I try to avoid writing rants. Rants aren’t productive. Rants don’t change minds or soften hearts. Nobody comes away after reading a rant with a new perspective or a better understanding of an issue. That said, rants are really fun.
The word terrorism in the conversation and current use is interesting as it is something fairly new. Terrorism is the use of violence to achieve a political objective so I am not saying that it is misused, just a new modern thing for a boomer like me.
When I returned from Vietnam in 1970, shortly after Kent State, the Marine Corps put me in riot control training. One of the very memorable things an instructor said was, "They are your fellow Americans. Use the minimum force necessary, but all that is necessary." It meant what it sounds like it meant. We studied the Watts riots and large international riots in Japan, Korea, etc. We trained with fire hoses, tear gas, batons and rifles with fixed bayonets. It was all as serious as a heart attack.
If the January 6 event had brought out the National Guard I wonder if they were trained like we were (I doubt it) or they would have been a bunch of clowns like at Kent State. The anemic response led to the unarmed woman being shot where they should have never gotten in for that to happen. As riots go, the event itself was actually anemic.
With the 1992 LA Riots 63 people were killed, 2,383 injured, more than 12,000 arrested and estimates of property damage were over $1 billion. That's a riot. But it was called a riot, I don't remember it being called terrorism. Some BLM defenders seem willing to accept that they were riots while others still insist that they were peaceful protestors. But terrorists is a word they only want applied to the Trump supporters. Words bring architype images to mind. Terrorism is associated with airplane hijacking, bombing, 911, etc. Somehow that is magnified to a meaning with a significance beyond a riot.
Part of our training was identifying the instigators of violence and removing them from the scene. You may remember the hubbub about the unidentified people grabbing up people at the Antifa and BLM riots, stuffing them in vans and taking them away. Where were those guys in January? Sorry, I keep rambling, it's a subject dear to me.
Your 2nd to last paragraph led to, and shined a light on that and I thought I'd amplify if you don't mind. Too late. Easier to ask forgiveness than permission. It is of course the situational selection of words to demonize the opposition (enemy) and put a nice suit on those we wish to defend.
Haha, yeah, terrorism is one of this trigger words that immediately leads people to think of suicide vests and planes flying into buildings. Like “white supremacy”, it’s a term that’s associated with too wide a range of acts in people’s minds, especially in the current politically sensationalist climate.
I typically wouldn’t describe the BLM rioters *or* the Jan 6th rioters as terrorists for that reason. But as you say, if you’re going to say that one group is guilty of terrorism, it’s hard to argue that the other isn’t.
Yes! I didn't know this until one of my readers pointed it out in a reply to M. I'd always just thought of it as a nasty thing to say to a black person. Telling that the people who wield this insult have no idea what its roots are.
The word terrorism in the conversation and current use is interesting as it is something fairly new. Terrorism is the use of violence to achieve a political objective so I am not saying that it is misused, just a new modern thing for a boomer like me.
When I returned from Vietnam in 1970, shortly after Kent State, the Marine Corps put me in riot control training. One of the very memorable things an instructor said was, "They are your fellow Americans. Use the minimum force necessary, but all that is necessary." It meant what it sounds like it meant. We studied the Watts riots and large international riots in Japan, Korea, etc. We trained with fire hoses, tear gas, batons and rifles with fixed bayonets. It was all as serious as a heart attack.
If the January 6 event had brought out the National Guard I wonder if they were trained like we were (I doubt it) or they would have been a bunch of clowns like at Kent State. The anemic response led to the unarmed woman being shot where they should have never gotten in for that to happen. As riots go, the event itself was actually anemic.
With the 1992 LA Riots 63 people were killed, 2,383 injured, more than 12,000 arrested and estimates of property damage were over $1 billion. That's a riot. But it was called a riot, I don't remember it being called terrorism. Some BLM defenders seem willing to accept that they were riots while others still insist that they were peaceful protestors. But terrorists is a word they only want applied to the Trump supporters. Words bring architype images to mind. Terrorism is associated with airplane hijacking, bombing, 911, etc. Somehow that is magnified to a meaning with a significance beyond a riot.
Part of our training was identifying the instigators of violence and removing them from the scene. You may remember the hubbub about the unidentified people grabbing up people at the Antifa and BLM riots, stuffing them in vans and taking them away. Where were those guys in January? Sorry, I keep rambling, it's a subject dear to me.
Your 2nd to last paragraph led to, and shined a light on that and I thought I'd amplify if you don't mind. Too late. Easier to ask forgiveness than permission. It is of course the situational selection of words to demonize the opposition (enemy) and put a nice suit on those we wish to defend.
Haha, yeah, terrorism is one of this trigger words that immediately leads people to think of suicide vests and planes flying into buildings. Like “white supremacy”, it’s a term that’s associated with too wide a range of acts in people’s minds, especially in the current politically sensationalist climate.
I typically wouldn’t describe the BLM rioters *or* the Jan 6th rioters as terrorists for that reason. But as you say, if you’re going to say that one group is guilty of terrorism, it’s hard to argue that the other isn’t.
Yes! I didn't know this until one of my readers pointed it out in a reply to M. I'd always just thought of it as a nasty thing to say to a black person. Telling that the people who wield this insult have no idea what its roots are.
YES!