BLM on Kyle Rittenhouse Verdict

You might expect BLM not to have strong opinions on the Kyle Rittenhouse trial.  After all, Rittenhouse shot three white people; there was no racial angle whatever.  And yet, somehow, it is about white supremacy after all:

Today’s not-guilty verdict is expected when white supremacy lives and breathes within our institutions. It is a reminder of how our legal systems are deeply rooted in white supremacy.

You may be surprised to hear that the Rittenhouse verdict was predetermined:  "It was a set up from the beginning. The police, the judge, the court, mainstream media, and every single system involved all wrapped their arms around Kyle Rittenhouse from the very beginning — from even before the murders he committed."

I don't know about you, but I don't think anyone of those had even heard of Kyle Rittenhouse before he shot three people in self-defense.

As for what they said after the event, some people did defend Rittenhouse, but hardly all of them.  I wonder if BLM is aware of the Slate article "The Conservative Defense of Kyle Rittenhouse Is Dangerous Nonsense", or the Huffington Post piece called "White Supremacists Were 'On A Hunting Spree' In Kenosha, Says Wisconsin Lawmaker", or the one that found different portrayals of Rittenhouse in the media:  "Vigilante, volunteer, terrorist: how the US media covers Kyle Rittenhouse".

BLM's comments may seem like raving from the fringe, but this should not come as a surprise.  This is a site that states, without any hesitation, that "white-supremacist-capitalism invented policing, initially as chattel-slavery-era “paddy rollers,” in order to protect its interests and put targets on the backs of Black people."  If you thought that police forces evolved around the Western world in the 19th century, regardless of the presence of racial minorities, BLM is here to put you straight:  it was white supremacy, and in particular "white-supremacist-capitalism," that invented policing.  Those Bobbies were just copying the U.S. system.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Science and Philosophy, Part I: Hume and Popper

I've been listening to a lecture series on philosophy recently, and, even though I haven't gotten past the Greeks yet, it has reminded me of a number of issues that trouble me about science. I want to take the opportunity to express my concerns here. Along the way, I will probably oversimplify philosophy a great deal -- not on purpose, but rather because I have only a simplistic understanding of it. I welcome responses to clear up my misconceptions. One of my issues with science is the famous idea of Karl Popper that it can never establish positive claims, only falsify wrong ones. The history of this goes back to David Hume, the 18th century Scottish sceptic. He shook up the philosophical world by claiming that science could never prove anything through induction -- that is, drawing conclusions about physical laws based on observations. The classic illustration is the sun's rising. Even though the sun has risen every day for our whole lives, and for countless human l
Read more

Country Music

I noticed a long time ago that there isn't much difference between the sound of country music and rock music nowadays. If I'm surfing my radio and I come to a station playing jazz, classical, or rap, I recognize it right away; but if I come to a country or rock station, I often can't tell which it is until the song is half over. Country songs often have screaming guitars that would fit equally well in a hard rock song, and only a minority have a recognizably country instrument such as a fiddle or a banjo. All the same, no one could listen to a country music station for more than a few minutes without realizing that it is definitely not a rock station. What are the differences? There are some stylistic differences. Country songs are more likely to have a boogey beat or certain western-sounding bass lines. They also tend to be more formulaic: if you can't predict how a country song ends, you probably don't listen to much country music. But those things aren'
Read more

What Are Pronouns For?

 Here's what I don't get about people defining their own pronouns (and I use "their" advisedly):  If I am talking to you, your pronoun is "you."  No one disputes that.  If I am talking about you to another person, the pronoun I use to reference you is none of your business.  I am in a conversation with someone else; you are not a party to it, and you are not entitled to impose rules on it.  Ideally, you will never know what we say -- but if you do find out, it doesn't matter because the pronouns I used were for my convenience, not for your feelings.  Heck, I may not even have met you, may not have any idea what you identify as or even what sex you really are (as sometimes happens when people have names like "Leslie" or "Ashley" that get used for both sexes, or foreign names that I am unfamiliar with).  So mind your business and there will be nothing to get offended about.
Read more