My city, Minneapolis, On Fire: a story about white nationalism and it's consequences

[Loren Pechtel]

There are at least 3 solutions to all the problems listed here so far:

1. Shoot the looters (not this time, but for future mass riots)

Require the cops (shooters) to wear their camera and have it running whenever they shoot a looter. And guarantee that the shooting is recorded immediately and transmitted/preserved, regardless of any damage to the camera at the site. Make sure the shooting takes place just as the looter is breaking a window or running out of the store carrying merchandise. So there is irrefutable evidence that the one shot was a looter.

And have drones (or whatever) overhead, nearby, announcing that all looters will be shot on sight.

There would be nothing anti-Black about shooting the looters, since the evidence is that most of the looters are White.

Which wouldn't do much good--the looters aren't so easy to find as the protesters.

2. Progressive property tax. The higher an owner's total property (real estate) value is, the higher is the tax rate on the property. With tax brackets, the same as progressive income tax.

Such a tax would lead to redistribution of property away from the more wealthy corporate owners toward the less wealthy local owners and families and individuals.

And the more expensive everything becomes because there's no economy of scale.

3. Hire more Black cops, using even quotas or whatever system ensures that the percent of Black cops increases. Even if this wouldn't reduce the number of Blacks killed by cops, at least it would help correct false perceptions that White racist cops are targeting Blacks.

Been tried, you get more bad police shootings because the standards were lowered.

 

[Politesse]

You said it would be appropriate to arrest someone if they were caught in the act. He was, the police were right there watching him do it. So he should have been detained before the murder was even accomplished, let alone before leaving the scene.

You misunderstood--I didn't mean caught on video, I meant arrested as they were committing the crime. If you have to go pick them up it should be investigate first, then arrest.

Yes, they should absolutely have arrested him while he was committing the crime. This would have both guaranteed justice and saved a life.

 

[ruby sparks]

3. Hire more Black cops, using even quotas or whatever system ensures that the percent of Black cops increases. Even if this wouldn't reduce the number of Blacks killed by cops, at least it would help correct false perceptions that White racist cops are targeting Blacks.

Been tried, you get more bad police shootings because the standards were lowered.

Hm. Is there good data on that Loren?

Even if it were the case (and I would like to see if it has been actually established) then I would say that even that would just be a case for doing it better. It was done here in my country and it worked well. It has great potential to help matters.

You don’t have to tell me the situations in the two countries are not the same, I already know that. There are common elements though.

Also, something like ‘more and better training’ can be brought in at the same time, and no I don’t mean just shooting practice, and I am certainly not referring to the ‘warrior-style’, ‘killology’ training that was apparently made available to Minneapolis police. Overall, you could have a better police force (for all police officers and all citizens) AND one which has more black officers. Potential win win.

And don’t tell me better training can’t be afforded. It can. It just requires it to be made more of a priority, which it should be, for a whole host of very pressing reasons. I read that in some states it takes longer to qualify as a barber than as a police officer. That doesn’t sound right.

 

[ruby sparks]

You said it would be appropriate to arrest someone if they were caught in the act. He was, the police were right there watching him do it. So he should have been detained before the murder was even accomplished, let alone before leaving the scene.

You misunderstood--I didn't mean caught on video, I meant arrested as they were committing the crime. If you have to go pick them up it should be investigate first, then arrest.

Yes, they should absolutely have arrested him while he was committing the crime. This would have both guaranteed justice and saved a life.

If you have a Youtube video of a US police officer in uniform arresting another US police officer in uniform, I would like to see that.

 

[Deepak]

Yes, they should absolutely have arrested him while he was committing the crime. This would have both guaranteed justice and saved a life.

If you have a Youtube video of a US police officer in uniform arresting another US police officer in uniform, I would like to see that. ������

The instances are rare to be sure.

No Youtube, but one case https://miami.cbslocal.com/2011/11/09/fhp-troopers-car-smeared-with-feces/

 

[Politesse]

Yes, they should absolutely have arrested him while he was committing the crime. This would have both guaranteed justice and saved a life.

If you have a Youtube video of a US police officer in uniform arresting another US police officer in uniform, I would like to see that. ������

I can't imagine it happens often. They take an oath when they don the uniform: "To protect (each other's asses) and to serve (state and money interests)."

 

[ruby sparks]

Yes, they should absolutely have arrested him while he was committing the crime. This would have both guaranteed justice and saved a life.

If you have a Youtube video of a US police officer in uniform arresting another US police officer in uniform, I would like to see that. ������

The instances are rare to be sure.

No Youtube, but one case https://miami.cbslocal.com/2011/11/09/fhp-troopers-car-smeared-with-feces/

Yes. Though even that was between two different agencies.

 

[ruby sparks]

Yes, they should absolutely have arrested him while he was committing the crime. This would have both guaranteed justice and saved a life.

If you have a Youtube video of a US police officer in uniform arresting another US police officer in uniform, I would like to see that. ������

I can't imagine it happens often. They take an oath when they don the uniform: "To protect (each other's asses) and to serve (state and money interests)."

“Money. That is the whole rule. The rest is commentary. Go and learn”.

(attributed to Hillel the Cynical Realist).

If only people had bought everyone else more Coca-Cola back in the 70’s. The world would be a much better place.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1VM2eLhvsSM

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

There are at least 3 solutions to all the problems listed here so far:

1. Shoot the looters (not this time, but for future mass riots)

Require the cops (shooters) to wear their camera and have it running whenever they shoot a looter. And guarantee that the shooting is recorded immediately and transmitted/preserved, regardless of any damage to the camera at the site. Make sure the shooting takes place just as the looter is breaking a window or running out of the store carrying merchandise. So there is irrefutable evidence that the one shot was a looter.

And have drones (or whatever) overhead, nearby, announcing that all looters will be shot on sight.

There would be nothing anti-Black about shooting the looters, since the evidence is that most of the looters are White.

Which wouldn't do much good--the looters aren't so easy to find as the protesters.

You couldn't recognize them, smashing the windows and carrying merchandise out of the store? OK, we wouldn't hire you to do the shooting job. But most people could recognize them. It's easy with normal eyesight to distinguish them from the protesters and shoot them, with the camera on, like the cameras which recorded them for us on YouTube. In the scenes we saw it was easy to identify the ones smashing windows and carrying merchandise out of the store. As bad as I am with a gun, I could aim it at the guy smashing the window and shoot him -- maybe require a few days training first, to figure out which end the bullet comes out.

2. Progressive property tax. The higher an owner's total property (real estate) value is, the higher is the tax rate on the property. With tax brackets, the same as progressive income tax.

Such a tax would lead to redistribution of property away from the more wealthy corporate owners toward the less wealthy local owners and families and individuals.

And the more expensive everything becomes because there's no economy of scale.

If that were true, it would mean that more concentration and less competition = higher prices, and the best economy is to have one company dominate every industry, i.e., monopoly power. There's plenty of indication that property ownership is becoming too concentrated and leading to anticompetitive results. A progressive tax would not prevent some companies from gaining more market share, but there needs to be an artificial element to put limits to the concentration which has gone too far and squeezed out too many small and local operators, and reduced the competition.

3. Hire more Black cops, using even quotas or whatever system ensures that the percent of Black cops increases. Even if this wouldn't reduce the number of Blacks killed by cops, at least it would help correct false perceptions that White racist cops are targeting Blacks.

Been tried, you get more bad police shootings because the standards were lowered.

It hasn't been tried enough to show any such results.

 

[ruby sparks]

It hasn't been tried enough to show any such results.

That would have been my impression.

Actually, it’s quite a controversial claim. I’m wondering if it has in fact been established.

 

[Toni]

First of all, the exclusion you talk about has occurred a long time ago, and you cannot compensate for past wrongs by wronging people who kinda look like the beneficiaries of past wrongs. That is the same evil as so-called "affirmative action".

1. It continues to happen today. There is a lot of unconscious bias in lending, hiring, education, on the job, etc.

2. It is easier for (in general)/more likely for a white male person to qualify for a business loan because they are more likely to have some wealth already because for hundreds of years, their family was able to acquire and maintain wealth to a much greater extent than women have been able to or black or hispanic, etc. have been able to. They also qualify for better interest rates because they, as a group, already have more wealth.

We cannot discount history when what happened a generation or two or three or a dozen ago has lead to advantages or disadvantages for people alive now.

Question: what is your opinion on illegal workers sending a significant percentage of their earnings as international remittances? That money definitely does not circulate in the local community.

Legal workers and citizens do that as well. They do that to keep their families from starving or to provide a bit of a hand up that otherwise their families would not have to help them escape poverty--to be able to afford school, marriage (those are the two big ones from among people I know), to be able to buy a little (more) farm land, to reduce a family debt, etc.

And lots of lily white Americans whose great great greats were born here also send money overseas. See Unicef, Save the Children, Doctors Without Borders and tons of international aide organizations. Not to mention all the consumer goods, many of them very high end, that are made overseas.

What I think is that it is terrible that some people live in such abject poverty with little hope to have a better life for themselves or their families that they must depend on the generosity of family members who traveled thousands of miles in order to be able to help feed their family members left behind. If you will note: illegal immigration declined as the economies in South and Central America improved. Immigrating, legally or illegally, is really difficult to do. It is an act of courage and determination. Most people would prefer to stay where they are familiar with things.

I think that if we wish to see a decline in illegal immigration and greater political stability throughout the world, we should support polices that lead to a stronger economy in places that need it most desperately. And stop engaging in/encouraging/supporting armed conflicts. Such conflicts deplete the resources of nations affected and reverse progress and are destructive to people and to the environment all over the world.

Finally, if we truly wish to stop or reduce illegal immigration, then we should start penalizing employers who employ illegal aliens. Many such employers employ illegal aliens because they can pay them substandard wages, ignore OSHA and other health and safety concern and basically treat their illegal workers like indentured servants. No, not all employers do this but plenty do. We seem to lack the political will to enforce current labor laws and to hold employers accountable.

Annnnnnndddd: As Americans, we can be prepared to pay more money for clothes and food and other shit we own---and simply purchase less of it. I'm talking to myself here.

I don't see it as very different to actively look for minority owned businesses.

I do. That's as wrong as actively looking for white-owned businesses.

I live in a small enough community that it is easy to know the owners of businesses around town. I specifically avoid as much as possible making any purchases or in any way possible giving any support to businesses from one local man who has far too much power and influence in this town already and who is quite happy to pull strings to get what he wants. He even managed to squash the sale of a building to a non-profit group because it was something that one of his cronies had hoped to purchase. The non-profit got another, albeit less nice building. And he got his way. He helps keep wages extremely low in town because he is such a large employer and pays his workers...crap. I am not exaggerating when I say that even today, a $0.05/hr. wage increase is standard. He's a major reason why. On the other hand, I am happy to patronize the businesses that I see active in my community, helping others, treating customers and employees well, etc. And yes, I will patronize businesses of 'kids' that I knew when they were actually kids--and nice kids at that. My husband makes a point of regularly making purchases from a former student.

People do that all the time. Most of the time, it's people who look like them.

By purchasing from LOCAL businesses, rather than businesses who sell and take their profits elsewhere, it makes a lot of sense to purchase from people within the community and to keep the money within the community.

Regardless of their skin color.

If you follow the news carefully--and honestly, there is no reason for you to daily read Minneapolis news papers, you will see that businesses that were known to have strong ties to the community were often marked and even guarded by community members. People guarded the library and others put out a fire that someone set there.

 

[Toni]

If it had been happening and if police officers were held to the same standards as the person killed.
Excessive force MUST be dealt with, starting with recruitment and education and training, with education and training to be continuous and ongoing.

I agree with the second sentence, but not the first. Different standards apply to police officers because of their jobs. Police are there to enforce the law which includes confronting suspects and thus have a wider authorization for legitimate use of physical force than a civilian.

I think that police officers should be held to higher standards precisely because they have training and are armed.

G

 

[Elixir]

Why are those who claim that it's all white people fault never called out for their racism?

Uh... because it's the white people's fault?
Just a guess.
Why are they never lauded for their accusations, like white people are when they blame blacks for everything?

 

[Derec]

Uh... because it's the white people's fault?
Just a guess.

Why are they never lauded for their accusations, like white people are when they blame blacks for everything?

People who blame blacks for everything are called out for their racism. Likewise, people like you who blame whites for everything should be too.

 

[ruby sparks]

First of all, the exclusion you talk about has occurred a long time ago.....

See, this is why your objections are so blatantly and transparently facile. Before we even get into what remedies might be appropriate, you can’t even acknowledge what’s been clearly demonstrated over and over, that there are still current problems to try to remedy, and so any opinion you have regarding remedies (of any sort) is irrelevant.

Now, I agree the problems are not as big as sometimes alleged and that they are often exaggerated and overstated by both some here and by the left. But wtf is the point in turning around and alleging something just as untenable in response? You’re just as wide of the mark, you’ve completely undermined your own position and your point is just as wrong.

You also make yourself part of the problem instead of part of the solution.

Btw, I have no interest in a protracted discussion with you regarding the clear demonstrations I referred to above, because (a) we’ve done it already, probably more than once, and (b) you’ve never shown the slightest inclination to take it on board. As such, you can just keep your denialism. The only person you’re fooling is yourself and other denialists.

You also ignore that the sort of colour blind policies you advocate for had quite severe drawbacks in the past, and that this is partly the reason so many progressives lost faith in them. Chief among the problems were that the policies were essentially used to conveniently sweep ongoing issues under the carpet, and when you say the issues are only from long ago, you are doing exactly the same thing, and so your advocating the same policies rings very hollow.

 

[Jarhyn]

First of all, the exclusion you talk about has occurred a long time ago.....

See, this is why your objections are so blatantly and transparently facile. Before we even get into what remedies might be appropriate, you can’t even acknowledge what’s been clearly demonstrated over and over, that there are still current problems to try to remedy, and so any opinion you have regarding remedies is irrelevant.

Now, I agree the problems are not as big as sometimes alleged and that they are often exaggerated and overstated. But wtf is the point in turning around and alleging something just as untenable in response? You’re just as wide of the mark, you’ve completely undermined your own position and your point is just as wrong. You make yourself part of the problem instead of part of the solution.

Btw, I have no interest in a protracted discussion with you regarding the clear demonstrations I referred to above, because (a) we’ve done it already and (b) you’ve never shown the slightest inclination to take it on board. As such, you can just keep your untenable denialism. The only person you’re fooling is yourself and other denialists.

You also ignore that the sort of colour blind policies you advocate for had quite severe drawbacks in the past, and that this is partly the reason so many progressives lost faith in them. Chief among the problems were that the policies were essentially used to sweep ongoing issues under the carpet, and when you say the issues are only from long ago, you are doing exactly the same thing, and so your advocating the same policies rings very hollow.

At one point, he actually admitted to understanding the effects of economic momentum... To wanting to impart an equality of economic momentum. But here he is, changing his tune and saying 'those problems were long ago'. Only one of these things can be true: either the problems carried in the form of a lack of economic momentum, an echoing problem that still needs to be resolved, or they were merely "long ago".

Then, I would like to see his reaction if these "very fine people" were black, not white. There are white protestors here. There isn't a drip of melanin in the line of folks against the fence...

 

[marc]

One protester’s speech about the economic history of black Americans

 

[ruby sparks]

One protester’s speech about the economic history of black Americans

Powerful stuff. I wasn’t too sure about the looter apologetics (‘the gap between poor American blacks and the rest of the world’? What gap?) but the second part was strong, imo.

 

[Derec]

At one point, he actually admitted to understanding the effects of economic momentum...

The effects, yes, but that does not mean we agree about the causes. I think the racial politics of the last 50 years have been an unmitigated disaster, and unfortunately the present day activists are pushing to expand these failed policies - more racial preferences, more stigma for politically incorrect opinions (for example, for whoever dares point out Floyd's criminal record), more one-sided focus on racism and so on.

To wanting to impart an equality of economic momentum.

What exactly do you mean by that?

But here he is, changing his tune and saying 'those problems were long ago'.

I am not changing my tune. The problem of widespread racism against black people as the chief thing holding black people back has indeed been overcome long ago.
That doesn't mean that there aren't any problems today, but that the race activists are missing the real problems.

Only one of these things can be true:

Wrong.

were black, not white. There are white protestors here. There isn't a drip of melanin in the line of folks against the fence...

There are a lot of white protesters. That doesn't mean they are not on your side. Lots of white leftists out there.

 

[Derec]

See, this is why your objections are so blatantly and transparently facile. Before we even get into what remedies might be appropriate, you can’t even acknowledge what’s been clearly demonstrated over and over, that there are still current problems to try to remedy, and so any opinion you have regarding remedies (of any sort) is irrelevant.

There are still problems, but that doesn't mean that white racism against black people is still a chief problem.
For one, racism has greatly diminished over the last few decades.
Secondly, racism is not a one way street, no matter how much race activists insist that "black people can't be racist". When white county employees are passed over for promotion in majority black counties like DeKalb or Fulton or when the new racist Clayton County sheriff fires all white deputies, that's as surely racism as the reverse.

You’re just as wide of the mark, you’ve completely undermined your own position and your point is just as wrong.

I don't think so. I acknowledge the problems, but I think the chief cause is misguided racial politics of the last 40 years.

• Racial preferences - very unjust on an individual level, and they breed skepticism of merit possessed by people helped by "affirmative action" policies. Kind of how people are justly suspicious of the owner's nephew being hired, but writ large. '
  • another issue here is hiring black people just to "teach" racial grievances and attack white people under the guise of so-called "critical race theory".
• Double standards on racism. Every single "microaggression" by whites against blacks gets played up like it was really significant transgression, while overt racism by black people against whites (like calling white people "cavemen" or "refrigerators") gets a pass. It culminates in the "academic" claim that only white people can be racist.
  • special case of that are interracial homicides. Twice as many black people kill white people that the reverse, but the media love to play up the latter and downplay the former to the extent that
• Glorification of black violent crime. It started with the liberal set, especially in academia embracing Black Panthers, Black Liberation Army, Nation of Islam etc and continued later into Gangsta Rap. It is notable that the infamous gangsta rapper 2pac had multiple family connections to the murderous black radicals (one could even call them racial terrorists) of the 70s.

Here is for example official account of the "Women's March" wishing happy birthday to a race terrorists and murderer (she murdered a police officer in 1973). Truly deplorable!

All this breeds resentment between the races. We should work to correct this nonsense, but instead we are accelerating ever more in the wrong direction.

You also make yourself part of the problem instead of part of the solution.

I don't think so. I think the activists like those of the "Black Lives Matter" are the part of the problem. You can see the "glorification of black violent crime" I referenced above.

Btw, I have no interest in a protracted discussion with you regarding the clear demonstrations I referred to above, because (a) we’ve done it already, probably more than once, and (b) you’ve never shown the slightest inclination to take it on board. As such, you can just keep your denialism. The only person you’re fooling is yourself and other denialists.

Nonsense. I have never shied away from a discussion.

You also ignore that the sort of colour blind policies you advocate for had quite severe drawbacks in the past, and that this is partly the reason so many progressives lost faith in them.

When have they been really tried?

The non-color blind (aka racist) policies that have dominated the race politics of the US for the last 50 years are what got us into this mess.

Chief among the problems were that the policies were essentially used to conveniently sweep ongoing issues under the carpet, and when you say the issues are only from long ago, you are doing exactly the same thing, and so your advocating the same policies rings very hollow.

I do not think they have ever been tried. Ever since late 60s, late 70s we have had "race conscious" policies. And look at what they have wrought!