covid-19 Inspiring Black Rights Matter Protest

The Melbourne rally and march was really enormous.

I stayed on the outskirts to keep about 8m away as most protestors were far closer than 1m. Unfortunately masks do make people feel too “safe”. So I missed out on the speeches, perhaps fortunately. But I did not miss out on the size or nature of the crowd as it went past while I waited to join in at the end.

It took more than two hours to go past! The usual suspects were hardly noticeable in such a large crowd of mainly young people, enthusiastic and lively.

The mass media campaign against it was a dismal flop and they are now just admitting that there were more than ten thousand present. There certainly were. I cannot estimate but two hours stretched across Bourke St is bigger than anything since the Vietnam moratoriums and a LOT more than just ten thousand.

Youth are on the move again.

Inevitably it simply was not possible for protestors to be properly organised for social distancing the first time. But it clearly is just the first time as lots of people who turned up will now know how strong they are compared with the mass media’s lies.

So it will be necessary to seriously prepare for spreading people out at far less than 1 person per four square metre. The same preparations can ensure the police remain just as absent from disrupting future smaller protests as they wisely were from this one. A self-disciplined crowd spread out can be even harder to suppress than one that blocked the entire CBD for two hours because it was just too big to avoid doing so.

The police prevented trams going down Collins Street for many more hours, perhaps out of frustration, more likely just stupidity. But it was obvious to anybody that this blockage was caused by a police van parked on the tram tracks rather than the protestors departing from the demo.

No doubt when the infection rate rises from the successful media campaign to loosen restrictions prematurely they will blame the protestors. But that won’t impress many.

With even the Courts and police knowing better than to try and suppress huge mass demonstrations reflecting popular feeling, the demands for suppression from the newspapers of Channel 9 and Murdoch have just highlighted both their hypocrisy and their impotence.

An international solidarity movement has just been born. It took a LOT longer to reach this level in the 1960s.

80 thoughts on “covid-19 Inspiring Black Rights Matter Protest

  1. Coleman Hughes argues that the “Black Lives Matter” movement is based on a half truth. True that the police treat blacks worse. Not true that they murder disproportionately more blacks than whites. The problem with the police is corruption (not being independently investigated) not disproportionate murder of black people: The Same Drugs: Coleman Hughes on race, racism, police violence, and Black Lives Matter.

    Ok, it’s 45 minutes, but well worth it to find out what is actually happening, rather than relying on mainstream media, which likes to highlight the conflagration, looting etc.

    The Hippocratic oath of activism: First educate yourself.

    Like

  2. Hi Bill the Coleman Hughes interview puts a good case that people of all races should unite to defeat the police and I am familiar with the WPO data base that shows that blacks are being killed by police in a disproportional ratio to whites and the fact that more whites are killed gets a nod when ever Tucker Carlson goes to air. The idea that more blacks are killed as a proportion has long been deflected by conservatives who just say well of course thats because blacks are committing more crime which gets an unquestioned repeat by Mr Hughes.
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackbrewster/2020/06/04/fox-news-personalities-suggest-protests-are-based-on-a-lie—heres-why-thats-misleading/#557082805da3
    Police in USA seem way out of control from seizure of property to militarization of departments to police investigating themselves to the weird practice that Miami Gardens police got up to.
    https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/miami-gardens/article1958408.html
    John Oliver has done some entertaining bits about property forfeiture about police militarization and about police investigating themselves

    Like

  3. Good that the usual suspects were barely visible. I didn’t attend due to fear of the virus, and my continuing recuperation from surgery, but it does seem like there’s a genuinely rebellious spirit among the young protestors. It’s that combination of anger (at injustice) and joy (from being part of something bigger that is effective in bringing about change and giving reactionaries a hard time) that many of us experienced back in the late 1960s/early 1970s. It’s quite a fuel! And there is no ‘doom and gloom’ ethos in it, as far as I can see.

    BTW, the global solidarity inspired me to compile this youtube clip (five minutes) of Langston Hughes’ poem ‘Let America be America again’.

    Like

  4. If a black person is killed by a white person it goes viral. Whereas black on black killing is news for one day or not noticed.

    The narrative for the former is racial oppression, simple, clear cut; for the latter it’s socio-economic / class / race / history in a varied and often complex mix.

    Jacinta Price calls it out here: People only care about Indigenous deaths ‘if there’s a white perpetrator’: Jacinta Price

    Within the dialogue she raises there are different positions to take. IMO the higher crime rates originate in the ongoing policy failures of our government. She seems to focus more blame on the failure of dysfunctional communities to take responsibility. But she is revealing (again) important information that many of the protestors (not all) are ignorant about.

    Like

  5. Bill this lady is just making stuff up, at about the 2 minute mark she says that 70% of aboriginal people in prison are there for domestic violence. If you go the Australian Bureau of Statistics report June 30 2015 they say “The most common offence/charge for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander prisoners was acts intended to cause injury (33% or 3,309 prisoners) followed by unlawful entry with intent (15% or 1,506 prisoners)” but this is just a case of what aboutism where if a subject is raised like deaths in custody someone says but what about deaths in the home in an attempt to derail protests against deaths in custody. Now I agree with her that domestic violence is a worse problem than police violence but I dont have much of a say in when mass movements arise or what form they take my only decision is to support the emerging mass movement or oppose it. Sorry but I was one of those self centered virtue signalling puffed up protesters in the city last Saturday.

    Like

    • I don’t know I don’t know what statistics Jacinta Price was referring to when she mentioned 70% imprisoned for domestic violence (including women retaliating). But there is nothing obviously contradicting that in the row for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders in Table 1 of ABS 4517.0 – Prisoners in Australia, 2019 released 05/12/2019:

      https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/4517.0

      Total 11,866 of which:

      4,009 Acts intended to cause injury
      1,045 Sexual assault and related offences
      1,166 Offences against justice procedures…

      I assume the last includes breaches of Apprehended Violence Orders and cannot tell what proportion of either the above or others included matters relating to domestic violence.

      Certainly those 3 plus 1,655 for Unlawful entry with intent cover the large majority of indigenous prisoners. Only a small minority were offences that might fit the stereotype of over policing – drugs 422 and public order 66.

      Like

      • Just noticed this from 3 days ago, left unapproved. Have approved it as I guess Barry also just didn’t notice it. Not interested in resuming discussion.

        Like

    • Steve,
      I’m prepared to accept you are correct that Jacinta gave incorrect statistics here (the 70% aboriginal incarceration due to domestic violence). Strange that she got that wrong when there are plenty of other stats she could have quoted showing the extent of the problem.
      The Creative Spirits site says:
      https://www.creativespirits.info/aboriginalculture/people/domestic-and-family-violence#Selected_statistics
      40% Percentage Indigenous children make up of all hospital admissions in the age group 0 to 4 who are admitted for assault.
      4.8% Percentage of Aboriginal children aged to 17 who were under care and protection orders in 2010. Same figure for non-Aboriginal children: 0.5%
      45 Times higher: The probability of an Aboriginal women living in rural and remote areas to experience domestic violence, compared to their white peers.
      35 Times higher: The likelihood that an Aboriginal women is hospitalised due to family violence, compared to a non-Aboriginal woman. Other sources report a figure of 23 times
      11 Times higher: The probability that an Aboriginal woman is killed as a result of violent assault. Same figure for Western Australia: 17.5 times
      Figures such as these have been documented many times. Marcia Langton said on Q&A in 2016 that violence against Indigenous women ranged from between 34 times the national figures to up to 80 times in the worst areas. This was fact checked by Kyllie Cripps for “The Conversation” and found to be correct
      https://theconversation.com/factcheck-qanda-are-indigenous-women-34-80-times-more-likely-than-average-to-experience-violence-61809
      The argument is usually about the cause of such a discrepency b/w black on black cf white on white domestic violence. Some trace it back to inter generational trauma beginning with the invasion; some say that aboriginal people should take more responsibility to fix their own mess; some say that elements of indigenous culture combined with welfare, grog etc. is a lethal mix.
      Others just don’t want to talk about anything negative to do with their own community.
      Was this BLM Australian protest aware of these facts and arguments or just reacting knee jerk to a black man being murdered by a white cop in the USA?
      You say, ” I agree with her that domestic violence is a worse problem than police violence”
      Another fact that strike me as relevant to the protest, from a recent article in The Australian, by Chris Mitchell:
      ” … the 2017-18 report of the Institute of Criminology showed that year “the death rate of indigenous prisoners was 0.14 per 100 prisoners, compared with 0.18 per 100 for non-­indigenous prisoners.” Add to that the fact very few of these deaths are at the hands of police or prison guards — most are by natural causes or suicide”
      https://www.theaustralian.com.au/commentary/all-black-lives-matter-including-the-aboriginal-victims-of-abuse-and-murder/news-story/c86733e03128b31b797f57682c14e5c2
      (it’s a free sample article, not behind their pay wall, it includes other stats from Jacinta written earlier)
      There used to be a group of 3 indigenous women who appeared to form a unity against aboriginal domestic violence: Marcia Langton, Josephine Cashman and Jacinta Price. For various reasons they are united no more.
      Marcia joined the BLM protest and focused on the black deaths in custody; Jacinta said it made her sick.
      Who is being more principled here? I think Marcia failed to mention some facts that should have been mentioned.

      Like

  6. Bill, I doubt many of the protesters are ignorant of the deeper social issues. The spark was a white policy officer killing an unarmed black man. This resonated with people that had many and varied issues and hence the size and length of time for these demonstrations. The mood is much broader and rather than narrow it into police corruption, or how far anti racism has come or how som of the demonstrators are exaggerating one issue, it might be better to help identify the underlying issues that has been responsible for the large reaction. I assume these demonstrations will continue and the platform will broaden. What is required is articulating what people are feeling and coming up with some solutions

    Like

    • Definitely I support the protest against a brutal cop killing a black man offering no resistance.

      There was a case here last year where something perhaps similar happened, in Yuendemu. The cop has been charged with murder but the full details are not yet known. See Justice for Yuendumu: Inquiry on Police Shooting. In view of what happened when Cameron Doomadgee was killed by police (Chris Hurley) in 2004 at Palm Island we can’t be sure that justice will be done.

      Marcia Langton said that no police has ever been convicted for a death in custody. That is an important issue but as others have pointed out most deaths in custody are not due to police but suicide, ie. the whole situation that many aboriginal people face whether in or out of custody.

      The underlying issue here? In Australia it is in particular remote dysfunctional indigenous communities, which in turn lead to the deaths in custody and more deaths in community. What to do about that? Government and public support for the Uluru statement from the heart would be a start but only a start.

      In America? The main problem is not race but that both Trump and Biden support the 1% against the rest of us.

      Like

  7. Very interesting discussion!

    Some quick reactions before I sleep on it.

    1. The link I liked most was Paul Robson. That’s the spirit I want to see, without any qualification.

    2. It is quite an opposite spirit to the US “comedian” with the canned laughter.

    3. It is also far more positive than Langston Hughes and Cornel West as well as both Coleman Hughes and Jacinta Price.

    4. But it isn’t in direct opposition to them and they are not in direct opposition to each other.

    5. I strongly agree with Coleman Hughes about “First Educate Yourself”. But any movement starts off uneducated. The task is to help people educate themselves. Expressing disgust can promote that and I might have been happier to agree with Jacinta Price if I had actually heard the speakers. But my impression of the crowd was that narcissitic pseudos were far from dominant. There was some posturing like Cornel West but I am more tolerant of that as at least a welcome change from overtly reactionary protests demanding that humans submit to nature.

    6. The dominant slogan was “Black Lives Matter” which was natural and appropriate as a response to what actually kicked off this international wave of solidarity. A runner up slogan was “Always, was. Always will be. Aboriginal Land!” which was tacked on. I found that irritating, but again understandable as people who don’t actually know much about Australian indigenous issues would naturally want to make some connection between American and Australian issues. I can understand Jacinta being disgusted that they were doing that rather than talking about more relevant Australian issues concerning domestic violence etc but it would not have made much sense for an Australian protest in solidarity with the American people to focus on that either.

    7. Another runner up slogan was “No Justice, No Peace”. That struck me as going in the right direction.

    8. But what I found inspiring was something of the spirit of Paul Robson. Both in the news reports from the USA and what I saw in Melbourne I get some sense of people on the move again, which is the process by which they educate themselves and change the world.

    Like

  8. I think to understand the situation about race in America you need to watch some of the videos put out by Glen Loury / John McWhorter as well as Coleman Hughes. Search and you will find, there is a lot there and they speak clearly. One theme is that anti-racism has become a new religion. But much, much more than that.

    Like

  9. Bill thank you for putting me on to McWhorter and his argument that anti racism is as dangerous as racism. Here is the full debate with Nikhl Singh. Interesting result in the audiences vote at the end. Personally I think that Singh creamed him particularly with the zinger at the one hour mark when McWhorter accused Singh of using dead people in his example. If anyone watches this feel free to FF the moderator who I think should have been shot damn woke whitey.

    Like

  10. I followed Steve’s link to John McWhorter on anti-racism as religion and from there YouTube also presented a link to him and Glen Loury discussing “Starbucks and Swimming pools”:

    (sigh) I feel a bit torn because I do partly agree with the need to reassure an audience as John McWhorter emphasizes.
    But I’m with Glen Loury on “attitude”. It is rather long but expressed clearly at 53′ if you want to skip to that point.

    Maybe it is because I feel the same way as Glen Loury about pseudoleft humanities academics, but I also think he comes across more convincingly for any audience worth addressing.

    As “contrarian” conservatives they are much closer in spirit to radical leftists than the pseudoleft. Sadly I don’t think they are deliberately lying when they describe the people they despise in the academic and “cultural” circles they move in as “leftist”, It has been decades with no real left to make it obvious that the pseudos are fake.

    Again, I didn’t hear the speeches and might have been unable to be so positive if I had. But the crowd at the protest really did not strike me as pseudos full of that shit.

    Its true that many or most would be ignorant and taken in by some posturing, but that’s different.

    McWhorter and Loury emphasize that the police murders are not necessarily racist. Their focus on that may be a reaction to the posturing from “politically correct” but they were not demanding an end to police murders period. Coleman Hughes was somewhat better on that. But none of them strike me as likely to side against the (less than) 1% and insist on a less oppressive social system with no underclass.

    I wonder what they would think of Paul Robeson? I certainly liked all three of his videos that Steve linked and must admit to being surprised that Steve provided them. Perhaps these conservatives would like him too? Perhaps not? I think Paul Robeson would have liked the demo and most of the demonstrators would like Paul Robeson.

    Anyway to “reassure” the audience that I’m not going soft on political correctness because I saw the demo as positive I will express my Glen Loury “attitude” towards the “Uluru statement from the heart”.

    I keep seeing references to it and generally ignore them as just more stuff to help constitutional lawyers live in the manner to which they would like to become accustomed. But I looked it up as a result of Bill’s comment that it was “a start but only a start”.

    I don’t think it is a start. It is total drivel. Even the politically correct anti-racist religion is less patently ridiculous than this total blithering:

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uluru_Statement_from_the_Heart

    “This sovereignty Mis a spiritual notion: the ancestral tie between the land, or ‘mother nature’, and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples who were born therefrom, remain attached thereto, and must one day return thither to be united with our ancestors.”

    Being “respectful” towards this stuff strikes me as a far worse form of “soft bigotry of low expectations” than anything inflicted on American blacks by the politically correct. People with a spiritual connection to land would need help recovering from that.

    How one expresses that is a different matter. Sarcasm might be unhelpful in dealing with either inner suburban greenies or rural Aborigines although it could work well in debating an academic pseudo in front of an audience.

    But I would never concede that such a step backwards is a “start”. Better to say nothing than to concede that.

    PS I watched the debate between between McWhorter and Singh from 1 hour to end. The “zinger” was actually them agreeing with each other on Trump. They weren’t actually all that far apart. I was inclined to agree with Singh that McWhorter was attaching too much significance to a big problem in the intelligentsia rather than a central problem for the wider society. On the other hand Singh seems convinced Trump reflects some huge shift towards racism and fascism whereas McWhorter is more realistic. Singh was not a pseudo but McWhorter wasn’t actually responding to his views and even lectured him that the Democrats wouldn’t be any better than Republicans just after Singh had said exactly that. I got the impression McWhorter had only encountered pseudos and had no real argument with Singh. Perhaps the voting reflected a similar impression in the audience.

    Like

  11. Just a personal note my mother was a Robeson fan she went and saw him when he visited Adelaide in 1960. We only had a few records in our house but one of them was a Robeson album so I was introduced to his music at an early age. We played Robeson music at her funeral “Going Home” and “Just a wearying for you”. My attitude to Paul Robeson is that he was one of the greatest men of the century. Im always happy to find someone who enjoys the achievements of Mr Robeson.
    At the risk of pushing this too far heres another link

    Like

    • Same here. Both my parents liked Robeson a lot, as did millions of working class people around the world. He had great dignity as well as great politics for most of his life. My wife’s father, Reg, worked on the Sydney waterfront for many years after the War. He never forgot the experience of hearing Paul Robeson sing to the workers. I’m not sure now whether it was on the docks or at the Sydney Opera House when it was being constructed. (Reg died a few years ago, so I can’t ask him. He was 96).

      Like

  12. Not much time at the moment to respond to all the points made.

    But glad that Steve and Arthur took the time to view some of the videos (Loury, McWhorter, Coleman Hughes) I recommended. I don’t much like just posting links without expressing my own opinions or at least some summary to accompany.

    I did discover that those mentioned have twitter feeds and which provide a more convenient overview of their positions. Once again, easy to find. I’ve always preferred blogs to twitter since they enable a more thorough argument. But I’m picking up on how these guys use media. They do regular interviews with others which go on for more or less an hour. Then post links to them on twitter. Twitter + lengthy video is that more effective than blog posts? Thinking about how media evolves.

    Anyway, my goal here was to try to figure out what is really happening in America. I wasn’t satisfied with the analysis that the gains in civil rights from the 60s had all been rolled back. But it wasn’t until finding Coleman Hughes and his older mentors that I found something that made more sense to me.

    Just a couple of more hurried points:
    Glenn Loury has clear recent written statements (via his twitter) about the current police killing and the religious anti racist response to it:
    https://quillette.com/2020/06/03/condemn-this-violence-without-equivocation/
    https://www.city-journal.org/brown-university-letter-racism

    I did find an older one which traces right back to his original differences with the civil rights movement, where he outlines how he made Coretta King cry. It’s long and smelly (and I haven’t finished it yet) but that section is a remarkable standout IMO:

    (perhaps skip to 18 minutes, I found his intro to academic, but would like to go back and view it again when I have more time)

    Like

  13. In response to arthur’s critique of the Uluru statement from the heart. I support the statement but the words in there are not my words and do not reflect my own beliefs or relationship with the land etc. The whole thing is the most united voice we have from aboriginal and TSI people.
    It reflects their consensus position on a variety of issues. One of them being a spiritual attachment to the land.

    So why do I support it? The 3 word summary is “Voice, Treaty, Truth”. It is about constitutional reform to give more voice to aboriginal and TSI people, treaties (rather than reconciliation) and truth telling (since not all the truth has yet been told in a way that most can hear it). But the truth telling would or should involve the points that Jacinta Price made as well, although there won’t be consensus amongst aboriginal and TSI about that.

    I just looked up a Noel Pearson video about it, one of the signatories, and I suspect one who is less attached to land than the consensus view. He described the essence as necessary “structural reform”.

    My background in understanding it comes from Rachel Perkin’s 2019 Boyer lectures as well as the song “Treaty”, a dynamic cultural expression of the Bob Hawke sell out in 1988: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jf-jHCdafZY

    Well I heard it on the radio
    And I saw it on the television
    Back in 1988, all those talking politicians

    Words are easy, words are cheap
    Much cheaper than our priceless land
    But promises can disappear
    Just like writing in the sand

    Treaty yeah treaty now treaty yeah treaty now
    https://lyricstranslate.com/en/treaty-treaty.html

    “Voice, Treaty, Truth”, yes I think it would be a start.

    Like

  14. Thanks for the link to Glen Loury. I caught a couple of minutes of it about half way through before and gave up, but this time skipped first bit as recommended then watched through to end and returned to the skipped part.

    Very interesting! My guess above that Glen Loury was unlikely to “insist on a less oppressive social system with no underclass” stands refuted. His focus does not identify the ruling class as an enemy to be defeated but it is certainly in support of mobilizing the people to transform social relations.

    Too complex and “nuanced” for me to have a clear summary. But three phrases did come to mind that would have to be included in any attempt to describe a thread that may have remained constant within the evolution of his thinking and explain its turn towards and appeal for the left.

    They are:

    * Black lives matter.
    * Serve the people.
    * Combat liberalism.

    It isn’t unusual for “combat liberalism” to be a point of agreement between radical left and conservative right.

    “Black lives matter” as the slogan of the current worldwide solidarity movement is entirely consistent with the central points he makes. It is a point of unity rather than conflict, though most conservatives just don’t get that.

    As for “serve the people”, my guess now is that he would like Paul Robeson.

    The academic mantra at the start is still hard to fit in, but the mantra of “relations before transactions” is certainly one that has some resonance with Marxism and presumably connects with his day job as an economist.

    Re Uluru statement, I won’t try to debate it as I just don’t have Bill’s knowledge of what’s going on (and can recall Bill not being afraid to challenge the overwhelming consensus against the intervention head on at “Occupy Melbourne” where I was less forthright).

    But I don’t see much connection between the sort of points Jacinta Price makes in the video and either constitutional provisions or spiritual connection with the land.

    I doubt that there is a consensus view that indigenous people must remain attached to the land and “one day return ‘thither’ to be united with our ancestors”. Doesn’t seem to have much relevance to urban blacks and would be actively damaging to remote communities who need to become part of Australian economy. My reaction is that if there is such a consensus it should be actively fought against like most other consensuses. Blacks fighting against such a consensus should be supported.

    Like

  15. I find it hard to believe that the problem in the USA is situated in liberalism, the pseudo left or the academic politically correct mob. Because the problem is that police are killing poor people and generally exerting a tyranny over poor people. Minorities make up a fair bulk of poor people so it can look like police target the blacks when in reality they are targeting the poor.
    Police have always had this role but what brought us here is that the 2 political parties went on a law and order bidding war started by Nixon then Reagan, Bush GHW ran the Willie Horton ads to sink Dukakis (weak on crime) never more clear than when Clinton (Bill) stopped campaigning so that he could sign off as the governor of Arkansas on the death penalty for Ricky Ray Rector a mentally deficient man who put aside his last meals dessert so that he could have it later. And of course GW Bush who was a governor with a 112 executions to his credit even mimicking the appeal of the 1 female that he had executed.
    OK so we got governments that will back the police back them with military hardware bought cheap from the army returning from the ME. Tough laws zero tolerance 3 strikes and your out leading to absurdities where a guy went to prison for years because his 3rd strike was theft of a piece of pizza.
    But the real nut to crack if police are to be reigned in is to beak the police unions and that wont be easy the Republicans define themselves as the party of law and order and the unions have power within the Democrat party. But it can be done there needs to be a learn from Camden campaign
    https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/06/camden-didnt-defund-the-police/

    Like

    • Fascinating to see defence of liberalism linked to conservative “National Review” article recommending busting police unions to achieve larger numbers of lower paid police.

      Like

      • Thats because Im not misty eyed about unions. There are qualifications though. In civilian unions I think that tackling reaction is the job of the membership but if its the union of a paramilitary organisation like the police then I think that civilian oversight is a necessity. As to taking my argument from a conservative source well if they present the facts so be it. (the fact that the article presents is that police unions are supported by both major parties) Camden will be central to the argument about defund the police and the BLM people will come up with a community policing model like Bobby Seale put in his book Seize the Day. Police are are double edged sword they are a necessity and an obstacle. I do not think that any progress will be made until the police unions are broken, what does that make me a conservative?
        At this point the argument is not about police numbers but about police accountability.
        Camden is the case study.

        Like

  16. I did finish watching Glenn Loury in 2016 describing his life’s journey and his thoughts on his responsibility as a black intellectual. It was amazing and inspiring. As arthur reinforced skip to 18 minutes since the first part is academic. What makes it so good IMO is:
    incredibly rich description of the problem, some of it personal

    the difference b/w being right and helpful

    the american prison system is a huge part of this and also works in concert with other institutions

    his self analysis and explanation of his emotional journey over time:
    anger – why aren’t others facing the facts
    shame – so hard to face that many of my people have fallen so low
    fear – what future have they?

    how his analysis evolved over 32 years (1984-2016) – first breaking from the civil rights movement (“it’s over”) – then pointing out all the issues internal to black ghettoes (the problem within) – then taking it further to a complex mix of internal and external factors

    don’t let black criminals off the hook but understand that society is implicated as well

    every now and again he looks up, breaks from the script, eyeballs the audience and challenges them passionately to respond to the points he is making

    towards the end he describes his own extended family, an amazing group of people in their own right

    Like

  17. For June 10 commentary by Loury and McWhorter on the difficulties of being a black person with a contrarian analysis of what is happening in the USA now:

    My feeling is that they are describing something close to reality whereas most media commentary which sees white racism as the main problem is not.

    Like

    • It was interesting but confusing.

      My impression is that both are in a particular situation as black contrarians that they are finding hard to deal with.

      It isn’t the same situation as being a leftist contrarian at all. I don’t know how to deal with that either but I’m not inclined to blame the left for the pseudoleft whereas they are inclined to blame blacks for the black pseudos (despite pointing out correctly that the pandering from University administrations etc is largely done by whites).

      I think it is critical to nail the ruling class as to blame for pretty well everything, just as the ruling class blames the people for pretty well everything. It won’t alwalys be accurate but its bloody obvious that the posturing they are outraged about is actively promoted by liberals in a way that only conservatives can find surprising. Pandering and deflecting is what liberals are FOR.

      McWhorty did raise the possibility that substantive changes to policing could help overcome victim mentalities among poor blacks. So could ending poverty. An underlying current of demands for action on both of those are part of the positive aspects of what is happening now that I am focussed on. They are focussed on the negative. That may be a result of the situation they are in and I am not but I would find it really depressing if the result of that particular police murder of someone poor had just been people singing “We shall overcome”. It wasn’t and that is just as much a sign of real progress as the other advances in US race relations that they are fully aware of but that pseudo posturing denies.

      I don’t know how to clarify the point but I come back to this.

      Leftists insist that progress is necessary, inevitable and desirable. That necessarily requires believing that it is possible and actually happens. We point to history as the history of human progress. Its natural for leftists to emphasize how much still needs to be done and equally natural for pseudos to distort this and pose as leftists by suggesting no progress has happened and none can happen because it is blocked by oppression.

      Conservatives are naturally more pessimistic. McWhorty and Loury are pessimistic conservatives who point out there has been real progress. That makes them allies against ultra reactionary pseudos.

      I guess admitting that the pseudos are classical reactionaries opposed to progress would be awkward for conservatives but they are opposed to reactionaries who insist that nothing has changed or ever could change and pretend that makes them radicals.

      Like

    • Nope. It is obvious that you meant to spout liberal gibberish and didn’t bother to read the link you actually posted with conservative gibberish about how paying cops less would enable more cops. It is equally obvious that you can never admit to being wrong about anything.

      Like

      • Please Im a regular reader of National Review it gets delivered to my email address every day. My points still stand BLM will use the Camden experience as a template because going back as far as the Panthers Bobby Seale came to the conclusion that the next step forward was “community policing” Camden went to community policing and to do that they had to break the union and that this is a position that both major parties will struggle with but for different reasons.

        Like

      • The point you wanted to make was in support of “community policing”. The link you posted was explicitly in direct opposition to your subsequent link to that stuff from CNN and in favour of paying cops less so as to employ more of them. As predicted you are incapable of admitting having blundered.

        Like

    • If you are correct and that I just plucked an article at random without reading it then Im incredibly lucky at this. I wrote “But the real nut to crack if police are to be reigned in is to beak the police unions” and the article that I randomly linked to said “Step one was busting their police union by disbanding the force in 2013.” now one of us clearly has a problem in admitting error Il let any reader if there is one decide the matter for themselves.

      Like

      • I think you have correctly identified the exact point at which you stopped reading the article you linked to ending at the words:

        “Step one was busting their police union by disbanding the force in 2013.”

        The immediately following words are:

        “At the time, the cop cartel had pumped up average annual costs per officer (including extraordinarily generous fringe benefits) to $182,168. At that monopoly price, poor Camden could afford to employ just 175 cops, and during peak nighttime crime hours only a dozen might be on patrol.

        “But laying off the union cops and then rehiring many as county employees reduced costs to $99,605 per officer, enabling lots of new hires while keeping total expenditures roughly the same. Within a couple of years, Camden’s force exceeded 400 — a little over 50 cops per 10,000 residents, about triple the national average for similarly sized cities.

        “So Camden did not “abolish police,” as some of the more radical voices in the current debate claim, but actually employed more police — and more law enforcement. As the now-retired chief who led the transition explained, understaffing had made his city force a “triage unit going from emergency to emergency.” Staffing up enabled more proactive policing (including the use of some surveillance tools that civil libertarians consider problematic).

        “That made policing in Camden not just more cost-effective but better overall, incorporating training, rules of engagement, and accountability protocols otherwise unaffordable or unacceptable. While its approach has been branded as “community policing,” a great deal of Camden’s crime turnaround came courtesy of what looks like an application of “broken windows theory” (that treating small signs of public disorder can head off larger problems).”

        As you say, any hypothetical reader can easily judge for themselves whether you blundered and whether you are capable of admitting it.

        Like

  18. Bill I find these guys hard to take seriously. Right at the beginning John says slavery is not the reason for disparity of wealth and cites the example of Portugal which was a big slaver nation and it fell into poverty. I think whoa wait a minute slavery was very profitable for Portugal but it became poor because it lost its big asset Brazil in 1824. Lisbon was all but completely destroyed in the earthquake, fire and tsunami of 1755 plus a number of expensive wars fought on Portuguese soil The war of Oranges 1801, The Peninsular war 1807 but most devastating to Portugal’s wealth was its inability to industrialise. A professor of economics just lets that slide.

    Like

  19. Bill I find that Coleman (not John as I previously stated) really stretches things in his comparison between blacks and Japanese people. Basically there is no real comparison yes the Japanese were faced with discrimination and in WW2 internment but it is mild in comparison to the organised terrorism that faced the black community. Just a couple of points, Japanese people were encouraged to come to USA to fill labour shortages and as a rule every voluntary immigrant community is united in their desire for self improvement. Self improvement is what defines the group. Just reading a summary of Jim Crow laws and etiquette’s is chilling and these things were around until the 1960’s. From memory the KKK peaked in membership in the 20th century at about 7 million. Can you imagine what it must be like having a terrorist group of 7 million (often aligned with police) dedicated to holding you back in every way.
    Coleman strives to find the cause of black impoverishment within a self defeating “black culture” and Im sure that self defeating behavior must play a part as all the famous black nationalists like Malcolm X have railed against it but is self defeating behavior a cause or a symptom.

    Like

    • OH well shows that my memory is shit “This second Klan peaked in the 1920s, when its membership exceeded 4,000,000 nationally” still having a terrorist organisation of 4 million must be a pretty debilitating way to live your life.

      Like

  20. David Shor was fired for citing statistics showing that in other circumstances violent protests have worked against the Democrats. Such talk reeks of “anti-blackness”. He tried to withdraw his comments but too late, the twitter lynch mob got him.

    A reporter, Lee Fang, who pointed out that MLK really did not support violence, who mentioned black on black crime and who criticises the “left” for too much stress on identity rather than class felt he had to apologise to save his job. Shame: “using free speech to couch anti-blackness”
    https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/06/case-for-liberalism-tom-cotton-new-york-times-james-bennet.html

    I follow Scott Aaronson’s blog, an expert in quantum physics. Did you know that the term “quantum supremacy” has been criticised as having racist overtones? Scott’s hilarious commentary on this is here: https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=4450

    Guess I’m out of touch. Apparently this sort of thing has been going on for at least 5 years. A feminist tried to shame him for revealing personal problems about his masculinity when growing up as a nerd. Another witch hunt, public shaming, from the twitter mob ensued. He links to a 10,000 word essay written in his defence: https://slatestarcodex.com/2015/01/01/untitled/ (by another quantum nerd)

    (Just to locate this episode in Feb 2015: https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?m=201502)

    Like

    • More information about the puritanical, moralistic, totally intolerant, anti racism as religion, identity politics mafia, twittering lynch mob. As well as wallowing in their narcissistic, passionate, self promoting shallowness, they now have a smidgen of power to abuse. Prepare to be cancelled.

      This one had me shaking my head in disbelief:
      The American Press Is Destroying Itself

      Like

      • Hi Bill, This is my take. The people in America have risen. The spark was a brutal murder by a police officer but the rising has the potential to rectify much more than just the day to day brutality that poor people have become accustomed to. Before Minneapolis BLM was an unpopular movement. Right now today it enjoys overwhelming popularity among US citizens. We are witnessing true democracy, the people are in the streets and the people are making demands and as they say democracy is messy. Now the forces that would like to crush the peoples movement are on the back foot so their attack today will not be frontal but will be by stealth. It will be through highlighting the weaknesses in the movement and its pretty obvious that theres plenty of weaknesses to chose from but the job of the people who want change is to keep our eyes on the prize, not to be diverted or distracted by the army of conservatives who desperately want want normality restored.
        The media is an arena of struggle and as the article you linked to says, there was a workplace revolt when the NYT published an op ed by Cotton calling for the military to put the revolt down. When big social change happens the norms of polite society will be put on hold, I wish it wasnt so but its the only reality that we have. Theres a saying about omelets and eggs I think.

        Like

  21. https://quillette.com/2020/06/11/racist-police-violence-reconsidered/
    John McWhorter, more succinctly
    The stats show that many or some police are racist but there is plenty killing of poor whites going on too.
    Final paragraph:
    “Police officers are too often overarmed, undertrained, and low on empathy. Some police officers are surely racist and act like it. But it does not follow that white cops routinely kill black people in tense situations out of racist animus. This scenario may seem plausible—I believed it until only a few years ago. But there are times when facts are counterintuitive, and it is important to get the facts right and to analyze them with clear eyes and a clear mind (the enlightening work of criminologist and ex-cop Peter Moskos is helpful in this regard). Rhetoric has a way of straying from reality, and to get where we all want to go, it is reality that we must address.”
    I downloaded some others papers by Roland Fryer (mentioned by McWhorter) linked to on a list I am on. There are arguments going on about whether or not there is “proportionality” and people throw stats around to prove their point and some adjust the “proportionality” for other factors such as poverty making it more likely for blacks and police to have hostile encounters. I haven’t read those papers in detail but I think McWhorter has done the work for me here.
    The McWhorter article shows me that it is an oversimplification that this problem is about racist police versus blacks or if you prefer “poor blacks”….it’s still an oversimplification, not identifying the real problem, the 1% versus the 99%. The problem is better described as social class rather than race.
    btw it is a different issue to the one implied by Jacinta Price: police (state sanctioned) killing blacks is different from blacks killing blacks, I don’t think the issue there can be dealt with by statistical comparison.

    Like

  22. Bill the that people that you are prompting are interesting but they are not leading the struggle. They my be correct but they are not on the streets, their logic would take people off the streets. I prefer people like this lady

    Like

    • Reflections on race, riots, and police by Coleman Hughes
      June 14, 2020

      “On the other hand, the basic premise of Black Lives Matter—that racist cops are killing unarmed black people—is false. There was a time when I believed it. I was one year younger than Trayvon Martin when he was killed in 2012, and like many black men, I felt like he could have been me. I was the same age as Michael Brown when he was killed in 2014, and like so many others, I shared the BLM hashtag on social media to express solidarity. By 2015, when the now-familiar list had grown to include Tamir Rice, Laquan McDonald, Sandra Bland, Freddie Gray, and Walter Scott, I began wearing a shirt with all their names on it. It became my favorite shirt. It seemed plain to me that these were not just tragedies, but racist tragedies. Any suggestion to the contrary struck me as at best, ignorant, and at worst, bigoted.

      My opinion has slowly changed. I still believe that racism exists and must be condemned in the strongest possible terms; I still believe that, on average, police officers are quicker to rough up a black or Hispanic suspect; and I still believe that police misconduct happens far too often and routinely goes unpunished. But I no longer believe that the cops disproportionately kill unarmed black Americans.

      Two things changed my mind: stories and data….”

      (the whole article is the best summation of his views about BLM to date)

      Like

  23. hi Steve,
    She was interesting, to paraphrase:

    3 types of people on the street
    protesters – they care
    rioters – angry anarchists who fuck shit up
    looters – it’s the only they can get a plasma TV, poor blacks cf the rest of the world

    Historical lesson follows … the weight of history trumps an accurate understanding of the present, passionate rage trumps the responsibility of demonstrators to educate themselves about current day reality.

    I didn’t hear her say that looting was good for the BLM cause, just that it was understandable given the poverty and the history

    You prefer her even though you are surely aware that looting, including looting of minority small businesses, plays into the hands of the ruling class. An agent provocateur would loot, yet you prefer someone who says it shouldn’t be criticised.

    You say my logic would “take people off the streets”. But I said earlier that I supported demonstrations against police killings of people who don’t resist. I posted a video where Coleman Hughes said he joined the demonstrations because BLM was the most important group seeking police reform (independent investigators, compulsory running of body cam).

    It’s hard to take you seriously because you say the people I referenced “may be correct”.

    Like

  24. Hi Bill thanks for your response, from what I can gather there is an argument going on within the USA black community about where their difficulties come from and why they persist. I didnt say that your logic would take people off the streets but I thought that it was true that Coleman’s logic would. I havent seen the part where he states that he did join the demonstration but hes definitely not leading them. I stated that the people like Coleman may be correct because he would have a far far greater understanding than I would. Im a supportive observer from far away trying to nail down the basics and in this endevour am happy to offer my opinions if only to have them corrected by people who have a better understanding. I believe that discussing ideas is the best way to sharpen them.
    Now when I read and watch stuff why should I shut up when people say that 70% of aboriginal prisoners are there for domestic violence, why should I shut up when someone says that Portugal is a good example of why nations wernt made wealthy by slavery, why should I shut up when people say that the Japanese American experience is comparable to the negro experience.

    Like

  25. Bill the more I read from Coleman the less confident I am about his assertions particularly in his writing about Racial bias in deadly shootings. For example he states that research done by David Johnson informs his opinion but surely he must know how contested Johnson’s work is and that Johnson had to offer a retraction.
    https://retractionwatch.com/2020/05/04/a-study-finding-no-evidence-of-racial-bias-in-police-shootings-earns-a-correction-that-critics-call-an-opaque-half-measure/
    https://www.city-journal.org/reflections-on-race-riots-and-police

    Like

  26. Bill, Coleman says “On the other hand, the basic premise of Black Lives Matter—that racist cops are killing unarmed black people—is false” but is it? He states that the work of people like Sendhil Mullainaththan inform his opinion but when you look up Sendhil’s work I find him saying “The data is unequivocal. Police killings are a race problem: African-Americans are being killed disproportionately and by a wide margin.” and “I’m not saying that the police in these specific cases are free of racial bias. I can’t answer that question.”
    Now just to be clear I have previously come across the work of Fryer who did excellent work on stuff like building in incentives in education for struggling children an idea picked up by Freakonomics (which I thoroughly recommend I tried a version of it on my own kids) Its a pity that he got dismissed by Harvard. Mullainathan has done some great work on unconscious racial bias again a researcher who is often picked up by non academic sources.

    Like

  27. Hi Bill, Coleman is famous for 2 positions one is that he doesnt think that there is a systemic racial bias to the police’s work and two that he objects to payment of reparations. John McWhorter agrees that reparations should not be paid and that they have already been paid.
    I have argued that the studies that show no racial bias are disputable at best and erroneous at worst.
    Why we would be against reparations is beyond me. Im not against the descendants of Nazi slaves being compensated why would I be against reparations for the descendants of plantation slavery. It seems quite reasonable. McWhorter takes the odd position of saying that people would not benefit from a lump sum and that money will be given to rich people as well. He dodges the reality that money could be distributed in the form of community grants in improved housing and services or put into scholarships and the like. It doesnt have to take the form of a cash hand out.
    However I do agree with these guys that black on black murder is a bigger problem than blue on black murder. I understand that the black on black murder rate is mainly gang related and gangs are a product of poverty.
    Now I stand by my comment that Coleman and McWhorter may be correct because (I know that Arthur wont believe this but) I always approach a subject with the idea that people with an opposing position may turn out to be correct.

    Like

    • Steve,
      Coleman says there is racial bias by police but it doesn’t extend to the killings. He cites the Roland Fryer paper (2018) most frequently, which says:

      “On non-lethal uses of force, blacks and Hispanics are more than fifty percent more likely to experience some form of force in interactions with police. Adding controls that account for important context and civilian behavior reduces, but cannot fully explain, these disparities. On the most extreme use of force – officer-involved shootings–we find no racial differences in either the raw data or when contextual factors are taken into account. We argue that the patterns in the data are consistent with a model in which police officers are utility maximizers, a fraction of which have a preference for discrimination, who incur relatively high expected costs of officer-involved shootings”

      Click to access w22399.pdf

      Yes, this paper is disputed, no surprise there, and also Roland Fryer has done an update. I haven’t done my own rigorous statistical analysis. It does seem to be a matter of interpretation of the data, how it is adjusted for increased poverty of blacks making it more likely they will come in contact with police. When Loury and McWhorter talk about it they are happy to acknowledge the interpretation that proportionality more blacks are killed.

      The point I think is that it is arguable. My position is that police killing of whites is quite significant (see the graphs in the McWhorter essay that I posted earlier showing consistently more killings of whites by police over a number of years) and that significance is lost on those demonstrators who stress race rather than social class.

      On reparations, the first thing I thought about was the authors in Australia (Noel Pearson, Peter Sutton etc.) who have argued convincingly that welfare following the 67 referendum turned out to be the biggest problem for aboriginal people. I was persuaded about that years ago by a Noel Pearson paper.

      I just read Coleman’s position on reparations then and agree with him, see
      https://quillette.com/2019/06/20/my-testimony-to-congress-on-reparations/

      What you say at the start (“he objects to payment of reparations”) is technically inaccurate.

      Like

      • Hi Bill, You are correct that I am “technically inaccurate” but on the substance I think that Coleman is wrong. He states that the bill, Bill H.R. 40 does not mention homicide but mentions slavery 25 times. The bill is to establish a commission to study and develop reparation proposals for African Americans. The commission is to examine slavery and discrimination from 1619. (why wouldnt it mention slavery and not homicide its mainly about slavery not homicide)
        He states that people who suffered directly should receive reparations so therefor zero money for slavery that ship has sailed but thats not the way compensation works. Firstly if you injure someone and compensation is ordered it goes to them or their estate to stop unscrupulous people just waiting out the life span of the injured party plus indirect compensation is perfectly normal, if a family member is killed at work the direct descendants of that member clearly have a claim because they have lost something that under normal circumstances they would have expected to receive.
        I still cant understand why we would oppose reparations. Slaves created great wealth. Why would we object to some of that wealth being used for the benefit of their descendants?

        Like

  28. Hi Bill as you say this paper is disputed https://scholar.harvard.edu/jfeldman/blog/roland-fryer-wrong-there-racial-bias-shootings-police
    Fryer himself describes his findings as the greatest surprise of his life and I guess that its not hard to see why. After hundreds of years of oppression by the police and discrimination by the police in every other aspect of their interactions the police are found to have no bias when it comes to killing people yes I can understand his surprise.

    Like

  29. Seems obvious that with police more likely to use force against blacks and homicides being investigated when they do occur, blacks would be extra careful to avoid provoking homicide when being dealt with by police and that would be intended to result and does result in not getting killed at a higher rate than whites.

    Anecdotal evidence of black children being taught how to avoid getting beaten up or shot by police confirms that. There never was any reason to suppose significant numbers of police going out of their way to kill blacks deliberately.

    Some protestors may assume that blacks are killed in higher proportion. But the protests are against police murders. The details are less significant than the efforts to divert attention awau from ending oppression.

    In Australia we get ludicrous diversions about statues etc. The fact that Australian high numbers of black deaths in custody are due to higher incarceration rates rather than higher death rates among prisoners was certainly well known. I doubt that the Australian protesters with signs about 432 deaths being too many were unaware of it. Nor did I see any signs about Captain Cook or other statues.

    Like

  30. I think this article by Noriel Roubini identifies more clearly the missing factor that I have been trying to identify in this thread:
    https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/main-street-manifesto-for-covid19-crisis-by-nouriel-roubini-2020-06

    By missing factor I mean on the surface it appears to be about BLM and many of those protesting think it’s mainly about BLM but when you do the analysis it can be said that objectively (don’t you love that word!) it’s really about something far more important, that the capitalist system does not meet the needs of the 99%. The struggle is led by the precarians.

    Great conclusion by Roubini:
    “Let the Plutocrat classes tremble at a Precariat revolution. The Precarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. Precarious workers of all countries, unite!”

    Summary:
    Roubini argues that the rioting stems from a reaction to police brutality and racism, but have grown to encompass masses of young workers of all races alienated by a failing economic model

    Paraphrasing Marx, Roubini makes the case that that the old proletariat has been replaced by a new class-the Precariat- made up of of gig and contract workers, economically exploited and deprived of stable and sustainable wages and benefits. The precarious state of this new proletariat, combined with rising wealth inequality in the U.S., has made mass rioting inevtiable, states Roubini. In effect, his point is that masses of largely young people in America have reached the breaking point of despair, leading to what is emerging as a summer of urban explosions.

    (I stole this summary from http://www.globaleconomiccrisis.com/blog/archives/2335)

    Like

    • Watched it to end. Don’t have any comment. Never did think it was intentional murder. Do still think it was police brutality. As narrator demonstrated the guy was obviously seriously ill, distressed and needed help. The justification given for his treatent is that he was “non-compliant” (accurate) plus “resisting arrest” (exagerated but not even claiming he assaulted police before kneeling on his neck in the “approved” manner that police are trained to kneel on people’s necks in the USA. Not sure but I think the excerpt forensic report was misleading. It said if he had been found dead at home conclusion would be that he died from the overdose. My impression is that the cops are still facing charges because he died after being dragged out of the car and was held down with a cop kneeling on his neck while not moving and they were waiting for ambulance. Not sure but I have vague impression the same forensic report also said something about overdose only being one of the causes with police brutality contributing others.

      Youtube followed up by presenting me with a “tell all” from an ex friend of Melania Trump’s and another from “Stormy”. Interesting algorithms identifying a niche audience.

      Actual facts about the case are highly relevant for the trials. Largely irrelevant to the political character and significance of the protests, which were based on bystander videos and a very long history and consequent political climate.

      Like

  31. Hi Bill thanks for posting this thorough video of the events leading up to and including the death of George Floyd. What I took away from it was the sense of oppressive policing. Its a $20 crime that the police are investigating. Its broad daylight but on approaching the suspect who has made no effort to leave the scene they draw their torches. At the 2.22 min mark the police tap on his window and by the 2.35 min mark they are swearing at him and have a gun trained on him. Thats 13 seconds from hello to we have a gun at your head. By the 2.54 mark they have sworn at him 4 times. They are only 32 seconds into the interview.
    Theres lots of stuff in this video that speaks of oppression, the yelling the swearing the seeming routine way that suspects are handcuffed prior to interview and of course a standard restraint method of keeping a person in place by having them face down while an officer exerts force to the neck with his knee.

    Like

  32. Hi Bill Ive been looking at the video that you provided and Im starting to ask more questions. Famously officer Derek Chauvin was on Floyd’s neck for 8 minutes and 46 seconds. The video shows them putting him on the ground at 9.16 he has stopped breathing at 10.30 and put in ambulance at 11.26 so the video covers the 8 minutes in 2 minutes. Why cut 6 minutes out? Bystanders were alerting the police to the fact that he had stopped breathing but the video doesnt give a clear indication of how long the police kept him in that position after they had been alerted to the fact that he wasnt breathing. When he is put in the Ambulance the officer offers the paramedic an explanation as to why they were restraining him but this is very self serving. The over ridding issue is that Floyd is not responding and not breathing CPR should have been started when he stopped responding. My expectation of the paramedic would be the immediate initiation of the Automated External Defibrillator but this is not shown. So again I can only reiterate the video just shows police brutality and indifference to the welfare of Mr. Floyd.
    I think that the video would have been more useful if they didnt cut the 6 minutes and if they had continued to show the resuscitation efforts.

    Like

  33. Heres the answer to my question in this video they get Mr Floyd into the ambulance at the 52 minute mark. They have the AED pads in place by 55 -56 minutes I leave you to decide whether that’s slow. My understanding is that attaching the pads would be a priority over manual chest compressions. The other thing would be did they deliver a shock with the defibrillator? I couldn’t detect one. Usually theres a stand clear warning. BTW first time Ive ever seen the automatic chest compression machine.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gQYMBALDXc

    Like

  34. Sorry about all the posts but seeing that the propaganda is out there that the police didnt kill George Floyd but George Floyd killed George Floyd by a Fentanyl overdose its good to get some medical information that puts George Floyds Fentanyl misuse into perspective. As Bill says, first we need to educate ourselves.

    Like

  35. Interesting video Steve. It’s misleading at the start in implying that the autoposy said cause of death: Homicide. He also fails to mention that George Floyd was yelling “I can’t breathe” several times well before he ended up on the ground with a knee on his neck. You can get a copy of the autopsy here if you want. One thing it says, point III is “No life-threatening injuries identified” as well as “No injuries of anterior muscles of neck or laryngeal structures” (the video author does try to explain that).

    The video author begins by stating definitely that the autopsy “absolutely do not absolve the officers” but then later on he expresses some lack of certainty about his own analysis, phrases such as “I’m not sure”. At no point does he argue that they are guilty of murder.

    Perhaps we can agree that he is arguing that the reasons George Floyd died was a complicated interaction between him taking fentanyl, the poor state of his heart and the knee on his neck and other pressure on his back.

    What I saw and most of the world saw when the original bystander video came out was a callous officer, hand in pocket (not threatened) crushing George Floyd’s neck and ignoring his cries of “I can’t breathe”. What I see now is very different.

    Given the new evidence what should I think? I think they were heavy handed but not brutal. (although in the range between compassion at one end and brutal at the other I’m finding it hard to get the exact word that fits). It’s possible they contributed to George Floyd’s death but I’m not certain of that. If they had behaved compassionately and quickly adjusted to the fact that George Floyd was ill then they would have been most atypical American police. They were normal American cops doing their job in the way they normally do it. Did George Floyd die because he was black, was this a racially motivated killing? No. His socio-economic status had something to do with it (and there is a higher percentage of blacks represented there in the USA and elsewhere) but there is no evidence that the police would have treated a poor white person differently. Does the BLM movement want to know the truth about all this. I don’t think so. They want to promote the untruth that police disproportionately kill black people. Is there racism in America? Of course. Is there a new anti racism religion in America? Yes.

    Like

    • Bill, I like the way you think clearly and investigate the facts, Just one point on which I’d disagree is the claim that police don’t disproportionately kill black people. There is evidence that black Americans are more than twice as likely to be killed by police than others. Also, black men in the 15-34 age group are more than nine times as likely. Am I missing something here? https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jul/14/donald-trump-george-floyd-police-killings

      Like

      • hi Barry,
        I should have said that when socio-economic factors are taken into account (higher proportion of poor black people end up encountering cops more) then there is good evidence that black people are not killed proportionately more by police.

        There was earlier discussion in the thread about this, with various links posted. Steve and Arthur made comments too. Yes, it is disputed. I’m not going to put my life on hold to do a rigorous statistical comparison of my own, my maths is ok, but not great.

        I would say a very persuasive case is argued here by John McWhorter: Racist Police Violence Reconsidered

        Like

    • The exact words that fit are callous, reckless indifference, criminal negligence, culpable homicide, or in US legal terms “third degree murder” aka “doing this job as they normally do it. THAT is why there were massive protests. The new anti racism religion does exist and latches on to that, just as the apologetics for police doing their job as they normally do it (oppressing regardless of race colour or creed) latch on to the pseudos and the looting. The police prosecutor’s video vividly illustrates the attitudes among people responsible for prosecuting police crimes that is no longer being tolerated.

      “Perhaps we can agree” that in arguing about this stuff you are displaying a complicated interaction between being previously having been influenced by pseudo bullshit (and still defending promotion of nature worship to indigenous people) and switching to equally simplistic bullshit in opposite direction.

      Like

      • >The exact words that fit are callous, reckless indifference, criminal negligence, culpable >homicide, or in US legal terms “third degree murder” aka “doing this job as they
        >normally do it

        I mistakenly thought that murder meant intent to kill. Here’s the legal expression from 2019 Minnesota Statutes:
        609.195 MURDER IN THE THIRD DEGREE.
        (a) Whoever, without intent to effect the death of any person, causes the death of another by perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life, is guilty of murder in the third degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 25 years.

        I also rewatched the original bystander video. There are so many George Floyd videos out now it takes a while to find: Full cell phone video of George Floyd Police Incident (complete video). One of the spectators who identifies as having trained at the police academy repeatedly calls out (supported by other voices) he’s not resisting … you’re stopping his breathing … various comments about what sort of person Derek Chauvin is, your a bum etc … he’s not responding right now (after GF loses consciousness) … check his pulse … the man ain’t moving …. he’s not moving (in the middle of this Chauvin takes his hand out of his pocket and grabs his mace to threaten the spectators) …. get off his neck … you gonna let him kill that man (to the other police).

        George Floyd is unconscious for 4 minutes before the ambulance arrives and then Chauvin takes his knee off GFs neck.

        So, yes, keeping the knee on the neck for those 4 minutes does fit arthur’s description.

        Like

  36. Hi Bill I dont think that Dr Bernard is being misleading. He says that the cause of death was homicide. That comes straight from the Hennepin County Medical Examiner’s Press release.
    https://www.npr.org/2020/06/01/867219130/george-floyd-independent-autopsy-homicide-by-asphyxia
    As to him failing to mention that George Floyd claimed to have difficulty breathing prior to being placed on the ground well I think that information came out after Dr Bernard made his video. Does that change anything? Well to me it indicates that the police were prepared to lie a man face down, place pressure on his chest and neck and ignore him when he lost consciousness a man who had already indicated to them that he was struggling for breath.
    Chauvin was charged with 3rd degree murder. You seem to be arguing that he did his job just fine.
    On your blog you have some dot points the first of which is . Cops doing their job by the book,….

    Like

  37. I’ve been watching new videos / listening to podcasts trying to understand the true politics about BLM currently happening in the USA. So far this is the best one I have found:
    #217 — The New Religion of Anti-Racism
    Runs for 70 minutes and cuts out at the end but still very good IMO
    raw link: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/making-sense-with-sam-harris/id733163012?i=1000491618379
    In this episode of the podcast, Sam Harris speaks with John McWhorter about race, racism, and “anti-racism” in America. They discuss how conceptions of racism have changed, the ubiquitous threat of being branded a “racist,” the contradictions within identity politics, recent echoes of the OJ verdict, willingness among progressives to lose the 2020 election, racism as the all-purpose explanation of racial disparities in the U.S., double standards for the black community, the war on drugs, the lure of identity politics, police violence, the enduring riddle of affirmative action, the politics of “black face,” and other topics.

    My previous link to the original bystander video of George Floyd’s death didn’t work for some unknown reason: Full cell phone video of George Floyd Police Incident (complete video)

    (raw link in case it fails again)

    Like

    • Hi Bill I listened to the Sam Harris podcast up to and including the discussion about the OJ trial. Sam says and John seemingly accepts Sam’s characterisation of this trial. Just to recap Sam says that the reaction to the verdict was cynical, that OJ was obviously guilty, that everybody knew it, that the verdict had nothing to do with the truth, that there was dishonesty, bad faith and that the verdict was toxic.
      Now I don’t know what role OJ played in the murders but I do know that a lot of effort has gone into making Sam’s view the received wisdom.
      Just let me refresh any readers memory of the trial.
      The prosectuion’s case was that OJ murdered Nicol Brown and Ron Goldman. That during the murder OJ accidentally cut himself on the finger leaving his blood at the crime scene. They found his DNA including blood at the scene. They also found traces of Nicol and Ron’s blood in OJs car and some victims blood on his sock.
      When questioned by police OJ stated that the cut on his finger came from a glass that he broke in Chicago.
      After the murder OJ flew to Chicago. The defense were able to call multiple witnesses who testified that they had spent time during the flight with OJ and none noticed any cut. At least one testified that he had examined OJs hands to see if he was wearing his championship rings. OJ said that the cut was done in a hotel in Chicago. The person who picked him up from that hotel was the first person on record to notice that OJ had a bandaged hand.
      Then there is the blood in the car and sock. The detective that found the car blood and the famous glove was Mark Fuhrman.
      Mark Fuhrman was asked by the defense if he had any racist sentiment which Fuhrman denied. The defense then produced tapes of Fuhrman in his role as consultant on a screen play. On those tapes Fuhrman frequently uses the term nigger, he describes police brutality and the planting of evidence as common practice. Fuhrman was convicted of perjury and fined $200. The defense asked Fuhrman “Did you plant or manufacture evidence in this case?” and he declined to answer on the grounds that his answer might incriminate him SAY WHAT! the investigating detective wont answer whether he planted evidence in this case!
      Dont worry about Fuhrman after leaving the LAPD he got a job on FOX NEWS.
      So Bill there you have it I cant see myself listening to any more because as Sam would say I find it toxic.

      Like

    • Jesus fuck at the 5 minute mark he goes limp. Does anyone check him? NO instead the xxxx with his knee on Georges neck threatens to mace the bystanders. Bill this is murder on tape, way worse than anything I have ever seen. How the xxxx can you present this stuff as a rebuke to BLM.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s