed by the 82nd airborne on the riot’s fourth day. As police and military troops sought to regain control of the city, violence escalated. At the conclusion of 5 days of rioting, 43 people lay dead, 1189 injured and over 7000 people had been arrested.

Causes of the Detroit Riot

The origins of urban unrest in Detroit were rooted in a multitude of political, economic, and social factors including police abuse, lack of affordable housing, urban renewal projects, economic inequality, black militancy, and rapid demographic change.

Police Brutality

In Detroit, during the 1960s the “Big Four” or “Tac Squad”roamed the streets, searching for bars to raid and prostitutes to arrest. These elite 4 man units frequently stopped youths who were driving or walking through the 12th street neighborhood. They verbally degraded these youths, calling them “boy” and “nigger”, asking them who they were and where they were going. (Fine 1989 8). Most of the time, black residents were asked to produce identification, and having suffered their requisite share of humiliation, were allowed to proceed on their way. But if one could not produce “proper” identification, this could lead to arrest or worse. In a few notable cases, police stops led to the injury or death of those who were detained. Such excessive use of force was manifested in the 1962 police shooting of a black prostitute named Shirley Scott who, like Lester Long of Newark, was shot in the back while fleeing from the back of a patrol car. Other high profile cases of police brutality in Detroit included the severe beating of another prostitute, Barbara Jackson, in 1964, and the beating of Howard King, a black teenager, for “allegedly disturbing the peace”. (Fine 1989:117) But the main issue in the minds of Detroit’s black residents was police harassment and police brutality, which they identified in a Detroit Free Press Survey as the number one problem they faced in the period leading up to the riot. (Detroit Free Press 1968, Fine 1989, Thomas 1967). According to a Detroit Free Press Survey, residents reported police brutality as the number as the number one problem they faced in the period leading up to the riot. (Detroit Free Press 1968, Fine 1989, Thomas 1967).

http://www.67riots.rutgers.edu/d_index.htm

Police brutality? Oakland 2012???

And then there was this one in Watts:

The Watts Riot, which raged for six days and resulted in more than forty million dollars worth of property damage, was both the largest and costliest urban rebellion of the Civil Rights era. The riot spurred from an incident on August 11, 1965 when Marquette Frye, a young African American motorist, was pulled over and arrested by Lee W. Minikus, a white California Highway Patrolman, for suspicion of driving while intoxicated. As a crowd on onlookers gathered at the scene of Frye's arrest, strained tensions between police officers and the crowd erupted in a violent exchange. The outbreak of violence that followed Frye's arrest immediately touched off a large-scale riot centered in the commercial section of Watts, a deeply impoverished African American neighborhood in South Central Los Angeles. For several days, rioters overturned and burned automobiles and looted and damaged grocery stores, liquor stores, department stores, and pawnshops. Over the course of the six-day riot, over 14,000 California National Guard troops were mobilized in South Los Angeles and a curfew zone encompassing over forty-five miles was established in an attempt to restore public order. All told, the rioting claimed the lives of thirty-four people, resulted in more than one thousand reported injuries, and almost four thousand arrests before order was restored on August 17. Throughout the crisis, public officials advanced the argument that the riot was the work outside agitators; however, an official investigation, prompted by Governor Pat Brown, found that the riot was a result of the Watts community's longstanding grievances and growing discontentment with high unemployment rates, substandard housing, and inadequate schools. Despite the reported findings of the gubernatorial commission, following the riot, city leaders and state officials failed to implement measures to improve the social and economic conditions of African Americans living in the Watts neighborhood.

http://crdl.usg.edu/events/watts_riots/?Welcome

And how about some pictures of the Civil Rights riots?

http://www.google.com/search?q=civil+rights+riots&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=mIp&rls=org.mozilla:en-US fficial&channel=np&prmd=imvns&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=yA8qT--LIY79iQK-lqzhCg&ved=0CEkQsAQ&biw=811&bih=399

The OWS movement is dealing with different problems, but in Oakland, the problem of police brutality is very real, and as in Detroit and Watts, it is eliciting an angry response.

I condemn violence regardless of the source. But the flag-burning is nothing compared to the violent riots that were associated with the Civil Rights movement.

The Civil Rights movement prevailed because it was representing a just cause. I believe that OWS will also prevail because it is representing a just cause. Time will tell.

OWS is not seeking anything as difficult to obtain as the Civil Rights movement sought. I do not expect OWS to become violent.

[MADem]

139. I invite your attention to the OP, once again.

The OP is creating a direct equivalence between Rosa Parks and a bunch of nitwits who stole and burned a flag in Oakland.

As I have said elsewhere, let's not "drag out the black people" and use them and decades of history to move those goalposts to try to make the case. It is a bit offensive, frankly.

The OP's comparison was very specific--two protests, under the auspices of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, and they are being directly compared to a bunch of jerks lighting up Ole Glory. That's the subject here--let's not go far afield from that claim.

OWS has already become violent--certainly, it's the conduct of "The One Percent of the 99 Percent," perhaps, but that kind of childish crap has staying power and makes the movement look bad. You know, we had a saying in the military "One Aw Shit wipes out a hundred Atta Boys." There's truth in that comment, and this stunt was an Aw Shit moment for OWS.

The unfocused nature of the effort and shenanigans like this latest stunt, without any definable or obvious purpose, are things that are turning away people who would otherwise be their most ardent supporters. I just don't see any "social justice" or "economic parity" in stealing and burning a flag. It's making me think that this movement isn't what I thought it was, and instead is just an attention-seeking exercise. Way too much camping and yelling, and not much sustainable direct action that I've seen. That saddens me. I don't know who to look to--the unions, maybe?

Someone needs to harness this feeling of dissatisfaction that people are feeling and actually focus on actions that make CHANGE. Flag burning, camping, running around protesting Scientologists in Warner Brothers masks, and shutting down websites for two minutes is just chickenshit stuff. It may be "popular" and "cool" right now...but so's Justin Frigging Beiber, and that boy can't sing for shit.

Boycotting a bus line, day, after, day, after day, walking, sacrificing, working together, maintaining focus, through fair weather and foul, enduring, for over a year, and not giving those bastards a damn dime, and forcing them to change a policy? That's some serious shit. That's courage. That's RESOLVE. That impressed me. I have yet to be impressed by OWS, and the thing is, I want to be.

[fascisthunter]

194. Don't Worry... they aren't harming your modern day staus quo

they are soooo yesterday(rich newton snobs remind me of your posts).

[MADem]

212. Pardon me for making an observation shared by most.

It doesn't bother me either way--I take a "what will be, will be" attitude towards life. I'm not "worried" in the slightest, so don't you trifle yourself on my behalf.

So I remind you of a "rich Newton snob," eh? You'd better not rely on your feelings and intuitions to get through life, pal--you couldn't be further from the truth!

If you weren't so concerned, why did you even bother to insert yourself into this discussion to attempt a wee "slam" at me with the "status quo" and "rich Newton snob" snark? That's what people do when they have no argument--they resort to playing the Internet Tough Guy and fling silly little insults. If that's your best effort at debate, you're to be pitied.

Good for you, though, to cut to the chase and start flinging childish shit right off--you've saved me time. I know now exactly what your words are worth, and for that, I thank you!

Plainly, I hit a nerve--and all I did was note what I (and many, many others) saw.

You have one of those smug and swell days, now! Go on and have that last "I'm Too Cool For School" word if you must!

[fascisthunter]

213. no... it was I who hit a nerve

snewton

[MADem]

216. What, bite down on a piece of peanut brittle and break a tooth? Go see a dentist!

You don't want that nerve pain to get outta hand, now...!

[fascisthunter]

217. Just admit it...

you belong to the upper middle-class and really have less of an interest in what OWS represents, because it doesn't have much of an effect on you as it does others here.

In the end, you and I are on the same side. We just live in different towns, and have different backgrounds.... etc... but we are part of that 99% that is getting screwed.

[MADem]

218. You are only an apprentice at baiting behavior.

I really want to memorialize your poor conduct on this thread, so I'm gonna do a little cut and paste to be sure that your precious words remain for all to see, for all time, even if you come to your senses and try to obliterate your bad behavior here. Here's our conversation thus far:

fascisthunter
194. Don't Worry... they aren't harming your modern day staus quo

they are soooo yesterday(rich newton snobs remind me of your posts).
Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink
Response to fascisthunter (Reply #194)Fri Feb 3, 2012, 11:48 PM
MADem
212. Pardon me for making an observation shared by most.

It doesn't bother me either way--I take a "what will be, will be" attitude towards life. I'm not "worried" in the slightest, so don't you trifle yourself on my behalf.

So I remind you of a "rich Newton snob," eh? You'd better not rely on your feelings and intuitions to get through life, pal--you couldn't be further from the truth!

If you weren't so concerned, why did you even bother to insert yourself into this discussion to attempt a wee "slam" at me with the "status quo" and "rich Newton snob" snark? That's what people do when they have no argument--they resort to playing the Internet Tough Guy and fling silly little insults. If that's your best effort at debate, you're to be pitied.

Good for you, though, to cut to the chase and start flinging childish shit right off--you've saved me time. I know now exactly what your words are worth, and for that, I thank you!

Plainly, I hit a nerve--and all I did was note what I (and many, many others) saw.

You have one of those smug and swell days, now! Go on and have that last "I'm Too Cool For School" word if you must!



Add to Journal Self-delete Edit post Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink
Response to MADem (Reply #212)Fri Feb 3, 2012, 11:51 PM
fascisthunter
213. no... it was I who hit a nerve

snewton
Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink
Response to fascisthunter (Reply #213)Sat Feb 4, 2012, 12:11 AM
MADem
216. What, bite down on a piece of peanut brittle and break a tooth? Go see a dentist!

You don't want that nerve pain to get outta hand, now...!


Add to Journal Self-delete Edit post Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink
Response to MADem (Reply #216)Sat Feb 4, 2012, 12:16 AM
fascisthunter
217. Just admit it...

Last edited Sat Feb 4, 2012, 12:17 AM USA/ET - Edit history (1)

you belong to the upperclass and really have less of an interest in what OWS represents, because it doesn't have much of an effect to you as it does others here.

In the end, you and I are on the same side. We just live in different towns, and have different backgrounds.... etc...
Reply to this post
Back to top Al

We're not on the same side. I'm on the side of economic parity, social justice, mature and productive issue-based (as opposed to personal shitflinging) conversations, and civility. I am working very hard to get Elizabeth Warren elected to the Senate.

You're on the side of being rude, baiting, goading, perpetuating falsehoods about your fellow DUers, even when corrected, and basically, showing yourself to be a very poor DU citizen.

By your very own snide and immature words I know you.

[fascisthunter]

219. No, I was wrong... you aren't on my side

and I too will work to get Elizabeth Warren elected... interesting how different our views are though, huh? You can give it, but you can't take it. Why is that?

[MADem]

223. By your words I know you.

fascisthunter
219. No, I was wrong... you aren't on my side

Last edited Sat Feb 4, 2012, 12:41 AM USA/ET - Edit history (1)

and I too will work to get Elizabeth Warren elected... interesting how different our views are though, huh? You can give it, but you can't take it. Why is that?

[MineralMan]

18. Not all that similar, really.

The Greensboro lunch counter demonstrations were precisely on point. They were there because they couldn't get served. Their demonstration very effectively laid out their complaint.

The women on the bus are demonstrating because they were not supposed to be there on that bus. Again, they are doing what they are protesting about. Very effective and clearly understood by everyone.

Burning a stolen, city-owned flag on the city hall steps is entirely different. It is indirect and says nothing about the nature of the grievance to be redressed.

[LanternWaste]

22. Similar in that they are both

Similar in that they are both legal yet alienating, unpopular, pisses people off. etc.

That being what so many are so concerned about for so many oh-so wonderful reasons. So...

[MADem]

68. I don't know a soul who was "pissed off" at those civil rights demonstrations.

We were thrilled. Cheering 'em on! Digging it! Waiting for the Next Big Thing! What will Martin do next? Let freedom ring! We shall overcome!

The only people who found it "alienating" were the racist pigs who wanted to go back to the days of slavery.

It's not an equivalent comparison.

[Lionessa]

91. And did the subsequent flag burning and riots stop the movement, or end the possibility of making a

difference? . . . NO! It didn't stop people from getting the required changes enacted.

[MADem]

99. Martin Luther King never burned a flag. Nor did anyone following him.

He never advocated, endorsed or condoned violence.

Let's bring the discussion back to the OP, shall we, and not drag every black person who ever threw a brick through a storefront during a riot into the fray? That's a broad brush of gargantuan proportions. I won't even start in on why that kind of "rioting in black communities" argument is offensive, too. If you pull the string it will come to you.

Here's the point: The OP is attempting to compare two sit-ins to a flag burning. I reiterate that this is a nonsensical comparison.

I don't think Rosa Parks ever lit a flag on fire--yet somehow she managed to play a vital role in (your words) "getting the required changes enacted." See what she wanted was to sit where ever she damn well pleased on that bus. That was her purpose. That was her focus. That was her GOAL. That was the "change" that she targeted.

And she got it, without ever having to Flame On Old Glory.

Still want to try explaining how firing up the Stars and Stripes got "the required change enacted?" I'm just not seeing it, or feeling it. Unless the "required change" was making a lot of "uncool" 99 percenters think that a bunch of jerks purporting to act for the OWS movement made asses of themselves in Oakland.

[Lionessa]

102. Neither MLK nor his direct followers won the Civil Rights movement alone,

nor have I ever believed they would have had they been the only ones protesting. But there is no way to know that for sure. What we do know is that MLK and his followers were not the only protesters, many were violent, many burned flags, many peaceful protestations were "forced" into violent confrontations because of police brutality.

If you think MLK is all there is to USA Civil Rights, or Gandhi to Indian Civil Rights and Autonomy, you need to broaden your learning field.

[MADem]

107. You're failing to make the argument postulated in the OP.

Look, stick to the subject--the OP is VERY specific in that it compares this flag burning to a lunch counter sit in and Rosa Parks' bus protest.

Rosa and the lunch counter guys ACHIEVED their goal--Rosa got her seat in the front of the bus, and those kids got their grilled cheese sandwiches at the "Whites Only" counter.

What did the flag burning achieve, beyond a black eye for the OWS movement?

I think if anyone has a need of broadening their "learning field," it's not me.

You remain unable to make the link that the OP is asserting, and the reason you can't is because the flag burners, like a lot of OWS "activists," have no focused goals. They're like tantruming toddlers, smashing things and crying and complaining, but offering no solutions save "Let's go camping." The flag burning, as the kids say, was a major FAIL that pushed people away, rather than excited or motivated them. OWS will be one of those major FAILS, too, if they don't get their shit together, and soon.

Perhaps the best thing for it is for the unions to co-opt the movement--at least they know how to run and manage a good protest,and even though their leadership suffers from a narrowness of vision, at least they have both leadership and vision--and OWS is short on vision, lately, if the best they can do is vandalize property, fight with the police, and pitch tents.

[sabrina 1]

110. During the Civil Rights era flags were burned. Did that change your mind about the major

issues at stake?

According to people I have spoken to who were there, flag burning at that time, and in the anti-Vietnam war demonstrations was pretty prevalent. I'm sure it didn't win over any of the already anti equal rights people, but then they were never on board to begin with and probably still are not.

But the dire predictions here that this incident means the movement is dead, was almost funny frankly.

By that logic, the Civil Rights movement would have been dead after the first flag burning episode.

[MADem]

113. I invite your attention to the OP, which says that Rosa Parks and a lunch counter sit in is the

equivalent of an OWS flag burning in Oakland.

You can go as far afield as you might like, and eventually you might find an argument that doesn't totally stink up the room, but you won't be able to do it without ignoring the essential premise of the OP.

I didn't set the parameters, here--the OP did. Moving the goalposts might give you something to cling to, but you won't be arguing from the original premise here. Which--to repeat--was not MY premise, but the OPs.

And, one more time--MLK didn't burn flags. He engaged in peaceful, nonviolent, focused protests that achieved specific results.

[sabrina 1]

117. I asked a question, your post is very combative for some reason. The OP is a continuation of

the discussion about flag burning so it is relevant, since we've had hyperbolic claims that because of this one incident, the entire OWS movement is now dead!

Apparently flag burning is quite a tradition in this country and it sure did not kill the Anti-War Movement or the Civil Rights movement, even though people were arrested for doing it.

Thousands of Americans burned US Flags when Congress passed an anti-desecration-of-the-law bill.

Anti-Iraq War protesters burned the flag also. Not that anything they might have done could have stopped that war. I doubt it would have been stopped if no one has burned a flag.

As for the analogy in the OP, of course it's relevant. Those people were doing something that was absolutely abhorrent to an awful lot of Americans at the time. In fact to some of those bigots who fought so hard to deny rights to African Americans, what they dared to do, sit at a counter that was only meant to be for whites, was probably far more reprehensible even than burning a flag.

So, my question still stands, did the burning of flags end the Civil Rights movement as has been predicted here re OWS? I thought it was very silly to make that claim. OF course the far right will try to use it over and over again, but they would always find something to use so their actions are not a reason to worry about a movement's demise.

[MADem]

161. My post is not combative at all. It is very unfortunate for you that you see it that way.

Again, my point is this--the OP is comparing "flag burning on the steps of the Oakland City Hall" to "Rosa Parks" and a lunch counter sit-in.

Your question is irrelevant to the OP, and it is offensive to African Americans, who remember the roots and focus of the Civil Rights movement in the actions of MLK, not the actions of unnamed flag burners that you -- and only you--seem to remember as a feature of the movement.

When Rosa was sitting on that bus, no one was burning flags. When those kids were sitting at the lunch counter, no one was burning flags. Flags got burnt when civil rights met the Vietnam War demonstrations. Every time I saw a flag getting burned, it was a white male kid doing the burning.

Your attempt to link Rosa Parks and a lunch counter sit-in with flag burning is not successful. You continue to compare an apple with an orange, and then accuse me of being "combative" simply because I do not, can not, and will not take your misguided, off-target "point."

Further, if you think that "an awful lot" of Americans found Rosa Parks "abhorrent" I think you really do need to recalibrate your perspective. I'm quite astounded at that remark, frankly. She very quickly became a national and international icon for nonviolent protest as a consequence of her peaceful protest--she was a hero, not "abhorrent," except to a few prejudiced jerks in Montgomery and other unenlightened places where segregation held sway.

[sabrina 1]

166. No, what's wrong is your attempt to link one incident of flag burning to the entire OWS

Global Movement and you are failing to make your point, whatever it is.

So to show you how irrelevant that incident is to the Global Occupy Movement, I pointed out that during the era depicted in the OP, flags were also burned. And equally irrelevant to the cause being fought for, as you have now finally understood.

Those flag burning incidents were as irrelevant to everything else that was going on at the time, to the courageous actions of people like Rosa Parks and MLK, as this one is to this movement. But there were people back then, just as we are seeing right here on DU today, who attempted to use such incidents to characterize an entire movement. The Anti-Vietnam movement was also attacked in this way.

I did not see all of this, I was not there, but I have read and know enough about it to know that in my research flag burning during that era was most definitely done and used as this incident is being used now, by those who opposed the cause and to try to smear all those connected with it.

I am glad you finally get the point. I hope people littering this board today with RW nonsense whether they realize or not, if they truly support this movement, understand that helping the far right and the Corporate MSM by spreading their efforts to destroy a movement, is not the way to support it.

Maybe they could spend as much effort, energy and time on the huge number of positive actions that were taking place that same day. But I have not seen much of that from them, which does, I have to say, make me wonder about the motives.

[MADem]

168. You apparently have not read my posts.

You haven't taken the point I was making at all. I suggest you go back and actually take the time to read them before responding.

It's not ME, it's the OP who is trying to compare Rosa Parks and a lunch counter sit-in to this OWS flag burning. You really need to follow the discussion, and not make it about ME. It's about the OP, and the specious comparison made there.

I really would like you to post a few pictures of all these black people you insist were burning flags as a feature of the civil rights movement. I was around back then, and I cannot say I remember a single incident of black people burning flags in support of civil rights. I remember plenty of pictures, certainly, of black people being beaten by police in their Sunday best, hit with fire hoses at full throttle, set upon by dogs, and shoved into cells cheek-by-jowl...so certainly there must be a pic or two of them burning those flags as you claim?

This is yet another unfortunate example of folks 'dragging out the black people' to buttress their points. It is very distasteful to do this, yet people persist in appropriating black experience as a shield to hide behind, or using it as a suggestion that black people protesting for basic, essential human civil rights have some sort of "common cause" with shouting, instigating punks who steal and burn flags. I mentioned this proclivity on the part of some in another dust up, the one about "bad words"--but the white majority here does not, apparently, wish to take this somewhat uncomfortable point or even bother to understand how this might be very objectionable.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/124019737#post65

[sabrina 1]

177. African American decorated WW11 Veteran, Sydney Street burned his American flag after the

death of James Meredith. He was arrested and convicted but the SC later overturned his conviction.

Do you think there was sympathy for his action then? Did those who were never going to support the Civil Rights movement anyhow, take into account the justifiable anger of a decorated war veteran or did they use it, as is being done now, to try to destroy the movement at the time? He was convicted of a crime.

I am sure his action was viewed as 'not helpful' even by members of the movement. Yet, his action resulted in a SC ruling that upheld the 1st Amendment protections of citizens right to express their disagreements with the government. So regardless of what anyone thought at the time, the results of his actions benefited all of us.

When I look at those photos in the OP, I see human beings, American citizens who were deprived of the rights they were entitled to and did what they had to do in order to obtain those rights. Throughout history, people of all ethnic backgrounds have had to fight for their rights. And in almost all cases class was more the issue, than ethnicity. And despite the successes of the Civil Rights movement, there are still people in this country who see race rather than human beings who are citizens of this country. Which may be why so many African Americans are part of the Occupy movement in this country especially in NYC and Oakland where there is still racism especially in their brutal Police Departments.

As for your 'dragging out Black Americans' statement. What do you mean by that? The Civil Rights movement is part of the history of this country. Today's Occupy movement is about the class war that is going on here, and as MLK said in one of his last speeches:

“The problem of racism, the problem of economic exploitation, and the problem of war are all tied together. These are the triple evils that are interrelated.” —Martin Luther King

I don't understand your statement at all. The issues regarding class back then and now have not been resolved, in fact they have grown worse. Creating huge injustices, especially to minorities still. Are you saying we should not talk about our history and try to learn from it? That makes no sense to me.

[MADem]

179. I'll have to tell James Meredith he's dead--I'm quite sure he'll be very shocked at the news.

James Meredith is alive and as well as he can be at his age, and living in Jackson, MS. He was shot but he was not killed.

Further, Rosa Parks sat her ass down on that bus in 1955. Meredith was shot in in 1966--eleven long years later. As I'm sure you're figuring out, he lived.

More to the point, Sidney Street burned his flag (which was shy a few stars--it had only forty eight, and thus was not appropriate for display) on a street corner in Brooklyn, NY. He was not part of an organized march, he wasn't facing down any cops or dogs or things of that nature, he was simply an understandably pissed off vet who had heard a news report eleven long years AFTER Rosa Parks stayed in her seat, and was personally questioning what the hell he fought for in WW2. His "demonstration" was one of personal disgust. He was arrested because a cop came along.

But thanks for making my point, albeit quite unintentionally.

I really can't fathom how you don't understand my statement, even after I provided a link in amplification, frankly. But see, that's part of the problem. You're going on about "class" and that's not the issue. Not in the SLIGHTEST. The Civil Rights movement, just so you know, was not a "class war"--it was a struggle for basic, "civil" rights. Black people way wealthier than most of the people posting on this board participated in those marches, along with people who made a middle class wage, and people who were working minimum wage jobs. They were joined by others who agreed that segregation on the basis of RACE (race, not class, not economic status) was wrong.

It wasn't about economic parity--that's not what Rosa or the lunch counter kids were all about. And it most certainly WAS about ethnicity--good grief, I still cannot believe you made that comment! The poorest white man could have a grilled cheese at that damn lunch counter. A drunken broke white woman with a dime could ride in the front of that bus. The wealthiest black woman couldn't get a glass of water at that counter, and a rich black man's dime bought him a seat at the back of the bus--IF the white people hadn't taken them first.

Again, it was ALL about "ethnicity." Those "human beings" you see were being discriminated against not for their "class," but for their race. And it was about very basic "civil" rights, things that way too many of us seem to have NOT been taught in school. It was about not having to hold in your piss because there was no "colored" restroom, it was about having to stay thirsty because, even though the "white" water fountain was working just fine, the "colored" one was broken, it was about being able to go buy a meal at a restaurant without having to "go around the back," it was about not having to climb the stairway to heaven to the balcony in the movie theater because there couldn't be any mixing, now. It was about segregation, the right to cast a vote without being threatened, bullied and intimidated, the right to equal access to public facilities--not "class."

I think I was very clear. White people have a disturbing tendency to use "The Black Experience" as a way to justify their conduct. You had to go from 1955 to 1966 to try (and fail) to make a point. This thread is just the latest iteration of that "Jannisarian" tendency of which I spoke in the link I provided (if you had read the link you would understand what I am saying).

I still would like to see photos of all these hoardes of black people you insist were burning flags. The way you have been talking at several points throughout this thread, this was a commonplace event at the forefront of most civil rights demonstrations and I certainly would like to see the evidence of this, because it's news to me.

And all you can come up with is one guy, inaccurate details, and (of course, since there was no massive "demonstration&quot no picture? How deep a google was that?

Sorry. I cannot buy your argument, because you aren't backing it up with any facts.

[sabrina 1]

184. 'Hoards of Black people'? Did someone make that claim?

I did not see anyone say there were 'hoards of Black people burning flags' except you.

You have missed the whole point of the OP obviously. Breaking the law, burning a flag, throwing rocks at buildings, all these things occur in every movement and there are always the faux 'offended' who focus on these comparatively minor events and deliberately use them to distract from the major issues. That happened back then and that is what is happening now. It was expected, it was discussed before the first Protest in NYC began. And as predicted, as if programmed, the usual suspects behave as expected. The only surprise is to see it here on DU.

You are diminishing the importance of a part of the history of this country and attempting to put your own take on the motives of 'white people' or 'black people' who choose remember it. Very strange, I have never seen anyone before object to anyone referring back to an historical period.

You see things your way, I see them differently. I know very well how African Americans were viewed back then and still are by many bigoted morons. Sorry I never shared the views of bigots, as I said, I see people who were deprived of rights.

I saw people in N. Ireland who were deprived of their rights, for over 800 years. I see people in the ME, deprived of their rights, people in Canada, people in Australia, in South America, in Africa, regardless of where it is, it is a human failure that throughout history there have always been the oppressors and the oppressed. And thankfully there have also been those with the courage to try to change things.

And generally the oppressed are not the wealthy. To say class has nothing to do with oppression is just silly. Show me anywhere in history a wealthy class of people who were oppressed.

As for the shooting of Meredith, my error, but I made it so won't try to excuse it. I am aware of his lifestory as it was part of the history I studied on the Civil Rights era.. But I did give you something to jump all over, so enjoy yourself with that. I won't even edit it so that your 'gotcha' post can be read in context.

[MADem]

185. You are the one who keeps mentioning them. Look at all the posts you have made on the topic.

Yet you're only able to come up with one guy in New York, eleven years after Rosa Parks. Look at how many posts you have made, in this thread alone, on these black civil rights flag burners? Now, you're nitpicking words, when you had to dig like hell to find one person? Please.

Don't tell me what I remember--you weren't there, you thought the civil rights movement was about "class" and not equal rights and access regardless of race, and YOU are the only one on this thread claiming that civil rights protesters ran around burning flags. Never mind that you killed off poor James Meredith! That wasn't a small mistake either. If you're looking for people who were murdered, try Medgar Evers for starters.

Your repeated suggestions (...the oppressed are not the wealthy. To say class has nothing to do with oppression is just silly) that all black people, who--all of them, WERE oppressed, were all "not wealthy" is just incredibly ignorant of the facts. How do you think black people got medical and dental care during segregation? Do you think they paid their black doctors, nurses, and dentists with chickens or something? Where do you think they got their news? From black newspapers and magazines, run by black owners and editors. They patronized black-owned entertainment and restaurant-bar establishments whose owners made money hand over fist. Many black landlords were quite well off. Many black businessmen (and women--read up on Madam CJ Walker sometime) made a fine living despite the indignities and constraints of segregation. Black people came in all economic flavors, poor, working class, middle class--and yes, RICH.

You keep digging a hole for yourself. You're over your head already.

Your suggestion that segregation did not apply to "wealthy people" is just insane. They didn't care how much money you had if your skin was the "wrong" color. That was the whole POINT of the civil rights movement.

And now, you're off to Northern Ireland in a desperate attempt to save this argument? Please. Let's drag THEM into the conversation, too, why don't we? No--let's not.

Again, I re-invite your focus to the OP, because that is what this thread is about. Rosa Parks is not the equivalent of some unnamed punk who stole a flag in Oakland and set it on fire. There is no equivalence, and to pretend so is offensive.

If you can't make your case for that pyromaniac in Oakland without having to hide behind black people and the civil rights struggle, you have lost the argument.

[sabrina 1]

189. Personal attack, and using the race of respected, historical people to do it.

What an absolutely ridiculous post, to accuse someone who refers to history of 'hiding behind' historical figures is one of the most shameful things I have ever seen.

Please stop using Civil Rights heroes to try to make some point you have clearly failed to make. Many people have now told you that you have completely missed the point of the OP and resorting to personal attacks is not going to change that.

You also accused me, without even bothering to check, of not 'writing about the events of Saturday and Sunday night. Again you were wrong. Several of us here on DU DID write about those events as they were happening, something I have done many times since the first day of this movement.

Here is one thread from last Saturday http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002234992. We followed the events for hours that night, the IMPORTANT events, on several different livestreams, on Twitter and as many sources, mostlyfrom on the ground sources as things developed, as possible.

And you will notice if you bother to read the thread, that no one there throughout the many hours we were recording events, even mentioned the Great Historical Flag Burning Event of 2012. Why? Because so few people even knew about it, the Occupiers were busy with more important things.

Many of us had already been following the planning of the event, and we knew that the tactic of taking over an empty abandoned building to use as a community center was based on tactics studied and used in other social justice movements, some very successfully. We also knew that the Oakland Occupiers did not expect to succeed, they intended to highlight the horrific conditions of Oakland's poor, the people left to die in the streets, while buildings stand empty, and the City does nothing about its poverty stricken citizenry.

Support for this event came from all over the world, including Egypt, Australia, Europe and elsewhere where people were watching in solidarity and then saw the brutality of the police, recorded by us in that thread as much as possible.

And what do we find on DU after the events of those two days watched by the world? The ONLY thing that happened that day was a couple of people BURNED A FLAG OMG! Shameful to see what is going on here, no wonder so many good DUers are gone.

Next time you accuse someone of something, make sure you check to find out if it's true. One thing I did not see you in any of the threads, so I guess you are not that interested in the movement, which is just fine. Except if you had been interested you would have understood the suprise of those of us who were writing about it and had been following it, to see only one, barely noticed event so highlighted on this progressive board.

Enough of this, you are beating a dead horse, and I am done with this conversation.

[MADem]

215. It is plainly apparent to me that your posts are full of errors of fact.

This is not an opinion, or an insult, personal or otherwise-- it's an observation that is easily backed up with five minutes on Google. You have every right to your opinions, but you don't have a right to invent situations to suit your arguments and try to pass them off as facts.

I would urge you to take some history classes. You will fill in some serious gaps in your understanding of the Civil Rights movement, and it will prevent you from ascribing behaviors to the heroes of that effort that they never exhibited.

How lovely that you "followed events" on another thread. You didn't do it on THIS thread--and you somehow expected me to read your mind and find your little link by magic? Oh my, I am SO sorry, I am not a psychic.

In any event, your comments on a separate thread do not make your historical fiction on this thread any more accurate.

I recommend that you learn what a personal attack is. I have never once "personally attacked" you, though you have been working very hard to provoke me.

I'm truly quite pleased that you're done with this conversation, because you haven't had your facts in order for some time and there's only so many times one can attempt to correct grievous errors before one gets exasperated.

Do not reply unless you are prepared to show me photographs of all those "Civil Rights Marching, Flag Burning" black people you've claimed were a standard feature of the movement, and you've mentioned at least five times in this thread.

[Number23]

236. Is it too late to reply to this post??

Because goddammit you deserve a freaking medal for putting up with the avalanche of ignorance and denial. A freaking BLIZZARD of historical ignorance and cluelessness. The only good thing from all of this is that the poster finally had the good sense and dignity to STOP POSTING.

I would urge you to take some history classes.

Emphasis on the PLURAL. Not class -- CLASSES. My grandparents were involved in many elements of the CRM. And the idea of anyone black burning a flag would make their hair stand up on their heads (my grandfather is long gone). Black folks knew the deck was stacked against us high enough by our very existence. The idea of doing something illegal and emotionally stupid as burning a flag while they were protesting for their rights would have been a slap in the face to every single protestor out there and the millions who were unable/afraid to protest with them.

[MADem]

237. This is just yet another example of that business we see all too often.

The whole premise of this pathetic thread was to try to defend those smartass punks who broke into the Oakland City Hall, STOLE a flag, and burned it on the steps. Aside from the lawbreaking aspect of the vandalism and theft involved in this piece of...er, street theater, that's just cheap. I always thought flag burnings were a BYOF type event.

So, unable to make their case, they root around and .... voila! Surprise, surprise--it's like that Back of the Bus Defense yet again! Let's throw some black people up against the barricades!! ANYTHING can be justified as a "civil right" if you can find some black guy who did something similar once upon a time--even if you have to kill off poor James Meredith in the process...!

That's why we saw this effort to Google like hell and find "a" black guy who once burnt a flag, alone, on a streetcorner in a section of NYC! Never mind that it was HIS flag, not a stolen one, and only had 48 stars on it...! It's the same, it's exactly the same!

This particular exchange was one of those "takes the cake" ones, but by no means the worst one I've been involved in here. I'd say the "Being black is the same as being obese" commentary I got a few days ago was probably the low point. It's amazing, and what's doubly amazing is that it's coming from a place of sheer...er, lack of knowledge...not deliberate racism (about the only saving grace to be found). Just whoosh--right through the old noggin without slowing down never mind stopping for reflection. No understanding why the words offend, either, and a double-down on a failed argument when ya try to point it out.

Ya just gotta laugh--if ya don't, you'll cry!

[msanthrope]

225. Massive, massive history fail....

First of all, James Meredith isn't dead. Really, he's not. There's even a picture of him, after the shooting, crawling for cover. It won a Pulitzer.

Second of all, Sidney Street owned his flag. He flew his flag on national holidays. He didn't steal his flag. It was his.

Third of all, Sidney Street was a hard-working bus driver who had earned a Bronze Star. Comparing him to the douchebags in Black Bloc is an insult to a veteran and a union member.

In the future, before you attempt to shamelessly use Civil Rights leaders, could you ascertain some basic facts about them?

OWS would benefit mightily if they read about the March Against Fear.

[JDPriestly]

127. You and I were cheering. But many, many people were not.

Many were frightened of change.

And today, OWS is peacefully seeking change, and many are looking for an excuse, any excuse to resist the change. The change OWS is seeking is far less than the change that the Civil Rights movement sought.

And this time, the change will not just benefit a minority. It's change to benefit 99% of us -- actually more than 99%.

[MADem]

138. The only people that weren't cheering were racists in their hearts.

I really do have a problem with associating the behavior of a bunch of pyromaniacs who stole a flag and lit it up with the focused and goal-oriented conduct of Rosa Parks and those who supported the boycott, as I'm sure you are figuring out from my comments here.

There is simply no equivalence and it is a painful exercise to watch people try, and fail, to create one.

[sabrina 1]

167. And burning flags occurred during that era also, and were as irrelevant to that movement as

the insignificant event in Oakland is to the Global Occupy movement. So yes, there is a direct relationship to events that occurred then and now, and to those who would have liked to use the flag burning incidents back then, as they are doing now, to characterize an entire movement.

It failed then and it will fail now. Intelligent people who actually support Social Justice movements, understand where this is coming from. Some were even around when it happened before.

I was not there, but have read enough to recognize the almost identical tactics being used then which we are seeing and expected see, being used against the Global Occupy movement. It won't stop it, it will only make it stronger. But it will continue because in this world there are those who will always have a vested interest in smearing and destroying any movement that represents the people.

MLK was murdered not long after he drew attention to the economic inequalities of his time.

[Nye Bevan]

24. "The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral,

begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy.
Instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it.
Through violence you may murder the liar,
but you cannot murder the lie, nor establish the truth.
Through violence you may murder the hater,
but you do not murder hate.
In fact, violence merely increases hate.
So it goes.
Returning violence for violence multiplies violence,
adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars.
Darkness cannot drive out darkness:
only light can do that.
Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that."

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

http://www.drmartinlutherkingjr.com/mlkquotes.htm

[Lionessa]

30. Burning a flag isn't violence. Geez.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

40. So if some rednecks wanted to burn a Mexican flag on Cinco de Mayo, you'd support them.

[Lionessa]

46. Absolutely. It's only fabric.

[redqueen]

55. Do you think it would help them to build support

for a movement to abolish any observation of the holiday? (Or whatever goal they might be seeking support for by engaging in such an action?)

[Lionessa]

57. Doubt it would make any long term impression, as flag burning in the past has not

killed any movement that I know of. Like say the Civil Rights movement of the 60s. Started with peaceful occupations of spaces not legal to those occupying them, then marches and some flag burning, then some flag burning and riots, ultimately the movement succeeded, because of or in spite of doesn't matter. What matters is that history says your concern over offending the masses about a burning flag and somehow claiming it will hurt the Occupy movement's long term viability is a misrepresentation of history.

[redqueen]

61. "because of or in spite of doesn't matter"

That's an opinion that some don't share, obviously.

History does not say what you think it does. Get a few historians in a room together and have them discuss whether such actions have helped or hindered progress in the past. I think you would be surprised at the outcome.

[Lionessa]

78. I don't need historians, I can read. Almost all civil rights movements have

at some time in their time line involved some tarring and feathering, flag burning, effigy burning, photo burning, burning of oneself, riotous burning such as vehicles and bldgs. Comparatively within that list, flag burning appears pretty insignificant, and yet all have occurred regardless of my opinion of their significance and nearly all the movements ended in fruition for the protesters.

[Nye Bevan]

69. I wasn't really thinking about flag-burning when I posted this.

Seeing the Rosa Parks and lunch counter sit-in photos reminded me of just how successful these non-violent protests were. But it's interesting that MLK never seemed to feel the need to set fire to anything in pursuit of his goals.

[renie408]

159. +1

[sabrina 1]

186. Send that to the Oakland PD.

And to the NYPD, the Portland PD and all the other militarized PDs around the country who have been brutalizing American citizens for months now.

As your quote says, violence doesn't work, as we have seen by the rapid and continuing growth of this movement across the globe. But so far, the Police don't seem to understand that.

OWS is a non-violent movement and it has been met with a military-style force of thousands of robo cops armed with military style weapons.

MLK would recognize the violent actions of the cops. And he would say and do what the Occupiers repeatedly emphasize, that they should not react to the violence with violence, and so far, after four months of brutality against them, to their credit, they have stood by their non-violent pledge.

[fascisthunter]

199. nah, that poster like violence against us

[sabrina 1]

220. S/he seemed confused over where the violence has been coming from, so I

thought I would explain!
.

[fascisthunter]

195. try HARDER!

[Nye Bevan]

201. Sorry. What was I thinking, quoting Martin Luther King?

I should never have quoted Martin Luther King. I sincerely apologize.

[fascisthunter]

202. you mean twisting the meaning of his words... yeah, pretty sick actually

simplistic sophistry is all you have. Try HARDER! Only on DU would you feel this confident.

[Nye Bevan]

204. Yep. You busted me. I twisted the meaning of his words.

Because in my post I didn't simply provide the MLK quote and a link to its source. No sireee. I added several paragraphs of my own, consisting of misleading sophistry, in order to totally twist his words into something they were not. I give you credit as being the only DUer on the board to pick up on that.

And yes, I promise *sincerely* to try harder next time. So you can stop repeatedly urging me to "try harder".

[fascisthunter]

205. yup... I did, again

[Nye Bevan]

207. you certainly did! (nt)

[fascisthunter]

208. Oh, yes I did!

enjoy

[Nye Bevan]

209. Thanks!

[sabrina 1]

221. Well so long as you were directing his words towards the violent, and not towards OWS

which is a movement based on the same principles MLK advocated. Many former Civil Rights protesters are part of the OWS movement. I assume you were directing the quote towards the brutal Police Departments across the country who have nearly killed several peaceful protesters, two or three of them Iraq War Vets.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

26. What about these gentlemen?

Could they have burned flags and been considered a part of the civil rights movement?

[EFerrari]

39. If you believe there was no rioting during the Civil Rights Movement

you are very much mistaken.

[Nye Bevan]

70. The so-called "race riots" were mostly massacres of innocent blacks by racist white gangs.

They were essentially equivalent to lynchings.

[EFerrari]

73. Yes, the overwhelming majority of race riots were whites attacking

black communities. That is true.

But King did not have 100% compliance with the non-violent ideology that Bayard Rustin trained him and others in. Just as it's unreasonable to believe OWS will have. Mass movements don't work that way.

[JDPriestly]

128. Oh, dear. Who told you that?

As in Oakland, they were inevitable reactions to police brutality.

It is very difficult to be a police officer in a time of political change that is being expressed in the streets.

Some officers are capable of quelling the excitement and violence through patience and wisdom, but most are not trained to do that.

[fascisthunter]

203. "Who"? The same assholes on FOX NEWS

[sabrina 1]

222. One of them did. A decorated African American WW11 veteran burned a flag

after the shooting of James Meredith. His name was Sydney Street. He was arrested and convicted. I'm sure there were lots of people around who thought his action was detrimental to the cause at the time.

Later his conviction was overturned by the SC. A blow to those who wanted flag burning to be a crime. So his 'crime' turned out to have a positive effect for this country after all.

[hack89]

33. They were challenging specific evils

what specific evil does burning a flag challenge?

[EFerrari]

34. Responding to the flag burning by flag clutching is easy.

It relieves the clutcher of the obligation to look at the greater violence and injustice that is all around them and over which they feel helpless.

[MADem]

74. Who's clutching? Saying "dumb ass move" isn't "clutching."

Everyone knows that the act of flag burning is constitutional. This is not a surprise to anyone. What people want to know is "What's the fucking point? How is that dumb ass move HELPING?" And no one can come up with a unified response. Everyone's shooting from the hip, and missing by a mile.

If you have to deliver a sanctimonious lecture to accompany your flag burning, and accuse fellow 99 percenters of failing to "look at greater violence and injustice" in order to try to guilt them into seeing your point of view, you've blown the argument. Leadership by guilt is what the fourth grade teacher does when she forces the class to rat a misbehaving schoolmate out, otherwise there will be no recess. It's not how you inspire people or impart enthusiasm to a movement.

Sitting at a lunch counter means "I want to be allowed to have a grilled cheese here." Sitting at the front of the bus means "Don't you tell me I have to pay the same fare and sit in the back or stand." It's obvious. No words are needed.

If you have to lecture people to "understand" a protest, you're screwed before you even start.

But hey, if you dig it, and just know that you're right and the visceral feelings of people from all over the political spectrum are just "wrong" and are to be ignored, mocked and devalued, go on and buy a dozen more flags (US/Union Made, thanks) and have at it--see what it does to energize the movement.

Forewarned, though: It wouldn't surprise me if there are One Percenters out there who are PRAYING that's just what you'll do. It also wouldn't surprise me if some wingnut troublemakers get out there and start firing up Old Glory just to dampen enthusiasm.

We'll see.

[nobodyspecial]

35. Yes, these pictures so clearly illustrate how some OWS actions have NOT

had anything in common with the civil rights movement. The protesters appear calm, well-mannered, and well, civil.

They are showing that those protesting are just like the average American, identifiable and relatable. If this is happening to them, it could happen to me just as easily. Most Americans do not wear masks, riot gear and act destructively. They don't see themselves in such examples.

Their actions are focused and targeted directly at the injustice that needs to be corrected. All should have a right to eat at the counter, so they are sitting at the counter. Everyone should be able to sit wherever they want on a bus, so they are doing just that.

They are confronting the injustice, but they are doing so in a controlled manner. They are not being overtly aggressive. They are not vandalizing property. And when it came time for arrests, which is the accepted result of civil disobedience, they did not fight back, try to extract others or throw things at police.

OWS can use whatever tactics it wants, but don't pretend to be anything like the civil rights movement.

And, it would seem that the movement would want to use tactics that have been proven successful. The movement gained momentum because they did not alienate others. Rather, they gained their respect and support for their courage and dignity. And others lined up along side of them.

And when the dogs and clubs and hoses were unleashed, it was quite clear to everyone who was truly standing up for justice.

[redqueen]

42. [phone], especially that last sentence

Start stealing things and destroying things, and you help the media to muddy the waters.

[fascisthunter]

196. Like Wall Street.. so how much are you invested in that fetid tit?

[redqueen]

224. "fetid tit'

Invested... that's funny.

[zappaman]

48. Great Post! n/t

[EFerrari]

51. You are comparing the air brushed mass media version of the civil rights movement

Last edited Wed Feb 1, 2012, 06:00 PM - Edit history (1)

to OWS on the ground right now.

[Wait Wut]

52. Right on!!!

I'm so glad there are folks here that can put my thoughts into words for me!!

[Nye Bevan]

71. The lunch counter sit-in participants dressed up for the occasion, were polite and friendly,

and spent their days studying (they were mostly college students). Rosa Parks was polite and respectful but just did not give up her seat. At no point did anyone seem to feel the need to set fire to stuff.

[fascisthunter]

206. lol

[xchrom]

84. peace AND violence took the civil rights movement forward

?w=500
Fires spread along Grand River Avenue near Warren Boulevard, an area more than two miles from the epicenter of the civil disturbance. In all, the affected areas covered several square miles. "It looks like a city that has been bombed," Gov. Romney remarked after a helicopter tour.

watts rebellion 1965







nobody stopped or grew as 'concerned' as the flag clutchers here.


and just like there is justification for flag burning now -- there was justification for violence then
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/eyesontheprize/story/13_detroit.html
The Watts riot of 1965 will become the best-remembered urban black uprising of the Sixties, but summer 1967 brings an explosion of tensions around the country. For five days in July, Detroit, Michigan descends into chaos. An economic boom has created jobs, and urban renewal projects have built new infrastructure, but blacks have been left behind. New expressways destroy black neighborhoods, and economic opportunities are scarce for black residents. The 95% white police force, notorious for brutal and arbitrary treatment of black citizens, raids an illegal after hours club and draws an angry, frustrated crowd that quickly turns hostile.

As Sunday July 23rd dawns, the growing crowd is looting and burning the city. Twelve hours into the frenzy, Governor George Romney calls in the Michigan National Guard; unprepared troops make mistakes like shooting out the street lights. Nearly 4000 people will be arrested in the first two days, and over 7000 by the third. Most are young and black. Police and guardsmen shoot at will, with some later insisting that all of their victims were armed.

Romney asks President Lyndon Johnson for federal help and by Monday afternoon 4700 U.S. Army paratroopers have arrived, under orders not to use live ammunition. A combined 17,000 law enforcement troops suppress the riot. After five days of anarchy, more than 40 people are dead, hundreds are injured, and damage estimates hit $50 million.

President Johnson appoints a commission to investigate the riot's causes. When the Kerner Commission report is published in March 1968, it describes America as two societies, black and white, separate and unequal, and recommends new government programs to break down racial barriers and increase opportunity. However, faced with the growing costs of the Vietnam War, Johnson does not act.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

116. That violence was used does not mean it helped.

I think it might be more accurate to say that non-violent methods succeeded despite being hampered by violence.

[Bluerthanblue]

122. word n/t

[MADem]

170. +2 nt

[lunatica]

200. Yup

It's what worked in the end.

[Bluerthanblue]

94. wish I could recommend your reply!

well said.

[Bobbie Jo]

124. Bravo!

[sudopod]

49. this right here. nt

[Summer Hathaway]

50. What an incredibly ridiculous comparison

As has been pointed out by many on this thread, you have skillfully managed to contradict your own argument by showing how non-violence - as opposed to theft, vandalism and flag-burning - resulted in actual change for the better.

[EFerrari]

59. It's not more ridculous than taking a tiny group of people for the whole of OWS.

[Summer Hathaway]

62. I commented on the OP's comparison

I said nothing about the whole of OWS.

[EFerrari]

67. So then your implicit comparision is between the careful staging of Rosa Parks

and three or four out of control people in Oakland.

[Summer Hathaway]

75. I'm not the one making the comparison

implicit or otherwise, between what happened in Oakland and the civil rights movement. The OP did.

[EFerrari]

76. "by showing how non-violence - as opposed to theft, vandalism and flag-burning"

[Summer Hathaway]

92. The OP begins with quotes

from other threads where people expressed their opinion that theft, vandalism and flag-burning are counter-productive tactics that are alienating the very people Occupy should be appealing to in order to grow the movement.

[MADem]

79. Yet you and others here defend that tiny group of people. Which is it?

Are they disruptors, or are they part of the team? Do you associate yourself with them, or repudiate them?

One cannot have one's cake and eat it too.


I'll throw down right here and now--I support the goals of OWS in terms of economic parity and social justice, but I think this kind of stunt is moronic and counterproductive.

Now, like clockwork, someone might just come along and tell me that I "hate" OWS. Easier than responding to the issue raised, certainly.

[JDPriestly]

129. They are disrupters.

But disrupters are a part of most movements toward change.

It is quite possible that they were outsiders intending to disrupt OWS. It is possible that they were provocateurs.

[MADem]

137. Do you associate yourself with their behavior, or do you believe they were there to disrupt OWS?

Do you think their conduct did any good for the OWS efforts? Or do you think they served as demotivators?

[JDPriestly]

233. I think that at least one of them was there to disrupt OWS.

Burning flags is not consistent with OWS's activities in general. That's not the sort of thing they are likely to do. They want new economic solutions, but they aren't anti-US-government in the traditional, 1960s sense.

OWS decides what actions it will take by consensus in the general assemblies.

This was either a group not really associated with the general assembly of the OWS in Oakland or a break-away group. Either way, I suspect there was an agitator loyal to some other group nudging this small group of people in a direction that is not related to the mostly economic focus of OWS. The agitator could have been associated with the government or any sort of other group. I was not in Oakland, but I seriously doubt that this action was decided by the general assembly in Oakland.

Oakland is a strange case because of the unresolved conflicts between the police and a lot of citizens in Oakland.

[MADem]

234. I think your assessment is probably quite accurate. nt

[joshcryer]

176. The guy holding the flag was an Occupier as said by one of the lead Oakland Occupiers.

What people don't like is that Occupy has attracted radical socialists.

What people don't appreciate is that Occupy Oakland had just been razed, hit with tear gas, rubber bullets, and emotions were high.

Somehow burning the flag simply is unforgivable.

[joshcryer]

175. LOL!

I haven't seen that before! Generalizing about a whole group on the actions of a few!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

56. Suffragettes went around with hammers breaking rich peoples' windows. Strikers blocked traffic.

Civil disobedience is supposed to piss people off.

[Bicoastal]

60. Correction: it's supposed to piss THE RIGHT people off.

Not people who were on the fence until this point.

The rich and powerful were directly responsible for women being denied the right to vote. I'm not exactly sure what people who respect the American flag did to deserve THEIR window getting smashed, metaphorically speaking.

[EFerrari]

77. Not necessarily. Read this brilliant post:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002250749

[MADem]

83. Did they break poor peoples' windows? How about the windows of other suffragettes?

Did they run around pissing off OTHER suffragettes?

That flag does not "belong" to the One Percent.

These arguments are all very varied, but at the end of the day, they are just asinine.

[nobodyspecial]

97. No, and the window breaking was part of an overall strategy.

They weren't immediately arrested. They were fined and then refused to pay the fine. Their quest as prisoners was to get classified as a political prisoners. When that didn't work, they went on hunger strikes. Prisoners were abusively force fed when they refused to eat.

So, even this comparison is invalid. It was part of a calculated strategy. It was an agreed upon tactic by group members and had a specific goal. It was not random lawlessness as the impression of one poster might create.

[MADem]

115. You're absolutely right about that.

I should have remembered that key chunk of history...after all, I even had a "refresher course" in the last few years, I've seen Iron Jawed Angels!

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0338139/

[renie408]

158. JHC, breaking ANYTHING with a hammer isn't civil disobedience.

You need to look up 'civil disobedience' on Wikipedia. Civil disobedience is just that...CIVIL. Sit ins are civil disobedience, occupying a public space peacefully is civil disobedience. Breaking and entering, theft and vandalism are breaking and entering, theft and vandalism.

[JDPriestly]

235. Burning a flag has nothing to do with what OWS focuses on, but

it is not illegal. In fact, it is protected speech under the first Amendment.

Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989), was an important decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that invalidated prohibitions on desecrating the American flag enforced in 48 of the 50 states. Justice William Brennan wrote for a five-justice majority in holding that the defendant Gregory Lee Johnson's act of flag burning was protected speech under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Johnson was represented by attorneys David D. Cole and William Kunstler.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._Johnson

United States v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990) was a United States Supreme Court case that invalidated a federal law against flag desecration as violative of free speech under the First Amendment to the Constitution. It was argued together with the case United States v. Haggerty. It built on the opinion handed down in the Court's 1989 decision in Texas v. Johnson, which invalidated on First Amendment grounds a Texas state statute banning flag-burning.

. . . .

Subsequent actions

On remand, the Eichman case was dismissed, as those defendants had only been charged with flag desecration. However, the Haggerty case had an additional charge of destruction of government property, as the burned flag was alleged to have been stolen from Seattle's Capitol Hill Post Office. To that charge, all four Seattle defendants pled guilty and were fined. Garza and Strong (who had prior convictions) served 3 days in jail each.

When Republicans retook control of Congress for the 104th session, the Flag Desecration Amendment was first proposed, which would grant the federal government the authority to proscribe flag burning. A resolution for this Amendment passed the House in every session from the 104th until the 109th Congress, but never got past the Senate (in the most recent vote, passage in the Senate failed by one vote), and has not been considered since the 109th Congress.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Eichman

The only people with an interest in bringing the issue of flag-burning back in the public eye are conservatives in my opinion. That's why I suspect that the flag-burning was an agitation by someone who does not really support OWS.

[Starry Messenger]

63. The media reaction to those protests was negative too.

Whatever one does to dissent always gets these reactionary broadsides. You can set your watch by it. Just Googling one story about the bus boycotts brings up an article from 1956 about how much it was costing the *bus company* and whether African Americans could be punished for *not* taking the bus.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=mvkcAAAAIBAJ&sjid=0JkEAAAAIBAJ&pg=7179,5209673&dq=rosa+parks&hl=en

The flag-burning is just being used as a red herring. Certain sectors have been simmering with disapproval over OWS for months now. They are thrilled to have something to rally around their satisfaction with the status quo.

[redqueen]

65. "The flag-burning is just being used as a red herring."

OMFG! Who could have ever imagined that that would happen?!

[a simple pattern]

143. DHS?

[SidDithers]

72. Are you somehow under the misconception that the OWSer was fighting for the right to burn the flag?.

Blacks at a lunch counter: fighting for the right to not eat in a segregated place,, so they eat in the White only section.

Rosa Parks: fighting for the right to sit at the front of the bus, so she refuses to move to the back.

OWS protester: fighting for economic equality, so he sets a flag on fire.

You're right!! It's exactly the same thing!




Edit: oh, and I'm pretty sure that guy furthest to the left at the lunch counter was an agent provocateur.

Sid

[Bruce Wayne]

81. Oy. Holy false analogies!

If there is anything more American than enjoying a chocolate malted, it's riding a bus to work.

On the other gauntlet, burning a flag seems a bit less patriotic to me.

[sabrina 1]

114. So how do you feel about all the flag burning that took place during the Civil Rights era

It sure got people's attention for the movement, some hated it of course, but did it 'kill' the movement as some hyperbolic claims are making about this minor incident?

Lots of flag burning during the Bush era also, and when Congress passed anti flag buring law, thousands of Americans burned the flag in protest.

It seems to be a tradition and this movement if anything, has been less inclined to burn flags or damage property, than most other movements so far.

[Bruce Wayne]

141. It didn't happen that much. Mostly people carried flags at marches or wore them on pants.

[MADem]

162. I'd love to see some pictures of all these black people burning flags.

I wasn't asleep during that era, and I can't recall a time when a black person burned a flag at a civil rights protest.

[treestar]

93. Major Fail

Not analogous at all.

[TwilightGardener]

105. What courage does it take to burn a flag? I mean, whoopee-doo, how

BRAVE and MEANINGFUL to commit an obnoxious but LEGAL act in front of a sympathetic audience.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

227. even the 'legal' aspect is in question in this case, since the flag didn't belong to the burner n/t

[ananda]

112. Atticus Finch said...

... "A person's conscience does not abide by the majority of people." TKAM, ch. 11

[sabrina 1]

121. So true, and most movements and revolutions that changed the world, were not supported

be a majority of the people, until they won of course. Love Atticus Finch.

[HuckleB]

123. I love a good red herring.

At least when it's been on the grill, but still...

Not the same. Not that I care about the topic, either.

[sabrina 1]

134. How is it a red herring? During the Civil Rights era and the Anti Vietnam era, many people

did things we are now being told people should not do in order to 'appeal to all Amercians'. Do you believe that those men's actions appealed to 'all Americans' back then?? The reason it is now considered to have been a very brave thing to is that it was actually dangerous, and illegal, to sit at those counters. It certainly was NOT a popular thing to do. Yet, they did it, because sometimes you have to do things that are not popular because they are the right thing to do and because NOT doing anything, out of fear of offending someone, guarantees that nothing will change.

There was plenty of flag buring back then also. But it did not stop the movement from eventually succeeding. So no, it is not at all a red herring, it is very appropriate considering we are being told here that one flag burning incident will end a popular, global movement. That is just plain incorrect as history shows.

[BrentWil]

133. THe difference is civil disobedience can be useful while burning the flag never is

Using acts of civil disobedience to highlight an injustice is a politically savvy and often times can move the public to change it opinion. Burning symbols and other simplest expressions of anger never really change the minds of the society. Protests need to actually help, not hurt whatever cause one is fighting for. Gandhi and MLK understood this.

[sabrina 1]

135. Really, did flag burning end the Civil Rights movement? Or the anti-Vietnam War movement?

This movement is only going to grow so those who don't support it are just going to have to get used to that. There will be lots of incidents, as there were during the Civil Rights movement, that some will not approve of, maybe even most, but that is to be expected. The outrage over one insignificant incident here is strange, unless now the 'left' is no longer supportive of social justice and economic equality and holding Wall St. criminals accountable.

And if that is the case, then they should stop trying to use incidents like this, blowing them up out of all proportionwhile pretending they do care, and just come out and say 'I oppose any movement for social justice and financial equality'.

At least the Right is honest about their opposition to OWS. I think this incident has been very revealing and that is probably a good thing.

Now we know where we stand.

[Kellerfeller]

144. Sitting at the counter stated "We're people too"

Burning the flag says "America as a whole, sucks."

The response of most people to that statement is "So leave". The smarter ones will at least say "Well then use the system to fix it but stop throwing a tantrum."

[DemocratSinceBirth]

145. How Is Trying To End Jim Crow Analogous To Burning A National Symbol Many Find Sacred?

The former appealed to America's best instincts, the latter the worse.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

146. It's Amazing That The Most Flawed Analogy In The History Of D.U. Got Fifty Seven Recommends

.

[renie408]

148. Thank you. This comparison is absurd. Comparing passive, civil disobedience..

to vandalism and theft is just ridiculous. If the goddam Occupy movement in Oakland had been content to continue to do exactly what the people in the pictures in the OP were doing, which is OCCUPY, then all of this uproar would never have happened.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

150. I Don't Think Flag Burning Is Tantamount To Vandalism

But it's a stupid way to change hearts and minds.

[renie408]

151. Knocking over a 100 year old scale model of city hall is. n/t

[renie408]

152. And actually, if you stole the flag you are burning, it is PRECISELY vandalism.

van·dal·ism? ?[van-dl-iz-uhm] Show IPA
noun
1.
deliberately mischievous or malicious destruction or damage of property: vandalism of public buildings.
2.
the conduct or spirit characteristic of the Vandals.
3.
willful or ignorant destruction of artistic or literary treasures.
4.
a vandalic act.

[MADem]

171. It would not be vandalism if it were their flag. However, they stole it.

So there's theft, there, and then they disfigured the thing, ruined it for other uses, with the use of flame. I'd call that vandalism given the specific circumstances!

[sabrina 1]

169. Maybe because it is not flawed. Or are you saying that this event when it happened did not

'offend' anyone in America back then?? We are being told here that actions that 'offend' people will never succeed. Reading about the reaction to those two incidents at that time, it seems an awful lot of people were offended, and thought they were not 'appropriate actions' and would do nothing to gain the support they were trying to gain.

Funny to see this thread now pretending that everyone in the country was so pleased and moved by those actions because the 'appealed to our better nature'. If that better nature had existed at the time, they would not have had to risk arrest by merely sitting at a counter to have a meal.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

188. How was Trying To Break Jim Crow

How was trying to break Jim Crow analogous to stealing someone's flag and burning it?

Hey, you can burn all the flags you want. I will die for your right to do it but IMHO, it's as effective as flatulating in public...

[renie408]

149. I find it ironic that the people in the pictures are doing what Occupy Oakland was SUPPOSED

to do...they are OCCUPYING. If you will notice, they are not vandalizing anything or stealing anything. It is total sophist bullshit to say that a peaceful diner sit in is the same as breaking into City Hall, vandalizing government property and burning a flag on the steps.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

153. I Don't See How It Got So Many Recommends

It's the triumph of ideology over common sense but I don't even know of an ideology that supports making symbolic gestures that lack even a scintilla of efficacy.

[renie408]

157. It got so many recs because of the Pavlovian response to a picture of Rosa Parks.

You could stick those pictures on a post about eating babies and it would get 50 recs.

[redqueen]

160. LOL!

[sabrina 1]

174. Why do you find it ironic? Are you saying that all Occupiers around the country and the

world, have been vandalizing rather than occupying? And to many Americans seeing those people in the OP at the time, they WERE vandalizing, they were breaking the law.

What is ironic is to see a few people here, few thankfully, who are attempting to charactize an entire movement by the actions of a few people in Oakland. Interesting that they have ignored everything else that happened on just that one day to do so also.

And ignoring the fact that during the era represented in the OP, people did burn flags, and broke things and rioted. But that did not represent the entire movement, nor did it stop it.

Hilarious to see people pretending that the Civil Rights Movement had no incidents of violence or anger or flag burning. The point of the OP which you clearly are missing, is that people DID break the law, which at the time 'offended' an awful lot of Americans. Because this will happen as it always does, and those who oppose these social justice movements will always use the worst incidents to try to destroy the entire movement, as happened back then also.

[GeorgeGist]

155. The poutrage at flag burning ...

seems so 1%.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

156. No Poutrage But It Has All The Efficacy Of Mooning Somebody

.

[MADem]

173. The poutrage seems to be coming from the one percent within the 99 percent

who are angry that 98 percent of the 99 percent find the act of burning a stolen flag both constitutional AND stupid.

[sabrina 1]

178. Got any polls on that? The only people, other than the small number on DU who are 'outraged'

over that insignificant incident, are the Andrew Breitbart contingency. OWS in general were not even aware of it, most had gone home by the time it happened, and they have already moved on to far more important issues.

You give an awful lot of importance to a few DUers and the far right who agree with them, if you think they represent 98% of the country who are far more worried right now about their jobs, their homes and their futures than about this insignifican event, which seems to be consuming a few people here for some reason to the exclusion of all other far more important issues.

No one I know cares about it, but they do care about what the OWS movement is trying to do.

[MADem]

180. I've got a link....keep saying this is "No big deal." It's got--like it or not--legs, and it will

likely trot all the way to next November: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Occupy+Wall+Street%2C+Flag+Burning

We'll see how fast this fades. If only one percent of the population is feeling any agita about it, I fail to understand why it is a topic of so many conversations--but that's just me, using basic logic.

Shooting the messenger, mind you, and trying to make this all about me, is unhelpful to the argument.

[sabrina 1]

181. Lol, that's what was said about the other flag burnings. No one even remembers them at this point.

It's the topic of conversation ONLY on rightwing sites, from Drudge to Breitbart to Fox, the usual suspects. Same thing when the last flag was burned. They keep trying, and keep failing. But thanks to a few DUers for helping them. I have no intentions of helping the far right kill another progressive movement.

Do you know anything about what all the other events that occurred that day? I know we were following them, here as well as elsewhere, all day, Saturday and Sunday. I don't remember any of the DUers now so interested in this one incident, in those threads. Apparently they were not interested in the two day events of last weekend so this sudden interest is interesting to say the least.

[MADem]

183. Keep missing the point. Deliberate obtuseness isn't charming, it's sad.

It's not the topic of conversation "only on rightwing sites." It's been covered in every paper in the country, it's been on the television news. That's what the link showed you--and you ignored because it doesn't fit with your argument.

Whistle away in the dark, it matters not to me.

And really--let's not get hyperbolic with the "DUers help the right wing" nonsense. Just because people who post on DU notice the OBVIOUS--which you're desperately trying to not do--does not make them "helpers" of the far right. That's like saying if WE don't speak of it, why, it never happened! That's North Korean logic, if you ask me.

You know, this site is populated by adults, most of whom can discuss issues in reasonable fashion. If you want to paint people who don't share your particular views with a right wing brush, that's YOUR failing.

If you really want to talk about all those "other events" that you're crying that none of us "less than worthy right wing enablers" don't seem to "care" about, why you go on and do just that. Are your fingers broken? You can post a thread as well as the next person. But those "other things" aren't THIS thing, now, are they?

Stop trying to change the subject, why don't you? It's tiresome. The reason people are talking about that incident is because it's featured in the NATIONAL news, not just a few funky blogs. See, that's what we do here on DU--we discuss stuff. It's much better than trying to propagandize that "No one noticed it except the right wing." If that were the case, I'd be concerned, because I never thought there were that many wingnuts in America, because a LOT of people have "noticed" this stunt. The fact is, the left, the center, moderates, and apolitical types are talking about this, because it was just a dumb move by an idiot, and it has potential to be associated with Democratic candidates and affect Democratic races--in a bad way, let's be clear.

Constructive criticism--in case you're unclear on the concept--is designed to be HELPFUL. OWS should take some of it onboard, rather than circling the wagons, digging a hole, and relying on people such as yourself who are trying and failing to "shame" people into ignoring what was a terribly boneheaded stunt in Oakland.

[Ecumenist]

163. Being right about justice HAS NEVER BEEN POPULAR!!!

Thank You!!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

187. Could You Show Me The Nexus

Could you show me the nexus between some brave African Americans, most of them young, risking their life and limb to break the Jim Crow South and making a symbolic gesture, with little risk, that has the practical effect of flatulating in public?

[sabrina 1]

190. Could you show us the nexus between the huge Global movment of Occupiers and the

actions of a few people late in the day AFTER most of the occupiers had already left and which those of us who followed the events of that day and the next day knew nothing about because it was so insignificant compared to everything else that happened last weekend?

Where is the connection between those few people, none of whom were arrested btw, odd that since over 400 real occupiers were arrested for simply being there, and the entire movement? An event not even known about by most of those who were there, nor by any of the tens of thousands across the world who were watching in solidarity that day? A very minor event that no one would noticed, had the Andrew Breitbarts, Drudge, Fox et al not chosen to make it THE event of the entire weekend? Anyone know who they were eg, or why there were no cops at City Hall, who when asked, claimed to have busy at the YMCA. They lied about that also, btw, what happened at the Y.

I'm just not getting the connection between a four or five people and a worldwide movement at all. Although I get why the far right would pounce on those few people and attempt to smear a progressive movement they absolutely hate.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

191. So If I Go To My Park And Burn A Flag I'm As Brave As Cheney, Schwerner, And Goodman?

.

[sabrina 1]

192. Well that has nothing to do with the question I asked.

[fascisthunter]

193. Right On!!!

[L0oniX]

197. The f*cking flag does not represent me.

It represents the corporations and 1% and a sold out government.

[lunatica]

198. I love you!

I so remember those days! Never, not even once, did I think those brave people were doing anything counterproductive to their cause.

[frazzled]

210. Breaking the very laws that you are protesting as unjust ...

is not the same as breaking laws just to break laws, and that have little to do with your mission. The first is righteous; the second fairly pointless (and, yes, alienating).

Sitting at a lunch counter or in the front of a bus was breaking local laws that forbade blacks and whites to sit together in public. The point of breaking those laws was specifically to show the injustice of those laws themselves, and to rescind them. The point of breaking the law was that particular law itself.

If the message is supposed to be corporate power and the economic injustice to which it leads, breaking a law against putting up a tent in a park hardly seems anything clear and trenchant like the civil disobedience of the Civil Rights movement. It doesn't seem to address the issue at all. It's frankly distracting.

I don't know why people don't get this point. I just finished watching "Ghandi" on television. When he marched to the sea and made salt, he was breaking a law of the British government that was keeping the people of India impoverished and removing their own resources from them as a means of control. Retrieving the salt was symbolic of retrieving control of their own destinies. He was happy to go to prison for it, as were his followers. They were pleased to be beaten for it.

Now if you see camping as a cogent symbol of Wall Street evil (you'll have to convince me that this makes any sense whatsoever, or has any real meaning to the general public) and wish to break a municipal ordinance to do so, then you should be happy to get arrested for it. And not complain about it or gasp over the injustice of it. You are doing it to make a point about corporate money and economic injustice, after all ... right?

There are smart kinds of civil disobedience that inspire people; and there are misguided kinds of civil disobedience that simply make people shrug and wonder what you're doing. I'm for smart civil disobedience.

[renie408]

231. And here's where you lose me...

I think that this past weekend was not a good thing for OWS. I don't think that being seen as rioters is nearly as good as being seen as protesters. HOWEVER...I think the over all movement is a good thing for raising awareness. The campaign started on Wall St, but has expanded to represent the over all inequality and lack of opportunity in America today. 'Camping', as you call it, is a great way to say, "I have no job, I can't get a job, I have no money, I can't get any money and I have nothing better to do due to the middle class having to carry the crushing weight of the bloated upper class, so I might as well hang out here. I have lost my damn house anyway."

[mmonk]

211. They should go home and get a job. The party will take of things.

They hurt the cause more than they help. Oh wait....

[fascisthunter]

214. I know Right?

I guarantee you they wouldn't even have a cup of coffee with one of us unless it was a photo-op.

[mmonk]

226. Right.

They were just doing it for attention. There are right and wrong ways of doing things. They should have waited for a bill. They make the cause look bad.

[KG]

230. heh!

[HillWilliam]

228. When a symbol of freedom is held more sacred than freedom itself

freedom itself will forever be out of reach.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

229. If They Really Wanted To Piss Off The One Percenter They Should Have Burned Money

.

[99Forever]

232. Never had much popularity anyway...

.. so I've always hoped to have the courage to stand up for my convictions. It's gotten me knocked down a few times, but I always get back up.