Showing posts with label Civil Unrest. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Civil Unrest. Show all posts

Friday, March 29, 2024

Friday, March 29, 1974. Kent State Indictments

Eight members of the Ohio National Guard were indicted by a Federal Grand Jury for violation of civil rights due to the shooting of thirteen students at Ken State in 1970.  Five of the charges were felonies.


All the charges would be dismissed for lack of sufficient evidence on November 8.

The Chinese Terracotta Army of Qin Shi Huang was discovered.  The massive statuary army was built to protect the Emperor, who was interred around 210 BC to 209 BC in the afterlife.

Speed limits on British highways, which had been reduced due to the Oil Embargo, were restored.

The Volkswagen Golf was introduced as the replacement for the Beetle.

Related threads:

The Tragedy At Kent State


Last prior edition:

Monday, March 18, 1974. Embargo lifted.

Thursday, December 28, 2023

Friday, December 28, 1923. Plays, No Picketing, and Radio.


 Premiered on this day.

And in Casper, the City Council banned picketing, while people looked forward to a radio station commencing operations.



Wednesday, December 27, 2023

A Presupposition: Office Hours: Are today’s campus protests against the war in Gaza as justified as were campus protests against the Vietnam War?

I can't read this one as the paywall subscriber thing applies to it.

Office Hours: Are today’s campus protests against the war in Gaza as justified as were campus protests against the Vietnam War? 

Here's the thing, though. The headline presupposes the Boomer Generation protests on campuses during the Vietnam War were "justified", at least in some fashion.

Perhaps they were, but it is a presupposition, not something that is necessarily automatically a fact.

Which is not to say every protest on campus today regarding the Hamas War is justified, although it isn't to state that ones which are not anti-Semitic, but based on something else (if there are any), do not have some justification.

Thursday, June 22, 2023

Tuesday, June 22, 1943. Race Riots in Detroit, Cruxhaven bombed,


Today in World War II History—June 22, 1943: In Detroit race riot, 24 Blacks & 9 whites are killed, 800 wounded (75% of the wounded are Black), 1800 arrested (80% Black); governor requests federal troops.

From Sarah Sundin's blog. 

It's worth recalling that the Detroit riots came hard on the heels of the Zoot Suit Riots.  The US was obviously not doing well with race relations in the heat of the war, or perhaps more properly the heated economy, mass movement of people, and the induction of huge numbers of men into the service were bringing the nation's race problems to a head.

The U.S. Army Air Force bombed Cuxhaven, the second heaviest raid of the war to date by the US, losing 16 aircraft. This compared favorably to the June 11, raid, in which it had lost 85.

A large exhibit of captured German equipment was held in Gorky Park.

Tuesday, June 20, 2023

Sunday, June 20, 1943. Race riots in Detroit, Action in the Pacific.

A three-day race riot that would result in the deaths of 34 people broke out in Detroit, starting at the Belle Island park as a fistfight.

Race riots were a feature of Detroit life for many years. The city had been a major destination during the Great Migration, given its industrial employment opportunities.

The Allies commenced the New Georgia Campaign against the Japanese.  The first action was a Marine Corps landing on the Kula Gulf on New Georgia.


The Battle of Lababia Ridge began on New Guinea, with Australians advancing on Japanese positions.  The battle would last for three days and result in an Australian victory.

Sarah Sundin noted that Oscar Holmes became the first black pilot in the U.S. Navy on this day, but only because the Navy was not aware that the light skinned Holmes was in fact black.


The Navy did discover his ethnicity later on, but by that point judged that it would have been too embarrassing to note it in any fashion.

A U.S. meteorological flight over northern Quebec discovered the The Pingualuit Crater (Cratère des Pingualuit:), formerly called the "Chubb Crater" and later the "New Quebec Crater" (Cratère du Nouveau-Québec).


Thursday, June 15, 2023

Tuesday, June 15, 1943. Riots in Beaumont.

Riots occurred in Beaumont, Texas, a city just to the north of Port Arthur, when white men, half employed by the Pennsylvania Shipyards, attacked homes, businesses and automobiles of African Americans.

Acting Governor A. M. Aiken had to call out the wartime Texas State Guard and deploy Texas Rangers, while also declaring martial law.

It was the first flight of the jet engined German bomber, the Arado Ar 234.


The twin engined jet bomber was the first of its kind in the world, and would enter service in the fall of 1944, too late to be of consequence.

Tuesday, May 30, 2023

Sunday, May 30, 1943. Clash in Los Angeles.

A clash between servicemen and Mexican American Zoot Suiters set the stage for the Zoot Suit Riots that would erupt several days later.

The conflict, like so many over the centuries, erupted in a contest for the potential affection of women who were nearby.  They commenced when a sailor, fearing he was going to be attacked, grabbed the arm of a Zoot Suiter and was badly attacked himself.

The All-American Girls Baseball League began its first 108-game season with four teams (Rockford, Kenosha, Racine, and South Bend).

Thursday, May 25, 2023

Tuesday, May 25, 1943. Conferences and riots.

Today in World War II History—May 25, 1943: 80 Years Ago—May 25, 1943: At the Trident Conference, Allied Combined Chiefs decide to plan for a 1 May 1944 invasion of Europe.

So notes Sarah Sundin, who also noted race riots that occurred in Mobile, Alabama in which white workers rioted over the promotions of twelve black workers, all of whom were injured in the riots.


Wednesday, April 26, 2023

Monday, April 26, 1943. Intrepid launched.

 

USS Intrepid in 1944.

The USS Intrepid was launched in Newport News.  The aircraft carrier would serve throughout World War Two and two following wars, and be decommissioned in 1974. She is a museum ship today, docked in the Hudson in New York, and served as the FBI operations center following the September 11 attacks on New York.

Riots broke out at Uppsala, Sweden between Swedish Nazis and anti-Nazi demonstrators.

Saturday, November 26, 2022

Thursday, November 26, 1942. Casablanca premiers, Battle of Brisbane

When I first posted this (written yesterday, went up early this morning) I failed to appreciate that this was Thanksgiving Day for 1942.

Now, of course, most of the day is gone.

Usually when something like this comes up, I ponder on what that must have meant for my family at the time, so I've added that below.



The legendary film Casablanca, truly one of the best movies ever filmed, premiered at the Hollywood Theater in New York in advance of its general release.

The movie is a fantastic film that holds up today.  Amazingly, the film as we know it barely came together, with casting changes and the like.  Paul Henreid proved aloof during the film, regarding the other actors as lessors, and the film was overall one that shouldn't have worked out as well as it truly did.

It's one of my favorite films.

Today In Wyoming's History: November 261942  Lusk announces they will forgo outdoor Christmas lights in accordance with a request from the War Production Board.  Attribution.  Wyoming History Calendar.

Riots broke out in Brisbane, Australia, between US servicemen and Australian servicemen.

This was not a minor incident, and one Australian serviceman was killed.  While generally Americans and Australians got along well, the disproportionately high pay of American serviceman was a source of problems all over the world, as merchants would cater to them, and it gave them an advantage with local women.  American soldiers were also freer with physical affection towards Australian women which offended Australians even though, ironically, the culture was much more libertine in the same arena behind closed doors.  

Additionally, Americans were dismissive of Australian soldiers in general, even though at the time they were all volunteer and had served in the war since 1939.  Australians were disdainful in turn of Americans who had, right up until about this time, a record of defeat.

The whole thing came to a head, resulting in two days of riots, the news of which was later suppressed.

President Franklin Roosevelt ordered gasoline rationing expanded to include the entire United States, effective December 1.

Speaking of a situation that involved the use of fuel, German 6th Army Commander Paulus, trapped at Stalingrad with his troops, wrote to his superior, Von Manstein, as follows:
For the past thirty-six hours I had received no orders or information from a higher level. In a few hours I was liable to be confronted with the following situation:
(a) Either I must remain in position on my western and northern fronts and very soon see the army front rolled up from behind (in which case I should formally be complying with the orders issued to me), or else

(b) I must make the only possible decision and turn with all my might on the enemy who was about to stab the army from behind. In the latter event, clearly, the eastern and northem fronts can no longer be held and it an only be a matter of breaking through to the south-west.

In case of (b) I should admittedly be doing justice to the situation but should also - for the second time - be guilty of disobeying an order.

(3) In this difficult situation I sent the Fuhrer a signal asking for freedom to take such a final decision if it should become necessary. I wanted to have this authority in order to guard against issuing the only possible order in that situation too late.
...
The airlift of the last three days has brought only a fraction of the calculated minimum requirement (600 tons = 300 Ju daily). In the very next few days supplies can lead to a crisis of the utmost gravity.

I still believe, however, that the army can hold out for a time. On the other hand - even if anything like a corridor is cut through to me - it is still not possible to tell whether the daily increasing weakness of the army, combined with the lack of accommodation and wood for constructional and heating purposes, will allow the area around Stalingrad to be held for any length of time.
While Paulus was asking for freedom of action, in Von Manstein's view the 6th Army lacked sufficient fuel to accomplish even minor movements, making a breakout by the 6th Army impossible.

As noted, this was Thanksgiving Day for 1942.

That is, US Thanksgiving Day.

Unlike Americans seem to think, most countries have a Thanksgiving of some sort.  It's very common for Christian countries. The U.S. can't really claim to have had "the first Thanksgiving", although we do.

However, not all countries have Thanksgiving on the same day by any means, so this was the holiday date for the U.S. in 1942.

On this day I know my father's family would have gathered for a Thanksgiving Dinner and it would have been the traditional type, turkey, etc.  It likely would have been, however, just my father's immediate family, but which I mean his parents and siblings.  No aunts or uncles lived nearby, they were living in Scotsbluff, and the grandparents were in Denver and Iowa respectively.

My father and his siblings would have been on a holiday break from school of course.  It was the first Thanksgiving of the war, but none of them were old enough to really be directly impacted by it yet.

Monday, January 31, 2022

Blog Mirror: Just Another Day On the Prairie. Thoughts on "Freedom Day" and the spirit of the times.


I really hesitate to post this, as I don't want it to seem to be some sort of an endorsement.  I'm copying it over as a link for another reason.

Freedom Day

This is from the following blog:

Just Another Day On The Prairie

The diary and musings of an Alberta ranch wife.

So, what of it?

I like this blog as the photos on it are beautiful.  

And also, as a Wyomingite, and a rural one, and an agricultural one in one of my three vocations/avocations, Alberta is part of the same region I'm from, different country though it is.

Indeed, I sometimes think Easterners don't really grasp that in a lot of ways, natives of the Rocky Mountain Region and the Prairie states have more in common with the Canadian western provinces than they do with any other region of their own country.  Indeed, they have quite a bit in common with the highly rural ares of northern Mexico as well, but they very much do with western Canada.

Rural Western Canadians are part of the exact same agricultural/livestock/hunting/rural culture that real Western Americans, not imports from other regions, including quite frankly the South, are from.  Indeed, ranching in Alberta has the same roots as ranching in Wyoming, Montana and Colorado do.  At one time ranchers went back and forth across the border as if it wasn't there.  Many of Charles Russell's paintings of ranch life are actually set in Alberta, not Montana.

So not too surprisingly, rural Albertans, and rural Canadians from much of the rest of the Canadian West, have the same views that rural Western Americans do.

This isn't really true, I'd note, of Canadians as a whole. While I don't mention it often, I'm a dual citizen and hold Canadian as well as American citizenship, but my Canadian relatives are all Eastern Canadians by origin, and their views are extremely different on many things than Western Americans' are.

Now, I mean to be careful here, as I do not wish to offer insult.

When I speak of the views of Wyomingites, Montanans, and rural Coloradans, etc., I'm speaking of their views.  I'm not speaking of the views of Texans and Oklahomans.

I'm not slamming Texans and Oklahomans here.

I'm noting this, because we're an oil province here, we have lots of people here, from time to time, who come from the oil provinces of Texas and Oklahoma.  Interestingly, as Alberta and Saskatchewan are also oil provinces, we also have quite a few people from these regions who make an appearance as well, although they don't tend to have much of an influence on local culture and politics.  Indeed, they're pretty quiet on both, and they'd nearly have to be on the latter, as of course they can't vote after being here a year. Texans and Oklahomans can, of course.  I note this as during oil booms the latter groups tend to be somewhat influential in local politics, and often their local views are imported.  Canadians in the US tend to be really quiet if they're not in numbers.

Canadians in Canada are not, and to a fair degree, prior to COVID 19 Canadians were expressing a fair amount of contempt for American culture.  Donald Trump really brought it on.[1]

Note, I'm still not commenting on any of this.

What I will note is that open contempt tend to inspire contempt back, and people should be careful about that.

Anyhow, what I"m now noting is that Western Canada has had, for a long time, the same relationship with the Canadian East that the Western United States tend to with our East, and this entry really shows that.  Note:

This Convoy is not just for the truckers mandates. It’s for the 30 million people that Trudeaus government approved to allowed to be spied on their cell phones. It’s for the family members banned from visiting family in nursing homes. It’s for the censorship on all social media platforms. It’s for all the people afraid to speak In fear of being called conspiracy theorists. It’s for the people who didn’t want to give up their freedom of choice! It’s for the people who don’t want to give up their right to bear arms. It’s for the people who don’t want to be in debt for the next 100 years. 

Did you just read a Canadian post referencing a "right to bear arms".

Yes you did.

Now, this post also deals with a lot of other things, and as is typically the case, most Americans are going to be completely clueless about what's going on.  We don't tend to follow Canadian news here, and we don't tend to get it.  Both are inexcusable.

I do, or at least I used to. With the news being what it is recently, I've grown a bit numb to it.  Well, really numb.  I was aware, vaguely, that something was going on, but not that aware.  I had to look it up.

I looked it up on the BBC.

The BBC's Toronto reporter notes (original font, bold text and mother tongue speallings):

After a week-long drive across Canada, a convoy of big rigs has arrived in the national capital to protest vaccine mandates and Covid-19 measures. Organisers insist it will be peaceful, but police say they're prepared for trouble.

The article goes on:

The movement was sparked by a vaccine mandate for truckers crossing the US-Canada border, implemented by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's Liberal government earlier this month.

Upset with the new measure that would require unvaccinated Canadian truckers crossing the two nations' boundary to quarantine once they've returned home, a loose coalition of truckers and conservative groups began to organise the cross-country drive that began in western Canada.

It picked up steam and gathered support as it drove east. Many supporters, already opposed to Mr Trudeau and his politics, have grown frustrated with pandemic measures they see as political overreach.

Okay, a couple of things.

I've thought about noting it before, but because we're so focused on our own selves in the US, we tend to view the entire COVID 19 mask and vaccine story as exclusively our own.  Heck, for the most part, if the entire population of the globe had died of COVID 19 it probably would have taken most Americans a couple of weeks to actually notice it.

We tend to be rather self-absorbed.

Part of that self-absorption, however, is our failure to note that a lot of big social and political stores around here are actually international ones  and some of those have widespread regional expression.  

There have been huge mask protests in Australia and parts of Europe, including, for example, Germany. Refusals to vaccinate have occurred in at least Australia and across Europe as well.

Now, I'll note that as I'm not hugely familiar with this story, I don't want to go too far in commenting on it.  I was dimly aware of some provisions in Canada as a friend of mine had recently been to British Columbia, and I'd asked him about things, and he noted mask requirements for where he was, stating beyond that bluntly that Canadians "didn't tolerate stupidity".  That's a very blunt comment, but I'd also note that my Canadian contacts also would not be critical of Prime Minster Trudeau's policies here.  Frankly, I don't know that I am, either.

On that, our luck in our small family finally ran out.  My daughter now has COVID 19.  I'm so weary at this point, I'm not angry, and hopefully it'll be mild.  She's away from home and I can't do anything about it, or even to help.

And I've watched COVID 19 rip through places I know and people I know.  I don't understand the reluctance to get vaccinated at all.  A rancher I vaguely knew died of COVID 19 and left a devastated widow.  A bunch of people who were with him at a cattle sale where he surely picked it up got it and were pretty sick.  My daughter got the disease, potentially, from being exposed to a person who didn't get vaccinated and who went here and there before that person finally had to acknowledge the infection.

None of that had to be.

Maybe we couldn't have beat the virus.  But our refusals made it certain that we could not.  It will go on to become endemic now.  Is Trudeau being unreasonable for trying to keep American infections from spreading back across the border?

Without really commenting on it, this may be the one area where I agree with Trudeau.  I haven't followed Canada's response to COVID 19 now for some time (I did at first) but Canada has had a hard time with the disease. The US started off with a bad start, but Canada somehow fell into a bad situation.

I'll also note that at this point Canadian news in the US started to drop off because, well, Canadians were suddenly less condescending towards the United States than they had been for awhile.  As the weirdeness surrounding the Trump lie that he won an election he lost has caused many in the US to wonder about the future of their democracy, and many outside of the country to wonder the same thing, that's returned a bit.

That might drop off again as Trudeau went into hiding yesterday during the protests. . . shades of insurrection. . . 

Anyhow, as noted, I don't know that I'm not sympathetic to Trudeau's response here to COVID 19.  Truckers are entering a country where the Omicron variant is infecting many and the chances of them bringing it home. . . well, they seem pretty high.

Which will make this the one area where I'll ever say that, most likely.  I don't like Justin Trudeau as a politician, and I never have.  Indeed, I've characterized him as a soy boy at one point.  

It used to be pretty clear that Western Canadians took a much different view of a lot of Canadian politics than Easterners did, and obviously that's still the case. But for that matter, our regional political culture used to be a lot clearer here, too.  Things like gun control have always been hugely unpopular in the rural West, but even here that's gone from "don't mess with me taking my pistol and rifle out in the sticks" to the "we need to be prepared to fight Stalingrad" sort of atmosphere.  And, starting with the campaign which pitted our current Governor against Foster Freiss, you'd have thought that some people were running for the Governor of Alabama in the 1970s.  Freiss' campaign even sported lightly clad young women in a state which has winter about nine months out of the year, which inspires a "geez, doesn't somebody have a coat for those poor girls" type of reaction rather than a "whoa. . . look at those Daisy Dukes".  Underlying it all, however, the old views, by us old residents, are still there.

Globally it seems a lot of the same strains are also at work everywhere.  Populism, something that never had much of an appeal here, has taken over in the state's GOP and across the nation in Republican organizations.  But not just here.  Populism helps explain how Boris Johnson rose to power in the UK.  Populist dominate the Hungarian government, which is strongly right wing.  Populists threaten to take over the Polish government.  Strong populist elements exist in French politics, and you can find populist elements everywhere.

That would seemingly have nothing to do with COVID 19 and it doesn't, but what it does have to do with is politics in the era of COVID, so it gets mixed in. And there's a really strong cultural element at work here that the political left wants to dismiss and even pejoratively label, but it shouldn't.  A big part of what's given rise to right wing populism is a feeling that traditional culture is being attacked.  To some degree, it is being attacked.

That's serious for a lot of reasons, but one of the reasons is that in the US, and elsewhere it would seem, a lot of rank and file people who are of the traditional culture feel that they have nowhere to go democratically.  People who are basically traditionally Western European and Christian in culture are being told that clearly Christian values are obsolete, their inherited European values are wrongheaded if not outright racist, and they just have to lump it, at best.  

A big part of that has been a radical reconstruction of domestic values, which are inherited from a Christian heritage. Christianity has always focused on families as the center of secular life, and took what was the radical view early on that marriage meant one man, one woman, until one of them died.  Pagans didn't believe any of that.

That Christian belief, in part, gave rise to the success of Christianity in spite of huge governmental and cultural repression.  Christian families were solid because of that belief, and Christians cared for their own in times of trouble, even caring for others where they could.  They therefore survived repression, oppression, wars, and plagues in spite of being in cultures that held "don't be stupid, you can abandon the sick. . .don't be stupid, you can kill the infirm. . . don't be stupid, if you are male you can screw who or what you want, and by force if you want."

Now, we're darned near back there in signficant ways, although we certainly didn't arrive at this spot in an instant.  The assault on marriage began as far back, really, as 1534.  It arrived in a flood fashion after World War Two, with that war having damaged so much of Western morality, and achieved legal assistance from, of course, California starting in 1969.

European values, including democratic values, were also inherited from the Church  A body that held that everyone was equal in God's eyes necessarily would spill into the secular world.  Indeed, the poor and common born could and did rise to position in the Church long before that became the case in secular society.[2]

Western culture is essentially Christian in its values and even non practicing people, and non Christians for that matter, tend to hold Christian philosophical values without realizing it.  One non-Christian friend of mine, but one who lives in the Western world, noted to me once that culturally, "we're all Catholics".  There's a lot of truth to that.

But progressives have been acting for some time now to rip that down and are offering, in its place, a construct based on what individual's "feel", which is not a very solid basis for any sort of larger philosophy.  Reality keeps on keeping on, irrespective of what we feel about it.

And at the same time, progressives have been big on "you must", including what you must think.  It doesn't matter if your moral code holds one thing, if the current progressive view is to the opposite, you must not think that and you must not say that.  Canada has gone a lot further down this road than the U.S.

But that very "feel" and "must" ethos leads us to where we are now, ironically, in regard to the COVID 19 virus and what we feel about it.  While the science is solid as to what it is and how to avoid it, a nearly century long campaign on deconstructing our focus and changing it into one based on what we "feel", as long as we also feel to be consumers, set us up for the current crisis. And that dovetails into the "must".  A group of people who have been told that they "must" think something that is contrary to centuries of their cultural values and their own experiences, because of what we individually feel, is going to lose, at some point, a willingness to accept what its being told, no matter how extremely well founded one particular item may be.

In other words, introducing these same policies in 1950, in a different U.S. and a different Canada, probably wouldn't be provoking this result, as it would have come in the context of little else being under assault.

Whether it's a 500-year attack on our central foundational values, or only a 75-year-long one, at some point we reached a tipping point.  A good case can be made that for the United States that point came in 2015 and I warned at that time that a Supreme Court case in which the Court sought to redefine a traditional view of the world contrary to the long run of human culture would have future dire consequences.  It seems to me that I was proven to be right.  The Court, in its waning liberal days, usurped the legislatures, created a result, and those benefitting from it, as well as those who were on the political left, ran with it far beyond what was predicted, including what its author predicted.  Where as that result only took one more step on a road that had mile markers at 1534, 1953, 1963, 1968, and 1969, it seems to have been a societal bridge too far.  The same movement had already made large impacts across the globe legislatively, making the US somewhat unique in that it was done judicially.

It is not what a person thinks of that movement per se, but rather what occurs when a very large percentage of the population gets the sense, even just vaguely, that it's being attacked and has no place to go.  In the case of the US, a large, formerly Democratic demographic, has had its economic foundation stripped away and exported, and its traditional values eroded.  Much of that is a rust belt sort of thing, which is where the epicenter of discontent can be found.  But it spreads out elsewhere in areas of economic distress, including the rural West, where what we're essentially told is that we ought to get computer jobs and become urban cubicle dwellers.  Even our own governments aid in this process by eroding, on occasion, what local business there is.

As massive as the change is here, the post-war change is even more dramatic for Canadians.  Canada was a fundamentally conservative country founded in agriculture with a strong tie to the United Kingdom. Going into World War Two, most of Canada, outside of Quebec, was extremely rural and extremely British.  Quebec was divided, but the bulk of the Francophone population was not only very conservative, but rural and agrarian, the only thing that had kept it from being absorbed into the larger Canadian whole.

War, we've noted here, changes anything, and the Canada that came out of World War Two started to change pretty rapidly.  Not all at once, to be sure.  As late as the late 1950s, people moving to Toronto could expect to be moving to an essentially English city that closed up on Sundays entirely.  

Much of that has now been swept away. Canada is an urban country, like Australia is, with urban values.  The US is actually much more rural, by and large, than Canada, in spite of its much larger population.  But the rural areas do remain, and the strong East/West divide does as well.  What's also occurred, however, is a huge cultural shift in which Canada has become a very liberal country.

Or it makes pretense to being so.

In the homes, out on the farms and ranches, you'll get rumblings of another view.  Many I know, and again I know more in the East than the West, are certainly very "progressive" in outlook.  Nonetheless, I could never get a straight answer from anyone why people were enthralled with Justin Trudeau.  And in individual news I see the photos of people visiting the traditional Canada, including Canadians, not the side streets of the Second City.  

And out in the West, Western Canadians often seem distressed about how a society that isn't and wasn't that much different than the Western US has become so controlled in a fashion.  The comment on the Canadian right to bear arms, which in Canadian law doesn't exist, is telling on that.

A lot of these same factors are playing out in every country in the Western world simultaneously.  This helps explain, I think, a lot of the reaction to masks and the like.  People have actually been upset with the direction of things dating back to the 1980s, or even the 1970s.  They're reacting now. What probably pushed them over the edge, however, happened before COVID 19.

These are dangerous times.  The assumption that democracy is an inevitably victorious force is an assumption, not an historical fact.  History teaches us that when a large minority feels it can get no voice, it puts a country at risk.  In those times, the people who tend to pick up the voice are: 1) demagogues (Huey Long, Donald Trump, 2) Caudillos (Franco, Petain) and would be Caesars (Hitler, Putin).

Of course, in such times others can rise to save the day, and that's more often the case.

It's clear that the United States is a lot more down this disastrous path than Canada is, but the protests show that it isn't the case that everyone in Canada is thrilled with the path its been on since, really, 1945.  The same forces are at work in nearly every Western democracy right now.

The solution?  

That may be for true conservatives to offer.  Finding uncompromised ones who haven't sold out partially to populist and demagogues is pretty tough in the US right now, however.  Canada's politics are different, so perhaps they have a different path forward.

Footnotes

1.  Anyone who is a dual citizen or who has Canadian relatives probably speant some time trying to explain Donald Trump and often being embarrased for the country by having to explain Trump.

At the same time, we also would occasionally get unsolicited emails and comments from Canadian friends who were big Trump fans, but had to keep their opinions more or less silent themselves, which is also embarassing as they would tend to assume that any American they knew probably held the same view.  Indeed, the assumption that everyone you know personally holds the same views you do is probably a default human assumption.

2.  Indeed, the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church's prohibition on clergymen marrying came about in order to prevent the priesthood from becoming an inherited position.  After the seperation of the English Church from the Catholic Church in 1534 this was changed in in the UK and in the UK itself the priesthood did become somewhat of an inherited position.

Saturday, November 20, 2021

Cliffnotes of the Zeitgeist Part XXIII. Trial, what trial? Looking for a fight. Free Peng Shuai. Leisure, rights and politics.

Eh?

There's a widespread assumption that lawyers follow criminal trials because they're lawyers.

That's incorrect.

For the second time in recent months, I've been asked by somebody what I thought of 1) the accusations against Kyle Rittenhouse and the 2) trial of Kyle Rittenhouse.

This presume that I'm following anything in regard to Kyle Rittenhouse. 

I know a little more about his situation than I did a couple of days ago, but only as I started to pay a little more attention after it was brought to my attention for the third time.  

The first time I was in a trial myself and was called by a client.  "What do you think about the accusations against Rittenhouse?".

I had no idea what this referred to, even though I was dimly aware that some teenager carrying a M4 style carbine had killed somebody in a disturbance somewhere.  More recently, the same person asked what I thought of about was coming out at the trial.

"I've been so busy, I haven't been following it".

That was true, but only partially so.  I wasn't following it, and I am very busy, but I don't usually follow criminal trials anyhow.

Finally, I was in a deposition when the verdict came in. The deponent actually had his phone set to rig a bell when the news came in, he was following it so closely.  He actually asked if we could take a break to read about it.

No break.

In the next break, none of the lawyers discussed it. One spoke about his upcoming holiday where he was going to a Ferrari race car driving school. That did sound pretty interesting.

This brings up a couple of things.

Living by the sword

Marines in Hue.  If you want to live like this constantly, there are places that you can do it for real, rather than pretending that it's about to happen here.

I knew a former University of Wyoming football player who didn't follow football at all.  He was always caught flat-footed when somebody asked his opinion on football matters.  He'd played football and presumably liked it, but he just didn't follow it after his college athletic career concluded   

I get that.

If you work every day in the law, you have a lawyers prospective, but given that, you likely know that there's a lot nobody knows about anything being tried and, moreover, the Press isn't very good at reporting trials anyhow.  

And frankly, most criminal trials are exclusively local news stories, not worth reporting on as big national news. This one is a slight exception, but it's getting a lot more press than it deserves and people are drawling conclusions which likely aren't merited.

One big conclusion is that lawyers are a lot less interested in the "big news" trials than other people seem to be.

There's probably a reason for that.

So what I now know is this.

Ritterhouse was 17 years old and went to a protest carrying a M4 type carbine.  The protest was racially charged and arose from an earlier Kenosha police shooting of an African American man.  Ritterhouse, while only 17, had an association with the current right-wing populist militia type groups.  He spent part of the night marching around, much like the armed men in downtown Casper during a similar event last summer.

While there, he encountered a Joseph Rosenbaum. Rosenbaum had been belligerent all night and at some point chased Ritterhouse.  Somebody fired a shot in the air, and Rosenbaum lunged at Ritterhouse and tried to disarm him. Ritterhouse shot  and killed him. He then fled on foot and was pursued and physically attacked.  The last assailant pointed a pistol at him but was only wounded when Ritterhouse fired first.

With that set of facts, there is no crime to commit Ritterhouse of.  He acted in self-defense.

Which doesn't really excuse him, or indeed some of the crowd.

Some things to consider.

Ritterhouse is part of the delusional set that exists in our country that feels that they need to walk around like they live in Hue in 1968. They don't, and it's dumb.  It should stop.  Now he seems genuinely remorseful, but he'll live with killing two other humans for the rest of his life, and it'll be ages before he escapes what occurred.  Frankly, he probably ought to change his name and disappear for a long while.  Lt. Calley overcame his crimes, so Ritterhouse will this too, but it'll be a long time.

He shouldn't have been there.

Next, while this event was supposedly over the killing of a black man by the police, all those involved in these shootings were white.  White right-wing militia kid Ritterhouse and three white protestors. 

 Joseph Rosenbaum was being belligerent and was just out of the hospital after trying to commit suicide.  He was a convicted child molester.

He should have been in the hospital.

His family showed up to protest the results, complete with a sister with a nose ring.  I'm not going much further on this, but Ritterhouse was not only a mess, but at least a partially icky violent mess.  That he got shot isn't all that surprising.

The second shooting victim, Anthony Huber, had served two prison stints, one for domestic abuse and one for trying to choke his brother.  

The third guy, the one who was wounded, pointed his handgun at Ritterhouse "accidentally", but also had a criminal history.  He had a concealed firearms permit which, oddly enough, expired that day.

You can draw lessons from this, and the survivors should.  Almost none of them will be the ones that are bandied about by anyone.

And once again, African Americans, who do have a story to tell here, have had their thunder stolen by a bunch of youthful whites ended up playing out on the stage when this really ought to have been focused on something else.

Let the stupid comments begin

Notwithstanding the fact that most people don't understand how the legal system actually works, there will be floods of really bad punditry and for that matter just regular public comment as a result of the verdict. Some will demand that Ritterhouse be hauled in front of a Federal Court as they perceive that justice wasn't done, others will want to give him the Congressional Medal of Honor for being in the wrong place, at the wrong time, and with insufficient maturity not to appreciate that he wasn't Sgt. York.

Already I've seen a comment on a list serve that's usually dedicated to lost cats and such things.

Uff.

Free Peng Shuai


I skipped all the concern over Brittany Spears when it was rolling around.

I hope that Peng Shuai gets at least as much attention.

I don't follow women's professional tennis, which is no surprise as the only professional sport I really follow is baseball, and this year I couldn't even get into it.  At any rate, I take it that she is a well known, and Chinese, tennis star.

She recently accused Vice Premier Zhang Gaoli of forcing sex upon her.

It's actually more complicated, and frankly icky, than that.  It started off, apparently, as an off and on extramarital affair and concluded with an assault, she alleges, with guard posted outside of her door.

And she's now disappeared.

The Chinese are really resisting opening up on this, which demonstrates what a thugocracy it is. Sooner or later it'll fall, but right now it has a chokehold on the Chinese people and is looking to expand its brutal grip over Taiwan.

We only put up with this due to money.

The Chinese Communists are bad for everything.  They're bad for the Chinese, and they're bad for the environment.  It ought to stop.

The US is demanding to know what's up with her whereabouts.  The Chinese, who are used to simply offing the difficult, seem surprised and more than caught a little off guard.

The proletariat

The Peng episode brings up something that will play itself out in the coming years, and probably more rapidly than we might suspect.

Most of the Chinese are still very poor, but as they build a middle class, that middle class is not going to cooperate with being out of power.  There is already a Me Too Movement in China, and it's pretty clear the authoritarian government doesn't know what to do about it.  

This is no surprise as it doesn't know what to do with the democracy movement either.

The infusion of money into people's hands eventually transforms them into a class that wants some sort of power.  It doesn't always work perfectly at first, as Russia provides ample evidence of.  And on the flipside, rich capitalist countries can undermine themselves by failing to heed Jefferson's warnings about wide scale funding of the public feeding trough, which I suspect may relate to more in this post than people are willing to admit.

Chanteuse

Apparently Taylor Swift and Adele have new releases out.

M'eh.

Monday, March 8, 2021

March 8, 1971. The Fight Of The Century

Muhammed Ali was defeated on this day by Joe Frazier in what was billed The Fight Of The Century.

Boxing was still a really big deal in 1971 when, on this day, Muhammed Ali was defeated in the ring by Joe Frazier. The heavily promoted match in Madison Square Garden was heavily anticipated and went the full fifteen rounds, giving Frazier the heavyweight title by unanimous decision.

The self styled Citizens Commission to Investigate the FBI broke into the FBI's offices in Media, Pennsylvania and stole over 1,000 documents. The break in was timed to coincide with the boxing match, as the participants knew that it was likely to distract anyone who would otherwise hear them break in.  The stolen documents demonstrated that the FBI was engaged on spying on political entities, with most of them being left wing political entities.  They immediately offered the information to the press but it wasn't until the Washington Post started publishing from the materials that other papers followed suit.

This FBI was unable to determine the identity of the thieves and a five  year statute of limitations ran out, upon which they closed their investigation.  In the 2010s five of the eight members of the Commission agreed to be interviewed and identified for a book. Two chose to remain identified only by pseudonyms.  Only one of the members actually had taken flight following the theft.  It was the only action the Commission took during its existence, although two members were part of the Camden 28, a left wing Catholic youth organization that broke into the draft board in Camden, New Jersey, several months later, a fairly pointless act when its realized that the United States was drawing down from the Vietnam War at the time.  Those two were tried along with the rest of the 28 and found not guilty in 1973 in an act of jury nullification.

The event presents some interesting moral questions. The self styled commission had no authority other than its own, and it engaged in theft.   However, it did expose the FBI to having been engaged in illegal activity.

Monday, March 1, 2021

March 1, 1971. Lineups.

On this day in 1971, the radical Weather Underground set off a bomb in the U.S. Capitol, causing $300,000 in damage.  They phoned in a warning two hours prior to the bomb going off.

On the same day, President Nixon appointed George H. W. Bush Ambassador to the United Nations.  He was a 46 year old Senator from Texas at the time.


John Deacon joined the band Queen, completing its lineup.

Thursday, June 11, 2020

Signs of the times.

Gone With The Wind has been removed by HBO from its demand offerings.  The film (I've never read the book) definitely has racist elements, but should they have done that?

In some recent posts here I've noted how the services have banned the display of the Confederate battle flag on their installations.

That was long overdue and I was quite surprised, really, that it was allowed in any form at all now.  Having said that, I didn't take into account coffee cups and bumper stickers and things like that, which would make up most of the impacted displays.  A search for official, or even unofficial, U.S. military use of the Confederate flag failed to reveal any, although a long serving soldier (now long retired) indicated that you would see it in Vietnam from time to time.  A search for that did reveal an obviously posed instance of that, but I don't know the context.

If anyone has any more on this story, please post it as a comment.

Anyhow, as a Westerner who always found the Confederate flag offensive and who grasps why it's offensive to blacks, this is a good move by the services even its probably mostly symbolic.  If it isn't mostly symbolic, it's long overdue.

I'll note, fwiw, that we've posted on the Confederate flag here as long ago as 2016, so we're not taking a new position to be in the current midstream of popularity.  That thread was one of the few here that got a lot of posts, mostly by upset and made people, and for some time after it was posted it'd suddenly become one of the most popular ones of a day or week, as probably mostly made people stopped in to view it for some reason.

There's also a move to rename the ten U.S. Army installations named after Confederate generals in the 1917 to 1942 time frame.  That's more complex and I'll post on it here soon.

On the Confederate flag, NASCAR has now banned it.

NASCAR has is origins as a Southern sport in a very distinct way, and it grew out of rum running.  Many of its early racers were rum runners. I've never warmed up to it and never know anything about it. Indeed, I've cited NASCAR as a reason that you shouldn't have people who don't participate in an activity regulate it, as if I was put in charge of NASCAR there'd be no NASCAR.  It's not that I don't like it, I don't get it, and accordingly its one of those activities that I don't care anything about and if left to run it, I wouldn't.

Anyhow, NASCAR is a Southern thing in its origin and as late as the 1980s its easy to imagine the "Good Ole Boys" of "Hazard County" driving to a NASCAR event in the General Lee, with the Confederate battle flag painted on the roof.  Now it isn't.

Of course, NASCAR isn't a Southern thing anymore either.  It's gone national. Still, seeing NASCAR ban the flag is actually pretty surprising and significant.  I'll be really curious to see where this all leads as I suspect, but may be in error, it'll provoke a bit of a counter reaction from some fans.  Having said that, it really isn't a Southern thing at all like it once was, so I may very well be way off the mark and this will pass without a note.

For that matter, we may actually be in an era, which started a few years ago, in which symbols of the Southern cause in the Civil War are losing their appeal to Southerners in general.  Confederate symbols have been removed from state flags to a large degree.  I don't know if any remain. Those symbols were incorporated in the 20th Century during the Lost Cause era, but have pretty much come back off in the last few decades.  That was controversial itself, but it doesn't seem to be now.  Maybe modern Southerners have lost their attachment to the "Blood Stained Banner" that was their third national flag.

The "Blood Stained Banner" is the nickname given to that flag, and it wasn't actually adopted, oddly enough, as the Confederate standard until March 4, 1865, about a month away from their ultimate defeat.  It was closely based on the square standard adopted on May 1, 1863, however.  That the Confederacy would run around worrying about flags in the Spring of 1865 gives insight to the human mind and how it self distracts.  In March 1865 Confederate troops were departing the service of the Confederacy en masse and the war was all but over.  Nobody was making flags at that time and adopting a new one was really silly, but then even after Hitler killed himself in May 1945 the successor German administration appointed a national postmaster, as if they were delivering the mail.

That last flag was incorporated on a lot of Southern official and unofficial things thereafter, from state flags to the cover of Lynyrd Skynyrd albums, but that was a 20th Century thing starting in the early 20th Century.* One hundred years later, the opposite is going on pretty quickly.

One thing that's also going on is the mass defacement of monuments, here and abroad.  Included in these are two Christopher Columbus statutes which are claimed to have been seen by the vandals as symbols of "white supremacy".

Defacing monuments, even controversial ones, is really problematic if they've been up for awhile and tend to be a symbol of virtue signaling.  An oppressed population tearing down a statute of a current oppressor, such as Iraqi's treating down statutes of Saddam Hussein, are one thing, but a population tearing down an old symbol, like Russians toppling statues of Lenin, or Americans toppling down statutes of Columbus, are hypocritical to a large degree.  The same populations that do that are often the same ones who were all keen on putting them up in the first place, and would be again today if it fit the zeitgeist.  A population expressing their current view about a current figure is one thing, mobs defacing things of the past are quite another and don't tend to pass the test of time well.

One reason for that is that every single living human being is a descendant, every single one, of thieves, murderers, rapists and colonizers without any exceptions whatsoever.  This doesn't excuse past injustices of any kind, but much of this sort of activity is based on the concept that some group is uniquely to blame and that doesn't pass the smell test.

Colonizers may have been doing something we don't approve of now, but in the past it was a universal human activity.  The Spanish in Mexico, for example, defeated an imperial power in the form of the Aztecs, and that's just one example.  And while moderns might like to wring their hands on the Spanish in 1492, both in the New World and in Spain itself (the year that the Spanish Reconquista was completed, which was regarded as much more significant at the time), if we want to go back and correct all colonial injustices we have to recall that the Spanish were the victims of Berber and Arab Islamic colonization, and that the Berbers and the Arabs were the victims of Islamic Arabian Peninsula colonization, which came some years after the fall of Roman colonization, which of course was simply following in the wake of Greek colonization. . . etc. etc.  

Indeed, the anti colonial concept didn't exist in the world in any concrete form until the American Revolution created it in 1776, and it took us a long time to really hone that.  It didn't spread as a concept notably until Simon Bolivar picked it up some decades later, and as a global concept, well that really took Wilson's Fourteen Points for it to become rooted.

So the basic gist of it is, that before you lop of Columbus marble head, you better first look closely at your own culture and find the colonizers in it.  There will be some. That doesn't mean that taking in that fashion is justified, but it does mean that it is to some degree a human norm.  The concept that it should not be is a Christian one, and if we're going to adopt that view, and we should, we need to adopt all of what goes with it, which people generally aren't too keen on doing.  

Indeed, those inclined to assault a statute can't be presumed in total to have adopted the only set of values that would hold that the deeds of man, much of which are negative, should be regarded as folly.  It's unlikely that very many attending to a statues defacing are then going on to express vows of poverty and chastity so as to make their act pure.  Probably hardly any, as in none.

Finally, a person has to wonder where the societal statute of limitations applies to such acts.  If current populations are allowed to deface a current symbol, as noted, that would be one thing. But if defacing a statute of a 15th  Century figure is a good thing to do, would it accordingly be a good idea to take down statues of Caesar and Alexander, where they might be found, given that those guys were perfectly okay with a lot of things we might find offensive today?  Should the Pyramids and Egyptian monuments be destroyed, their antiquity notwithstanding, on the basis that the Egyptians were pretty bad, pretty often?  There are thousands of such examples that could easily be made. The point is that if you can justify defacing fairly old statutes on the concept that they represent oppression suffered by you and your ancestors, pretty soon you end up acting like the Taliban and are blowing down ancient monuments in the desert in the name of your own personal sense of the definition of purity.

In terms of symbols, HBO is removing Gone With The Wind from its stable of on demand offerings.

Gone With The Wind is largely viewed as a great film, but it has racist elements without a doubt.  At least one of the female black actresses, Butterfly McQueen, simply hated her role as she was portraying her character which, under the old studio system, I don't blame her for a bit.  I.e, she was forced to play a demeaning and insulting role.  The portrayals of blacks in the film are insulting and the romantic portrayal of Southern planters absurd.

Still, it's a great film, and that's the problem.  The story is, for all its flaws, and there are some whopping ones, engaging to watch and the technicolor filming is awesome.  Clark Gable's wry smiles and glances in the film make it worthwhile to watch all in themselves.  At the same time, it's Lost Cause sentiments are rampaging insulting to anyone with a sense of what the Civil War was about.

HBO, by doing that, is engaging in a little bit of cinematic book burning, sort of.  Gone With The Wind isn't Birth Of A Nation by any means.  If some of it, indeed a lot of it, is shockingly racist to watch, well that might serve to remind us of what the Lost Cause era was like and why we are where we are now, in terms of African Americans still suffering what they suffer.  Gone With the Wind came out in the late 1930s and tells us a lot about the views of that time, coming as it did right before World War Two and a good decade before the Federal Government started its push towards civil rights.

If HBO, and for that matter, all of the entertainment industry, wants to act in virtue and not just virtue signal, it might take a look at more contemporary offerings.  Hollywood is all about looking good but at the same time it's all about violence in films.  If you watch nearly any television channel you'll stray across a police show at some point, and it won't be long, in which burnt out police are using questionable tactics along with burn out DA's using questionable tactics to bring in the bad guys.  Indeed, entertainment centered on police went somehow from Car 54, in the 50s, to the "law and order" presentations of the 70s, something that was reflective of a public reaction to the protests of the 1970s, and it's never really come back.  It's funny how an industry that is the flagship of "Me Too", rediscovering old values and branding them as new, so as to not have to really adhere to them in depth, hasn't really grasped this one yet.  If life imitates what passes for art, we shouldn't have much doubt on why we fall so short.

In other news, Starbucks, which like to do virtue signalling itself, is closing 400 stores in a shift to a takeout marketing strategy.  This is no doubt as a result of the Coronavirus Pandemic.

I'm not personally keen on Starbucks even though I really like coffee.  Part of this is simply because I don't like their coffee very much.  Quite a bit of it is, in my limited experience, blisteringly acidic.  I like good coffee but I don't like feeling that I just drank something that was brewed to strip paint from a merchant tanker making an overall call to a dry dock in Seattle.  But in addition to that I really hate chain merchants virtue signalling.

If a local store, whatever it is, takes a stand on something, well the more power to them.  They put themselves at risk by doing that, and I'll give them the thumbs up simply for doing it, and I trust they give me the thumbs up if I choose to eschew them thereafter as I don't agree.  That's the exchange in doing that, and that's to their credit.  But with chain merchants its just a bunch of hooey, in my opinion. Usually by the time they've done that they're grown so large that their local competitors are either nonexistent or so marginalized that the virtue signalling is risk free in the extreme.  That accordingly smacks of simply riding the zeitgeist.  I'd fully expect such chain outfits to support McCarthyism in one moment and oppose it in the next.  In most cases the risk is about the same as it would have been to support the war effort during World War Two or the National Recovery Act during the Depression.  M'eh.

I do feel differently, I should note, about entities that support something to do with their target market.  Grocery stores doing something on hunger, sporting goods stores doing something on conservation, and things of that type, mean something. Coffee shops doing anything other than worrying about hungry people or the conditions of the growers are another.

Anyhow, Starbucks is one of those outfits that I don't admire for the reasons stated above, but I also frankly don't admire how the American economy has come to so closely resemble the manufacturing of a Model A Ford.  It's an assembly line.  Coffee can be brewed by about anyone pretty easily.  Starbucks doesn't need to be on every corner.

_________________________________________________________________________________

*Not to pick on Southern Rock, a mostly defunct musical genre, but the Confederate flag seemed to be really popular in that community at the time and its really difficult not to view that as a white Southern reaction to the Civil Rights era and its focus on the region.  The Lynyrd Skynyrd hallmark Sweet Home Alabama is itself a reaction to Neil Young's Southern Man, although Young himself thought he'd gone overboard with that song.

Southern Rock, which was based in the blues and therefore had a genuine Southern origin, was part and parcel of the other sorts of Southern electric music that traveled with and was part of rock music at the time.  All it was heavily blues based and its sometimes difficult to tell where the blues left off and rock genres began.  Swamp Rock, out of Louisiana, was another example, but even British rock like that of Ten Years After shared a lot of similarities.  As rock music moved increasingly into glitch and glam with the big hair bands of the late 1970s a lot of the more genuine rock music of the 50s, 60s and 70s started to fade away and today they very much have.  This was part of the reason for the rise of Country Music from the 80s to the present day.

Country Music has a heavy base in the South and its really a form of Southern music.  Association with the rural South or an imagined rural South is strong in it and while I can't think of any use of the Confederate flag within it, my guess is that it'll take steps to distance itself from the South of the Confederacy as well.  Indeed, as one odd example, I've often wondered what the name of the band Lady Antebellum was supposed to mean, and the association with the glorified Antebellum South is nearly impossible not to make.

Saturday, June 6, 2020

Today In Wyoming's History: June 5, A protest

Today In Wyoming's History: June 5:

2020  A second gathering in protest of the death of George Floyd was held in Casper.  An earlier Casper event occurred several days prior, organized by a local group, where as this one was organized by one centered in Colorado.

Tuesday, June 2, 2020

Days of Rage*



Ostensibly it started with the death of George Floyd on May 25.


Floyd was arrested by police officers for allegedly using a counterfeit $20.00 bill for the purchase of a pack of cigarettes.  The encounter started off when store clerks, two very young men, one African American and one Asian American (I think) discovered what they thought was an illegal use of counterfeit cash and walked across the street to confront Floyd and a companion, who remained parked across the street. They wanted the cigarettes back but had no luck, so they went back to the store and called it in as a theft.  They also reported Floyd as trunk and not in control of himself.  Floyd, originally from Houston, Texas, was a very large man who at age 46 was a recently laid off bouncer. 

Police shortly arrived and when they did, one of them pulled his sidearm for some reason and ordered Floyd to place his hands on the steering wheel of his car.  He shortly re-holstered the sidearm but then pulled Floyd from the car, which was filmed by a man who was sitting in his car immediately behind Floyd's (something that frankly would have entailed some risk to that person under the circumstances).  That person soon left, or was made to move.

At that point, however things seemed to be in control. Footage of Floyd shows that he probably was drunk and was very distressed.  Officers had no problem in leading the stumbling Floyd up to the wall of the Chinese restaurant where they sat him down without incident. They then moved him to their police car across the street where he stumbled and fell right as a second police car arrived.  By that time, Floyd was complaining of being claustrophobic and not wanting to enter the police car.

As this occurred, the third police vehicle arrived. That one was carrying officer Derek Chauvin and officer Tou Thao.

Before we move on, we should say something about these officers as this entire matter has descended into a type of racial confrontation.  Thoa is obviously Asian American.  More particularly, however, his is Hmong by ethnicity, although American born.  The Hmong are an Asian people who began a southward migration after the Battle of Zhuolu in 2500 BC. They kept moving south into Southeast Asia up into modern times when, as a result of the Vietnam War, they entered the United States as refugees.  They've located, as refugees, in the upper Midwest where, like is typical for many immigrant groups in the first generation of migration, they've been associated with gang activity.**   Thao had six complaints that had been previously been lodged against him and one lawsuit for brutality.  I'm not making any assumptions on any of this, as I really know nothing other than what I've read.  Mostly, because the Hmong are on an American integration track that African Americans have been slow to benefit from, its interesting for that reason.  We'll discuss that more below.

The focus of so much attention, Derek Chauvin, had previously been involved in seventeen complaints and three shootings, one of which was fatal. Again, I don't know anything about any of this, so I'm not commenting on it.

Chauvin became involved in the effort to get Floyd into the car and, for some reason, ended up pulling him out of the car while Thao watched.  Three officers actually held Floyd down, who was obviously completed incapacitated at this time.  Chauvin had his knee on Floyd's neck, and Chauvin was also a large man.  Floyd begins to complain he can't breath and this goes on for a long time.  At least one woman from the gathering crowed attempts to intervene, with another warning her that hte policemen have mace.

The whole thing is shocking.

I just watched this for the first time when I started to type this out, which is June 1, 2020.  Living a long way from Minneapolis, and coming at a time when I was largely absent from the news, it wasn't something I was up on at the time.

Rioting has followed.

We should be frankly, the rioting is basically of three characters, one is an expression of rage, one is an expression of virtue signaling, and the third is opportunism.  Protesting, as opposed to rioting, is likewise of three characters, those being rage, support, and virtue signaling.  I suppose there may been an opportunistic element to it as well.

We'll deal with rage.

We're not going to attempt to condone rioting violence as some have done.  Violence is violence and we don't condone it.  We don't condone violence of any kind except in self defense, although on that we take a broad view.  Not so broad of view, however, that we license the use of it in some ways that a lot of Americans typically do.  The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, for example, receive no sanction here. They were murders.  They were murders that have nothing to do with this story, but we note that as we want to make clear where we're coming from.

And with that, we'll now skip the riots themselves in terms of what's occurring, for the time being.

The rage expressed is a latent rage over the American failure to deal with the byproducts of a unique form of racism that commenced 400 years ago last year with the introduction of slavery into the New World.

Slavery wasn't new, of course, as some like to point out, but quite frankly race based slavery was new and in1619 when it was introduced into the New World it was a reintroduction of it.  Slavery had gone away in the intervening years following the collapse of the Roman Empire.  It hadn't gone way all at once.  The Saxons, for example, still held slaves when the Normans invaded England in 1066, something the Normans were horrified by.  But by and large, and well prior to 1066, slavery had left Europe.

It had left due to Christianity, contrary to the snarky "the Bible sanctions slavery" comments sometimes made by the historically and religiously ignorant.  In fact, the Bible never sanctioned slavery and the mentions of it with specificity in the Old Testament were restraints on it, with slavery having been a nearly universally practiced "institution" in the world at that time.  Unlike other peoples, the Jews were strictly enjoined on what they could and could not do with slaves in an era in which slaves and servants were so synonymous that the word for them was the same.  As that would indicate, most slaves at that time fit into a fine distinction between being really bonded and being held as servants and were of the same ethnicity, usually, in the case of the Jews, as those who held them.  This wasn't always the case, of course.  Hagar, for example, was Egyptian.

The other type of slavery was around at the time to be sure, and the Jews were of course taken into slavery en masse more than once. That sort of slavery, however, was pretty much enjoined by the Bible in regards to the Jews.  An exception can be found in the instance of the wives of enemy warriors killed in battle, but the example proves the rule.  The taking of enemy women was the norm in the world at the time, but in the Jewish instance those taken had to be married to their captor who was subject to such a set of requirements as to the widow that only the most smitten would every have bothered to attempt it, including allowing the unfortunate woman to mourn for the loss of her first husband.

In early Christian times, therefore, the institution was clearly on the way out, something that is probably exemplified by the examples you can find of early Christian saints in which you can find two members of the same household, one bound and one free, both going into martyrdom together, with in one instance three such people going to their deaths, a woman, her slave, and an infant, all together.  Those instances indicate the evolution of slaves into servants, which is not to say that slaves resulting from wars and put to hard labor were also not common at the time. By the Middle Ages, however, it was very uncommon in Christendom.  Indeed, by that time it was the province of the Vikings, who took slaves in raids, which was one of the reasons they were regarded with horror, and of the Islamic Arabs, who developed slave raiding into an economic enterprise.

It's there that we circle back around to the horror story of American racism, as the Islamic Arabs were distinctly different than Christians in this regard.  Christians looked down on bondage in general and in the case of sex regarded, and still regard, sex between unmarried couples as completely illicit.  Indeed, Christians regarded from the very first instance that marriage required the full consent of both parties, man and woman, or no valid marriage existed.  Muslims, however, didn't regard this to be the case in the same way.  Marriage, in Islam, required consent, but Mohammed had licensed forced sex with slave women during his rise and this resulted in a slave industry in Muslim lands that was based on labor, as slavery was sanctioned, and on sex.  By Christian terms this involved, of course, rape, but in Muslim terms, it did not.

The Arabs therefore developed an extensive slave trading enterprise based on the capture of slaves, for labor and forced sex.  It spread throughout northern Africa but it also spread to the Mediterranean and even the Atlantic as Arab raiders took human prizes for those purposes. The only real requirement was that they couldn't take Muslim prisoners and Arab men, and of course it was limited to men, couldn't hold Muslim women as sex slaves.  Holding Irish women, for example, or holding black African women who were not Muslim, was perfectly allowable.

By the time the Portuguese started colonizing the West African coast an extensive slave trade, based on a person's religious affiliation, was going on, and fueled in part by the evil of war.  Slaves were often captured locally and, and often in war, and then traded to Arab slave traders, who sold them on in other places, often in their own domains. The Portuguese stepped into this evil and joined right in, in spite of their Christian background.  Hence the exportation of slaves to the New World commenced.  

The reintroduction of slavery was notably concentrated by Europeans in their new domains, although it was not actually limited to it. Still, the avoidance of reintroducing the evil in their native lands was no doubt in part because it was an obvious evil that would have called into question the fundamental nature of those societies and what they claimed to be about.

By that time Europeans were involved in a wholescale global colonial effort.  We're not going to go into that in depth and we're not going to get preachy about that, as is so often the case on this topic. Yes, Europeans were attempting to extend their rule over foreign people's everywhere, but in fact everyone everywhere was also attempting to do that. While nationalism as we understand it, contrary to the common historical assertion, has always existed, in the 17th Century it was also commonly accepted that one sovereign could rule over a wide group of peoples and no nation thought much about extending its power over the weaker nations, including for economic reasons.  Nothing in that excuses slavery, but if we are going to step back and also condemn colonialism in the period we'll be in the position of condemning people for something that they would not have grasped as wrong.  Indeed, one feature of European colonial extension into other areas of the globe is that their colonial enterprises sometimes ended up smacking up against those of the people they were attempting to colonize, making their contests ones of one empire against another.

If people, globally, of the day would not have thought of colonialism as being wrong, they knew better about slavery.  Indeed, in order to engage in it, they had to rationalize it.

That hadn't been the case with slavery of antiquity.  This is not to say that such slavery was nice in any fashion, but the thin resources of the day gave it an economic nature that was distinctly different from later eras.  As noted above, the distinction between conventional slaves and servants had been slight, and as an important feature of that, they were usually of the same culture.  The exception was for what essentially amounted to prisoners of war, for whom there was no other easy way to hold them.  It's important to note, however that there were exceptions that were ethnicity based, as when entire peoples were carried into slavery.

That hadn't occurred for millenai in European terms and therefore the reintroduction of slavery was not only new, it was uniquely malignant.  It was based on ethnicity, which came to be seen rapidly as based on "race". The thin excuse was a gradient from African slaves being very primitive people in the eyes of Europeans who would somehow benefit from their captivity to their just being inferior or even sort of subhuman.

It's that categorization that lives on with us today in the form of a racism and economic legacy that has kept African Americans from sharing the story of other immigrants to North America.  Only Indians somewhat otherwise share that story, although theirs is uniquely different in some ways.

Racism justified keeping blacks as slaves and economics fueled it, making it a doubly sinful enterprise based on failing to love your neighbor and loving money over all else.  That evil was recognized as such well before the American Revolution and in fact slavery was passing away in the north by that time. At the time of the country declaring its independence from England it was expected that slavery would pass away in the south as well, but economics kept that from occurring, placing the overwhelming bulk of American blacks in unending bondage.  A growing realization of the evil of slavery resulted in the Civil War (there was no other cause but that in spite of what Confederate apologist may maintain today), and to the nation's credit thousands died to free the slaves. Thousands also died in a disreputable and evil effort to keep their fellow men slaves as well, of course.

Following the Civil War economics eventually triumphed over justice and an early effort to appropriate lands from slaveholders and issue them back out to former slaves on a 40 acre standard American farming model failed.  Soon the nation turned its back on the former slaves figuring it had done enough just to free them.  In the early 20th Century blacks began to abandon the south in the Great Migration and spread throughout the country in an effort to improve their lot, but the south remained the locality where the black population was the highest and most deprived.  It wasn't until World War One when there were serious efforts to address the ongoing discrimination and poverty of African Americans and blacks enlisting in the US armed forces at the time thought of their services as a full step into equality, which it proved not to be.  It was the introduction, however that even the Red Summer of 1919 couldn't reverse.  It would have been logical if World War Two would have built on what came before in the 1910s and 1920s, and it did in some ways, but it wasn't until the Truman Administration that the ongoing legal institutions that kept blacks impoverished and separate began to come rapidly down.

From 1948 through the early 1970s the Federal Government worked diligently to dismantle the laws that burdened blacks, aided by a United States Supreme Court that made use of Reconstruction Era laws for the first time in a century.  But, significant to our story here, it's important to realize that blacks in the south did not achieve legal equality until well within the lifetimes of the current President and his Democratic contender.  For that matter, slavery's passing was not even a century old at the time of their births.  Put another way, more time has passed between World War One and today than between the births of Joe Biden and Donald Trump and the end of slavery.  There were men and women still alive who had been born into slavery when they were born (and when I was born).

The burden of slavery would be hard to overcome in just a century's time but the legal institutions that were erected in the south after the failure of Reconstruction created a near slavery sort of economic status for blacks, dooming them to certain types of work and poor educations. Those conditions fueled the Great Migration but they also meant that the majority of blacks lived their entire lives in deprived conditions. This only began to change for those remaining in the south in the 1940s and it really got rolling in the 1960s.    This means that most of the improvement in the economic lives of blacks has only come since World War Two, and the strong prejudices that allowed that to be the case lived on openly well into the 1970s.  That's not long ago.  It effectively means that George Floyd was born in an era when expressing prejudice of that type was acceptable in the region in which he was born.

The Civil Rights era of the 1960s is looked back as the golden era, in some ways of civil rights efforts for African Americans.  It's easy to forget that there was widespread opposition to the efforts and openly opposing them was not socially unacceptable.  Lyndon Johnson went to the dedication of Stone Mountain in 1970, for example, an event honoring Confederate leadership in a fashion that would never be condoned today.  The situation for blacks has improved massively since 1970.

But as is often the case, the law of unintended consequences has plagued them as well.  The elimination of legal barriers raised the fortunes of all African Americans but it improved the lives of middle class and nearly middle class blacks the most, who migrated out of the ghettos where they had been previously concentrated. That pattern followed that laid out by all prior American immigrant minorities.  It had the accidental consequence of concentrating poverty in those same areas, whereas prior to that there had been a range of economic classes in them.  Farming policies of the Great Depression wiped out black farming in the south duringthe 1930s, eliminating a long standing black class there.  Experimental liberal social policies in the 1960s and 1970s foreshadowed efforts towards a Universal Basic Income and had predictable and disastrous effects of the African American poor whose social structures were weak due to the legacy of slavery.***This had the impact of concentrating poverty further.  

It also meant that blacks didn't universally follow the path of prior immigrant groups, something that was further the case due to ongoing racism.  Prior groups had generally reached a day in which wholescale migration over to the middle class occured and the ethnic character of the group started to dissolve.  

People may claim to be Irish Americans or Italian Americans today, for example, without even grasping what that meant a century ago.  In 1920, if a person was an Irish American, nearly everything about them culturally and economically was made obvious just by stating that status. Today it may mean nothing more than a person having corned beef on St. Patrick's Day.  As that status changed in the country it meant not only that people moved economically up, but it also meant that they moved into other groups, regions, and ethnicities.  People claiming, for example, to be Italian Americans today are nearly as likely to be descended from English immigrants than Italian ones, due to marriages outside of the declared ethnicity.

All of this is much less true for African Americans.  The absurd "one drop" rule means that children of mixed unions are regarded as black, which is nothing more than pigmentation in biological terms.  Mix marriages and other unions have only become common very, very recently.

They have now become common, however, which is a signal that, in spite of what we're now enduring, we may actually be at that moment at which African Americans finally cross over to just being Americans.  Within the last few years advertising, a mirror reflected back on American beliefs, has gone from introducing black actors in advertisements to mixed couples.  This is now common and hardly anyone notices. As recently as a decade ago this would have sparked some controversy and in the 1970s it would have cost the advertiser revenue. The fact that television viewers think nothing of a white husband and a black wife, or vice versa, is really revolutionary.

As is, of course, the fact that we've had a black President.

The Civil Rights effort of the 1960s was reflected back on the country in strife in the 1970s.  If we think of the south resisting integration in the 1960s we're recalling that correctly, but we're also forgetting that Dixiecrats and the like were really a thing of the 1970s.  Southern Rock bands started flying the Stars and Bars in that decade, not before, and when Lynrd Skynrd sang about Wallace in Sweet Home Alabama, it was 1974.  That song remains popular today without anyone seemingly pausing to think that it was a "we'll get around to it" reaction to Southern Man.  Given that, the massive reaction to Barack Obama during his presidency is perhaps not too surprising, as for some there was a racist element to that reaction (but certainly not one on the party of everyone who disliked him as President).  That some of that remains during the Presidency of Donald Trump is accordingly not surprising.

None of which means that the nation should just sit on its hands as everything is going to be okay.  There remain real problems for black Americans, and Indian Americans, that other people don't face.  Part of that is racism, but part of that is poverty which in turn allows the racism to continue. Racist find support for their racism in the fact that blacks remain poor and their social institutions were so badly damaged by well-meaning but poorly thought out programs form the 1960s.  And that's a problem the nation can't ignore.

Much of that problem is simply economic, and curing the economic problem would cure a lot of ills.  But the nation has not only failed to address the economic problems of African Americans, and Indians, its worked to make them much worse.  Entering into the work place and rising up remains a problem for poor blacks who are concentrated by location, and who face stout competition from high immigrant populations that have strong social cohesion and who face less prejudice.  They are well aware of that.

And they're also likely to know that these problems are deeply ingrained and are going to be ignored.  The Democratic Party, which claims the support of most blacks, is unlikely to do anything in real terms to aid them and has turned its attention instead to new immigrant populations which it feels are more likely to provide its base, rightly or wrongly, in the future.  To say that the Democrats have no interest in rural blacks would be an understatement, but it also has little interest in doing anything concrete for urban blacks either.  Indeed, since the 2000s the Democratic Party has often taken positions that are offensive to the views of the majority of African Americans and taken the view that blacks had to support them as blacks have nowhere else to go. And they do largely have nowhere else to go as the GOP has had no concrete position towards blacks since the 1980s.

And so the rage is understandable.

Unfortunately, it is not likely to be helpful to anyone.  Riots of the 1960s gave rise to the "law and order" campaign of Richard Nixon, something not regarded as a bright spot in the nation's history now.  And the co-opting of genuine movements in the 1960s by the hardcore left brought them disrepute in later years.  Indeed, it can be argued that hardcore left insertion in the movements of the left, something that has never really stopped, doomed their effectiveness and further brought to an end the active Civil Rights movement of the 60s.  Put another way, while the difference between Martin Luther King, Jr., and Abby Hoffman are obvious to anyone who is paying attention, a lot of people just aren't paying attention.

And that seems to be sort of rapidly playing out now.  A lot of the protesters we see at events now are likely not really motivated by the plight of African Americans so much as they are something else, somethings innocent, somethings opportunistic, and somethings radical.  And amazingly at the same time we have a President who seems to be fanning the flames by his statements.

And so we can wonder what will occur.  What probably won't occur, no matter what, is a Richard Stroud like program designed to specifically aid the economic progress of African Americans, nor any attention to repairing the damage to black social institutions that were destroyed by the programs of the 1960s and 1970s.  Democrats have no real interest in taking that on, and Republicans aren't likely to be specifically focused on doing so.

________________________________________________________________________

*This refers to a series of 1969 protests, but the title seemed applicable here.

**The movie Gran Torino may have brought the urban American Hmong into familiarity with Americans as a group.

On gang activity, almost every post mid-19th Century American immigrant ethnicity has had gang activity in its early stages. An exception may exist for Japanese and Korean immigrants, but that would be pretty much it.  After the cultures begin to rise, with police work a typical early introduction into the middle class, this almost always fades away.  Irish, Italian, Jewish, among other, ethnicities have all been associated with criminal gangs at one point.

***African American social structures were deeply impacted by the fact that for the first 300 years of their presence in North America a black slave could be sold at any time.  Therefore, much of what other people regard as permanent was not equally the case for blacks in spite of often heroic measures to make it so.  Black couples would sometimes seek  and gain permission to travel long distances simply to visit each other, for example.  Nonetheless, with spouses and children libel to be traded away by slave holders at any time, everything was tenuous and that had to be accepted by the people so afflicted in order to endure it.