Anybody see the accounts of the Toledo riots?

Mind you, I think Neo Nazis and White Supremacists are scum bags.  >:(  Now that said, apparently they were staging a demonstration to protest roving gangs in the city of Toledo.  And they had police/govt permission to have a peaceful demonstration.

Turns out, before they even got the chance to assemble, the local populace of Toledo decided to launch a riot, throwing rocks and stuff at the local cops, setting fires and the obligatory flipping over of cars.  :o

The Nazis never got to have their show, cops told them to cancel due to the riots.

'Twood seem that in this case, the Neos made their point.  Toledo is infested with local gangs who roam the streets causing mayhem and trouble.  :-\\

I believe in the First Amendment.  The neo-nazis have a perfect right to assemble peacefully and express their views.  If you don't like it, don't listen.  OK, maybe hold a peaceful counter-demonstration, but I think the better thing to do with this sort of fringe group is ignore them.  Stony silence tends to take the wind out of their sails.

On the other hand...

Holy Toledo, dude, they're nazis!!!  They're self-proclaimed White Supremicists!!!  Their message to people of color from the get-go is, "we hate you!"  Whatever problem there is with gangs and crime in the city, there ain't no waaaay that bunch of clowns parading around is gonna assuage the situation!

How many people died under the atrocious Nazi regime?  How many of our American men died fighting Nazi Germany? The amount of human suffering caused by the Nazis is incalculable.  These dipsh*ts are pledging allegiance to the ideals of the worst enemy our country ever faced...I mean, WTF?

If you make yourself despicable, you shouldn't be surprised when you are despised.

There's no happy answer here for a First Amendment advocate.  Neo-nazi groups are quashed in other democracies, and they're flat-out illegal in Germany.  However, none of these countries have a "First Amendment."  We do.  America is obliged to protect even despicable speech.  Unless a speech creates a clear and present danger or incites an explicit and direct call for imminent violent action, it is protected.  Unfortunately, the authorities will have to presume a clear and present danger will arise if they allow this neo-nazi group to demonstrate.  I can't imagine they'll be allowed to march in Toledo again.  As understandable as the hatred for these goons is, the rage of those who hate them has brought a blow to the First Amendment.

Yet, I would really rather not see "America's Nazi Party" take their abominable message to the street.  I have my own beliefs about poverty, crime, and gangs in our cities, and white supremecists play no part in the solution.
>:( >:( >:(

The KKK, the black panthers, NAMBLA and nazis are all people I'd rather not listen to.  But the thing is, they have every right to have a peaceful march.  The constitution doesn't say "the right to peacefully assemble except for....."

Instead the other group of scum decided to start a huge riot and burn local businesses.  And now everyone in that town suffers with an 8:00 curfew.  >:(

If the Nazis ever got into power, the First Amendment is the first one they'd repeal. Ironic, isn't it?

The KKK, the black panthers, NAMBLA and nazis are all people I'd rather not listen to. 


Do not equate the black panthers with these groups. They did advocate hate. They advocated self-protection from those physically harming blacks in the Oakland area, which was rabid.

The KKK, the black panthers, NAMBLA and nazis are all people I'd rather not listen to.  But the thing is, they have every right to have a peaceful march.  The constitution doesn't say "the right to peacefully assemble except for....."

Instead the other group of scum decided to start a huge riot and burn local businesses.  And now everyone in that town suffers with an 8:00 curfew.  >:(

Yes, and the ones convicted of crimes in the ensuing riots should have to bear the legal responsibility for their behavior with no mitigating factors.  You can't smash and burn just because you're mad.


If the Nazis ever got into power, the First Amendment is the first one they'd repeal. Ironic, isn't it?

I have seen this all the way on the other side of the political spectrum.  The militant feminists, for instance, wanted to outlaw pornography and institute "speech codes" on college campuses.  At the same time they demanded the right to take over the quad with their howling bullhorns and "Men Are Pigs" banners.  "Free speech for me, censorship for you" is not free speech.

Yes, and the ones convicted of crimes in the ensuing riots should have to bear the legal responsibility for their behavior with no mitigating factors.  You can't smash and burn just because you're mad.


That's true. I didn't see the point of them doing so. It totally backed up the ignorant point of such groups.

A funny comment: As far as smashing and burning is concerned, was this country not founded on this concept? LOL

That's true. I didn't see the point of them doing so. It totally backed up the ignorant point of such groups.

A funny comment: As far as smashing and burning is concerned, was this country not founded on this concept? LOL

Well, this country was founded by rich planters and merchants who didn't want to pay their taxes, but, um...  I'll just leave it there.

I agree with you on the Black Panthers.  They were trying to take over for themselves where the state had failed.  Get uppity and start free breakfast programs for poor children, and the FBI will shoot you to death in your bed, right through your apartment wall!  No group was more for "personal responsibility" than the Black Panthers, but they did not deny the economic and class components of oppression.  That's why the pigs ran them down and broke them up.
Now we've got Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson Tomming it up at the Heritage Foundation.  Yeah, these contemporary "black conservatives" are for "personal responsibility" too, but they pretend the white plutocratic power structure is just fine and dandy.  That makes me wanna hurl!

Do not equate the black panthers with these groups. They did advocate hate.


I'm going to have to disagree.  The black panthers advocate "black power" just like the KKK advocates "white power."  I don't think they have act as badly or as violently as the KKK, but they do come off as a hate group to me.

I'm going to have to disagree.  The black panthers advocate "black power" just like the KKK advocates "white power."  I don't think they have act as badly or as violently as the KKK, but they do come off as a hate group to me.


Okay, you have demonstrated your misunderstanding. Black Power does not mean "better than anyone else" or "lets rule over others" in the way white power has been used (and is still used). It is a call for personal responsibility, seeking education and equality and justice through the power of the mind (not fists, although if one steps in the way of doing so, then they will justifiably used). They did not stand for the rabid police brutality and abuse that stood in many black neighborhoods at the time. To have power is to have self-responsibility, goals and the desire to overcome hatred. Such ideals were used by Senior Citizens (Grey Power) when they sought equality and justice, red power by Native Americans, and brown power for Latinos/Hispanics.

However, the slogan, white power, has been used to try to subjegate and bully other races, other sexual orientation, or religions. It has been used to justify abuses by followers of groups who claim their right to do so. 

It appears to me that others are easily offended by those who show pride without bullying other races (e.g. Native Americans, African-Americans, Latinos/Hispanics). Not to go off on a tangent, but I recall that it was many (not most) White Americans that had issue with the terms African-American, Asian-American, and Hispanic-American.

I'm going to have to disagree.  The black panthers advocate "black power" just like the KKK advocates "white power."  I don't think they have act as badly or as violently as the KKK, but they do come off as a hate group to me.

Your folks were never strung up on tree limbs just because of the color of their skin.  That does tend to make people a bit touchy and defensive.

I mean, lynching is just one example of the Jim Crow legacy to which the Black Panthers were responding in the 1960s.  By the '60s, the KKK was a rag-tag affiliation of po'azz Southern whites.  These guys were getting effed-over by the same power structure the Blacks were, but you know how racism works!
::)

Tanya's already said it, but it bears repeating:  Whatever issues one might have with the Black Panthers themselves, it must be emphasized that the expression 'Black Power' was embraced by thousands upon thousands of blacks in the 1960s and -70s as a term of self-respect, self-empowerment, and self-defense.  The expression 'White Power' was a call for the domination, subjugation, and denigration of others.  You can't begin to equate the two.

Tanya's already said it, but it bears repeating:  Whatever issues one might have with the Black Panthers themselves, it must be emphasized that the expression 'Black Power' was embraced by thousands upon thousands of blacks in the 1960s and -70s as a term of self-respect, self-empowerment, and self-defense.  The expression 'White Power' was a call for the domination, subjugation, and denigration of others.  You can't begin to equate the two.


That's exactly right.

Tanya's already said it, but it bears repeating:  Whatever issues one might have with the Black Panthers themselves, it must be emphasized that the expression 'Black Power' was embraced by thousands upon thousands of blacks in the 1960s and -70s as a term of self-respect, self-empowerment, and self-defense.  The expression 'White Power' was a call for the domination, subjugation, and denigration of others.  You can't begin to equate the two.

Unless you're one of those White people who is threatened by Blacks having Power.  I see plenty of them around, though none will admit it.  Those are the White people who dig Clarence Thomas, Condi Rice, Bill Cosby, and Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson!
::)

However, the slogan, white power, has been used to try to subjegate and bully other races, other sexual orientation, or religions. It has been used to justify abuses by followers of groups who claim their right to do so. 

It appears to me that others are easily offended by those who show pride without bullying other races (e.g. Native Americans, African-Americans, Latinos/Hispanics). Not to go off on a tangent, but I recall that it was many (not most) White Americans that had issue with the terms African-American, Asian-American, and Hispanic-American.


I agree with your assessment of "White Power" verus "Black Power".  Black power is about self fulfillment, whereas "white power" sloganeers are talking about subjugation.

IMHO when someone goes to GREAT LENGTHS to define themselves as anything OTHER THAN simply "American" it is an act of divisiveness.  When I fill out forms and they ask me for my race, I simply fill out "Native American".  Thats what I am.  Born and bred here.  The fact that my ancestors were from Ireland or Italy does not come into it.  Back when I was a kid, Italians were called "dagos" or "wops" or "grease balls" and many groups shunned Italians.  Nevertheless I see myself as AMERICAN and treat others likewise.

As a child I daw the "gangs" of Italians, or Irish, or Serbs, or Blacks who stuck together in cliques and I saw them for what they were...losers.  MY friends were of whatever race they happened to be and we associate based on interests, not on where we were born or our colour.  As a result of all of this I have a deeply held disdain for "social organizations" that are based on ancestry.

As to the "African American" lingo, though, I recall several leading african american leaders giving Teresa Heinz a load of cr@p because she dared call herself african american back when she was a Republican.  She was born in Africa and is a naturalized citizen.  Just like any American of Egyptian ancestry would be too.

I kind of get a chuckle when someone refers to a visitng diplomat, say, from Canada or Australia who happens to be of black African ancestry and refers to them as "African American".  Oh, the amusing politics of political correctness.

Unless you're one of those White people who is threatened by Blacks having Power.  I see plenty of them around, though none will admit it.  Those are the White people who dig Clarence Thomas, Condi Rice, Bill Cosby, and Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson!
::)


Unless you are one of those people who think that it is anappropriate for a black man or woman to hold conservative/republican views.

Intestingly people like Thomas, Colin Powell, and Rice are often referred to by "mainstream" people derisively as "Uncle Toms".

Of course, these detractors have never read "Uncle Tom's Cabin".  If they had, they would realize that Uncle Tom was an honorable man, who refused to bed to the will of his "master".  Uncle Tom held his ground and, yes, he died for it.  But he was not a sellout.

And what is wrong with Cosby?  Do you have any idea whatsoever as to how much good he has done for people of all races?  Hey, one may not agree with is politics all the time (I know that I don;t) but you have to respect his intellect and his contribution.  Bill Cosby blasted open the doors of the entertainment world for countless black (and white) comedians.  And he has contributed a BOATLOAD of money to minority and general purpose education programs.

Condi Rice?  Not my cup of tea.  No spine whatsoever and clearly promoted beyond her caoabilities.  No doubt a smart woman but smart alone does not get the job done.

He may not have been a sellout to you, but he did sell out on some occasions.

Just a question: If I'm an American, how come I've been to told numerous times to go back where I've come from? Besides, if I really did, parts would go to Africa, Ireland, France, Wales, and some would stay here (Cree Indian). So, I can't!

I don't believe there's anything wrong with celebrating our heritages b/c American isn't the only one. We are different despite our nationality. Celebrate it. Don't sweep it under the rug.

I agree with your assessment of "White Power" verus "Black Power".  Black power is about self fulfillment, whereas "white power" sloganeers are talking about subjugation.

IMHO when someone goes to GREAT LENGTHS to define themselves as anything OTHER THAN simply "American" it is an act of divisiveness.  When I fill out forms and they ask me for my race, I simply fill out "Native American".  Thats what I am.  Born and bred here.  The fact that my ancestors were from Ireland or Italy does not come into it.  Back when I was a kid, Italians were called "dagos" or "wops" or "grease balls" and many groups shunned Italians.  Nevertheless I see myself as AMERICAN and treat others likewise.

As a child I daw the "gangs" of Italians, or Irish, or Serbs, or Blacks who stuck together in cliques and I saw them for what they were...losers.  MY friends were of whatever race they happened to be and we associate based on interests, not on where we were born or our colour.  As a result of all of this I have a deeply held disdain for "social organizations" that are based on ancestry.

As to the "African American" lingo, though, I recall several leading african american leaders giving Teresa Heinz a load of cr@p because she dared call herself african american back when she was a Republican.  She was born in Africa and is a naturalized citizen.  Just like any American of Egyptian ancestry would be too.

I kind of get a chuckle when someone refers to a visitng diplomat, say, from Canada or Australia who happens to be of black African ancestry and refers to them as "African American".  Oh, the amusing politics of political correctness.



Yeah, those Blacks were soooo DIVISIVE they refused to eat at the same lunch counters, drink out of the same fountains, sit in the same theater sections, go to the same schools, or join the same civic organizations as Whites.  Heck, those ni**ers had such a haughty superiority complex, they wouldn't even ride up in the front of the bus with the rest of us!!!  Why is it always about race with those...those people anyway?
:D  ::)

Unless you are one of those people who think that it is anappropriate for a black man or woman to hold conservative/republican views.

Intestingly people like Thomas, Colin Powell, and Rice are often referred to by "mainstream" people derisively as "Uncle Toms".

Of course, these detractors have never read "Uncle Tom's Cabin".  If they had, they would realize that Uncle Tom was an honorable man, who refused to bed to the will of his "master".  Uncle Tom held his ground and, yes, he died for it.  But he was not a sellout.

And what is wrong with Cosby?  Do you have any idea whatsoever as to how much good he has done for people of all races?  Hey, one may not agree with is politics all the time (I know that I don;t) but you have to respect his intellect and his contribution.  Bill Cosby blasted open the doors of the entertainment world for countless black (and white) comedians.  And he has contributed a BOATLOAD of money to minority and general purpose education programs.

Condi Rice?  Not my cup of tea.  No spine whatsoever and clearly promoted beyond her caoabilities.  No doubt a smart woman but smart alone does not get the job done.

Actually I quite agree that "Uncle Tom" is a misnomer if you go by the kind of man Uncle Tom really was as portrayed by Harriet Beecher Stow.  You will recall he is thrashed to death in the end because he refused to be a thug for Simon Legree.
I don't disagree with what Clarence Thomas says, because he doesn't really say much of anything.  I guess I disagree by default because I disagree with Antonin Scalia! 
I don't like Cosby because he is a patrician public scold.  I couldn't stand the Cosby Show because it was an endless morality play, and an endless finger-wagging disguised as a sit-com.  It was always real condescending and preachy-like.  Whenever one of the daughters brought home a boyfriend, Cliff and Claire would spend the episode looking down their noses at him.  Theo?  One thing for sure, Theo was always a screwup, and Cliff was always riding his azz about it.  Cliff himself always wanted to get himself a po'boy, and Claire was always giving him a ration of sh*t about cholestorol.  Then the grandparents would come over, and they were about as fun as Cotton Mather.  I don't care how much philanthropy the man doles out, he's a total drag.  Then he sticks his big bluenose out of his Massachusetts compound to deride and chide poor kids in he city.  Cosby is just the figure white Republicans need to hijack the issues of crime and incivility and place the blame for all on the shoulders of the economically powerless.  So as far as I'm concerned, the Coz can go back to Shelbourne Falls and suck another lemon!

Is it "inappropriate" for Blacks to adhere to be Republican?  No, it's not "inappropriate."  It's silly if the individual Black person is poor or middle class and self-serving if the individual Black person is rich.

Neal Boortz gets it right:

GOVERNMENT EDUCATION AT ITS FINEST

You may have heard about the race riots that broke out in Toledo, Ohio over the weekend.  Essentially, what happened breaks down like this: some knuckle-dragging white supremacists decided to march through a racially mixed neighborhood. Protesters confronted the marching Nazis at a park, and it was on. 

An angry mob, including some gang members, decided that the prudent thing to do was start rioting.  They threw large rocks at police, set fire to a business and vandalized vehicles and stores.  Over 100 people were arrested.  But the most ridiculous aspect to this story is what some of the defenders of the thugs who rioted are saying.

Residents are upset that city leaders "allowed" the neo-Nazis to march. The Mayor of Toledo correctly pointed out that they do have the right to walk on the sidewalks just like anybody else.  This comes from a simple understanding of the First Amendment.  You know, freedom of speech and all that. 

So now the blame for the riots is being assigned in the media to the white supremacists, instead of where it belongs: the rioters who couldn't ignore them.  One resident said "They don't have the right to bring hate to my front yard."  I guess that means you're entitled to run right out and throw rocks at an ambulance. One news anchor this morning asked the police chief of Toledo why he didn't arrest the idiot Nazis.  For what?  Exercising their freedom of speech?

Thank you government schools...for not teaching people that no matter how despicable the message, people do have the right to free speech.

By the way .... The march by the National Socialist Movement wasn't the reason for the riots, it was the excuse.

I don't understand what the problem is with someone referring to themselves as 'Irish-American', 'Japanese-American', 'African-American' or anything else.  What exactly is so threatening about someone identifying with and embracing their particular ethnic tradition?  What exactly is 'divisive' about it?  You know what, if someone has a problem with my ethnic tradition, it's their problem.

So their calling themselves the "National Socialist Movement" now? What a total f**king misnomer. White supremacy and Socialism not only have nothing to do with one another, but one could argue that White Supremacy poses an antithesis to many key socialist values (i.e. all people are equal).

The Nazis called themselves Socialists as well, but it was only on paper, they, just like these white power freaks, were Fascists.

Neal Boortz gets it right:

GOVERNMENT EDUCATION AT ITS FINEST

You may have heard about the race riots that broke out in Toledo, Ohio over the weekend.  Essentially, what happened breaks down like this: some knuckle-dragging white supremacists decided to march through a racially mixed neighborhood. Protesters confronted the marching Nazis at a park, and it was on. 

An angry mob, including some gang members, decided that the prudent thing to do was start rioting.  They threw large rocks at police, set fire to a business and vandalized vehicles and stores.  Over 100 people were arrested.  But the most ridiculous aspect to this story is what some of the defenders of the thugs who rioted are saying.

Residents are upset that city leaders "allowed" the neo-Nazis to march. The Mayor of Toledo correctly pointed out that they do have the right to walk on the sidewalks just like anybody else.  This comes from a simple understanding of the First Amendment.  You know, freedom of speech and all that. 

So now the blame for the riots is being assigned in the media to the white supremacists, instead of where it belongs: the rioters who couldn't ignore them.  One resident said "They don't have the right to bring hate to my front yard."  I guess that means you're entitled to run right out and throw rocks at an ambulance. One news anchor this morning asked the police chief of Toledo why he didn't arrest the idiot Nazis.  For what?  Exercising their freedom of speech?

Thank you government schools...for not teaching people that no matter how despicable the message, people do have the right to free speech.

By the way .... The march by the National Socialist Movement wasn't the reason for the riots, it was the excuse.

Bear in mind what I said earlier about the First Amendment.
Boortz and his ilk are much more dangerous to social justice than those neo-nazi oafs.  Talk about using something as an excuse, the first thing he does is use this story as an excuse to attack public education.  Boortz and the other right-wing punks call public schools, "government schools."  Why?  Because you don't get very far saying you hate the "public," but making war on the "government" is what the Right is all about-- especially when they're in charge of the government!
::)
Newsflash for Boortz:  It doesn't take a "government school" to make people throw a fit over neo-nazis marching down their streets!  If neo-nazis started marching through Amherst, they would most definitely be vigorously assaulted...and Amherst is no Toledo.  I would have a hard time restraining myself, but I would stay clear of the entire fracas.  I can guarantee that some troublemakers would take it upon themselves to throw rocks at the cops and smash windows. Who knows?  Maybe some creeps would overturn a car or set fires.  I can see that happening right here in Amherst.

Of course, the good burgers of Amherst would never give "National Socialists" a permit to march, and I would have to concur with the town for the sake of public safety.  Indeed, my First Amendment idealism would have to give way to the pragmatic need for civic order.

Make yourself despicable, you will be despised.

The residents of Toledo know why a small percentage of citizens turn delinquent, join gangs, and commit crimes.  They don't need overt white supremecists like "America's Nazi Party" or covert white supremicists like Neal Boortz horning in on the matter.  Neal Boortz and the white supremicists who host idiotic radio programs (rather than march under a swastika) are on a mission to destroy public education, and they're dastardly enough to lie about their motives via specious bafflegab about "school choice" (see also, Dr. Wiliam Bennett).  Boortz's insult to Toledo that the riots were an "excuse" suggests he is in league with the neo-nazi's POV.  Ineed, in times gone by, when the Right was more candid, Boortz would have been proud to don the hood of Ku Klux Klan.
>:(

I think riots is a very bad thing, because people when get violence other people get hurted and bleeding and sometimes they might die. 
:\'(

People might not like you, but it is not good to hurts them.  Sticks and stones can break my bones, but hate will never hurt me.
:-\\

p.s.  and it is not good to fight with police mans, because there job is protecting you.
:)

And that is all I have to say about that.
:-[

He may not have been a sellout to you, but he did sell out on some occasions.

Just a question: If I'm an American, how come I've been to told numerous times to go back where I've come from? Besides, if I really did, parts would go to Africa, Ireland, France, Wales, and some would stay here (Cree Indian). So, I can't!

I don't believe there's anything wrong with celebrating our heritages b/c American isn't the only one. We are different despite our nationality. Celebrate it. Don't sweep it under the rug.


But there is quite a difference between Celebrating heritage and Defining one's self (and one's circle) by it.

People who say "go back where you came from" are morons, not worth the time of day.  But people who go out of their way to DEFINE THEMSELVES by their genetic material only serve to perpetuate problems, whether they be "white", "black", "italian", "irish" or whatever.  So when people deliberately segregate themselves to some genetic or heritage group, they should not be surprised when the world tends to react differently to them too.

Mind you I am not saying that everyone should simply "blend in" like some sort of lukewarm culture.  But when a white guy named George Smith changes his name to Gerhard Hess to "celebrate" his Aryan "culture" he should not be surprised when people react oddly to him.  Similarly if a black guy named Joe Washington changes his name to Kweezy Mugabe and starts wearing dashikis to the tennis club to make a statement.  Make a statement...get a reaction...

I had the luxury of growing up in a 2-religion house.  Mum is Catholic, Dad was a Presby.  I saw people (but not in my family) try to isolate/segregate me to either goup but I saw those people as small-minded morons.  I think the experience was an advantage as I grew up.  Never felt the need or desire to segregate myself in that was because I saw people who defined themselves by their heritage as small-minded.  Heritage perhaps explains how we came about, but we all should be judged by who WE ARE not who our ancestors were.

BUT, the "neo-nazis" weren't the ones being assaulted....it was innocent business owners....


I'm glad you said it.

BUT, the "neo-nazis" weren't the ones being assaulted....it was innocent business owners, people who own cars that made the mistake of parking them where these thugs decided to loot.  When people riot, they could care less if they are actually attacking those they feel are "responsible", their ONLY purpose is to wreak havoc and damage property.

I said those who broke the law were not justified in doing so.  I said the law-breakers should be prosecuted without mitigation.  You cannot break the law because you disagree with somebody else's speech.  It would be different story if the neo-nazis were literally assaulting the citizens.  They would be justicified in self-defense.  However, that would be no excuse to wantonly damage property.

The right-wing talk show host Bill Cunningham even acknowledged only a fraction of the people protesting the neo-nazis rioted.  Let's bear that in mind.

I ask why we have a powder keg of civil unrest in so many American cities.  Why are there people who feel so enraged at life they will lash out in such destructive ways?  What's going on here?  Is it the fault of Jesse Jackson, Louis Farrahkahn, gangsta rap, government schools and the welfare state...as the right-wing would have you believe...or is the problem attributable to other causes?
???

I said those who broke the law were not justified in doing so.  I said the law-breakers should be prosecuted without mitigation.  You cannot break the law because you disagree with somebody else's speech.  It would be different story if the neo-nazis were literally assaulting the citizens.  They would be justicified in self-defense.  However, that would be no excuse to wantonly damage property.

The right-wing talk show host Bill Cunningham even acknowledged only a fraction of the people protesting the neo-nazis rioted.  Let's bear that in mind.

I ask why we have a powder keg of civil unrest in so many American cities.  Why are there people who feel so enraged at life they will lash out in such destructive ways?  What's going on here?  Is it the fault of Jesse Jackson, Louis Farrahkahn, gangsta rap, government schools and the welfare state...as the right-wing would have you believe...or is the problem attributable to other causes?
???




Aside from being bigoted and divisive, blaming the right wing bogeyman is a losing battle. Even if a group were to adopt a cynical stance and assume that a monolithic political entity is acting in bad faith to try to undermine them, as a practical matter, debating with them would simply waste energy and misdirect their focus. Why bother? The only practical solution seems to be developing allies and leveraging their collective resources, whatever they may be, to empower themselves.

But there is quite a difference between Celebrating heritage and Defining one's self (and one's circle) by it.

People who say "go back where you came from" are morons, not worth the time of day.  But people who go out of their way to DEFINE THEMSELVES by their genetic material only serve to perpetuate problems, whether they be "white", "black", "italian", "irish" or whatever.  So when people deliberately segregate themselves to some genetic or heritage group, they should not be surprised when the world tends to react differently to them too.

Mind you I am not saying that everyone should simply "blend in" like some sort of lukewarm culture.  But when a white guy named George Smith changes his name to Gerhard Hess to "celebrate" his Aryan "culture" he should not be surprised when people react oddly to him.  Similarly if a black guy named Joe Washington changes his name to Kweezy Mugabe and starts wearing dashikis to the tennis club to make a statement.  Make a statement...get a reaction...

I had the luxury of growing up in a 2-religion house.  Mum is Catholic, Dad was a Presby.  I saw people (but not in my family) try to isolate/segregate me to either goup but I saw those people as small-minded morons.  I think the experience was an advantage as I grew up.  Never felt the need or desire to segregate myself in that was because I saw people who defined themselves by their heritage as small-minded.  Heritage perhaps explains how we came about, but we all should be judged by who WE ARE not who our ancestors were.


Ok, lets's take me for example -- I define myself by my culture -- how am I perpetuating a 'problem'? I'm a reasonably intelligent, sophisticated, thoughtful, open-minded, well-adjusted guy with a wide circle of acquaintances from a variety of religions, cultures, and socio-economic backgrounds. My diverse circle frequently engages in candid, intelligent, respectful conversations about cultural, racial, and social issues -- we don't have 'problems' with each other. How am I a 'problem' for you?

Neal Boortz gets it right:

GOVERNMENT EDUCATION AT ITS FINEST

You may have heard about the race riots that broke out in Toledo, Ohio over the weekend.  Essentially, what happened breaks down like this: some knuckle-dragging white supremacists decided to march through a racially mixed neighborhood. Protesters confronted the marching Nazis at a park, and it was on. 

An angry mob, including some gang members, decided that the prudent thing to do was start rioting.  They threw large rocks at police, set fire to a business and vandalized vehicles and stores.  Over 100 people were arrested.  But the most ridiculous aspect to this story is what some of the defenders of the thugs who rioted are saying.

Residents are upset that city leaders "allowed" the neo-Nazis to march. The Mayor of Toledo correctly pointed out that they do have the right to walk on the sidewalks just like anybody else.  This comes from a simple understanding of the First Amendment.  You know, freedom of speech and all that. 

So now the blame for the riots is being assigned in the media to the white supremacists, instead of where it belongs: the rioters who couldn't ignore them.  One resident said "They don't have the right to bring hate to my front yard."  I guess that means you're entitled to run right out and throw rocks at an ambulance. One news anchor this morning asked the police chief of Toledo why he didn't arrest the idiot Nazis.  For what?  Exercising their freedom of speech?

Thank you government schools...for not teaching people that no matter how despicable the message, people do have the right to free speech.

By the way .... The march by the National Socialist Movement wasn't the reason for the riots, it was the excuse.
The neo-Nazis that wanted to march in Toledo pride themselves in being the same type of subhumanoids that gave the world such wonderful(sarcasm here)things like the London blitz, the Hitler Youth, the Gestapo (better known as the SS!)and the Holocaust...I don't want those thugs in my neighborhood either!

...I don't want those thugs in my neighborhood either!


Unless a person is supreme dictator of the neighborhood, they don't get to make that decision.

Unless a person is supreme dictator of the neighborhood, they don't get to make that decision.


Yeah, right. They are just presidents of homeowners' associations.

Unless a person is supreme dictator of the neighborhood, they don't get to make that decision.

If the neo-nazis applied for a permit to march in, say, Chevy Chase, MD, or La Jolla, CA, you can bet your sweet azz the answer would be, "sorry, no permit for you burros, you gotta a problem, call your ACLU lawyer!"
Remember when the neo-nazis sued for the right to march in Skokie?  They eventually did win the case, but ended up ditching the idea.  They could have marched in Skokie...but that's another discussion.
Anyway, Tanya makes a crucial point about the "homeowners associations."  And what do YOU think that point is?
???

I am suprised that the Neo Nazis and White Supremacists were even allowed to demostrate to begin with.  ::)
They are both crazy and stupid.  ::)

I am suprised that the Neo Nazis and White Supremacists were even allowed to demostrate to begin with.  ::)
They are both crazy and stupid.  ::)


Craziness and stupidity are not against the law.  Though if you taxed it, we wouldn't need to have an income tax.

Craziness and stupidity are not against the law.  Though if you taxed it, we wouldn't need to have an income tax.


::)  ;D

I know....

Craziness and stupidity are not against the law.  Though if you taxed it, we wouldn't need to have an income tax.

I'm not stupid, but I am crazy, so I'll have to vote against your ballot initiative!
:D

I'm not stupid, but I am crazy, so I'll have to vote against your ballot initiative!
:D


C'mon, be a little civic-minded will ya?

I am suprised that the Neo Nazis and White Supremacists were even allowed to demostrate to begin with.  ::)
They are both crazy and stupid.  ::)
Why would American citizens, who have FREEDOM and PROSPERITY, want to have a Hitlerian Nazi state here in the USA? Do they have any idea what the Nazis REALLY were like over in Germany and the German-occupied countries...Hitler did not even care about his supposedly 'beloved' Fatherland...or the German people.

Why would American citizens, who have FREEDOM and PROSPERITY, want to have a Hitlerian Nazi state here in the USA? Do they have any idea what the Nazis REALLY were like over in Germany and the German-occupied countries...Hitler did not even care about his supposedly 'beloved' Fatherland...or the German people.

Hitler and his cabinet were sociopathic idealogues who believed their own crackpot theories of world domination...at any price...sort of like the Bush administration.

Why would American citizens, who have FREEDOM and PROSPERITY, want to have a Hitlerian Nazi state here in the USA?


Hardly anyone wants a "nazi state."  But can't some people see that by refusing these people their right to free speech, they are acting like the nazis they hate so much?

Hardly anyone wants a "nazi state."  But can't some people see that by refusing these people their right to free speech, they are acting like the nazis they hate so much?

The rioters were acting like enraged people who have been treated unjustly too long under the thumb of an oppressive state.  I agree it is dangerous to have untold numbers of people so wrathful they will lash out so spastically.  We as a nation for the sake of social justice and national security are morally obliged to remedy these circumstances.

Hardly anyone wants a "nazi state."  But can't some people see that by refusing these people their right to free speech, they are acting like the nazis they hate so much?


It's a wee bit of an overstatement to suggest that restricting organized hate rallies is akin to modelling ourselves after a regime built on hatred and greed and committed to the systematic suppression, exploitation and eventual extermination of an entire race of people.  It just seems... I dunno... a bit different somehow.

Hey, for every citizen who marches in one of these things, there are many others who feel the same way but just don't have the stones to stand up and be open about it.  I rather like the idea of people of good conscience being able to see who we're dealing with!  Can we get all the terrorists to march?  You can have it in my neighborhood!

It's a wee bit of an overstatement to suggest that restricting organized hate rallies is akin to modelling ourselves after a regime built on hatred and greed and committed to the systematic suppression, exploitation and eventual extermination of an entire race of people.  It just seems... I dunno... a bit different somehow.

Hey, for every citizen who marches in one of these things, there are many others who feel the same way but just don't have the stones to stand up and be open about it.  I rather like the idea of people of good conscience being able to see who we're dealing with!  Can we get all the terrorists to march?  You can have it in my neighborhood!

The KlKK is one thing, but "neo-nazis" have never been more than an oozing boil on the buttocks of American politics.  Even under George Lincoln Rockwell they never approached the kind of political influence the Klan had.  Neo-nazis then as now succeeded mostly in churning up rage against them.  Rockwell himself got blown away by one of his own goons in 1967.
::)

And FOX News is still running stories over how bad those Black people behaved.  You know, the real problem in this country is not White racists, but  poor Blacks who live in the inner cities!
::)

And FOX News is still running stories over how bad those Black people behaved.  You know, the real problem in this country is not White racists, but  poor Blacks who live in the inner cities!
::)


Of course, they're going to show it.  There's no excuse for rioting.  Oh sure, there are reasons people riot, there are sociological explanations, psychological justifications.  We should understand it, but we should never condone it and never excuse it.

And FOX News is still running stories over how bad those Black people behaved.  You know, the real problem in this country is not White racists, but  poor Blacks who live in the inner cities!
::)


Really?  All I see on the cable news channels is hurricane obsession.

Really?  All I see the cable news channels is hurricane obsession.

And don't forget about the lil' Trent Reznor kid who killed that lawyer's wife.

OK, when I was that age I wore eyeliner and dressed in black-on-black, but I never read the "Book of Satan," whatever that is, and I never stabbed to death an attorney's wife...not even once just to see what it was like!
:D