America

[Son of Mathonwy]

Anyone who suggests that non violent campaigns don’t work should refer to Gandhi and Mandela.

While I agree that peaceful protest is still the best approach for black americans, we should note that:

1) both Gandhi and Mandela were fighting for the freedom of an oppressed majority - a much easier task,

and

2) whilst Gandhi was certainly dedicated to peace, the same cannot be said of Mandela or the ANC:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UMkhonto_we_Sizwe

[Sandydragon]

The problem with violent demonstration is that it scares off moderate supporters and pushes the state towards a predictable outcome. Then there is only one way to go and it’s not pretty.

Anyone who suggests that non violent campaigns don’t work should refer to Gandhi and Mandela.

Whilst having Trump in office is a real problem, the key activity is local. Get organised and vote for candidates who represent your interests. Obama has put it more succinctly than I can and he is absolutely right. If you disengage from politics then you box yourself into a corner and only have one very bad option.

Beautifully illustrated.

I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

We all have different views. I happen to think those methods are doomed to fail and will set back their cause by decades.

[Sandydragon]

Anyone who suggests that non violent campaigns don’t work should refer to Gandhi and Mandela.

While I agree that peaceful protest is still the best approach for black americans, we should note that:

1) both Gandhi and Mandela were fighting for the freedom of an oppressed majority - a much easier task,

and

2) whilst Gandhi was certainly dedicated to peace, the same cannot be said of Mandela or the ANC:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UMkhonto_we_Sizwe

Completely agree about the ANC, Mandela did change his approach after early dalliances with direct action.

Mandela and Gandhi did fight for the rights of a majority, but equally they had sod all actual power, particularly in South Africa.

But that makes my argument stronger. The black minority can’t overthrow a majority. What they can do is appeal to those of the white majority who aren’t racist and will support their cause, but would get turned off by violence.

[Stom]

Anyone who suggests that non violent campaigns don’t work should refer to Gandhi and Mandela.

While I agree that peaceful protest is still the best approach for black americans, we should note that:

1) both Gandhi and Mandela were fighting for the freedom of an oppressed majority - a much easier task,

and

2) whilst Gandhi was certainly dedicated to peace, the same cannot be said of Mandela or the ANC:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UMkhonto_we_Sizwe

Completely agree about the ANC, Mandela did change his approach after early dalliances with direct action.

Mandela and Gandhi did fight for the rights of a majority, but equally they had sod all actual power, particularly in South Africa.

But that makes my argument stronger. The black minority can’t overthrow a majority. What they can do is appeal to those of the white majority who aren’t racist and will support their cause, but would get turned off by violence.

But that's the problem.

The violence is not a majority, or even a large minority, yet it is the centrepiece of the coverage.

That's wrong.

The media are shifting the conversation toward violence and away from the issue at hand. That's what I mean about enabling.

If you keep talking about the violence, it's going to stop support.

If you keep talking about the atrocities, support will grow. AND there will be less violence.

[Donny osmond]

I don't know if this is just me, but it does seem like it's possible to simultaneously have utmost sympathy with black people in America, to the point where one can understand and even empathize with the desire to riot... and think that violence is ultimately self defeating.

As an addendum, in a large percentage of reports that I've seen, with all the usual caveats about what you see on the internet, it doesn't seem like the people protesting are the ones rioting. It perhaps is not, ehem, a black and white situation.

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

[cashead]

Winning the Nobel Peace Prize in 1964 Martin Luther King Jr. noted the following, which I mention apropos of nothing, beautifully illustrated mind:

"I must ask why this prize is awarded to a movement which is beleaguered and committed to unrelenting struggle, and to a movement which has not yet won the very peace and brotherhood which is the essence of the Nobel Prize," King said. "After contemplation, I conclude that this award, which I receive on behalf of that movement, is a profound recognition that nonviolence is the answer to the crucial political and moral questions of our time: the need for man to overcome oppression and violence without resorting to violence and oppression."

You have read the rest of the Letter From a Birmingham Jail, yes? None of that statement is inconsistent with what he wrote earlier, and you have said nothing that refutes the point he was making, which was "people telling us we're protesting wrong need to fuck right off."

[cashead]

The problem with violent demonstration is that it scares off moderate supporters and pushes the state towards a predictable outcome. Then there is only one way to go and it’s not pretty.

Anyone who suggests that non violent campaigns don’t work should refer to Gandhi and Mandela.

Whilst having Trump in office is a real problem, the key activity is local. Get organised and vote for candidates who represent your interests. Obama has put it more succinctly than I can and he is absolutely right. If you disengage from politics then you box yourself into a corner and only have one very bad option.

Beautifully illustrated.

I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

We all have different views. I happen to think those methods are doomed to fail and will set back their cause by decades.

Because non-violent protest has gained so much for them.

Why should those protesting play by rules set by a side that has no intention of honoring those same rules when it pertains to them?

[Digby]

Why should those protesting play by rules set by a side that has no intention of honoring those same rules when it pertains to them?

Because where does it end? If you justify one group then poor white trash have some legitimate complaints, non Christians have some reasonable complaints, released felons have some reasonable complaints...

I think perhaps what you're saying is you're far more comfortable with the idea of burning down the exiting establishment and rebuilding anew. And whilst I concede it has some inspirational tones to it I would worry that the process will be detrimental to many and the new utopia will look an awful lot like the old regime, albeit that rather than a dystopia, but the dystopia is a possibility if the US when rebuilding became more like Russia or China. And I just don't think you get the change you want in a day, in a year, perhaps not even in a lifetime, life is much crueler than that

There are some appalling acts going on currently, from the police killings, to court sentencing, to access to decent housing and food, to a failing education system with a state secretary who doesn't even believe in education for the masses, to jobs, to drugs, and even around the protests to police brutality and the inappropriate operations of a too militarised police force. And oftentimes it's still more annoying because the US spends some vast sums of money on after the fact punishment, so they have the means to start to bring about change and then intentionally don't do it anyway , but as noted elsewhere it's also frustrating because many of those being denied even a fair chance aren't exercising their rights to the fullest to make the change they want, by voting, by participating in their democracy

[Which Tyler]

"We're covering up our badge numbers and/or body cams.......to commemorate people who lost their lives to CovId.....no other reason....honest"

[Digby]

They are too close to a military force, their training and equipment not fit for purpose, their chains of command often ludicrous, their accountability too often lacking, and on this there would be some more sensible ways to remember those lost to Covid. But they will be hurting, and they will have their own stories of being betrayed by the communities they're giving their lives to serve. And they will cite cases like retired police chief David Dorn, who died after being shot it is being reported trying to stop looters at his friends shop.

[cashead]

But that makes my argument stronger. The black minority can’t overthrow a majority. What they can do is appeal to those of the white majority who aren’t racist and will support their cause, but would get turned off by violence.

Bruh, I hope you're not suggesting that you think the protests are about overthrowing a society.

[cashead]

Why should those protesting play by rules set by a side that has no intention of honoring those same rules when it pertains to them?

Because where does it end? If you justify one group then poor white trash have some legitimate complaints, non Christians have some reasonable complaints, released felons have some reasonable complaints...

I think perhaps what you're saying is you're far more comfortable with the idea of burning down the exiting establishment and rebuilding anew. And whilst I concede it has some inspirational tones to it I would worry that the process will be detrimental to many and the new utopia will look an awful lot like the old regime, albeit that rather than a dystopia, but the dystopia is a possibility if the US when rebuilding became more like Russia or China. And I just don't think you get the change you want in a day, in a year, perhaps not even in a lifetime, life is much crueler than that

There are some appalling acts going on currently, from the police killings, to court sentencing, to access to decent housing and food, to a failing education system with a state secretary who doesn't even believe in education for the masses, to jobs, to drugs, and even around the protests to police brutality and the inappropriate operations of a too militarised police force. And oftentimes it's still more annoying because the US spends some vast sums of money on after the fact punishment, so they have the means to start to bring about change and then intentionally don't do it anyway , but as noted elsewhere it's also frustrating because many of those being denied even a fair chance aren't exercising their rights to the fullest to make the change they want, by voting, by participating in their democracy

God fucking damn, this is one of the stupidest fucking things I've seen posted today, I don't even know where to start.

There is no fucking slippery slope because this isn't about insitutionalised racism and violence against religion, and the prison-industrial complex is absolutely part of the fucking problem anyway, considering the fact that a black person is likelier to be incarcerated than a white one.

It's easy to be miles away, tutting and shaking your head while these people take to the streets in outrage. The George Floyd murder, as tragic and unnecessary as it was, was merely a catalyst that set off an explosion of rage, after generations of inequality and injustice. You tell them to behave themselves and stop being so fucking angry, when it's not your community getting choked and shot by pigs, who have, by and large, been allowed to get away with it. I doubt, if you end up getting the cops called on you, that it would be a lottery for you whether you'll survive that encounter alive. They tried peaceful protests, and that got nowhere. For every Amber Guyger, how many cops have been allowed to walk away, having unnecessarily taken the lives of black people? How about the fact that 3 of the pigs that killed George Floyd are still walking free?

What good is the establishment, when it's used as a blunt tool to oppress an entire people? What good is it, when it's built off the back of the suffering of others, their very humanity stripped away from them because they had the rotten luck of being a minority? That shit is allowed to happen because the establishment fucking blows. And nothing will change unless either that establishment is torn right the fuck down, or is made to reconcile its own ugly past and becomes fit for purpose, because right now? It sure as fuck ain't, and no amount of your rationalising of licking boots will change that fact.


Also, because I'm sounding more and more like UG, something something Israel, that sound you hear is me apparently sucking on a Russian bootheel.

[Digby]

Why should those protesting play by rules set by a side that has no intention of honoring those same rules when it pertains to them?

Because where does it end? If you justify one group then poor white trash have some legitimate complaints, non Christians have some reasonable complaints, released felons have some reasonable complaints...

I think perhaps what you're saying is you're far more comfortable with the idea of burning down the exiting establishment and rebuilding anew. And whilst I concede it has some inspirational tones to it I would worry that the process will be detrimental to many and the new utopia will look an awful lot like the old regime, albeit that rather than a dystopia, but the dystopia is a possibility if the US when rebuilding became more like Russia or China. And I just don't think you get the change you want in a day, in a year, perhaps not even in a lifetime, life is much crueler than that

There are some appalling acts going on currently, from the police killings, to court sentencing, to access to decent housing and food, to a failing education system with a state secretary who doesn't even believe in education for the masses, to jobs, to drugs, and even around the protests to police brutality and the inappropriate operations of a too militarised police force. And oftentimes it's still more annoying because the US spends some vast sums of money on after the fact punishment, so they have the means to start to bring about change and then intentionally don't do it anyway , but as noted elsewhere it's also frustrating because many of those being denied even a fair chance aren't exercising their rights to the fullest to make the change they want, by voting, by participating in their democracy

God fucking damn, this is one of the stupidest fucking things I've seen posted today, I don't even know where to start.

There is no fucking slippery slope because this isn't about insitutionalised racism and violence against religion, and the prison-industrial complex is absolutely part of the fucking problem anyway, considering the fact that a black person is likelier to be incarcerated than a white one.

It's easy to be miles away, tutting and shaking your head while these people take to the streets in outrage. The George Floyd murder, as tragic and unnecessary as it was, was merely a catalyst that set off an explosion of rage, after generations of inequality and injustice. You tell them to behave themselves and stop being so fucking angry, when it's not your community getting choked and shot by pigs, who have, by and large, been allowed to get away with it. I doubt, if you end up getting the cops called on you, that it would be a lottery for you whether you'll survive that encounter alive. They tried peaceful protests, and that got nowhere. For every Amber Guyger, how many cops have been allowed to walk away, having unnecessarily taken the lives of black people? How about the fact that 3 of the pigs that killed George Floyd are still walking free?

I'm not taking issue with people taking to the streets in outrage, people should be outraged whether they're taking to streets or staying home because they're unable to leave home or taking note of a global pandemic, because it is outrageous. I'm not even saying they need to behave themselves, more that when it escalates to violence I don't see that as helpful, and I'm going to come down more on the side of wanting some progress than wanting some venting, and whilst these protests stem from racism it's not the only hot topic, and the logic that violence is okay sounds eerily similar to me to that which one hears from groups saying it's okay to kill doctors who perform abortions, because they make us angry and there's no other path to follow when nothing ever changes and these people just carry on behaving in the same way.

[cashead]

The violence already done got escalated when they choked George Floyd to death on a fucking street in broad daylight.

[Digby]

So an abortion doctor is fair game if they undertake the murder of a child and that makes you angry enough that nothing is being done! It's a point of view, just not one I share.

Or are you saying that's an absurd comparison, and it's only the right kind of anger and violence that's okay? Although that then seems to share some thinking with the idea that only the right sort of people are okay, and down and down the rabbit hole we go.

[Sandydragon]

While I agree that peaceful protest is still the best approach for black americans, we should note that:

1) both Gandhi and Mandela were fighting for the freedom of an oppressed majority - a much easier task,

and

2) whilst Gandhi was certainly dedicated to peace, the same cannot be said of Mandela or the ANC:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UMkhonto_we_Sizwe

Completely agree about the ANC, Mandela did change his approach after early dalliances with direct action.

Mandela and Gandhi did fight for the rights of a majority, but equally they had sod all actual power, particularly in South Africa.

But that makes my argument stronger. The black minority can’t overthrow a majority. What they can do is appeal to those of the white majority who aren’t racist and will support their cause, but would get turned off by violence.

But that's the problem.

The violence is not a majority, or even a large minority, yet it is the centrepiece of the coverage.

That's wrong.

The media are shifting the conversation toward violence and away from the issue at hand. That's what I mean about enabling.

If you keep talking about the violence, it's going to stop support.

If you keep talking about the atrocities, support will grow. AND there will be less violence.

Of course the media are changing focus. Theres little to report on an ongoing investigation and the rioters are giving them plenty of material. Peaceful demonstrations would get positive attention. Rioting will always be condemned. The only people that are being hurt by the rioters are the owners of the premises being burnt out and those caught in the rioting themselves. Plus their cause is taking a kicking.

[cashead]

So an abortion doctor is fair game if they undertake the murder of a child and that makes you angry enough that nothing is being done! It's a point of view, just not one I share.

Or are you saying that's an absurd comparison, and it's only the right kind of anger and violence that's okay? Although that then seems to share some thinking with the idea that only the right sort of people are okay, and down and down the rabbit hole we go.

Of course it's an absurd comparison, because the issues at play are completely different - one involves women having agency over their own reproductive organs and rights, the other is about systemic, institutionalised racism, and denying a racial and ethnic minority equal rights and protection under the law. You're trying to compare apples and oranges and then demanding to know why they're different. Honestly, the fact that you're trying to suggest there's some sort of equivalence between one group demanding equal, civil rights, and another acting to deny others their reproductive rights is both disgusting and disingenuous as fuck.

And for the record, women's rights activists historically were fucking hardcore.

[Stom]

Completely agree about the ANC, Mandela did change his approach after early dalliances with direct action.

Mandela and Gandhi did fight for the rights of a majority, but equally they had sod all actual power, particularly in South Africa.

But that makes my argument stronger. The black minority can’t overthrow a majority. What they can do is appeal to those of the white majority who aren’t racist and will support their cause, but would get turned off by violence.

But that's the problem.

The violence is not a majority, or even a large minority, yet it is the centrepiece of the coverage.

That's wrong.

The media are shifting the conversation toward violence and away from the issue at hand. That's what I mean about enabling.

If you keep talking about the violence, it's going to stop support.

If you keep talking about the atrocities, support will grow. AND there will be less violence.

Of course the media are changing focus. Theres little to report on an ongoing investigation and the rioters are giving them plenty of material. Peaceful demonstrations would get positive attention. Rioting will always be condemned. The only people that are being hurt by the rioters are the owners of the premises being burnt out and those caught in the rioting themselves. Plus their cause is taking a kicking.

But that’s the problem, it’s almost exclusively peaceful, yet here we are spending pages and pages talking about riots, when the majority have only got violent when they’ve been attacked.

It’s shifting the narrative to suit the racists. I’m simply saying, as MLK seemed to have said, too, that repeating those lines about violence and putting so much focus on the rioters is just as bad as the racists themselves.

[Digby]

So an abortion doctor is fair game if they undertake the murder of a child and that makes you angry enough that nothing is being done! It's a point of view, just not one I share.

Or are you saying that's an absurd comparison, and it's only the right kind of anger and violence that's okay? Although that then seems to share some thinking with the idea that only the right sort of people are okay, and down and down the rabbit hole we go.

Of course it's an absurd comparison, because the issues at play are completely different - one involves women having agency over their own reproductive organs and rights, the other is about systemic, institutionalised racism, and denying a racial and ethnic minority equal rights and protection under the law. You're trying to compare apples and oranges and then demanding to know why they're different. Honestly, the fact that you're trying to suggest there's some sort of equivalence between one group demanding equal, civil rights, and another acting to deny others their reproductive rights is both disgusting and disingenuous as fuck.

And for the record, women's rights activists historically were fucking hardcore.

Women's rights around the world including in the US still rank abysmally, they I assume are allowed to do violence to men because of the ongoing violence toward and subjugation of women? Which means both of us are fair game in the USA for the womenfolk, and if I ever return to NZ I assume I'd be fair game there too given the huge problems of racism in Kiwiland? This covid thing and having to stay home is starting to look more and more like it's saving my life.

I will though agree I am saying there's an equivalence to looking at rights, I think this because in my estimation to have equality we should be treating people equally. I don't agree I'm disgusting though I would stipulate to a number of flaws.

[Son of Mathonwy]

Anyone who suggests that non violent campaigns don’t work should refer to Gandhi and Mandela.

While I agree that peaceful protest is still the best approach for black americans, we should note that:

1) both Gandhi and Mandela were fighting for the freedom of an oppressed majority - a much easier task,

and

2) whilst Gandhi was certainly dedicated to peace, the same cannot be said of Mandela or the ANC:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UMkhonto_we_Sizwe

Completely agree about the ANC, Mandela did change his approach after early dalliances with direct action.

Mandela and Gandhi did fight for the rights of a majority, but equally they had sod all actual power, particularly in South Africa.

But that makes my argument stronger. The black minority can’t overthrow a majority. What they can do is appeal to those of the white majority who aren’t racist and will support their cause, but would get turned off by violence.

We have the impression that Mandela was a saint, largely because of 1) his charisma and 2) the fact that we was locked up for 27 years, and so not so closely linked to his organisation and its campaign (which included violent acts). Freedom was not won peacefully in South Africa.

I don't understand your assertion that "it makes your argument stronger". You've picked two examples of successful and supposedly peaceful campaigns. Only one of them was peaceful. And both were successful largely because of the number of the oppressed, particularly India where the number of colonials was dwarfed by the number of natives. I don't think your single example of a successful, peaceful campaign proves anything.

As I said, I agree that the protesters in the USA should maintain discipline and be peaceful, and that it's probably the most effective way to protest right now. But I have to be honest, I don't see much evidence to back up this position (ie evidence that a minority can win concessions from an oppressive majority most effectively through peaceful means).

[Digby]

It’s shifting the narrative to suit the racists. I’m simply saying, as MLK seemed to have said, too, that repeating those lines about violence and putting so much focus on the rioters is just as bad as the racists themselves.

No small amount of the violence is being done towards the protesters, it's not a one way street when violence takes the lead story. But violence will take the lead story 'cause the urgent crowds out the important, and that just seems more how it is than any support, intended or otherwise, for racism.

[Stom]

It’s shifting the narrative to suit the racists. I’m simply saying, as MLK seemed to have said, too, that repeating those lines about violence and putting so much focus on the rioters is just as bad as the racists themselves.

No small amount of the violence is being done towards the protesters, it's not a one way street when violence takes the lead story. But violence will take the lead story 'cause the urgent crowds out the important, and that just seems more how it is than any support, intended or otherwise, for racism.

Well, that's kinda the point...

Everyone needs to look at how they react to these situations. I know I have had to do the same.

[Sandydragon]

It’s shifting the narrative to suit the racists. I’m simply saying, as MLK seemed to have said, too, that repeating those lines about violence and putting so much focus on the rioters is just as bad as the racists themselves.

No small amount of the violence is being done towards the protesters, it's not a one way street when violence takes the lead story. But violence will take the lead story 'cause the urgent crowds out the important, and that just seems more how it is than any support, intended or otherwise, for racism.

Well, that's kinda the point...

Everyone needs to look at how they react to these situations. I know I have had to do the same.

Precisely why non-violence is so effective. Take away the argument of the racist element and show peaceful protest by people of all ethnic backgrounds sat down in front of heavily armed policy.Make the story about the scale of the protest and watch Trump descend into further acts of stupidity.

If and when the US gets a President who is an actual fully functional human being who demonstrates believable sympathy for the bereaved and those who are concerned by ethnicity of deaths caused by the police, then the debate can shift into those local areas where there are real hangups. Not all policing agencies operate the same in the US and the problem organisations deserve the most focus.

[Stom]

No small amount of the violence is being done towards the protesters, it's not a one way street when violence takes the lead story. But violence will take the lead story 'cause the urgent crowds out the important, and that just seems more how it is than any support, intended or otherwise, for racism.

Well, that's kinda the point...

Everyone needs to look at how they react to these situations. I know I have had to do the same.

Precisely why non-violence is so effective. Take away the argument of the racist element and show peaceful protest by people of all ethnic backgrounds sat down in front of heavily armed policy.Make the story about the scale of the protest and watch Trump descend into further acts of stupidity.

If and when the US gets a President who is an actual fully functional human being who demonstrates believable sympathy for the bereaved and those who are concerned by ethnicity of deaths caused by the police, then the debate can shift into those local areas where there are real hangups. Not all policing agencies operate the same in the US and the problem organisations deserve the most focus.

But that's the thing. Reports that peaceful protests have been escalated by police have been repeated often enough by varied enough sources - including video - to make it more than just likely.

It's the narrative the majority of the press want you to believe.

I know I'm unusual among RR regulars in that my paper of choice is the Granuaid, but I also like to take info from NYT and Der Spiegel. These papers form the backbone of actual reporting. And the Guardian led with a report about the peaceful protests. Of which there were many.

Just by continuously repeating that line about violence, you're causing damage to a campaign that is not particularly violent.

[Digby]

Well, that's kinda the point...

Everyone needs to look at how they react to these situations. I know I have had to do the same.

Precisely why non-violence is so effective. Take away the argument of the racist element and show peaceful protest by people of all ethnic backgrounds sat down in front of heavily armed policy.Make the story about the scale of the protest and watch Trump descend into further acts of stupidity.

If and when the US gets a President who is an actual fully functional human being who demonstrates believable sympathy for the bereaved and those who are concerned by ethnicity of deaths caused by the police, then the debate can shift into those local areas where there are real hangups. Not all policing agencies operate the same in the US and the problem organisations deserve the most focus.

But that's the thing. Reports that peaceful protests have been escalated by police have been repeated often enough by varied enough sources - including video - to make it more than just likely.

It's the narrative the majority of the press want you to believe.

I know I'm unusual among RR regulars in that my paper of choice is the Granuaid, but I also like to take info from NYT and Der Spiegel. These papers form the backbone of actual reporting. And the Guardian led with a report about the peaceful protests. Of which there were many.

Just by continuously repeating that line about violence, you're causing damage to a campaign that is not particularly violent.

If they're reporting the violent acts of the police, reporting the less than constructive language of the fat orange one and others, that's not all bad coverage for the underlying cause. Just noting violence is bad doesn't play only against one side, indeed blending it into your protest and communication should be part of how you present your case for change.

And in the coverage I've seen, hardly extensive, we have seen condemnation for the mixing of the military with a civil police force, for the low flying of helicopters, for the absurd use of tear gas, concussion grenades and rubber projectiles, for the President's photo op at a church (condemned by the Church), for the use of batons on protesters, for closing off bridges/streets and effectively arresting peaceful protesters, for the violence of the pro-white groups seeking to stir trouble, for...

It seems like you're hearing the coverage of the violence and assuming that's all an intentional or convenient attempt to support those conservative/racist persons who don't want change, and I just don't draw the same inference. Though the protests will need to own they are linked to some violence and some looting, I didn't for instance see David Dorn (the former police chief shot by looters) bleed out on the floor and think anyone was entitled to do that just because they are angry