:strip_exif()/i/2001904311.jpeg?fit=%2C&ssl=1)
Like I said, almost no interference. And the fact that it is newsworthy when it does only proves the point more.
Certainly yes (but comparing only to the number of deaths from police bullets is of course not entirely clear if the extent to which weapons are available, and therefore also the risk for police officers, differs between the US and the EU).
The US police kill more unarmed civilians each year if all police forces in the EU kill civilians in total.
And if you just want to put it at risk, the US police also kills many more civilians if it itself has victims to lament compared to the EU. depending on what you do and don’t count, you can easily get over 10 civilian casualties for each killed officer (all killed agents, so not just killed in a shootout or other violence incident. Most deaths are accidents and no violence)
In the EU, that number is more likely to range between 1 and 2.
The UK even has 2 police dead per civilian killed.
https://www.japantimes.co…ious-circle/#.XuSt30UzYuU
https://theconversation.c…ed-to-european-cops-49696
So no, just the extra danger doesn’t explain the excessive police violence in the US.
As a “black lives matter”, you could also say “improve the world, start with yourself”.
yes, they tried several times .. one of the results was this: https://en.wikipedia.org/…0in%20Tulsa%2C%20Oklahoma.
An area known as black wall street, full of affluent black people, was then completely burned to the ground and its inhabitants lined by a white mob.
Other examples are a black prosperous neighborhood that had to make way for a highway. Or a mortgage system that gave automatic neighborhoods with more black people less favorable mortgage so that white people moved out and the neighborhoods themselves became increasingly poor and the houses plummeted prices, so that owning a house did not lead to more prosperity where in white neighborhoods it does. case (And of course this also led to whites who did not want black people to move into their neighborhood. The consequences are obvious)
there are many more examples, but everything leads to black people being stuck together in poverty in impoverished neighborhoods where investment is never invested and where education is miserable, and there are hardly any opportunities to escape this.
in addition, black men are on average more often convicted in comparable cases, and swords are punished for the same crime. You could hardly design a better gang-breeding system like what happened in the US.
And there are also things like racial profiling, stop and frisk, and deliberate extra surveillance in black areas.
And so you do get your much higher number of contact moments.
I think that’s another question for the judge / jury (except for the people who automatically say that it must be racism because it concerns a white policeman and a black victim).
in particular, it is yet another black, unarmed, victim who is killed by a white agent, who, if the protests had not been there, most likely would have got away without a fuss or consequence looking at history.
Floyd is not the point. Floyd is the drop that made the bucket overflow. Whether this exact incident was racist or not, the facts being protested do not change at all. Protests have been made because incidents like this are all too common, and the agents get away with them.
Why is “black lives matter” good, “all lives matter” out of the question, and “white lives matter” racist?
Because with a statement like ‘all lives matter’ you imply that black lives matters only wants black lives to matter. which is of course utter nonsense.
Calling a sentence like ‘all lives matter’ is nonsense. everyone knows that all lives matter. (anyone who is not a racist at least) You don’t have to repeat that. With black lives matter, black people demand extra attention for the many black victims.
And with a statement like ‘white lives matter’ you imply that extra attention should be given to white life at the moment. Why?
Even with the most friendly (I would even say naive) interpretation of this statement, you will come back to the same explanation of all lives matter. There is no one to say that white lives don’t matter, and there is nothing to indicate that. So why the need to say something like that? What would be your goal with that?
I also find it quite strange that the American narrative is almost one-on-one here in the Netherlands. For example, I recently read an entire interview on a news site (just MSM) in which the (Dutch with parent (s) with a migration background, I believe) interviewed stated that “you cannot talk about ‘all lives matter’ as long as the lives of blacks are in danger “.
I did not read the interview, but are you sure this person talked about the Netherlands?
I do not understand how it is possible that a mayor here in the Netherlands flouts all corona rules because a demonstration that mainly focuses on a situation in the US, and which will not change that situation there, would be too urgent and important. to be.
so, that is a WHOLE colored interpretation of what happened.
–
