Which Protestors are Dangerous? Really??
In the days since the death of George Floyd at the hands of Minneapolis police officers there have been protests. At first the protests were localized in Minneapolis but quickly they spread to other cities around the country. The death of an unarmed Black man, suspected of a trivial infraction, at the hands of police is sadly not a novel phenomenon. There's a lot of pent up anger about police use of force.
Sadly, also, many of these protests have been turning violent. But it's not (just) protestors or counter-protestors who are practicing violence; it's the police themselves. Yes, sadly, a common reaction to complaints of excessive use of force is to use excessive force to quell said complaints. But look just a tiny bit beyond the headlines- look at any of the pictures, basically- and a ridiculous pattern emerges about which protestors are deemed "nonviolent" and which are deemed threatening enough to have violence visited upon them by the government.
The pictures above shows armed protestors inside the state legislature building in Michigan. On April 30 protestors stormed the building while the legislature was in session. They were armed with military-style rifles and wearing military gear, and they were standing in the gallery yelling at elected politicians who were trying to vote on legislation. The first picture was tweeted by a Michigan state senator and picked up by news media such as the Detroit Metro Times (article "Whitmer, Nessel support gun ban in Capitol following coronavirus protests", 8 May 2020). The second was carried by The Guardian and published in, e.g., "Armed protesters demonstrate against Covid-19 lockdown at Michigan capitol" (30 Apr 2020).
The ridiculous situation is that these protestors were not stopped by police. They were not blocked from entering the building, they were not shooed out, no tear gas or rubber bullets were used against them. They are literally carrying military assault rifles and other military gear and attempting to intimidate civilian government- actions that meet the literal definition of terrorism and would be treated as such in any other civilized country in the world- yet police deemed them "peaceful" and treated them with the utmost respect.
Now fast-forward a month, and we see George Floyd protestors carrying signs and cellphones being attacked by police. What's the difference? It's simple. The lockdown protestors with guns are white. They're "patriots". They're "very good people", in the words of President Trump. The men and women with cellphones protesting George Floyd's death? They're black. They're "thugs" and "hoodlums" according to Trump. The cops have got to "dominate" them, or Trump will send in the military to finish the job, because that's "Law and Order".
Sadly, also, many of these protests have been turning violent. But it's not (just) protestors or counter-protestors who are practicing violence; it's the police themselves. Yes, sadly, a common reaction to complaints of excessive use of force is to use excessive force to quell said complaints. But look just a tiny bit beyond the headlines- look at any of the pictures, basically- and a ridiculous pattern emerges about which protestors are deemed "nonviolent" and which are deemed threatening enough to have violence visited upon them by the government.
The pictures above shows armed protestors inside the state legislature building in Michigan. On April 30 protestors stormed the building while the legislature was in session. They were armed with military-style rifles and wearing military gear, and they were standing in the gallery yelling at elected politicians who were trying to vote on legislation. The first picture was tweeted by a Michigan state senator and picked up by news media such as the Detroit Metro Times (article "Whitmer, Nessel support gun ban in Capitol following coronavirus protests", 8 May 2020). The second was carried by The Guardian and published in, e.g., "Armed protesters demonstrate against Covid-19 lockdown at Michigan capitol" (30 Apr 2020).
The ridiculous situation is that these protestors were not stopped by police. They were not blocked from entering the building, they were not shooed out, no tear gas or rubber bullets were used against them. They are literally carrying military assault rifles and other military gear and attempting to intimidate civilian government- actions that meet the literal definition of terrorism and would be treated as such in any other civilized country in the world- yet police deemed them "peaceful" and treated them with the utmost respect.
Now fast-forward a month, and we see George Floyd protestors carrying signs and cellphones being attacked by police. What's the difference? It's simple. The lockdown protestors with guns are white. They're "patriots". They're "very good people", in the words of President Trump. The men and women with cellphones protesting George Floyd's death? They're black. They're "thugs" and "hoodlums" according to Trump. The cops have got to "dominate" them, or Trump will send in the military to finish the job, because that's "Law and Order".