No I know, but he was brought up as the organizer of the Million Man marches in DC. In my opinion, a protest cant be peaceful when it is being lead by a man who is a noted racist, antisemitic and homophobe and who spews his hateful rhetoric throughout his speech at the allegedly peaceful protest. PP then said that none of that matter, and that he was at least able to bring a million black men together to DC.

 

Keep in mind how this discussion developed. PP asked how black people could protest social injustices. And I answered by bringing up the March on Washington, and questioned whether or not this could happen today. PP then said that Louis led the Million Man Marches. I will disagree that the Million Man Marches, led by Louis, are peaceful protest similar to the March on Washington.

 

I get what you're saying about Farrakhan; I don't like him either. The only controversy about those marches though were the disputed #s in attendance and the perceived exclusion of black women. Other than that, they were peaceful.

I get what you're saying about Farrakhan; I don't like him either. The only controversy about those marches though were the disputed #s in attendance and the perceived exclusion of black women. Other than that, they were peaceful.

 

I think were going to have to agree to disagree. While you are right, that there were no physical confrontations or controversies, I don't think the MMM, lead by Louis is equivalent to the March on Washington...

 

Which brings me back to the original question. Despite what the thoughts are on the MMM, is a peaceful protest equal in size to the MMM or the March on Washington possible today?

I think were going to have to disagree. While you are right, that there were no physical confrontations or controversies, I don't think the MMM, lead by Louis is equivalent to the March on Washington...

 

 

What are you disagreeing with? No one equated the two in any fashion other than a)large and b)no violence. That's it. That's all.

 

Which brings me back to the original question. Despite what the thoughts are on the MMM, is a peaceful protest equal in size to the MMM or the March on Washington possible today?

 

I'm not sure. Depends on who the face is.

 

It won't take many bad apples to start problems for it to be viewed as a riot and, thus, negatively.

I think were going to have to agree to disagree. While you are right, that there were no physical confrontations or controversies, I don't think the MMM, lead by Louis is equivalent to the March on Washington...

 

Which brings me back to the original question. Despite what the thoughts are on the MMM, is a peaceful protest equal in size to the MMM or the March on Washington possible today?

I'm curious, to what end would the march/protest be aimed? Legislation enacted? Awareness? Or something else?

I'm curious, to what end would the march/protest be aimed? Legislation enacted? Awareness? Or something else?

 

That's a great question, and one that I think you are seeing those protesting struggling to answer. When someone aims to "fight social injustice" what exactly does that mean? State level, federal, person to person interactions? During the civil rights movement, it was much clearer that racism was actually institutionalized, not just perceived to be, with laws specifically targeting black people. Now a days, that isn't the case, where laws are no longer made to specifically disenfranchise and segregate people based on race.

Hard not to like the guy.

 

I liked him a lot before I watched this part of his comments. I really respect what he says here, particularly the "love your neighbor part." And I 100% agree with him on that.

That's a great question, and one that I think you are seeing those protesting struggling to answer. When someone aims to "fight social injustice" what exactly does that mean? State level, federal, person to person interactions? During the civil rights movement, it was much clearer that racism was actually institutionalized, not just perceived to be, with laws specifically targeting black people. Now a days, that isn't the case, where laws are no longer made to specifically disenfranchise and segregate people based on race.

 

Correct. Much more difficult today to say "Change THIS" like it was in the 60s.

 

Racism is much more nuanced and less visible today. Still there but it makes it difficult to get some to realize it's still an issue that needs to be addressed.

No one involved in this protest has ever said they were offended by the Anthem, or that the Anthem was the problem, nor have they discussed or asked that the Anthem not be played. And besides sporting events, where else do we regularly hear the Anthem played, or where else do we think the Anthem should be played and isn't??

 

And again, the Anthem isn't the issue.

 

What is the issue? CK and his ilk are peacefully protesting during the anthem, the anthem is the lightning rod to gain the attention. I get what you are saying, but you under estimate The Offended in this country.

What is the issue? CK and his ilk are peacefully protesting during the anthem, the anthem is the lightning rod to gain the attention. I get what you are saying, but you under estimate The Offended in this country.

 

True. The offended right now are upset over a song.

Correct. Much more difficult today to say "Change THIS" like it was in the 60s.

 

Racism is much more nuanced and less visible today. Still there but it makes it difficult to get some to realize it's still an issue that needs to be addressed.

 

True. In 2016 you have to have a Donald Sterling incident caught on a recording just to prove it exists and even then folks

will say it was an illegal recording and that his right to be racist has been violated.

That's a great question, and one that I think you are seeing those protesting struggling to answer. When someone aims to "fight social injustice" what exactly does that mean? State level, federal, person to person interactions? During the civil rights movement, it was much clearer that racism was actually institutionalized, not just perceived to be, with laws specifically targeting black people. Now a days, that isn't the case, where laws are no longer made to specifically disenfranchise and segregate people based on race.

 

Good point. It couldn't be proven in the court of law that OJ killed Nichole so I guess that people should quit saying he killed Nichole.

I think were going to have to agree to disagree. While you are right, that there were no physical confrontations or controversies, I don't think the MMM, lead by Louis is equivalent to the March on Washington...

 

Which brings me back to the original question. Despite what the thoughts are on the MMM, is a peaceful protest equal in size to the MMM or the March on Washington possible today?

 

Of course it is. Why wouldn't it be?

I'm not sure PP -- maybe an organized social media campaign ? Maybe CK could have went against NFL policy and highlighted a case ( there are plenty to choose from) where the cops screwed it up by writing something on his Uni , or he has quite a big name - call a press conference ? Marching is fine by me as well . My point was just because he was peaceful doesnt mean he didn't offend a ton of patriotic Americans who have never slighted or oppressed anyone .

 

I understood your point. My point is that when black people protest an issue is always taken with "how" they protest and not "why" they are protesting. Peaceful or not peaceful every single time there is an issue with how the protest is done. Candlelight vigils and hashtag activism haven't seem to have been effective.

I understood your point. My point is that when black people protest an issue is always taken with "how" they protest and not "why" they are protesting. Peaceful or not peaceful every single time there is an issue with how the protest is done. Candlelight vigils and hashtag activism haven't seem to have been effective.

 

It's called deflection. Folks would rather talk about the method of protest than truly deal with the issues. "Protesting the protest" is a lot more comfortable.