- issues-issues
- I am hoping that my blogs will be a means for people to share thoughts on various topics. Introducing "Blog of Funny Images". Please be aware that my blogs are not study tool sites, but are social and communicative networks. My "issues" blog is my main blog.
1 comment:
It is also prudent to say something on what makes a group. This in some ways is even harder to pin down. Does just sharing the same belief structure make a group? What about enforcing values, following instructions, etc. (enforcing the ranks, so to speak), does a mechanisms to do this must exist? I doubt just simply knowing one another would make a group, but how about not knowing one another. For example, how many groups of friends do you have, and how many people do you know but not call your friends? If people barely know each other or not at all to what extent is it fair to say a group exists? It is being said that it is a tactic not a group.
If true, this would suggest that this method was individual learnt by people from either talking to one another or through observing by attending protests or watching on the news. I realize that these INDIVIDUALS came with the intension of doing these acts, but what cause them to trust each other to share in the anonymity, especially if they didn't previously know each other (to not be fearful of each other)? What, in other words, cause the creation of the collective consciousness for the transition between having the intension of destruction and carrying it out? Is it as simple as a shared ideology? What I suppose I am asking is, did at anytime did one of them look across the street and look at another and say to himself: 'he's dress all in-black, he's here for the same thing I am? And, perhaps, from extension of this, 'he's one of US'? Did they arrive as individuals and become a group? What was this US, if it existed, for them? How much individuality remained, and how much did they think alike and cooperated?
The question/answer is not that their is protection within numbers that lends itself to anonymity. I think, anonymity, itself, would not be a strong enough spark or lure to cause someone to break the barrier, the transition between intension and act (at least when the act is plan, not done out of fear or getting caught up in the moment). This barrier is fear. This barrier is socialization. Not to destroy, but to listen and trust the government, at least to a certain extent. This barrier is what is perceived as morality. How did these individuals come to accept that destruction acceptable, as a means to send a message about what they are against. In short, it may not have been an organization, but may have been a group, of sorts.
The discussion on what makes a group brings me back to my point, of taking away the soap box to stand on, but adds that those that have something to say and can do it in a peaceful manner are given a podium to speak from and heard and welcomed to the table. This recognizes that at times there is a difference between lawful and peaceful and the goal of all societies should be to reconcile these together. To do so, is to reduce the feeling of the need to resort to destruction as a tactic. The police must be wary of using and more to the point having a combat mindset.
This is when they lose public support. No one likes police losing their cool and acting without provocation or speaking with that mindset (of TACTFUL or CALCULATED responses). How cold is this language, and what message is received by the public? Both sides must understand that this is a battle of public opinion and the best way to manage it. The police also need to understand that these individuals are civilians who are only in fact acting like (trained) militants, and public favour will turn if the police lose their cool. I state here that the police should have used a proactive measure to reduce this behaviour. They should have sent officers to universities/colleges and other organizations to encourage people to protest and share with them information on how to lawfully protest. The reason for this is both to build relationships with the community and also try to ensure that people know they have a voice and it will be heard and that this can be done in a peaceful manner.
Post a Comment