Tuesday, August 16, 2016
WRONG QUESTION, RIGHT QUESTION?
We have used riots or the threat of them as a political weapon at least since Parliament passed the Stamp Act if not before then! I invite you, dear readers, to have a look at groups who have done so!
'Whiskey rebels' (hic) 1794
Anti-Catholic rioters in Boston---that's right, BOSTON--burning down an Ursuline nunnery in 1834
Same reason for rioting in Philadelphia in 1844 and the burning of three Catholic churches
Then, of course, it didn't take long at all for the newly arrived Taigs to copy their Ulsterite adversaries (and quite possibly the #1 pros at riots!) and actually seize control of New York City for four horrific days in the sweltering July of 1863 and murdering every person of color they could grab! Memphis in 1866, Chicago and Detroit in 1919, the complete destruction of the 'Black Wall Street' in Tulsa in 1921 and the same crime committed on Rosewood, FL,two years later. Not to mention innumerable lynchings, most between 1890 and about 1940, such as the one photographed at Marion, Indiana! And in NONE of those cases EXCEPT the NYC Draft Riots was there any use of police or military to quell those riots or prevent any lynchings! What was the 'law's' response? "Waal, I guess these yere good ole boys need to kill n***ers now an' ag'in." That's what!
But, lo and behold, the complexion of the rioters started to change about the time of WWII--and THAT'S when rioting started to be something done by Other People as opposed to an appallingly legitimate response to 'n***ers' becoming more prosperous than white trash!!
There was a reversion to the old way in Boston in 1975. Anyone remember that, or even care to remember?
MLK once said, riots are the language of the unheard. I wonder what he'd have to say about the razing of Greenwood and Rosewood and so on? Perhaps I'll find out on the Other Side. No, rioting was delegitimized when, and almost exclusively when (Draft Riots again being the sole exception!) the skin tone of the rioters darkened!
And now, before I skedaddle and hear the large sigh of relief behind me, allow me to turn about 90 degrees as I take Trumpty Dumpty to task about 'EXTREME vetting'. In order to know who to exclude (and, if anyone asks me, who to also exile among many current citizens who call themselves 'Christians') we need ask only one question, because a truthful answer should not be possible to fake. The question is, "What does it mean to have a 'wall of separation' between religion and state, and why is this indispensable for civilized life today?" If anyone knows a credible way to fake an honest answer to that question, please share it with the rest of us. In the meantime, mull over 1) how difficult it is to lie a credible answer to my question and 2) our abiding hypocrisy about riots!
Oh yeah--and if y'all like this post, please share it!