U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Pennsylvania > Philadelphia
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-11-2020, 09:30 AM
 
1,578 posts, read 1,450,284 times
Reputation: 935

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by AshbyQuin View Post
Reached my limit on free articles. Can you tell me what are the proposed ideas are?
Basically, they are removing the Rizzo mural rather than replacing his face with Gritty's, lol.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-11-2020, 11:28 AM
 
Location: Center City
7,354 posts, read 8,421,957 times
Reputation: 10642
Quote:
Originally Posted by AJNEOA View Post
As always, I respect your post. I think that listening carefully will happen if two things are present: 1) protesters must be organized, stop any violence they have the power to stop, condemn violence that has/may occur, and speak with thought rather than with furor, and 2) have an actionable, specific set of goals that make sense.

I think that has started to happen, but it needs to be under strict control, and as I've said before, I don't see the leadership there to keep it reined in. If it continues to be different messages in different cities, with mixed violence, and an overarching dialog of "blame everyone else", people are not going to listen.

Note: I wanted to listen more than I have, but the violence and confusion and terrible organization has really polarized me. I agree that policing needs to change and police brutality need to be abolished wherever possible. But I am angry over what has happened and dismayed at the lack of organization; and fearful of where this will go with so much anger and a seemingly missing voice of reason/thought.
I never felt any disrespect. It's entirely possible to have serious disagreements and still respect another person. I aim for that, though I miss the mark from time to time.

Spontaneous uprisings broke out across the US when a large number of people witnessed one killing too many of an unarmed black person by police and (other) vigilantes. The main observation I have is that you are looking for leadership and purpose from what is an organic movement. Top down leadership can be powerful when there is buy-in from those affected. But we're not going to see that here. This movement is still too new.

I believe the issues of police violence against their own black citizens varies in form and degree in each locale. That means that the conversation and fixes are not a one-size-fits-all, but need to be tailored to each city. What works in St Louis may not work here.

This doesn't mean there is not value in leadership, but exactly who is the right leader for this kind of change? I think looking to the AA community to lead this change is simply unfair and unworkable. If they had the power to rein in police violence, create economic equality, and remove systemic racism, they would have done so. Instead, it's going to take those in power to step up and own the problem. If we look at the very top, however, we know POTUS is not going to be that person. In fact, he only flames the divisions.

Parking that, we need to look to others who have power. In the past 2 weeks, we have seen the recognition and ownership of the problem by people who possess some levers of power to drive change in their sphere of influence and control. For example, a few days back we saw 1,400 sports stars petitioning Congress to do away with qualified immunity. Qualified immunity has been used by police unions across the country to keep dangerous and deadly policing in place. But it's not just those 1,400 athletes. Look a NASCAR banning confederate flags. Look at the people (white people!) expressing their outage in cities ranging from NYC to Holland, Arkansas (with less than 600 people). Look at the public recognition by Fortune 500 CEOs that the system is not providing equal opportunity for people of color. And yes, the provocative Rizzo sculpture has finally come down.

These are organic changes, not the result of a 5 point agenda for change with accountability for key deliverables. Sometimes it's best to let the system flounder about in what looks like chaos for a while until the path forward emerges. Lots will have to change for us to reduce the systemic racism in our country. Initiatives in government, industry, academia, sports, entertainment and elsewhere towards that end will look different because the barriers to inclusion differ in each of these systems.

My biggest concern is that we will waste this opportunity. I'm old enough to remember the 1960s, when MLK was assassinated and our cities burned. Lots of high-minded proposals were adapted to remove barriers to inclusion for people of color, but we saw little lasting change from it. For example, hard-fought voter rights are being trampled once again by leaders who recognize that the only way they can win elections is to cheat. I have a faint hope that this time may be different, because I note a broader recognition that racism is the problem of white people, not POCs. I call that progress and a common ground we can meet on.

So we disagree. This doesn't mean that my thoughts are right and yours are wrong. It just means that we looked and the same situation and came to different conclusions.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-12-2020, 07:29 AM
 
5,546 posts, read 5,712,733 times
Reputation: 3787
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pine to Vine View Post
I never felt any disrespect. It's entirely possible to have serious disagreements and still respect another person. I aim for that, though I miss the mark from time to time.

Spontaneous uprisings broke out across the US when a large number of people witnessed one killing too many of an unarmed black person by police and (other) vigilantes. The main observation I have is that you are looking for leadership and purpose from what is an organic movement. Top down leadership can be powerful when there is buy-in from those affected. But we're not going to see that here. This movement is still too new.

I believe the issues of police violence against their own black citizens varies in form and degree in each locale. That means that the conversation and fixes are not a one-size-fits-all, but need to be tailored to each city. What works in St Louis may not work here.

This doesn't mean there is not value in leadership, but exactly who is the right leader for this kind of change? I think looking to the AA community to lead this change is simply unfair and unworkable. If they had the power to rein in police violence, create economic equality, and remove systemic racism, they would have done so. Instead, it's going to take those in power to step up and own the problem. If we look at the very top, however, we know POTUS is not going to be that person. In fact, he only flames the divisions.

Parking that, we need to look to others who have power. In the past 2 weeks, we have seen the recognition and ownership of the problem by people who possess some levers of power to drive change in their sphere of influence and control. For example, a few days back we saw 1,400 sports stars petitioning Congress to do away with qualified immunity. Qualified immunity has been used by police unions across the country to keep dangerous and deadly policing in place. But it's not just those 1,400 athletes. Look a NASCAR banning confederate flags. Look at the people (white people!) expressing their outage in cities ranging from NYC to Holland, Arkansas (with less than 600 people). Look at the public recognition by Fortune 500 CEOs that the system is not providing equal opportunity for people of color. And yes, the provocative Rizzo sculpture has finally come down.

These are organic changes, not the result of a 5 point agenda for change with accountability for key deliverables. Sometimes it's best to let the system flounder about in what looks like chaos for a while until the path forward emerges. Lots will have to change for us to reduce the systemic racism in our country. Initiatives in government, industry, academia, sports, entertainment and elsewhere towards that end will look different because the barriers to inclusion differ in each of these systems.

My biggest concern is that we will waste this opportunity. I'm old enough to remember the 1960s, when MLK was assassinated and our cities burned. Lots of high-minded proposals were adapted to remove barriers to inclusion for people of color, but we saw little lasting change from it. For example, hard-fought voter rights are being trampled once again by leaders who recognize that the only way they can win elections is to cheat. I have a faint hope that this time may be different, because I note a broader recognition that racism is the problem of white people, not POCs. I call that progress and a common ground we can meet on.

So we disagree. This doesn't mean that my thoughts are right and yours are wrong. It just means that we looked and the same situation and came to different conclusions.
The biggest conclusion I see right now is that people think it's ok to be violent against the police, and in some circles, people don't want the police at all. I think there is some serious ignorance out there about the violence in this country, and the focus right now is too superficial. It may seem ok to have some chaos for a while in your eyes, but that's easy to say when you aren't a store owner whose business was burned and/or looted. Many people are losing a lot (and in many cases, everything), and they are people that are likely against police violence to begin with. Personally, my tolerance for this is gone (look at the nonsense in Seattle and the absolute negligence by the mayor and governor). This could spark something similar in Philly, and I want nothing to do with it. These groups are not working to help innocent black people from police brutality. They are working in their own self-interests by hijacking a good cause (police brutality) to further their agenda. I'm glad to at least see that Kenney is keeping the National Guard close by.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-12-2020, 11:47 AM
 
Location: Center City
7,354 posts, read 8,421,957 times
Reputation: 10642
Quote:
Originally Posted by AJNEOA View Post
The biggest conclusion I see right now is that people think it's ok to be violent against the police, and in some circles, people don't want the police at all. I think there is some serious ignorance out there about the violence in this country, and the focus right now is too superficial. It may seem ok to have some chaos for a while in your eyes, but that's easy to say when you aren't a store owner whose business was burned and/or looted. Many people are losing a lot (and in many cases, everything), and they are people that are likely against police violence to begin with. Personally, my tolerance for this is gone (look at the nonsense in Seattle and the absolute negligence by the mayor and governor). This could spark something similar in Philly, and I want nothing to do with it. These groups are not working to help innocent black people from police brutality. They are working in their own self-interests by hijacking a good cause (police brutality) to further their agenda. I'm glad to at least see that Kenney is keeping the National Guard close by.
I closed the quote you tagged with the following: "It just means that we looked and the same situation and came to different conclusions." After reading your post a few times, I've also concluded that we've looked at the same situation and had different emotional responses. Whereas I feel incredibly sad, you come across as angry. That's OK, too.

What's not OK, however, is to project your anger onto me. I am not OK with violence against the police, nor am I OK with looting businesses. So take it up with those people. Not me. A few pages back you posted that you had no intent to disrespect me. Up to that point, I never felt any disrespect from you. With this post, I do.

I will say I disagree with you on the use of the military to guard against peaceful protests. Last week, I remember seeing a couple of dozen people near police hq exercising their First Amendment right to peaceably protest their government. They were far outnumbered by police and guard:

Mod cut- removed photo. links only please
I found this image on the Bulgarian News Agency (America Protests Philadelphia - Photos - BULGARIAN NEWS AGENCY). These images play right into the hands of (other) autocratic regimes which maintain their hold on power by using the military to beat down any resistance. "After all," they are implying, "Americans are using their military to keep their people in line." We have seen a litany of military leaders, active and retired, however, who have gone on public record as opposing this very use of the military to control the American people peaceably protesting.

So why is there such an overwhelming mobilization of the National Guard and militarized police against a handful of peaceful protestors? Good question. I walked around City Hall last Sunday. There was a diverse crowd of people milling about on an otherwise quiet afternoon, several with placards proclaiming "Black Lives Matter," "Say His Name" and similar sentiments. Some were enjoying their ice cream and others brought their children. I also observed a large contingent of police and guards who had cordoned off Dilworth Park and the Municipal Services Building. I couldn't reconcile the peacefulness of the crowd contrasted with the militarized response.

I came away with the sense that the soldiers and police were afraid of me and the others, where there was nothing to fear. When fearful, humans instinctually do what they can to make themselves safe. Now imagine decades of police being sent into black neighborhoods, fearful of the very people they are there to protect. This seems reasonable to account for ever-increasing instances of police shooting unarmed black men in the back and entering into the homes of black people unannounced and shooting them in their beds. This needs to change yesterday.

I don't condone violent protests and I am sickened by the losses endured by business owners in the looting a few weeks back. But I am more sickened by the violence that police have perpetrated against those they are charged with protecting. Even more sickening is that I'm paying for it with my taxes, and I want it to stop now.

Last edited by toobusytoday; 06-15-2020 at 10:48 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-12-2020, 12:06 PM
 
5,546 posts, read 5,712,733 times
Reputation: 3787
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pine to Vine View Post
I closed the quote you tagged with the following: "It just means that we looked and the same situation and came to different conclusions." After reading your post a few times, I've also concluded that we've looked at the same situation and had different emotional responses. Whereas I feel incredibly sad, you come across as angry. That's OK, too.

What's not OK, however, is to project your anger onto me. I am not OK with violence against the police, nor am I OK with looting businesses. So take it up with those people. Not me. A few pages back you posted that you had no intent to disrespect me. Up to that point, I never felt any disrespect from you. With this post, I do.

I will say I disagree with you on the use of the military to guard against peaceful protests. Last week, I remember seeing a couple of dozen people near police hq exercising their First Amendment right to peaceably protest their government. They were far outnumbered by police and guard:



I found this image on the Bulgarian News Agency (America Protests Philadelphia - Photos - BULGARIAN NEWS AGENCY). These images play right into the hands of (other) autocratic regimes which maintain their hold on power by using the military to beat down any resistance. "After all," they are implying, "Americans are using their military to keep their people in line." We have seen a litany of military leaders, active and retired, however, who have gone on public record as opposing this very use of the military to control the American people peaceably protesting.

So why is there such an overwhelming mobilization of the National Guard and militarized police against a handful of peaceful protestors? Good question. I walked around City Hall last Sunday. There was a diverse crowd of people milling about on an otherwise quiet afternoon, several with placards proclaiming "Black Lives Matter," "Say His Name" and similar sentiments. Some were enjoying their ice cream and others brought their children. I also observed a large contingent of police and guards who had cordoned off Dilworth Park and the Municipal Services Building. I couldn't reconcile the peacefulness of the crowd contrasted with the militarized response.

I came away with the sense that the soldiers and police were afraid of me and the others, where there was nothing to fear. When fearful, humans instinctually do what they can to make themselves safe. Now imagine decades of police being sent into black neighborhoods, fearful of the very people they are there to protect. This seems reasonable to account for ever-increasing instances of police shooting unarmed black men in the back and entering into the homes of black people unannounced and shooting them in their beds. This needs to change yesterday.

I don't condone violent protests and I am sickened by the losses endured by business owners in the looting a few weeks back. But I am more sickened by the violence that police have perpetrated against those they are charged with protecting. Even more sickening is that I'm paying for it with my taxes, and I want it to stop now.
I am not blaming you, projecting anger at you specifically, or disrespecting you. And you may be right that we are having different emotional responses. I don't have a lot of time to post, so I can't respond to all that you wrote in your most recent post, but this is what I took issue with:

"Sometimes it's best to let the system flounder about in what looks like chaos for a while until the path forward emerges."

While I am certainly not interested in paying taxes so police can abuse or murder people, I don't like that the mayors of these cities allowed such widespread destruction with no response. People looting and rioting should have been dealt with immediately, IMO, so that the chaos could have taken a different path. That's all I'm saying.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-12-2020, 12:57 PM
 
Location: Center City
7,354 posts, read 8,421,957 times
Reputation: 10642
Quote:
Originally Posted by AJNEOA View Post
I am not blaming you, projecting anger at you specifically, or disrespecting you. And you may be right that we are having different emotional responses. I don't have a lot of time to post, so I can't respond to all that you wrote in your most recent post, but this is what I took issue with:

"Sometimes it's best to let the system flounder about in what looks like chaos for a while until the path forward emerges."

While I am certainly not interested in paying taxes so police can abuse or murder people, I don't like that the mayors of these cities allowed such widespread destruction with no response. People looting and rioting should have been dealt with immediately, IMO, so that the chaos could have taken a different path. That's all I'm saying.
I worked the last half of my career as an internal organizational development consultant with a large global company. I have some experience with how change happens. Sometimes it's top down initiative, sometimes it bubbles up from the ranks, and often it's a combination of both. My comment on "chaos" was made in reply to this post:
Quote:
Originally Posted by AJNEOA View Post
As always, I respect your post. I think that listening carefully will happen if two things are present: 1) protesters must be organized, stop any violence they have the power to stop, condemn violence that has/may occur, and speak with thought rather than with furor, and 2) have an actionable, specific set of goals that make sense.

I think that has started to happen, but needs to be under strict control, and as I've said before, I don't see the leadership there to keep it reined in. If it continues to be different messages in different cities, with mixed violence, and an overarching dialog of "blame everyone else", people are not going to listen.
We are not witnessing change led by a single person or organization, but a grassroots movement proceeding at a range of velocities throughout the country and its institutions. Look at all we've seen in the last week: NASCAR banning confederate flags, military leaders criticizing the commander-in-chief, Mitt Romney being castigated for marching with BLM protestors, calls from generals for removing the names of Confederate leaders from the names of our military bases, country music stars becoming woke, spontaneous protests against racism and police violence around the world, and more. No one is leading this and everyone is leading this. What looks like chaos to some looks like a change movement to me.

Your comments seem to imply this needs to be "controlled" and meet your need for organization. From my perch, that's not possible. What looks to you like chaos also looks to me like chaos. But I see chaos as a natural catalyst for change and the only likely response to uncertainty we can expect at this time.

Chaos is not violence. Chaos is the human response to a world that doesn't make sense to people. It can be uncomfortable to people who carve order, but change is never easy for most people, particularly those who are satisfied with life as it is.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-12-2020, 01:01 PM
 
Location: Germantown, Philadelphia
6,987 posts, read 3,360,776 times
Reputation: 4463
Quote:
Originally Posted by AJNEOA View Post
I am not blaming you, projecting anger at you specifically, or disrespecting you. And you may be right that we are having different emotional responses. I don't have a lot of time to post, so I can't respond to all that you wrote in your most recent post, but this is what I took issue with:

"Sometimes it's best to let the system flounder about in what looks like chaos for a while until the path forward emerges."

While I am certainly not interested in paying taxes so police can abuse or murder people, I don't like that the mayors of these cities allowed such widespread destruction with no response. People looting and rioting should have been dealt with immediately, IMO, so that the chaos could have taken a different path. That's all I'm saying.
I generally sympathize more with Pine to Vine in this particular argument, and if you read my Phillymag essay that ran the Monday after the looting started, you would see where I said that I understood why the rioters were rioting.

But my reaction upon seeing the National Guard appear at the Shoppes at La Salle Tuesday morning was that they should have showed up three days earlier, for I also agreed with the neighbor I quoted at some length as we both stood in front of the totally trashed Rite Aid drugstore in the strip mall we both live within walking distance of, on opposite sides.

The Guard, however, didn't behave as an occupying force in my estimation. They were there to restore the peace and behaved accordingly. And I think most of my neighbors were as glad to see them as I was.

And you've already read about how that security guard I knew was upset that there were no cops available to chase the looters out of Jeff Brown's ShopRite.

I think that the problem now is this: We don't need to "defund the police" or anything like that as much as we need to change the police culture. Some criminologist of other was quoted in the press as saying that policing is "80 percent community relations and 20 percent law enforcement," and one of the reasons we have come to this pass is because we've got police officers who give short shrift to that 80 percent of the job. This is abetted by our militarization of police forces with Federal assistance and the culture of the entrenched police unions, who often see many of the people they're supposed to protect as an enemy to be defeated or animals to be corraled instead.

(I feel that what we're dealing with here is a little like public education, where entrenched interests resist changes that will benefit the people they're supposed to serve. Unforutnately, the system doesn't lend itself to "charter police forces," so "competition" is out as a reform strategy.)

But if you've been watching or listening to the national news lately, the media are picking up on a successful uprooting of a dysfunctional police culture across the Delaware from Center City.

You may recall that the city of Camden abolished its police department in 2012 and, with help from state legislators representing the city and the county, turned the job of protecting Camden's citizens to a new county-run police department.

One of the Camden County state legislators who helped Camden pull this off was on MSNBC this morning; he noted that the FOP lodge representing the city police force fought the effort tooth and nail, resisting even modest suggestions for change. Thus the new Camden County Police Department (whose jurisdiction extends only to the City of Camden) was born with no union. Its members have joined the New Jersey state FOP lodge since.

The new department adopted a "community policing" strategy, and it's worked. Overall crime and violent crime have plummeted in Camden, and residents express a high degree of confidence and trust in the police force.

My bet: the same effort in Philadelphia would run into the same buzzsaw, operated by FOP Lodge 5. (I'll wager the Guardian Civic League would sign on, however.) But that sort of uprooting is what the Philadelphia Police Department needs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-12-2020, 02:22 PM
 
5,546 posts, read 5,712,733 times
Reputation: 3787
Pine to Vine - It's not so much that I crave organization as I do law and order. I also deal with Change Leadership in the private sector and understand grassroots vs top-down change. I get that. But when businesses and residents are not being protected by the mayor, police chief and governor, for multiple days, that's just wrong. I'll end my argument there.

MSL - Can't say I disagree with anything there. Camden has served as a frequently quoted case study by many, and as long as it's not oversimplified (just defund and we'll get the outcome), it could be a very effective strategy for other places.

I have decided to discontinue my time on CD. I hope that my account can be banned as requested, as I think it's time I turn my attention elsewhere. Either way, I won't be returning. I wish you and everyone else here the best.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-12-2020, 03:20 PM
 
Location: Center City
7,354 posts, read 8,421,957 times
Reputation: 10642
Quote:
Originally Posted by AJNEOA View Post
Pine to Vine - It's not so much that I crave organization as I do law and order. I also deal with Change Leadership in the private sector and understand grassroots vs top-down change. I get that. But when businesses and residents are not being protected by the mayor, police chief and governor, for multiple days, that's just wrong. I'll end my argument there.
I'm for law and order too. I've already shared my views on the violence and looting. I am just not for LAW AND ORDER. Here is the definition of "law and order" on dictionary.com:

"strict control of crime and repression of violence, sometimes involving the possible restriction of civil rights."

"Law and order" has been cynically used by Republicans in the 20th Century to suppress the rights of African-Americans and other people of color. Nixon, who was famously racist, used the term to sell himself and the GOP to southern white voters upset with the Dems for passing civil rights protections for black Americans. It is no mere coincidence that our current POTUS recently announced to all who might hear the sound of his voice that "I am your law and order president." This, as rubber bullets flew and tear gas was released against fellow Americans praciting our First Amendment rights.

Law and order can be appealing to those who have the power to impose it, but not always so much with those have someone else's view of law and order imposed upon them. If otherwise law-abiding people have to be denied their civil rights in order to make me comfortable, that is wrong.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-15-2020, 12:33 PM
 
41 posts, read 9,724 times
Reputation: 124
Merriam-Webster definition of law and order:

Definition of law-and-order
: relating to, characterized by, or advocating strict laws and their enforcement
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Pennsylvania > Philadelphia
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2020, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top