legit struggling to understand why in a moment of widespread desperation and few outlets for anger people would NOT expect mass unrest to be about many things at once
likewise - and this is a hard thing to think and talk about - in a situation where violence is already distributed with stark geographic and demographic inequalities why would people expect both righteous resistance and opportunistic acting out to not reflect that also
there is a distinction between wanting emergent social movements to precisely channel the energy of mass unrest & defaulting to a position where their inevitable failures to do so become a reason not to do anything about the underlying causes & to side w/ authorities by default
esp since many of the charges of illegitimacy levied against furious and desperate people - that they police themselves, that they take supererogatory risks, that they have public leadership etc - ignore a history of, among other things, decades of dismantling by state security!
also if know you this history, shouldn't you be skeptical of implicit (or explicit!) demands that it be black people who put themselves on the front lines (on camera!) in either self-sacrificial nonviolence OR direct action against property? what do you think will happen to them?
like it is hard not to get the sense that some people are actively trying not to ever think anything through or think related thoughts together, all in a way that inevitably just hands the frame (and control!) to the already powerful
