Tuesday, July 12, 2016

To Riot or Not to Riot

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