Miguel Tinoco
Professor: Johnny Black the Beloved
The School of the Prophets
Divinity 777
13 July 2016
To Riot or Not
to Riot
Regardless
of sect, party, religion, denomination or any other entertained and ingrained
cause or affiliation, we all face social, legal and political problems that
make our world undesirable. It is therefore unavoidable that offenses, injustices
and grievances may come to vex our souls from various sectors of our society as
a result of our perceived, achieved, accrued, denominated o marginal status in
our society. As activists for social justice
and as truth seekers, there are poignant issues that sooner or later we would
like to change, ameliorate, eliminate or even from which we wish to
emancipate.
Thus,
when seeking for redress of grievances, most people are unaware of the way the
law works each and every time for better or for worst by natural law, by the
laws of nature or by direct sanction from the Living God. Even the so called learned
or of high academic degree and standing ignorantly take digressing and
prevaricating stands of either favorable or opposing views by occupying the public
streets of our cities to protests and even to riot. Often irresistible, often intense, often
passionate, often scholarly, many of us are tempted and even coerced to “peacefully
protest,” in an orderly and satisfactory manner according to law. And others do it as it pleases them or at
will in disorder or riotous manner with intent to achieve their means to bring
about change. But no body draws the line
of legality or illegality of the actions taken however well intended and pure
their intentions may be.
Therefore,
the increasing and alarming and disproportionate number of police brutality
cases and deaths without due process; and the populist retaliation, hate,
distrust and even vengeful and heinous act against law enforcement officers are
things that should concern each and every one of us in America. Despite opposing viewpoints, these perils are
like fatal or nearly fatal traffic accidents. One day they may happen to our
neighbor, the next day to a friend or relative, but it may also happen one day to
us. Not doubting that a problem exists, what is the smart thing to do? Should we cry loud like obnoxious babies and
protest and demonstrate stirring the voice of the people, and by so doing
occupy main street as we have hitherto seen a great many people do all over our
cities? Should we do nothing by
suffering the ill will and oppression of others and let it all fade away in
peace and in silence? Or should we do it
the right way the first time? The answer is obvious, but what is the right
thing to do, doing nothing being the worst option.
Even
though they are as well minorities, we don’t often see a great many German
Americans; Italian Americans; American Jews, or Chinese Americans take the
streets to protest against police brutality or racial injustice. Nor do we see,
Scottish American or Irish Americans or even Legal and Wall Street Americans,
much less we ever see the fraternity of police taking over the streets in rebellion
against us or their bosses having to do the work that nobody else would do. But
we often see African American, Hispanic Americans and the LGBT and pro-abortion
and pro-life do to demonstrate, to call our attention, and to vigorously
promote their cause, but those actions almost never achieve their redress of grievances
or socio political means they seek.
One
journalist eloquently voiced his forceful claims from the comfort of his desks.
His name is Juan Thompson. He claims
that despite the despicable and cowardly murders to unsuspecting law
enforcement officials, that Americans should keep remonstrating against police
brutality. He omits that the heinous crime he mentions in his articles were
also committed against the state. And I
strongly agree with Thomson, but only as long as it is done the proper way by
those Americans that have been directly affected by police brutality, not an
unrestrained mobocracy which has the potential to destabilize the whole country. I don’t have a problem listening and even
promoting Thomson’s arguments as long as they come and go as his article, even
as a letter or as an official petition for redress of grievances to the
pertinent authorities and instances as the moral character law of the land and
the people dictates, supports and requires.
It
is not protesting or seeking for justice what we are arguing here, but how
should we do it assertively to ensure a fair outcome for the parties involved.
Too much is at stake here. The social problems that we face and which affect
our most cherished rights, our lives, our liberty and our property will not fade
away in smoke like the savannah on fire.
Nor will the social issues we face sink out of view like a stone in a
river. We should not expect to win or to
lose as if what is at stake was a game of hazard. Throwing other’s people money
at our social problems like most politicians hypocritically do, only to satisfy
judgments, torts to the affected parties, and to gather statistics and to
sustain dead causes, only brings more opportunity to vultures by adding corruption
to grief. Concealed intent of those who gain by the grief of the fallen only compounds
the matter louder than the powers that shake the earth.
In
an article titled "Americans Must Continue Protesting Police Brutality,"
(Thompson), the aforementioned author insists that despite the gruesome
execution of police officers, nobody in this country should be requested to
desist from validating in the free exercise of their agency their
constitutional rights to protest against police brutality. Moreover, giving us
many undeniable facts, in his contending perspective, Thompson claims that even
though the deaths of civilians and police officers in like comparison, the
American people should not succumb or soften their resolve to stop protesting
against abused against African Americans. In sum, he believes that blacks are entitled to
continue to protest, arguing that America's police officers have a
well-established history of such racial and brutal abuses, and I can only partially
believe him. But he is racially biased by
implicating all the police officers of America for the heinous acts of a few
rogues. In his articles, Thomson stresses
that only Black Lives Matter. He ignores the importance of the lives of us Hispanics,
of the Muslim, of Asians and of other less advantaged American immigrants. And
most importantly, he undermines the very lives of our most hated and yet our
most devoted first citizens, even our police officers whose only crime is to love
and uphold the law. Thompsons’s approach,
though well intended, does not address the legality of the liabilities and
dangers of protesting; and he loquaciously ignores all the other rebreathing
ills that result from occupying main street like what happened last week in Main
Street Dallas, Texas.
In
a more neutral to mild contrast, another article with somewhat opposing
viewpoints titled, “The Legitimacy of Protest: Explaining White Southerners'
Attitudes Toward the Civil Rights Movement.” (Andrews, Kenneth T., Kraig
Beyerlein, and Tuneka Tucker Farnum), the authors thereof discuss the legality
of protests and the protesting behavior of the American South. But they concentrate mainly on the logistics,
the conglomerate, the attendance, the context and they even explore the
plausibly, efficacy and inefficacy certain attitudes of protesters in the deep
south. They look at it materialistically
as a trade-off or as an enterprise. And yet in another mild to somewhat medium opposing
view article titled: "The use of Disruptive Tactics in Protest as a
Trade-off: The role of social Movement Claims."(Wang, Dan J., and
Alessandro Piazza.), the authors argue about how some calculating activists with
narrow objectives use and abuse the system by utilizing unruly and even riotous
maneuvers to attain their revolutionary means.
While those who activist that allege a broader spectrum use more lenient
protesting procedures aim to exclude seething up the masses to violence. And it
is interesting to note, that they use quite an extensive database to attempt to
scientifically establish their claims. Citing the direct source’s abstract, “With
data on over 23,000 protest events in the United States between 1960 and 1995…We
discuss the implications of our results for social movement theory and the
dynamics of collective violence.” (Wang, Dan J., and Alessandro Piazza.) But data alone cannot reason on its own. At the end, when all is said and done, fear,
blood poured as dust, hate, money, numbers, rhetorical speeches, corpses dumped
as dung and coffins of patriots and tyrants filled with dry bones don’t add
up.
It
appears that the well-intended articles only circle the issues, but don’t give
us a shooting solution, nor do they address the main point, the rights to
protests by as Thomson conveniently claims.
They don’t give us an absolute statement of certainty indicating to the
individual and to the masses whether it is legal or not to protest and take
main street; or whether it is good or counterproductive to occupy private or
public spaces to achieve their demonstrating or protesting means which more
often than not end up in turmoil and more bloodshed.
As
a fully endowed priest, an authority in my own right, fully skilled in the
affairs of a kingdom and knowing by heart the commandments, the laws, statutes,
judgments of GOD as recorded in holy writ and beyond as well as a prophet; and
also being familiar with the US constitution and the express purpose thereof; and
being under solemn oath and covenant to observe, defend, uphold and promote, I
know with absolute certainty what is the right things to do. Contrary to opinions and delusions that are in
contradiction, regardless of cause, whether just or unjust, in most cases, I testify
and declare in the name of Jesus Christ, that it is unlawful and
counterproductive to stir public insurrection or to occupy main street in
protests, when the constitutional character of a moral law with standing
guarantees which provide assertively and beautifully for redress of grievances,
or else. References and supporting evidence of my
claims are available and can be given at any moment to anyone upon request.
Sources
Cited
Andrews,
Kenneth T., Kraig Beyerlein, and Tuneka Tucker Farnum "The legitimacy of
protest: explaining white Southerners' attitudes toward the civil rights
movement." Social Forces 94.3
(2016): 1021+. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 11 July 2016
Thompson,
Juan. "Americans Must Continue Protesting Police Brutality." Police
Brutality. Ed. Michael Ruth. Farmington Hills, MI: Greenhaven Press, 2016.
Opposing Viewpoints. Rpt. from "Don't Stop the Protests Against Police
Brutality—Black Lives Still Matter." firstlook.org. 2014. Opposing
Viewpoints in Context. Web. 11 July 2016.
Wang,
Dan J., and Alessandro Piazza. "The use of disruptive tactics in protest
as a trade-off: the role of social movement claims." Social Forces 94.4
(2016): 1675+. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 11 July 2016.
No comments:
Post a Comment