I find large crowds unsettling. In every gathering of a certain size, theres a hidden potential lurking beneath the surface; it can manifest into laughter, sorrow, outrage, physical destruction, or... nothing at all. But when something does happen, our collective actions seem to distill into sweeping gestures, granting them far more weight and power than the sum of their parts. The 1992 L.A. riots were a particularly nasty example:
The very idea that a group of free-thinking individuals can somehow tap into a collectively unintelligent subconscious is terrifying, especially if you find yourself on the receiving end of a crowds rage. The AP reports that just last night in Austin, Texas a crowd lashed out:
A crowd attacked and killed a passenger in a vehicle that had struck and injured a child, police said Wednesday.
Police believe 2,000 to 3,000 people were in the area for a Juneteenth celebration when the attack occurred Tuesday night. The man who was killed had been trying to stop the group from attacking the vehicle's driver when the crowd turned on him, authorities said.
An accident happens; the fun-loving crowd transforms into a feral, bloodthirsty mob. Im sure alcohol played a part, though details of the altercation are scarce. I wonder if race was a factor? Apparently the driver was able to escape the crowd and has been cooperating with police. The child seems to be ok too, as authorities reported the kid was taken to the hospital with non-life threatening injuries.
Juneteenth, also known as Emancipation Day, is the celebration of the day news of the Emancipation Proclamation arrived in Texas, effectively abolishing slavery in the state. Its a shame to see the festivities tainted by bloodshed, but at the end of the day, as they say, the mob rules.
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?
dragonflower said:
i live in austin, and i hadn't heard a thing about it. i'm not surprised, just disappointed. there is a disturbing undercurrent of racial tension here, as black suspects keep winding up dead by the hands of white police officers. just as the community was still reeling from the trial of one oficer, another recently shot a man to death, and now this.
*sigh*
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.
PAGE:
1 | 2 | 3
Comments
SignalNoise
USA
February 2004
JUN 21, 2007 05:09 AM
Ascanius
USA
October 2006
JUN 21, 2007 05:36 AM
Ascanius
USA
October 2006
JUN 21, 2007 05:37 AM
DCruz
Montreal-nord, QC
November 2006
JUN 21, 2007 07:23 AM
Ff
I'm lost
August 2006
JUN 21, 2007 07:33 AM
zarth
Seattle, WA
December 2004
JUN 21, 2007 07:43 AM
mingol
Singapore
July 2005
JUN 21, 2007 07:45 AM
mingol
Singapore
July 2005
JUN 21, 2007 07:49 AM
Ff
I'm lost
August 2006
JUN 21, 2007 07:53 AM
mydogfarted
Oakland, NJ
June 2003
JUN 21, 2007 08:30 AM
smithers_jones
I'm lost
November 2003
JUN 21, 2007 08:51 AM
Aaron_Lariviere
Los Angeles, CA
May 2007
JUN 21, 2007 10:16 AM
Aaron_Lariviere
Los Angeles, CA
May 2007
JUN 21, 2007 10:37 AM
fredfarnance
Syracuse, NY
March 2004
JUN 21, 2007 10:49 AM
zarth
Seattle, WA
December 2004
JUN 21, 2007 11:31 AM
PAGE:
1 | 2 | 3