Why BLM keeps losing... Antwon Rose

We've all heard of Rosa Parks and her heroic refusal to give up her seat on a bus on December 1, 1955. Her act of bravery and social disobedience is widely regarded as the spark that led to the civil rights movement.

What most people don't know though is that it actually wasn't Rosa Parks that was the first to refuse to give up her seat on a bus. It was actually a young lady named Claudette Colvin who was arrested nine month's prior to Rosa Park's incident. Colvin was one of four plaintiffs whose case made it to the Supreme Court that ultimately resulted in the ruling that ended bus segregation in Montgomery, Alabama.

Claudette Colvin (born September 5, 1939)[1] is a pioneer of the Civil Rights Movement. On March 2, 1955, she was arrested for refusing to give up her seat on a bus in segregated Montgomery, Alabama, nine months prior to Rosa Parks' famous arrest for the same offense. Colvin was among the four plaintiffs originally included in the federal court case filed by civil rights attorney Fred Gray on February 1, 1956, as Browder v. Gayle, and she testified before the three-judge panel that heard the case in the United States District Court. On June 13, 1956, the judges determined that the state and local laws requiring bus segregation in Alabama were unconstitutional. The case went to the United States Supreme Court, which upheld their ruling on December 17, 1956. Colvin was the last witness to testify. Three days later, the Supreme Court issued an order to Montgomery and the state of Alabama to end bus segregation, and the Montgomery Bus Boycott was called off.

The reason history never mentions Claudette Colvin is that civil rights leaders at the time didn't think she would be a sympathetic character.

Colvin says Parks had the right image to become the face of resistance to segregation because of her previous work with the NAACP. The organisation didn't want a teenager in the role, she says. Another factor was that before long Colvin became pregnant. "They said they didn't want to use a pregnant teenager because it would be controversial and the people would talk about the pregnancy more than the boycott," Colvin says.

So what does this have to do with BLM? The big mistake BLM keeps making is using unsympathetic characters as a rallying point. Even if we believe there is an issue with police shooting black men (or anyone for that matter), the public can't get separate the victims from their lack of character.

This is even more important in an era when anyone can be "doxed" in five minutes. The victims backgrounds often over shadow the wrongs of the police. Even though most people believe in the rule of law, the reality is that subconsciously, most people don't give a flip about some thug getting shot even if technically the police may have been wrong in doing so.

BLM has trotted out a cast of miscreants and thugs and can't figure out why they aren't getting the sympathy they feel is warranted. If you go back and look at practically every case, you have a situation where the victims are 1) fighting with police and 2) engaged in clear criminal conduct.

Freddie Gray
Michael Brown
Trayvon Martin
Eric Garner
Walter Scott

and now Antwon Rose

Is it fair? Probably not and doesn't absolve police of wrong doing. however, the reality is no one cares about drug dealers and thugs, whether wrongly shot or not.

When you have a case where a black doctor, graduate student, etc are the victim, then BLM will have more ground to stand on and people may take their claims more seriously. However, we all know not only are any cases rare (thug or not), it is going to be even rarer to find an upstanding citizen being randomly gunned down.

a reply to: Edumakated

you can't justify wrong doing because the victims weren't model citizens.

we don't live in a 'mad max' style society yet.....

originally posted by: odzeandennz
a reply to: Edumakated


we don't live in a 'mad max' style society yet.....

2021.

a reply to: odzeandennz

Where in his post is he justifying wrongdoing?
He's saying that the BLM movement should be choosing more quality representatives to promote it's cause in order to justify its stance and legitimize it's struggle without having to rely on figurehead and spokespeople who would be considered less than desirable by the public eye.
Or did I read this wrong?

originally posted by: odzeandennz
a reply to: Edumakated

you can't justify wrong doing because the victims weren't model citizens.

we don't live in a 'mad max' style society yet.....

See my point went over your head... not justifying anything just pointing out why the movement isn't gaining traction.

Whether we like it or not, the victims character matters to the public.

a reply to: Edumakated
Good luck finding someone in the hood that doesn’t have some type of criminal record that can be put on blast by right wing media when they get shot by the police. Scuffling with the police is just a part of life in a lot of areas.

There aren’t shootings like this where black doctors live because those areas are policed differently than lower income areas. Which is the same reason for the disproportionate amount of black people locked up for drug offenses.

a reply to: odzeandennz

That wasn't thier point and it wasn't what they were trying to say and you know it. It's about methodology and perception. Things don't work the way you want simply because it would be right if they did.

Reality doesn't care about right, people are simply too busy to care unless it really tugs at them and right or wrong people have too many of thier own concerns to care about thugs and simply put as that seems to be all that's presented they assume it must be the overwhelming majority, as if they weren't, such bad examples wouldn't be presented.

You are probably right about why BLM is not gaining as much support as they might like.

But I dont think they can/need to do as you suggest and find better examples of the injustice

The problem will not be solved until even thugs and expect to get due procces by the law. So finding different examples only gets you half the way.

In the 60s it was a totally different situation; back than it was important to get white people to recognize there was a problem in the first place, they were completely in the dark. Image was everything and the civil rights leaders at the time where smart enough to know that.

Today most people can't claim ignorance to the issues. Now it's a matter of holding leadership accountable and that's true if we're talking about a doctor or a thug.

What BLM need to do is stop limiting their issues around race and instead open it up to a class level argument. Blacks dispretionatly see the dark side of the Justice System because blacks are dispretionatly represented in our poor communities. But many of our poor, no matter their race, gender or religion see that same treatment. If BLM and similar groups opened up their message they would have a lot more credibility and support.

originally posted by: DanDanDat
You are probably right about why BLM is not gaining as much support as they might like.

But I dont think they can/need to do as you suggest and find better examples of the injustice

The problem will not be solved until even thugs and expect to get due procces by the law. So finding different examples only gets you half the way.

In the 60s it was a totally different situation; back than it was important to get white people to recognize there was a problem in the first place, they where completely in the dark. Image was everything and the civil rights leaders at the time where smart enough to know that.

Today most people can't claim ignorance to the issues. Now it's a matter of holding leadership accountable and that's true if where talking about a doctor or a thug.

IMHO, BLM won't find better examples/characters because the issue simply isn't as big as they make it out to be. However, when it does occur, it is more likely to be someone who is already at odds with the law.

This is why no one cares. Most people just figure the victim got what they had coming, whether legally right or wrong. Deep down, people don't care because they see it as a matter of one less thug. They view the technicalities of how they got shot by police as a less important issue.

originally posted by: DanDanDat
What BLM need to do is stop limiting their issues around race and instead open it up to a class level argument. Blacks dispretionatly see the dark side of the Justice System because blacks are dispretionatly represented in our poor communities. But many of our poor, no matter their race, gender or religion see that same treatment. If BLM and similar groups opened up their message they would have a lot more credibility and support.

I agree...

a reply to: Edumakated

As usual, Edumakated, you cut right to the core of it. I think you have it exactly right. While a part of us abhor abuse of power against anyone, another part of us just can't latch on to any depth of concern when it was against a criminal or thug.

But, you're right. You would be hard-pressed to find a victim in the categories you described in your last paragraph.

Same thing applies to gang on gang murders. No one gets too concerned about it, do they?

a reply to: queenofswords

While a part of us abhor abuse of power against anyone, another part of us just can't latch on to any depth of concern when it was against a criminal or thug.

It sounds like it’s time for a little self reflection if all it takes is someone being labeled a criminal to make you not care about their life.

a reply to: Edumakated

i guess my point went over your head.

movements shouldn't hinge on the caliber of personal image.
nor should it be a case of 'look at what's happening in Chicago'


********
but that's how it is

My impression is its because they choose not achievable objective. Blame and attack cops and white people isnt an actual goal. Its a mode, a methodology in an means to an end sort of game. Which is easily predictable to be nothing but to enrage people into burning snip down. It's kind of like acting like "terrorism" itself is an enemy, when its merely a tactic (and as Ron Paul says "you can have a war against a tactic").

They could have went after Obama, or more specifically they could have gone after the root cause: the Police State due to the War on Drugs.

In 2016 I searched their entire site, only found I think it was 3 pitiful mentions of the WOD.

I did a piece for ATS here to "Occupy the White House" while Obama still in it, with the one specific unifying objective: END THE WAR ON DRUGS. This was when all the rage around here as Hillary & BLM. ANd I think there was one single apparent liberal type that even bothered responded to it. Actually, I dont even think he was one. I see him here today. He's not.

Point out the root cause: crickets.
Offer the solution: crickets.
Some other story pops up that can piss off the other team: GO YEAH GO YEAH GO!

The BLM type, the Occupy types, the liberals in general, they could have twisted Obama's arm into setting into motion the end of the War On Drugs, especially since if they had done it with such focus they'd have won people of every stripe to the cause. I would have rallied with them.

But what did they do?

originally posted by: DanDanDat
What BLM need to do is stop limiting their issues around race and instead open it up to a class level argument. Blacks dispretionatly see the dark side of the Justice System because blacks are dispretionatly represented in our poor communities. But many of our poor, no matter their race, gender or religion see that same treatment. If BLM and similar groups opened up their message they would have a lot more credibility and support.

Uh, no they don't need that. Who ever says "You all need to have less focus"? Then the right would just say "They don't even know what they stand for!", just like that have said about many other leftist groups. They are addressing the problems that affect them directly, daily, and they see as something that needs immediate focused attention.

a reply to: underwerks

Nah. It's just like pedophiles. I have zero depth of concern for them. The man that was killed by the father who caught him raping his 6-yr. old son, has ZERO concern from me. Thugs and criminals really don't garner many tears here. But, nevertheless, I abhor any abuse of power, but generally don't cry any tears when a criminal thug is involved.

This guy springs to mind, a true hero, same issue, itchy trigger finger cops, USA for to long has excused this behaviour

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Right?! It's like everybody is so caught up in left vs right politics to actually care about real issues. All their energy goes to proving that their team is correct on the hot topic.

originally posted by: okrian
Who ever says "You all need to have less focus"? Then the right would just say "They don't even know what they stand for!",

What do they stand for?

Its about being against poor black dudes getting gunned down, right?

Wrong:


The cop on black shootings is just their facade, their point of contention, in it where its nothing more than a Hyper-Tribalist SJW Outrage Machine.

To a systems analyst, an student of social psychology (social movements in particular), its plain as day about rousing rabble to wreck snip, not actually effect change.

By all definitions its a supremacist movement. Dripping in racism and likewise identity politics.

Their solution to "fighting" "racism": more staunch "unapologetic" Racism. And that to me is why they never had any hope of achieving whatever it is they're after... unless burning snip down always was their objective (as I'm convinced was the design from the get go).