The revolution will not be televised.
— G. Scott-Heron

As a callow lad, in my scholastic days, I read Dick Gregory’s The Shadow That Scares Me, Eldridge Cleaver’s Soul on Ice, and The Autobiography of Malcolm X, among other provocative books. Those books made an impression on an impressionable mind. I guess it fair to say I filed some of those impressions away; they stayed with me even if I did not act upon them. Suffice it to say, there were lessons to be learned.

Protests bring attention to issues. That is what they are designed to do. The hard work of effectuating the changes sought and highlighted begins afterward, if at all. And it often falls to others to nurture the spark lest it become extinguished. Social change, as we have seen, is incremental. Certain protests, like those triggered by the murder of George Floyd, are literally combustible. The stopper on that bottle of incremental change pops and the bottle explodes. This emotional outpouring cannot be easily contained nor, it can be argued, should it. There is good reason for these emotions.

This protest is more enduring than most other protests and more volatile (see also the long arc of Vietnam War protests and also the inner-city riots following the assassination of MLK). Those of us on the left side of the political spectrum know that many protests and “movements” become co-opted by a multitude of ideological agendas. Their messages can and do become diluted. The other thing about these large, emotional protests is that they can and often do become co-opted by those using them as cover to loot or engage in other forms of illicit behavior, driven by reasons that have little or nothing to do with the message that brought the great, great majority out into the streets, crying for justice and standing vigil. No question some of those out there for good reason and with good intentions let their emotions get the better of them at times. It happens.

The central point is that the original message, the catalyst not only for the protests but for the needed social change, becomes not only diluted but sometimes disparaged because of these roiling and overlapping waters. Unfortunate as this is, it is not reason to throw the proverbial baby out with the bath water.

Eyes on the prize. Justice beckons. Always.

Here is hoping there may be some kernels of sound thinking amidst these meanderings.

Have a happy and safe July 4th holiday weekend!

"Forgotten"
The creator of Mount Rushmore’s forgotten ties to white supremacy

(...)

But the National Park Service makes no mention of Borglum’s ties to the Ku Klux Klan in its biography of the sculptor.

“We want our stories of America to be simple,” Taliaferro said. “We want Mount Rushmore to be shorthand for everything that’s great about America.”

But actual history, he said, is sometimes much more complicated.

How the 'Karen Meme' Confronts the Violent History of White Womanhood

 kurtster wrote:

At this pace, it won't be long before you end up with Nixon and Reagan.

Another "good democrat" gets cancelled.  Racist Democrat President Woodrow Wilson is finally getting his just due.  Probably more responsible for institutionalizing systemic racism within our government than anyone else.  That and he gave us the Federal Reserve among other things.
.
Princeton University to remove Woodrow Wilson’s name from international affairs school, residential college

In his written statement, (Princeton President) Eisgruber acknowledged Wilson’s racism and its impact on American society.

“Wilson’s racism was significant and consequential even by the standards of his own time. He segregated the federal civil service after it had been racially integrated for decades, thereby taking America backward in its pursuit of justice. He not only acquiesced in but added to the persistent practice of racism in this country, a practice that continues to do harm today,” Eisgruber said in his statement.

 AliGator wrote:
 

Yeah the old site, you could go back/forward and not lose anything. New site is magical how it makes things disappear.

 AliGator wrote:
 

There's a joke in here about burning it all down. But I'll just say direct your energy to useful endeavors.

Insert all the expletives here. I just spent an hour responding to kurster and everything went poof. Maybe that's a sign. (Cue The Postal Service, literally, with Such Great Heights. "I am thinking it's a sign...")
I'm gonna shut my laptop and enjoy the fire I built in my backyard. Peace out.

 Red_Dragon wrote: 
So now your friends are taking down statues of Lincoln.  The man who freed the slaves.

He did not own people.  Justify that for me please.

What Is Owed: Without Economic Justice, There Can Be No True Equality
For The Times Magazine, Nikole Hannah-Jones explains how centuries of violence and discrimination preventing black Americans from building wealth are the root cause of today’s racial inequalities — and argues that they cannot be fixed without restitution.

 steeler wrote:
 
He doesn't inhale...

 kurtster wrote:
 
I am commenting only upon your comments regarding the importance of the rule of law, which I believe is one of your underlying themes for this post and certainly many others over the years, particularly those pertaining to illegal immigration. 

Respect for the rule of law involves not only adherence to the literal law.  It also involves respect for the spirit of the law. While it is true one cannot be prosecuted for violations of the spirit of the law, that does not mean that it is an irrelevant concept. Putting it differently — and perhaps more clearly — one who attempts to circumvent the law by finding and exploiting loopholes typically is not someone I would say respects the rule of law. Trump is not someone I believe respects the rule of law. 

 kurtster wrote:
 
Thanks for the long response. I will have to answer you later, as it's late and I have to go to bed, but I just wanted to say that BIPOC is not an organization. It's a way of designating people who belong to one or more of the following groups: Black, Indigenous, People of Color. You know, like LGBTQ refers to Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer.

But perhaps the most pernicious effect of Shelby County v. Holder is the renewed perception, among those who would discriminate, that the Supreme Court is their ally. As a result, they have become emboldened and, in many cases, have perpetrated abuses of power that would have been unthinkable with a different roster of justices.

On March 28, 2018, for example, in Tarrant County, Texas, 43-year-old Crystal Mason, an African American mother of three, was sentenced to five years in prison for voter fraud. Her crime was going to her local church to vote in the 2016 presidential election and, when she was told that her name did not appear on the voting rolls, casting a provisional ballot under her own name for Hillary Clinton. The vote was never counted. What she had never been told was that because she was on federal probation for tax fraud, her name had been stricken from the rolls and her right to vote suspended. Although the prosecutors, conservative Republicans, never accused her of intent in violating the law, they asked for the maximum sentence, which the judge, another conservative Republican, agreed to. Then, in addition to the five-year sentence from the state judge, at the request of federal prosecutors, Ms. Mason was forced to first serve a 10-month federal sentence for violating the terms of her supervised release. In Iowa, by contrast, a White woman, Terri Lynn Rote, who attempted to vote twice for Donald Trump, was fined $750 and received one year of probation.

 AliGator wrote: 
A)  My response was to RD's weak effort of (what I consider) phony virtue signaling to justify vandalism and destruction.  As in who isn't opposed to slavery ?  As in living where you do, on land that was seized from Native Americans, that is ok, while slavery is not.  As in you are opposed to slavery, but what about the other things related and clearly just as serious.  As in if you look hard enough, you can find fault in anything.  At the time it was the best I could come up with to try and make a point to someone who is insincere when trying to have an honest discussion.  I did not knowingly express solidarity with BIPOC.  I was not even aware of this organization.  I was just trying to make a point.

RD was trying to justify vandalism and destruction.  Let that sink in.

If I read correctly, you share similar views that this is justifiable given certain conditions or were at least willing to consider that possibility.  Me, I disagree completely with this premise.  It is the difference between civilized and uncivilized.

Regarding slavery and other sins of the past.  In the case of Washington and other founders, like it or not slavery was legal and strictly regulated.  They were all acting within the limits of the laws in place at the time.  Now we hold them accountable for things that were legal in their day, based upon lessons long since learned well after the fact.  The laws were so contentious after the passing of time yet we were unable to change them within the framework of our Constitution that we went to war with ourselves to get them changed.  That they were changed was only because of who won the war.  But they were changed the ultimate way, with an Amendment.  Many things that were once legal are now illegal and vice versa.  But while so many find it expedient to review past actions of deeds in the context of today as opposed to back when, it is an unsound practice.  What is done is done.  The aftermath is a separate issue, to me anyway.  You can change laws, but you cannot legislate morality and / or what lies in thought.  To think that you can is based on wishful thinking.

The aftermath is what should be the focus, not the actions of people that were once within the law.  Washington was not a Confederate general, yet he is now reviled by the same people who claim to be reviled by the presence of statues and icons of the Confederacy.  Washington helped to found a country that became able to keep changing and evolving, In order to form a more perfect union.  We, meaning how it was represented to ordinary people like me, was that these people tearing down the statues only wanted to deal with those that represented the Confederacy.  A lie, just to get a foot in the door to take down all statues and icons of everyone else, regardless of who they were or what they represent.  Take the statue of Grant in SF, the other day.  He was one of slavery's greatest benefactors, but to those claiming to right the wrongs of the past based upon the injustice of slavery didn't care, they just want to destroy.  Destroy anything that catches their attention, regardless of what it actually represents.  This is what mobs do.  Mobs don't think, they only act on impulses driven by emotional triggers.  RD clearly supports mobs and what they do.  Ironically lynching is something that mobs used to do and it was the primary means of lynching.

RD simply wants to dismiss Washington and others as moral criminals and totally illegitimate human beings for doing something that was once legal and erase their memory and existence from our history.  He wants to erase and rewrite history completely as do others like him, meaning socialists.  It makes the meaning of law worthless.  It makes the meaning of legal and illegal worthless if you, pardon me, if one, changes the law and decides to hold someone responsible for what was once a legal action and change the law and prosecute them under the new law.

Making and using Ex Post Facto Laws are a good means towards launching a revolution.

The Constitution deals with this specifically by mentioning Ex Post Facto laws.  Yet here we are, trying to do what is prohibited in the Constitution.  A major foundation of the Constitution.

I've run out of time and energy to continue this for now.  I'll have to deal with Trump another time, even though I have answered this question over and over again.  And no one is ever satisfied with my answers anyway.  If you were here regularly over the past few years and paying attention, you would know most of what my answer will be.

But I'll give you one for starters.  He makes the distinction between legal and illegal immigration, something that no one on the political left and some on the political right refuse to do.  If you do not make that distinction or do not understand the thought behind that, then nothing else I will have to say about Trump will matter.  If you still wish me to go on about Trump, then you must answer that question.

And FWIW, I took US History at University level for credit in 2006.  I seriously doubt that anyone here has done the same within the 21st Century.  The history books I had in high school stopped at the end of the 50's because it was only the 60's then.  They dealt with much of the history of this country that is now being glossed over in a few paragraphs in modern history books.

 R_P wrote:
 
I won't give Roosevelt a pass on racism but I will say that setting up the national parks was one of the greatest legacies from any president

Another Trumpist hero lost...
As Teddy Roosevelt’s Statue Falls, Let’s Remember How Truly Dark His History Was