smithers_jones said:
The connection between this and the LA riots of 92 is what exactly?
That's what I wondered: there's a weird fear of collective action in this piece that I just don't get.
And an undertone of white fear of "black barbarism." I wonder if Mr. Lariviere is a Ron Paul fan?
It wouldn't surprise me.
And this is some weak reporting. The link he gives is two sentences about the event. Here's a better one.
Yes, but that article quotes the police as stating there was no connection between the incident and the Juneteenth festival and places the "mob" at 4 to 5. --which really undercuts the presumptions that underlie Lariviere's article.
Chovanetz said witnesses told police that three or four men attacked Morales, knocking him to the ground. A man got out of another vehicle and hit Morales again, Chovanetz said.
Wow that's exactly like the LA Riots!
I don't know what to say beyond that. I don't think anyone's going to come down on the side of mob violence here, so there's no much to really debate.
smithers_jones said:
The connection between this and the LA riots of 92 is what exactly?
That's what I wondered: there's a weird fear of collective action in this piece that I just don't get.
And an undertone of white fear of "black barbarism." I wonder if Mr. Lariviere is a Ron Paul fan?
And this is some weak reporting. The link he gives is two sentences about the event. Here's a better one.
I don't know what to say beyond that. I don't think anyone's going to come down on the side of mob violence here, so there's no much to really debate.
Right, so, it might be important to note that I wrote my piece an entire day before the article you quoted was written. The article I referenced never once mentioned race other than the fact that the man who was killed had a hispanic name. I made it explicitly clear that details were scarce, and I included the majority of the details that were known at the time. I cannot be faulted for failing to present information before it was available.
And, no, I'm not talking about "black barbarism". If you read my source article, you'll see it's race neutral. My article was merely trying to make a comment about crowd psychology. Was it an unnecessary story? I don't know, perhaps. That the violence happened to fall on a holiday celebrating freedom just seemed unfortunate, and I only brought that up to illustrate the point of how quickly emotions can change and escalate within a large group.
The reference to the LA riots was purely to show an example of what a large group of people are capable of: each consecutive act of violence or destruction serves to embolden other members of the crowd until the group is worked into a far greater hysteria than they'd likely ever reach on their own. I'd have used another example, but that happened to be the most appropriate piece of footage I could find at the time. To say that it's racist because I chose to present evidence that shows black people is absurd. If I had shown a group of white meatheads flipping cars after a sporting event no one would call me racist against whites. I don't subscribe to the double standard, and by reading into it in that way reflects a bias in the reader, not the writer. To suggest that I should have shown a clip of whites being destructive is flawed logic; it shouldn't matter who I show. If you set your mind to it you can view a lot of things as racist that simply are not, and as a writer I shouldn't have to go out of my way to prove I'm not racist just to write a short article.
I won't argue this is a great article; it's not. The story I read got me thinking about crowds; I wrote something up, end of story.
Re-reading the second half of my article I see that "I wonder if race was a factor?" could easily be read as a snide, snarky, *wink*wink kind of jab, which wasn't my intention. I should have said something like "with relatively few details, there's no way of knowing if other factors played a role in the violence." Coming into this article I didn't know an awful lot about Juneteenth or its traditions; the question about race was my legitimate postulation as to what could have contributed to this particular case. I wasn't trying to make any kind of underlying statement.
Sadly the Juneteenth Celebration here in Syracuse ended in violence as well.
Two people stabbed and numerous fist fights.
Allegedly a group of people arrived late and had an agenda to disrupt the event.
smithers_jones said:
The connection between this and the LA riots of 92 is what exactly?
That's what I wondered: there's a weird fear of collective action in this piece that I just don't get.
And an undertone of white fear of "black barbarism." I wonder if Mr. Lariviere is a Ron Paul fan?
And this is some weak reporting. The link he gives is two sentences about the event. Here's a better one.
I don't know what to say beyond that. I don't think anyone's going to come down on the side of mob violence here, so there's no much to really debate.
Right, so, it might be important to note that I wrote my piece an entire day before the article you quoted was written. The article I referenced never once mentioned race other than the fact that the man who was killed had a hispanic name. I made it explicitly clear that details were scarce, and I included the majority of the details that were known at the time. I cannot be faulted for failing to present information before it was available.
And, no, I'm not talking about "black barbarism". If you read my source article, you'll see it's race neutral. My article was merely trying to make a comment about crowd psychology. Was it an unnecessary story? I don't know, perhaps. That the violence happened to fall on a holiday celebrating freedom just seemed unfortunate, and I only brought that up to illustrate the point of how quickly emotions can change and escalate within a large group.
The reference to the LA riots was purely to show an example of what a large group of people are capable of: each consecutive act of violence or destruction serves to embolden other members of the crowd until the group is worked into a far greater hysteria than they'd likely ever reach on their own. I'd have used another example, but that happened to be the most appropriate piece of footage I could find at the time. To say that it's racist because I chose to present evidence that shows black people is absurd. If I had shown a group of white meatheads flipping cars after a sporting event no one would call me racist against whites. I don't subscribe to the double standard, and by reading into it in that way reflects a bias in the reader, not the writer. To suggest that I should have shown a clip of whites being destructive is flawed logic; it shouldn't matter who I show. If you set your mind to it you can view a lot of things as racist that simply are not, and as a writer I shouldn't have to go out of my way to prove I'm not racist just to write a short article.
I won't argue this is a great article; it's not. The story I read got me thinking about crowds; I wrote something up, end of story.
The ron paul comparison is uncalled for.
And
Aaron_Lariviere said:
Re-reading the second half of my article I see that "I wonder if race was a factor?" could easily be read as a snide, snarky, *wink*wink kind of jab, which wasn't my intention. I should have said something like "with relatively few details, there's no way of knowing if other factors played a role in the violence." Coming into this article I didn't know an awful lot about Juneteenth or its traditions; the question about race was my legitimate postulation as to what could have contributed to this particular case. I wasn't trying to make any kind of underlying statement.
I think one impression that this article may undoubtedly leave the reader with is that black people are more prone to mob violence -- which is entirely untrue. Sporting event violence comes to mind. I don't mean to say that this is the intention, but that is probably an inevitable conclusion most readers would come to with the examples and comparisons provided.
Jesus, when did the *name* of a holiday become a measure of its legitimacy?
I'm not trying to downplay the importance of the holiday here, but are you saying there is significance to the name Juneteenth? Because all I get from that article is that it's a portmanteau. Am I missing something?
i'm not sure what there is to miss exactly. it's a portmanteau of an important date relating to the holiday... what you're saying is equivalent to "Why is the Fourth of July a good name for a holiday?"
Jesus, when did the *name* of a holiday become a measure of its legitimacy?
I'm not trying to downplay the importance of the holiday here, but are you saying there is significance to the name Juneteenth? Because all I get from that article is that it's a portmanteau. Am I missing something?
i'm not sure what there is to miss exactly. it's a portmanteau of an important date relating to the holiday... what you're saying is equivalent to "Why is the Fourth of July a good name for a holiday?"
wildswan said:
I think one impression that this article may undoubtedly leave the reader with is that black people are more prone to mob violence -- which is entirely untrue. Sporting event violence comes to mind. I don't mean to say that this is the intention, but that is probably an inevitable conclusion most readers would come to with the examples and comparisons provided.
Yes, I can see that even though I didn't intend that, someone could take it that way. That's something I'll keep in mind as I write in the future.
mydogfarted
Oakland, NJ
June 2003
JUN 21, 2007 08:30 AM