Neo-Nazi protest and riots in Ohio

[Dreadsox]

So actually I agree with Dreadsox and am surprised at the way his comments are being misread. Have we reached the stage where we can't criticize violence if blacks are partly responsible?

Mark this date on your calendar It's been a while!

 

[financeguy]

Mark this date on your calendar It's been a while!

Just pencilling it in now...

 

[yolland]

I hope I'm not in being lumped into this 'misread' category, because someone seriously misread MY post if that's the case...

HOWEVER...while I agree the (apparent?) comparison of police to neo-Nazis is wildly overdrawn, maybe we should all keep in mind that neo-Nazis/white supremacists DO after all trigger very different types and intensities of emotional associations, depending on what country and ethnic group you're from and the history they have with said identity. To some, they evoke a memory of sociocultural meltdown and a violation of human dignity almost beyond words (I'm thinking slavery, lynch mobs and the collapse of Central Europe here, not just the Holocaust), while for others they are perceived as little more than lame, stupid asshole losers...

makes a difference.

 

[melon]

My reaction is in response to the before hand expectations on the part of the black community member. Why is it to be EXPECTED that they would react this way?

Because the perception was that the city and the police were supporting and protecting the Nazis instead of supporting and protecting the members of the neighborhood. It might not be an accurate perception, but that is what many of them believed.

Secondly, my other beef with many of these comments is the fact that there is not a lot of nuance being put here. "Blacks" did not cause this violence. "Gang members" who happened to be black did. When you look at a WTO riot or even the Oklahoma City bombing, you don't say "white people destroyed Seattle" or "white people bombed Oklahoma City." You say "anarchists/communists destroyed Seattle" or "sick individuals bombed Oklahoma City." Likewise, notice that we aren't saying "whites marched through a black neighborhood." We say "Nazis," and they happen to be white.

The news did not report on all the blacks who stayed indoors or even the community events that were simultaneously taking place to encourage tolerance in other parts of the city.

It troubles me. THe mayor also spoke to the community the night before if my lazy research is up to par, because he expected it to degenerate into something violent.

Probably because the Nazis were looking for a fight, and decided to walk around in a neighborhood with known gangs and crime problems. It's the same kind of provocation you'd expect from Protestants marching through Catholic neighborhoods in Northern Ireland: it's not ideal and you wish violence wouldn't happen, but you know it will.

If they struck out at the NEO Nazi, I would somehow feel that it was justified, however, the gangs went after their own community, and police and fireman.

Again, that is because much of the neighborhood has been quoted as to believing that, because the city did not do anything to oppose their march, that they believed that the city was supporting the Nazis. This is not logic that I share, but I also happen to have a high education level. Most of these people do not.

Melon

 

[Irvine511]

Secondly, my other beef with many of these comments is the fact that there is not a lot of nuance being put here. "Blacks" did not cause this violence. "Gang members" who happened to be black did. When you look at a WTO riot or even the Oklahoma City bombing, you don't say "white people destroyed Seattle" or "white people bombed Oklahoma City." You say "anarchists/communists destroyed Seattle" or "sick individuals bombed Oklahoma City." Likewise, notice that we aren't saying "whites marched through a black neighborhood." We say "Nazis," and they happen to be white.

bingo.

 

[nbcrusader]

Secondly, my other beef with many of these comments is the fact that there is not a lot of nuance being put here. "Blacks" did not cause this violence. "Gang members" who happened to be black did. When you look at a WTO riot or even the Oklahoma City bombing, you don't say "white people destroyed Seattle" or "white people bombed Oklahoma City." You say "anarchists/communists destroyed Seattle" or "sick individuals bombed Oklahoma City." Likewise, notice that we aren't saying "whites marched through a black neighborhood." We say "Nazis," and they happen to be white.

I'm not sure the subtle charge of racism necessarily holds here. When groups riot at a WTO meeting, they generally draw from various ethnic groups - thus the headline "white people destroy Seattle" is both overly broad and inaccurate.

Also, this portion of the news article seems to address some of your assertions:

TOLEDO, Ohio - The city was calm Monday after weekend violence triggered by a white supremacist group's march along the sidewalks of a racially mixed neighborhood.

A melee broke out Saturday when protesters confronted members of the National Socialist Movement who had gathered at a city park.

"They do have a right to walk on the Toledo sidewalks," Mayor Jack Ford said Sunday.

An angry mob, some of them gang members, threw baseball-sized rocks at police, vandalized vehicles and stores, and set fire to a bar. More than 100 people were arrested and one officer was seriously injured.

1. It wasn't a "black" neighborhood.
2. Only "some" of the mob were gang members.

 

[yolland]

Because the perception was that the city and the police were supporting and protecting the Nazis instead of supporting and protecting the members of the neighborhood. It might not be an accurate perception, but that is what many of them believed.
Melon

Exactly, and this is part of what I was trying to say earlier, too...that such a perception is far more likely in a poor black (or mostly black, whatever) neighborhood with a high crime rate, than in your stereotypical Midwestern upper-middle-class Jewish suburb for example.

Besides, having lived in a not-so-assimilated-or-WASPified Jewish neighborhood in Brooklyn...honestly, I would not be surprised at all if something similar were to happen there in response to this type of event. Not that I EVER endorse expecting violence...but in certain contexts it can be just as wrong to hold people to (and judge them by) an expected standard of cool detachment or wholly "appropriate" directing of rage, IMHO. Actually, "rage" is not even the right word...there is a load of collective memories of humiliation and violation bound up in these things.

I guess I really am very ambivalent about where we should draw the lines when it comes to some groups' freedom of speech.

 

[melon]

1. It wasn't a "black" neighborhood.
2. Only "some" of the mob were gang members.

1. Is any "black neighborhood" 100% black? This is a heavy majority black neighborhood.

2. You're right. One of the people in court today for riot-related crimes was white, and I doubt he was part of the gang. But even then, this destroys the argument that "black people" attacked policemen.

Melon

 

[nbcrusader]

Besides, having lived in a not-so-assimilated-or-WASPified Jewish neighborhood in Brooklyn...honestly, I would not be surprised at all if something similar were to happen there in response to this type of event. Not that I EVER endorse expecting violence...but in certain contexts it can be just as wrong to hold people to (and judge them by) an expected standard of cool detachment or wholly "appropriate" directing of rage, IMHO. Actually, "rage" is not even the right word...there is a load of collective memories of humiliation and violation bound up in these things.

My guess is the violence was fueled by other, more immediate factors and not by history of the Klan. Toledo is a rust belt city, where hope is not a commodity found in abundance. Whatever anger towards the system that gets suppressed day to day was unleashed on an instigating target.

 

[Irvine511]

I'm not sure the subtle charge of racism necessarily holds here. When groups riot at a WTO meeting, they generally draw from various ethnic groups - thus the headline "white people destroy Seattle" is both overly broad and inaccurate.

it's less a subtle charge of racism and more a charge of subtle racism.

while characterizing anti-WTO/World Bank/anarchists/whatever as white is broad and, ultimately, inaccurate, having been to many of these types of protests in DC (less as participant and more as fascinated observer), i think it is as fair to lable these groups "white" as it is to lable any neighborhood "black."

these kids are overwhelmingly white.

also, in particular when we had the rise of the militias in the early to mid-1990s that ultimately came to a head in Oklahoma City, these people were, again, overwhelmingly white, but they were always given the benefit of the distinction -- they were not "white anti-government militias" but simply "anti-government militias."

 

[Dreadsox]

Because the perception was that the city and the police were supporting and protecting the Nazis instead of supporting and protecting the members of the neighborhood. It might not be an accurate perception, but that is what many of them believed.

Well, clearly it is not an accurate perception. When clearly the mayor took every step possible to let the public know that their hands were tied. I amy be wrong, but everything I have read leads me to have a bit of respect for this mayor.

[Q]Secondly, my other beef with many of these comments is the fact that there is not a lot of nuance being put here. "Blacks" did not cause this violence. "Gang members" who happened to be black did. When you look at a WTO riot or even the Oklahoma City bombing, you don't say "white people destroyed Seattle" or "white people bombed Oklahoma City." You say "anarchists/communists destroyed Seattle" or "sick individuals bombed Oklahoma City." Likewise, notice that we aren't saying "whites marched through a black neighborhood." We say "Nazis," and they happen to be white.

The news did not report on all the blacks who stayed indoors or even the community events that were simultaneously taking place to encourage tolerance in other parts of the city.[/Q]

I am not certain, but I sincerely hope that you are not saying I am a racist in a veiled way. If you want to PM me to discuss it, you know how.


Must be the right wing reporters reporting on this incident .


[Q]Probably because the Nazis were looking for a fight, and decided to walk around in a neighborhood with known gangs and crime problems. It's the same kind of provocation you'd expect from Protestants marching through Catholic neighborhoods in Northern Ireland: it's not ideal and you wish violence wouldn't happen, but you know it will.[/Q]

I guess I would have hoped that it would have been different. I think the mayor tried to make it different.


[Q]Again, that is because much of the neighborhood has been quoted as to believing that, because the city did not do anything to oppose their march, that they believed that the city was supporting the Nazis. This is not logic that I share, but I also happen to have a high education level. Most of these people do not.

Melon [/Q]

Peace...thanks for the discussion...

 

[melon]

I am not certain, but I sincerely hope that you are not saying I am a racist in a veiled way. If you want to PM me to discuss it, you know how.


Must be the right wing reporters reporting on this incident .

I believe there is a distinction between "blatant prejudice" and "latent prejudice." As a society, we have made excellent strides towards removing "blatant prejudice," and that's why most reasonable people would never support what the Nazi party stands for.

However, there is "latent prejudice," which, by definition, is hidden and unconscious. And I hope you don't think I'm pointing fingers at you, because we're all guilty of it here and there. But "latent prejudice" does subtlely affect how we treat and perceive people who are "different" from us. And, in keeping with ideological criticism, the only way to help eliminate "latent prejudice" is to identify it out in the open and make it "blatant."

I hope people don't confuse this with overreactive "political correctness," because I'd like to think that I'm hardly PC. I just believe that the key to creating a better society is to identify problems in culture. And just as I try to encourage minority groups (including the LBGT community) to make steps towards being self-reliant and stop looking for the majority to solve ALL of their problems, I encourage the majority (which, in this case, is whites) to sit back and identify how they're making an impact in society, both positive and negative. Ending stereotypes and adding nuance, I think, is a reasonable first step; but, understandably, none of us are perfect.

Melon

 

[the iron horse]

If I have nothing good at all to say like a naziskin, there must be someone who must shut up my mouth. Not everyone can say what he wants, you know, in the end it must depend of the goodness of your message. "Freedom of speech has a scent", but in certain cases, for certain people like nazis, their Freedom of speech has just and only a bad smell..............

I agree,

I'm just trying to say that even "bad smelling" speech must have the freedom it express itself.

If we go the road to suppress free speech, we will soon be in the same gang as the Nazis.

 

[babyman]

I agree,

I'm just trying to say that even "bad smelling" speech must have the freedom it express itself.

If we go the road to suppress free speech, we will soon be in the same gang as the Nazis.

Wait, wait, it´s quite different. We need people that make speeches which are constructive for us and for our future. What you say belongs exactly to the big mistake the english, french and americans did before the second world war, when they let Hitler make what he wanted. Before starting the war he had several times announced his intentions, but he was underrated, and the price for it were MILLIONS and MILLIONS of dead.
So, learn from past mistakes, Neonazis are a mortal cancer that must be extirpated from the root. What do bring their speeches if we would accept to let them free? HATRED, VIOLENCE , DEATH.....
Do we need it????
I need people who bring the good news, I don´t want to share my life with death messengers, and it doesn´t bring me in the same gang of the nazis if I want to live peaceful and calm

 

[Dreadsox]

and it doesn´t bring me in the same gang of the nazis if I want to live peaceful and calm

Not in your heart maybe....

but

who decides what is good free speech and bad?

 

[babyman]

Not in your heart maybe....

but

who decides what is good free speech and bad?

Good Willing Souls

 

[Dreadsox]

Good Willing Souls

So the Christian Right...excellent idea.

 

[babyman]

So the Christian Right...excellent idea.

Is there a better way than God´s Highway..................

 

[Kieran McConville]

I gues it's my way of the higway guys, my way or the way of the future

its the way of the futu4re, the way of the future, the way of the future, the way of the future....

 

[BVS]

Is there a better way than God´s Highway..................

So you agree that speech should be censored and you believe the Christian Right own God's Highway?

Wow now that's a scary America.

 

[babyman]

So you agree that speech should be censored and you believe the Christian Right own God's Highway?

Wow now that's a scary America.

Where´s the relation in that?

 

[babyman]

Because I indicate God as the good way to follow I must accept Nazis speeches? Is this what you mean?

 

[BVS]

Because I indicate God as the good way to follow I must accept Nazis speeches? Is this what you mean?

No I'm saying your America is a dangerous one. You believe in censoring those you don't agree with and you believe the Christian Right own "God's Highway".

What you describe is a theocracy.

 

[babyman]

No I'm saying your America is a dangerous one. You believe in censoring those you don't agree with and you believe the Christian Right own "God's Highway".

What you describe is a theocracy.

Sorry, this what you understand, not what i say. Where have I said I must censore those I don´t agree??? Where did you get this out? This is almost funny, your way of interpretation looks like to be pretty more dangerous by putting in the mouth words never spoken..................
I refer only to that Nazi speech, which is objectivily blameworthy.
And I´m not describing theocracy, but of a life in communion with god......................
Wow, it´s incredible how people can get through your soul and talking instead of you.......

 

[BVS]

Sorry, this what you understand, not what i say. Where have I said I must censore those I don´t agree??? Where did you get this out?

You were asked "who decides what is good free speech and what is bad?"

In a free society no one should decide this except the constitution. We can decide for ourselves what personally is good and bad, but we can't decide what's good free speech and what isn't.

Then when asked to clarify who are the "good willing souls" that will decide this you alluded to the idea you think the Christian Right are God's Highway.

So maybe now you can see where I may have come to this conclusion...

 

[Kieran McConville]

Is God's Highway like Michael Landon in the highway to heaven, guys? Cause I am a little confused here.

 

[babyman]

You were asked "who decides what is good free speech and what is bad?"

In a free society no one should decide this except the constitution. We can decide for ourselves what personally is good and bad, but we can't decide what's good free speech and what isn't.

Then when asked to clarify who are the "good willing souls" that will decide this you alluded to the idea you think the Christian Right are God's Highway.

So maybe now you can see where I may have come to this conclusion...

If you come to i can´t do anything for that..........because now i don´t understand what you mean. Christian Right is supposed to follow the bible, if you believe in the bible you know you should live like the bible´s explanations, but this may be another argument now, I don´t want to go further, otherwise we don´t stay on the topic.
So, you talk of the constitution, and it´s ok. But the constitution doesn´t allow to ABUSE of the freedom of speech. Claiming the freedom of speech for Nazis is nothing else than a way they can use to hide their hatred.
Good, do I have the freedom of speech?
Ok, I want to kill all, I hate white, I hate black, I hate Chinese, I want to go down on them......


Is this a good free speech? If you say I can´t descern between objectivily good and bad speeches, than no one should blame me for shouting my hatred, right?
What would you say to someone who would say shit things like that?
Oh, I respect you because you have the freedom of speech?
Should we be robots or should we be human beings with human (and possibly christian) feelings to distinguish things we can accept and not accept.
If you say I like green better than white, I like red better than blue, or other not offensive things, now this is a different way. Here you have freedom of opinion, and you can discuss so much you want.
But a Nazi speech is something you should immediately blame, what´s good in violence speeches?
Have you ever asked a Jew if Hitler left them the freedom of speech?

 

[BVS]

Christian Right is supposed to follow the bible, if you believe in the bible you know you should live like the bible´s explanations

All Christians are suppose to follow the teachings of Christ, but many choose to bend the word to their own bigotries. So there are no absolutes(morally speaking) unto which to apply legally for a country as a whole. Especially when it comes to speech.

So, you talk of the constitution, and it´s ok. But the constitution doesn´t allow to ABUSE of the freedom of speech. Claiming the freedom of speech for Nazis is nothing else than a way they can use to hide their hatred.
Good, do I have the freedom of speech?
Ok, I want to kill all, I hate white, I hate black, I hate Chinese, I want to go down on them......

We have all kinds of hate speech in this country. Hatred for all kinds. Some more "accepted" than others. Why should Nazi speech be considered abuse of speech, but politicians talking out against homosexuals not?

But a Nazi speech is something you should immediately blame, what´s good in violence speeches?

If the speech incites violence then it's not protected in this country.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Those same rights that protect bilious hate speech also protects people from government censure. If it becomes legal to silence the extremes how long is it until that limit is edged closer, with the best intentions of course. I have a problem when the rules of conversation become dictated by government, things start becoming off limits and unrest grows beneath the surface.

There is an advantage to allowing these scumbags to speak, their true nature is revealed and they are quite effectively discredited.

 

[yolland]

Originally posted by babyman
Have you ever asked a Jew if Hitler left them the freedom of speech?

I'm Jewish, my parents were the only survivors of the Holocaust in their respective families and I don't *automatically* conclude from that that neo-Nazis should not be allowed to march in America in 2005...

What are your criteria for "objectively" bad speech?

(BVS, I think there may be a terminal language gap here.)