Washington Seattle...1 dead...1 wounded?

[jj500]

For some of us that are a little longer in the tooth than others we should remember all these riots and what the outcome of them has been Let me see,first one I remember was Detroit in 1968 with Cleveland following close behind.Burned down tons of places mostly Black owned.Next one maybe OJ in LA them Rodney King? Anyway, point trying to make we had had lot of places destroyed and looted with absolutely zero betterment of the races. Complain about making things better but do nothing about places like Chicago,where they continue to commit genocide on each other,what point in time do you look in the mirror and take the change into your own hands and not by pillaging and looting Target. No matter how many riots come along it is not going to change most peoples mind about what they believe in,all it does is confirm what they thought originally about it.

 

[308]

For some of us that are a little longer in the tooth than others we should remember all these riots and what the outcome of them has been Let me see,first one I remember was Detroit in 1968 with Cleveland following close behind.Burned down tons of places mostly Black owned.Next one maybe OJ in LA them Rodney King? Anyway, point trying to make we had had lot of places destroyed and looted with absolutely zero betterment of the races. Complain about making things better but do nothing about places like Chicago,where they continue to commit genocide on each other,what point in time do you look in the mirror and take the change into your own hands and not by pillaging and looting Target. No matter how many riots come along it is not going to change most peoples mind about what they believe in,all it does is confirm what they thought originally about it.

I've mentioned it before, but it sure seems like this is just an excuse for certain people to do what they've been wanting to do anyways. The scary part is I have met some people who really want to do something as well, but they just remain still for the time being.

 

[RVTECH]

so the "summer of love" will continue.

While it is convenient for the mayor to use the classic reference 'summer of love' to describe this situation it is interesting to note during the original 'Summer of Love' in 1967 in the Haight-Ashbury district of San Francisco it was not entirely peaceful.

There were reports of shoplifting, 'Hippies' accosting local shop/store owners demanding free food and other supplies and a lot of civil unrest as well - and a lot of it fueled by the drugs at the time.

It was suggested Candlestick Park be opened to overnight camping but the Police Chief at the time took a lot of control and did not allow this and did his best to maintain law and order. Regardless it was hardly a peaceful 'utopia' as history often espouses it to have been.

I remember reading some history of the counterculture many years ago, along with a pretty good overview of the 'Summer of Love' and recall some of the highlights of it.

The following I copied from an article about this and it certainly parallels what is taking place now:

The desire for social change was a universal theme within 1960s counterculture, but each group approached its realization from different perspectives and with different methodologies.

The pic below is a page from a list of 'demands' made by the 'Diggers' who were a radical community activist group at the time. See anything familiar with it it?

 

[sobo]

See anything familiar with it it?

Same preachy demands, over and over...

 

[edzz]

Many years ago I was discussing the Watts riots (of the '60's) with a coworker at Lockheed he made the statement.

"Heck most of us weren't protesting anything, we was just having fun. Heck I got me a new suit".

Unfortunately I suspect the same is happening this time too.


Ron was an "interesting" coworker, most of the people in that shop didn't understand why we got along, wonder what ever happened to that old grunt...

 

[RedCardinalSeven]

Remember that all it takes is for people to be asleep while others take action.

In the American Revolution against the good King George, only 30% of the population favored revolt. Of those, only 30% fought. That's 3% of the total population. The other 30% were Loyalists. And another 30% didn't care one way or the other. The 3% (9% ) made it happen.

Your main point about the importance and influence of a small number of motivated people is well taken. However, the claims about how the population of colonial America was divided on the eve of the Revolution has been repeatedly debunked as a myth, according to historian William F. Marina.

Marina writes:

Among the many who have cited this view is Daniel Ellsberg [he of the Pentagon Papers], who called attention to "John Adams' [sic] well-known estimate that one third of the population in America supported the rebels, one third the British ... and one third were [sic] neutral" ...

When any citation is offered for this "well known" estimate, it is to a letter which Adams wrote to James Lloyd, dated January, [1815]. A close examination of that letter should convince an intelligent reader that John Adams never said any such thing! It is clear that Adams, in point of fact, was writing about American opinion of the French Revolution and the subsequent struggle between England and France which had a considerable impact on the United States in the 1790's during the period of his presidency from 1797 to 1801.

I first encountered the myth in the late Howard Zinn's popular A People's History of the United States. In that book Zinn writes: "John Adams had estimated a third opposed, a third in support, a third neutral." Zinn was a radical historian and activist of the Left and, taken in context, it seems clear Zinn felt that the alleged minority support of the Revolutionary War undermined the legitimacy of the war, of the country born from the war, and of the Founders.

As Marina wrote in a follow-up article:

With the misreading of the Adams letter out of the way, the question still remains whether the American Revolution was a majority movement, and it is a very important one. If, for example, the Founding Fathers had thought they were only a minority, it would be difficult to avoid viewing them as rather hypocritical, for they constantly spoke of the will of the majority as second only to natural law.

In fact, Adams writes in a December 22, 1815, letter to Jedidiah Morse that in 1765—after the passage of the Stamp Act—the first direct tax on the colonists by the British government:

the colonies were more unanimous than they ever have been since, either as colonies or States. No party was formed against their country. The few who voted against the general sentiment, were but a handful. The resistance in America was so universal and so determined, that Great Britain with all her omnipotence dared not attempt to enforce her pretensions.

The Stamp Act was repealed less than a year after its passage, and according to Adams, the British then began a years long campaign to create a Loyalist faction in the North American colonies:

In the course of these ten years, they formed and organized and drilled and disciplined a party in favor of Great Britain, and they seduced and deluded nearly one third of the people of the colonies.

Herbert Aptheker, a Marxist historian cited by Marina pointed out that Adams letter to Morse: "says nothing at all about indifference and neutrality; rather the inference from his letter would appear to be that he felt that (approximately) seventy percent of the American population favored the Revolutionary cause." In an earlier letter of August 31, 1813, to Thomas McKean Adams allows "two thirds of the people to have been with us in the revolution". In short, if there is any compelling evidence to support the myth of minority support for the Revolutionary War then I am unaware of it.

Related to the myth of minority support is the "rough estimate that only 3% of the colonists were actively fighting in the field against British forces at any given time." Whose "rough estimate" is this and what is it based upon?

 

[bbbass]

@RedCardinalSeven

Thank you for the info. Tho I don't take "experts" (esp Professors) opinions and other musings at face value and don't right now have the time and energy to look into it further. So I won't dispute it at this point.

However, I am curious how much you wrote beyond the initial paragraph. I can't tell because the tone of the rest seems rather cut and paste Wikipedia. I always appreciate when people use italics to differentiate text copied vs their own writing. If you copied the bulk of the post, I would appreciate you appending a link to the source.

 

[Idaho44]

Interesting defense of who supported the American Revolution aka known as the Civil war in the colonies by the English. A small group of people (the ones with monied interests) started the process kind of like what is going on now (don't kid yourself) and those who came much later and want to be on the winning side proclaim "patriotism". Why were there desertions and conscription's?

 

[arakboss]

@RedCardinalSeven

Thank you for the info. Tho I don't take "experts" (esp Professors) opinions and other musings at face value and don't right now have the time and energy to look into it further. So I won't dispute it at this point.

However, I am curious how much you wrote beyond the initial paragraph. I can't tell because the tone of the rest seems rather cut and paste Wikipedia. I always appreciate when people use italics to differentiate text copied vs their own writing. If you copied the bulk of the post, I would appreciate you appending a link to the source.

I try to italicize text I lift from other places but it is a bit of a pain. I wish I knew a shortcut.

 

[bbbass]

I try to italicize text I lift from other places but it is a bit of a pain. I wish I knew a shortcut.

I know it is because I take the time to do it. It saves possible confusion on the part of the reader. But it's really not that bad, I highlight entire blocks of text and hit the italics button, that way I'm not misappropriating something I didn't write. It takes just a bit of effort to maintain my ethics. Worth it to me.

 

[DivCurlGrad72]

Why not use the quote feature for quotes?

 

[arakboss]

Why not use the quote feature for quotes?
View attachment 715647

I will look in to it.

 

[bbbass]

Why not use the quote feature for quotes?

Here goes... testing:

Several hundred demonstrators are staying in an autonomous area claimed by protesters for racial justice in Seattle, even as its size is shrinking and pressure to shut it down completely is increasing from local businesses and residents, as well as city officials.

That MIGHT work... quote boxes inside the resulting quote box might be a problem tho. I'll have to try it again in the future.

 

[bbbass]

@DivCurlGrad72 , @arakboss

I guess the quote function works ok for dropping Wiki's etc into a post. The only thing I don't like as a writer of posts is that it drops it into a box that must then be expanded by the reader to be read in it's entirety. Then again, as a reader, that could be a really good thing!!

 

[RedCardinalSeven]

@RedCardinalSeven
Thank you for the info. Tho I don't take "experts" (esp Professors) opinions and other musings at face value ...

You're welcome. It's always good practice to be skeptical of experts, pundits, etc.

However, I am curious how much you wrote beyond the initial paragraph. I can't tell because the tone of the rest seems rather cut and paste Wikipedia. I always appreciate when people use italics to differentiate text copied vs their own writing. If you copied the bulk of the post, I would appreciate you appending a link to the source.

Except for what appears inside quotation marks or block quotes I wrote it all. None of the rest is cut-and-pasted from anyone else's work. I have included hyperlinks for everything I quoted. I don't cite or quote Wikipedia because it is an unreliable source (and they agree).

 

[RedCardinalSeven]

Interesting defense of who supported the American Revolution aka known as the Civil war in the colonies by the English. A small group of people (the ones with monied interests) started the process kind of like what is going on now (don't kid yourself) and those who came much later and want to be on the winning side proclaim "patriotism". Why were there desertions and conscription's?

The letters I quoted are by John Adams, one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence and the 2nd US president. Those letters speak to the general level of popular support for independence, not whether there was a small group of organizers/agitators/leaders or whatever you want to call them. We know there was such a small group and they were the ones who, for example, covened the Continental Congress and drafted and signed the Declaration of Independence.

I can't think of any major political movement that did not have, at its core, a small group of leaders. If you have evidence that Marina and Adams were mistaken about the level of popular support for the Revolution then please share it.

As for your question, there are deserters and people who are unwilling to serve in the military in virtually every war. That includes WW II, which was probably the most popular war the US ever waged. Also, not everyone who claims to support a cause is willing to put their own neck on the line to achieve it.

Adams and Marina both acknowledge that not every colonist was onboard with going to war with the British Empire. So, why wouldn't there be desertions and conscription during the Revolutionary War?

 

[Ringo]

It's funny that facts like that (because the statistics are also disproportionate in the US) are largely ignored and the plight of black America is continually trying to shift toward "racism" is what holds us back. There's no honest conversation to be had with people of that mentality because they willingly ignore that having a 75% single motherhood rate has a significant impact on children. There's also the inherent problem that if the mom is 16, the grandma is 32 and the great grandma is 48, that kid doesn't have much of a chance because his family around him collectively has less education than many adults.

please run for president after Trump's next 4 years... I'M NOT KIDDING !!!

 

[American123]

please run for president after Trump's next 4 years... I'M NOT KIDDING !!!

Lol - maybe I can jump into politics after being a teacher like Patty Murray did. 35 isn't that far away!

 

[Ringo]

Lol - maybe I can jump into politics after being a teacher like Patty Murray did. 35 isn't that far away!

i'm going to write you in next 2 elections... being 68 that if i can remember to vote... i end up going back in the house 3 times before i can get out of the driveway my memory is so bad...if you see me and my 3 little dogs just walking down the road... please point me toward salem and tell me HOME 3 times... ;p}}}}}}}}}

 

[bbbass]

You're welcome. It's always good practice to be skeptical of experts, pundits, etc.Except for what appears inside quotation marks or block quotes I wrote it all. None of the rest is cut-and-pasted from anyone else's work. I have included hyperlinks for everything I quoted. I don't cite or quote Wikipedia because it is an unreliable source (and they agree).

IMO It was very scholarly and well written. More than a bit overwhelming for this old mind tho. Are you a writer, teacher, historian?

BTW, I just finished watching two Smithsonian Channel programs on YouTube, the first on Appalachians and the second on Kentucky. They said Appalachia had a lot of Scot/Irish that were very insular, and Kentucky pretty much had a mix of Loyalists as well as others that just wanted to be left to themselves. Many wound up fighting against the British when their towns were attacked. I hadn't thought previously that any of the Revolutionary War fighting took place there.