You're absolutely right, but that's also beside the point. The KKK probably directly killed more people in the 60s - Not just black people and jews, but people who disagreed with them, people who agreed with them but were caught in crossfire or misidentified. That organization is vile and despicable, and as much as it is still possible within the bounds of justice to prosecute and lock up those responsible for such reprehensible acts, I completely agree.
These terrorist acts, while pertinent to the current conversation, are not the same. We've (hopefully) moved on from the violence of our forebears, and the rise of white nationalism should be treated as a new occurrence. I hope it is one. The argument that it
The police should be on hand at these 'demonstrations'. Many of them are actually violent. Many more have peaceful if disgusting protestors, and a few truly vile people that will incite incidents - And these get out of hand very quick. Police should be quick to stamp out these brawls. They need to immediately arrest the criminals who instigate violent acts.
The important things to recognize are a) that the violence is instigated on both sides, and b) making yourself a target for violence is not an effective way of rooting out violence. They're correlated - Black Block members often toe the line in attempt to provoke. That's simply escalation. It make the Nazis think they're right and makes it easier for them to radicalize others - Because they're "being provoked", so why shouldn't they "fight back"?
Escalation only makes it worse. As the old adage goes - "Don't wrestle with pigs; You both get dirty and the pig likes it". Antifa is wrestling with pigs. You can't fight Nazi's by fighting them with fists - They like that. You need to fight them by being better than them, and quite frankly, when they're winning you need to re-evaluate if you really are.
I have only checked the first link however the NYT article from 2015 states
"48 have been killed by extremists who are not Muslim, including the recent mass killing in Charleston, S.C., compared with 26 by self-proclaimed jihadists, according to a count by New America, a Washington research center."
The pulse nightclub shooting alone killed 49 people. That is more than the entirety of the post 9/11 number white supremacist murders up to 2015 with a single event from 2016.
I said "more terrorist attacks", which is accurate. I didn't make any claims about how deadly those terrorist attacks were. That Neo-Nazis aren't always good at terrorism is hardly a ringing endorsement or a thing to hold up as proof that we shouldn't be dealing with Neo-Nazi groups as terrorist organizations.
Then again, the Oklahoma City bombing was the deadliest terror attack on US soil in our lifetimes prior to 9/11, and was committed by a right wing extremist. It is sort of arbitrary to draw the line at 9/11 (though maybe reasonable since it was such a devastating attack, and kinda blows the curve for any sort of accounting of other kinds of terror).
Generally we discard 9/11 from such discussions as it blows death toll comparisons out the window. Going post 9/11 stays both relevant to current times and removes the absolute worst events in both cases (Ok city, and 9/11).
Doing comparisons without these cases we get similar numbers for both factions within some wide margin of error. Looking at this from a per capita perspective though we have Muslim Americans that make up around 1% of the population by my googling having a similar terrorism death toll as the 32% of the population that is right wing white Americans (white Americans being 64% of the population. This would make that faction 32 times more dangerous per capita than the white right wing.
I don't know that it's fair to place Neo-Nazis in the same set as moderate Republicans (i.e. all "right wing" people in the US). I feel like there's a particular kind of person that joins extremist organizations and commits terrorist acts, and Muslim extremists have more in common with Neo-Nazi terrorists than they do with moderate Muslims. Likewise, I suspect (hope) moderate Republicans have more in common with moderate Muslims than they do with right wing extremists.
But, the way so many have jumped to defend Neo-Nazis or redirect blame for their violence has me pretty shook. I don't really know how to process someone looking at Charlottesville and saying, "it's the fault of the left". It doesn't even make sense, much less help the nation heal, and a lot of people with a lot of influence are doing it.
It's pretty much terrifying that we have a president that is among the ranks of Neo-Nazi apologists, and that a large percentage of GOP leadership has said nothing. Maybe I'm giving moderate Republicans too much credit. Neo-Nazi leaders certainly feel vindicated by what's been coming out of a lot of mainstream Republican talking heads lately.
> Then again, the Oklahoma City bombing was the deadliest terror attack on US soil in our lifetimes prior to 9/11, and was committed by a right wing extremist.
Timothy McVeigh? Why do you consider him right-wing?
Because everybody else did, including Timothy McVeigh.
Some quotes:
"McVeigh was reprimanded by the military for purchasing a "White Power" T-shirt at a Ku Klux Klan protest"
"he spoke daily to his co-worker Carl Lebron, Jr. about his loathing for government. Deciding that the Buffalo area was too liberal, he left his job and began driving around the country, seeking out his old friends from the Army."
A letter he wrote to a newspaper:
"Taxes are a joke. Regardless of what a political candidate "promises," they will increase. More taxes are always the answer to government mismanagement. They mess up. We suffer. Taxes are reaching cataclysmic levels, with no slowdown in sight. [...] Is a Civil War Imminent? Do we have to shed blood to reform the current system? I hope it doesn't come to that. But it might."
"McVeigh introduced his sister to anti-government literature"
"For the five months following the Waco siege, McVeigh worked at gun shows and handed out free cards printed up with Lon Horiuchi's name and address, "in the hope that somebody in the Patriot movement would assassinate the sharpshooter." (Note "Patriot movement" was the way right wing extremist groups were re-branded in the 90s, just as alt-right and some other names have been used since.)
He made his meager living selling copies of The Turner Diaries (a novel that fantasizes about an armed revolution against the US government, and genocide of blacks, Jews, and gays: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Turner_Diaries) among other right wing literature at gun shows.
I don't see how he can be considered anything but right wing, and pretty extreme right wing, at that.
Comparing Neo-Nazis to Muslims is incredible, and it says something ugly about your beliefs about Neo-Nazis and about Muslims.
If, instead, you mean, civil rights for members of Muslim extremist organizations, then your comparison would be reasonable. So, you tell me. Should Al Qaeda be given permits for rallies across the US to recruit people to commit acts of terror?
We aren't talking about people who merely say racist things. No one is suggesting racists should have their speech curtailed, as repugnant as that speech may be. We are discussing groups that have as their stated goal the violent overthrow of the US government and imposition of a white ethno-state. It's not a secret that's what they stand for and what they are recruiting for. They talk about it pretty openly, and it can be confirmed by spending even a little time in their online or real world spaces.
It is false equivalence, and gross, to compare Neo-Nazis to Muslims. There is no similarity there. There are violent extremists that are Muslims, but it is not the stated purpose of the religion or the majority of the people (or even a notable percentage) who practice that religion. Neo-Nazis, the groups represented by the Unite The Right rally, are violent extremists, both in word and deed, and it isn't a secret or small percentage of their numbers. It is why the organizations exist.
In all honesty, I got the same impression from your comment. Please try to be more careful with your wording; its hard to communicate true intention on an internet forum.
I don't know what his source was, but Googling "right wing terrorism" turns up this Politifact article [1], which cites this GAO report to Congress [2].
Why would you want white supremacist rallies to not be counter-protested? If there's a white supremacist rally going without protest anywhere in this country, I will be horribly disappointed in my fellow Americans.
Nazis must be protested, everywhere they show their angry entitled faces. Sometimes they become violent when criticized. Violence is core to Nazi beliefs, so it's not surprising when they become violent. Antifa is a defensive tool against that violence, to make it safer for others to protest against Nazis.
Sometimes, antifa goes too far, perhaps. But, you're never going to make me feel sympathy for people who literally actively seek the death and degradation of millions of Americans.
If one wants their counter protest to be accepted at face value, maybe the organizers should institute a buffer zone. It seems like proximity foments violence, one way or the other.
I think that's a reasonable approach, and there has been criticism of police (on "many sides") that police in Charlottesville didn't do enough to protect peaceful protestors. In this case, it seems that all of the serious injuries were inflicted by Neo-Nazis on peaceful counter-protesters, but there have been cases where antifa has inflicted injury, perhaps even without provocation.
Charlottesville police seemed underprepared for this event, in general. Many, many, reports from a wide variety of people noted a complete lack of police presence in a number of situations where violence occurred, or that police were present but merely observed violence taking place.
This leads to a lot of mistrust of police, and also makes it harder for protesters who might like to remain non-violent to do so. If you see someone being beaten up by Nazis and police aren't stopping it, the only decent thing for an able-bodied person to do is to try to stop it.
> Charlottesville police seemed underprepared for this event, in general.
Core problem seems to be that lots of the Nazis (and to a lesser extent, some of the protesters) were heavily armed. It's easy for police to break up a protest where no one is armed, but they sure as hell won't mace a group of heavily armed people, no matter if Nazi, Antifa or whatever.
I'm not a fan of bussing. It is unfair to the good kids. "Bad" kids know how to deal with other "bad" kids. They grow up in that environment and know the rules of the game.
Good kids grow up in a different environment. The consequences of not knowing to handle oneself around "bad" kids are very high. There is no doubt that on average "bad" kids are much bigger bullies with lower empathy.
The consequences of not knowing how to conduct oneself around good kids as a "bad" kid are much lower in severity. For the most part, the parents of good kids set limits to the aggression of their children. For example, the biggest social rejects at my upper middle class schools weren't ever really bullied. People pitied the complete rejects and most people thought anyone who would bully the rejects is a complete douchebag.
I can't imagine how the social rejects or even the normal nerdy kids at my high school would have fared at a "bad" school.
Then there is the minority immigrant issue. Segregation is good for certain minority groups that do not have the language skills and cultural knowledge to integrate into America. They segregate themselves into a separate community that can provide support for its members. Desegregating these communities and their children will have negative effects.
The children of these immigrants will have the worst time dealing with the "bad" kids because they may have stunted language skills and lack cultural knowledge and context to be able to effectively navigate bad situations.
And to get a better picture of the winners and losers:
- > 90% of African Americans are born in America (and presumably have parents, family and connections who know English and understand American culture).
- Spanish is ubiquitous in the USA and the Hispanic population is huge. Hispanic people have a much lower need to congregate into a community compared to other minorities.
> because all the other students are doing well the bad students peers are working hard so the bad student sees that example and is likely to succumb to peer pressure and do better
What about the non-troubled kids? How much of a negative effect can a few troubled kids have on non-troubled kids?
One kid acting out in a class can ruin the learning atmosphere for the entire class.
You can go to any internet space and find thousands of hateful and racist people. The chances of any of them committing violence is extremely low.