What's new

Rittenhouse

The more I think about Rittenhouse, the more I think about the history of white vigilantism regarding Reconstruction, Jim Crow, and the Civil Rights era. We cannot underestimate the impact of race and how demographic and societal change is leading millions of Americans into believing that "their country" is slipping away from them. Throughout Reconstruction, southern vigilantes took the law into their own hands murdering black leaders, businessmen, schools, and whites who were setting up Freedman Bureaus.

Bureau agents, who acted essentially as social workers and were frequently the only federal representatives in Southern communities, were subjected to ridicule and violence from whites (including terrorist organizations such as the Ku Klux Klan), who viewed the agents as interfering in local affairs by trying to assist blacks. While some agents were corrupt or incompetent, others were hardworking and brave people who made significant contributions.
The common defense for this type of vigilantism and terrorism was that northern "carpetbaggers" were "corrupting their communities" and "taking their way of life away." Not that dissimilar from Rittenhouse's defense.

In 1955, Emmett Till was lynched and burned for supposedly whistling at a white woman.


In 1963, a churching in Birmingham was bombed, killing four black girls. The church was used for Civil Rights gatherings. Again, the excuse of "their way of life was being threatened" was used.


In 1964, Civil Rights workers, 2 white and 1 black, were killed near the Philadelphia, Mississippi Fairgrounds. Ronald Reagan in 1980 launched his campaign here, citing "State's rights" and vowed to "RESTORE to states and local governments the power that properly belongs to them."

You can make what you want out of that.


Without the election of a black Democrat as president, we probably don't get Trump. Trump's campaign slogan, "Make America Great Again" was effective because millions don't like the demographic change, don't like seeing women so empowered, and don't like the multicultural democracy that we are turning into. One aspect that is under discussed is the impact white evangelicalism has on all of this. White Evangelicalism, broadly speaking, has merged with Republican politics. It has adopted an "under siege" mentality. It is teaching its adherents that "As America goes so does Christianity." Since they're being taught that America must remain a patriarchal society where white male Christians remain on top, then all actions become justified to combat a nation that is becoming less masculine, empowering women, empowering POC, and less Christian. That is why MAGA is so effective. It's a dog whistle to those you yearn for a more patriarchal, whiter, and Christian society. Seen through this lens, white vigilantism is seen as "self-defense", not murder.

That is what contributed to much of the violence we've seen over the last few years. It's definitely what influenced the BLM protests and the Rittenhouse actions in Wisconsin.

I thought this podcast episode from NPR was one of the best I've ever listened to:


@Red I don't know how many other posters will appreciate that podcast. But I thought you especially might.
 
The common defense for this type of vigilantism and terrorism was that northern "carpetbaggers" were "corrupting their communities" and "taking their way of life away." Not that dissimilar from Rittenhouse's defense.
You've admitted you haven't followed (and I'd presumed also hadn't watched [as a side note it is quite apparent that most people here didn't watch any significant amount of the trial]); where did you get any of these assumptions of this being Rittenhouse's defense?
 
You've admitted you haven't followed (and I'd presumed also hadn't watched [as a side note it is quite apparent that most people here didn't watch any significant amount of the trial]); where did you get any of these assumptions of this being Rittenhouse's defense?
Self defense has been a common excuse of white vigilantism. I don't see him running to another state to "defend that community" that dissimilar from past cases of white vigilantism. It's a common excuse for taking the law into one's own hands.
 
Self defense has been a common excuse of white vigilantism. I don't see him running to another state to "defend that community" that dissimilar from past cases of white vigilantism. It's a common excuse for taking the law into one's own hands.
Ignoring the part of your post that's riddled with fundamentally wrong information regarding the case, help me understand your specific statement:

The common defense for this type of vigilantism and terrorism was that northern "carpetbaggers" were "corrupting their communities" and "taking their way of life away."

Help me understand Rittenhouse's defense appealing to "corrupting their communities" and "taking their way of life."
 
Ignoring the part of your post that's riddled with fundamentally wrong information regarding the case, help me understand your specific statement:



Help me understand Rittenhouse's defense appealing to "corrupting their communities" and "taking their way of life."
Why was Rittenhouse there at this protest?
 
What's your understanding of it? Because that appears to be the crux of the issue.
Why don’t you tell me and we can go from there? I feel like I’ve expressed myself enough today. I thought it was pretty clear. I want to give you the opportunity to explain in your view why he was there.
 
Why don’t you tell me and we can go from there?
You stated the connection of northern carpetbaggers "corrupting communities" and "taking their way of life" to Rittenhouse's defense. I'm asking where you got that connection. You aren't familiar with Rittenhouse's defense so I'm trying to ascertain where the connection came from, but you're asking me to answer the question of why he was there. I take that to mean that your presumption of Rittenhouse's defense being about defending against those "taking [his] way of life" is self-evident, despite being self-admittedly unfamiliar with the case at hand.
 
Yes start from the beginning. I’m sure it will be more productive this time around.
True, this isn't going anywhere.

I invite others to look at this Rittenhouse incident not in the context of some individual “outlier” case. But as yet another case in what has become a pattern of a backlash movement against the social, political, and demographic change.

You don’t get Trump without Obama.
 
True, this isn't going anywhere.

I invite others to look at this Rittenhouse incident not in the context of some individual “outlier” case. But as yet another case in what has become a pattern of a backlash movement against the social, political, and demographic change.

You don’t get Trump without Obama.
You are correct it’s a backlash against you. The issue is how you perceive the reasoning for the backlash. Most people are just tired of people like yourself twisting things into nonsense that isn’t true of most people. Most people can look at this case, especially those who watched it, and see how insanely ridiculous the takes by leftists are. It’s insane to prop him up as any sort of hero or example as well. The backlash is because leftists twist and squirm and turn everything into exactly the delusional fallacies you’re presenting above and painting them as true and any disagreement from your fallacies will be met with “you’re a Republican white supremacist and racist!!!) Including myself who has voted for Bernie in 2 primaries, and Biden in the general election. You can’t fathom the fact leftists ideas are plainly just….stupid to a lot of people including those who are on your side as far as many policies go but are tired of your fallacies, rhetoric, ridiculous and baseless accusations, etc. Again, it’s why in polls where Democrats policies are broken down separately the public generally supports. It’s the party and extremists within the party and their rhetoric most of us can’t stand. It’s also the “I’m a better person than you because I call everything white supremacy” garbage that has grown old.
 
On both sides.

Wait, does that mean I'm playing the "both sides do it" card?
Certainly better for him than to explicitly denounce BL. However, it should be noted that historically people say one thing but do the other. How many “pro civil rights” people fought against bussing? Part of the problem is that one doesn’t need to be explicitly racist anymore. They just need to be “protective of their communities” to commit acts of white vigilantism.

Hopefully Rittenhouse backs his support of BLM with actions.

The main issue for me is the white vigilantism which I believe fits a pattern of backlash that we’ve seen increasingly over the last few years against demographic, political, and societal change.
 
Last edited:
You are correct it’s a backlash against you. The issue is how you perceive the reasoning for the backlash. Most people are just tired of people like yourself twisting things into nonsense that isn’t true of most people. Most people can look at this case, especially those who watched it, and see how insanely ridiculous the takes by leftists are. It’s insane to prop him up as any sort of hero or example as well. The backlash is because leftists twist and squirm and turn everything into exactly the delusional fallacies you’re presenting above and painting them as true and any disagreement from your fallacies will be met with “you’re a Republican white supremacist and racist!!!) Including myself who has voted for Bernie in 2 primaries, and Biden in the general election. You can’t fathom the fact leftists ideas are plainly just….stupid to a lot of people including those who are on your side as far as many policies go but are tired of your fallacies, rhetoric, ridiculous and baseless accusations, etc. Again, it’s why in polls where Democrats policies are broken down separately the public generally supports. It’s the party and extremists within the party and their rhetoric most of us can’t stand. It’s also the “I’m a better person than you because I call everything white supremacy” garbage that has grown old.
I think we have found Jazzy’s alt.
 
I think we have found Jazzy’s alt.
Or maybe there’s just a lot of people out there who can see how twisted and deranged leftists are. There’s a distinction between the liberals and leftists, and the twisted fallacies of leftists aren’t popular, nor should they be. They’re the loudest voice in the room, there also the voice everyone’s rolling their eyes at just wishing you’d get some help.
 
Top