Umar Johnson : I believe some Black people will have to go war with the Police-Update Gavin Long

[notPsychosiz]

Do yall agree with Umar Johnson when it comes to the lynchings of Black people by the police

He believes that the police shootings of Black people wont stop until one day

it will come to a head, and a scenario/catastrophe will take place where you have a group of black men and a group of

White police officers going to war with each other and he believes that, that will be the final deterrent for

the lynchings we have going on


I agree 100%

He believes this because he is an educated man. Any studied individual from Noam Chomsky to George Galloway to Elijah Muhammad will tell you the same thing. History tells us that oppression does not end itself.

Historical context expands that only through violence or threat thereof can an oppressed people liberate itself.

If you take the most recent example of true liberation (India from Britain) you will see that despite promoting peace and being ignored for 30 years, Ghandi was immediately successful when he threatened to organize Indian defection from WWII.
This would have resulted in 100,000 dead and or raped cac brits. So as agreement to not do that he negotiated India's freedom from Britain.

Ghandi talked that peaceful talk for 30 years. No results.
India became free in 1947, as soom as the war was affirmed to be over. Violence was his only leverage. Ever.

Without war and threat of violence to their cac oppressors, Indians would be slaves to Brits to this day.

#FACTS

So when people talk that "Ghandi was peaceful" shyt, just remember they don't know what they are talking about.

 

[notPsychosiz]

I think allot of yall are missing the point of the video

he's not saying that the entire black population should declare a war on police, and then go to war

fundamentally, he's talking about establishing a detterent

making somebody think twice about harming you

its sort of like standing up to a bully one time just to let him know that you wont be a victim anymore

They are indeed mising the point, but its largely because UJ isn't talking to them.
Thats why you will see simple responses like 'people should stop listening to this man'

They don't grasp that he is expounding ideas of other scholars, historians and leaders both currently and formerly oppressed. Merely trying to help reach an audience that doesn't read Che or follow the politics of how hezbollah or the IRA came to be. These aren't ideas UJ has created, they are consensus amongst acadamia. So he is doing a service to the black populace merely by relaying the ideas to the people, since most would rather skirt the topic altogether.

 

[Loose]

95% of us don't even know how to shoot a gun, we'd be killed off in one day

 

[Jazzy B.]

 

[acri1]

 

[jwonder]

I was at a protest today.
Where were you?

Not protesting because it doesn't do shyt cac. I bet you held your sign up high too you fagot mutha fukka.

 

[Kano]

Never follow a man into war if he's not willing to fight beside you.
Lol at "some people" not including himself.

 

[D.C Young]

They are indeed mising the point, but its largely because UJ isn't talking to them.
Thats why you will see simple responses like 'people should stop listening to this man'

They don't grasp that he is expounding ideas of other scholars, historians and leaders both currently and formerly oppressed. Merely trying to help reach an audience that doesn't read Che or follow the politics of how hezbollah or the IRA came to be. These aren't ideas UJ has created, they are consensus amongst acadamia. So he is doing a service to the black populace merely by relaying the ideas to the people, since most would rather skirt the topic altogether.

wow, great info

yeah, people gotta get in the habit of seperating the message from the messenger sometimes

if you dont like Umar Johnson, that's fine, but atleast look at him as a vessel or some shyt

 

[D.C Young]

He believes this because he is an educated man. Any studied individual from Noam Chomsky to George Galloway to Elijah Muhammad will tell you the same thing. History tells us that oppression does not end itself.

Historical context expands that only through violence or threat thereof can an oppressed people liberate itself.

If you take the most recent example of true liberation (India from Britain) you will see that despite promoting peace and being ignored for 30 years, Ghandi was immediately successful when he threatened to organize Indian defection from WWII.
This would have resulted in 100,000 dead and or raped cac brits. So as agreement to not do that he negotiated India's freedom from Britain.

Ghandi talked that peaceful talk for 30 years. No results.
India became free in 1947, as soom as the war was affirmed to be over. Violence was his only leverage. Ever.

Without war and threat of violence to their cac oppressors, Indians would be slaves to Brits to this day.

#FACTS

So when people talk that "Ghandi was peaceful" shyt, just remember they don't know what they are talking about.

co-sign 100%

one of the biggest misconceptions that people have is that violence is counterproductive

violence is a natural part of life

nature itself is violent...hurricanes, earthquakes, tsunamis, tornadoes etc

even if you look at all the countries in the world today, every one of them was founded through war

matter of fact, peace is maintained through war!

and for all my religious folks, every religion tells you that there is no redemption without bloodshed

Violence(or threat thereof) IS the answer

but its one of many answers, there are many different strategies,

but violence is one, and as far as I know, its the most potent one

 

[jwonder]

He believes this because he is an educated man. Any studied individual from Noam Chomsky to George Galloway to Elijah Muhammad will tell you the same thing. History tells us that oppression does not end itself.

Historical context expands that only through violence or threat thereof can an oppressed people liberate itself.

If you take the most recent example of true liberation (India from Britain) you will see that despite promoting peace and being ignored for 30 years, Ghandi was immediately successful when he threatened to organize Indian defection from WWII.
This would have resulted in 100,000 dead and or raped cac brits. So as agreement to not do that he negotiated India's freedom from Britain.

Ghandi talked that peaceful talk for 30 years. No results.
India became free in 1947, as soom as the war was affirmed to be over. Violence was his only leverage. Ever.

Without war and threat of violence to their cac oppressors, Indians would be slaves to Brits to this day.

#FACTS

So when people talk that "Ghandi was peaceful" shyt, just remember they don't know what they are talking about.

Too much knowledge and facts. These ignorant nikkas on here won't feel it though. It's just common sense if you look at ANY history regarding oppression VIOLENCE was the answer.

 

[Harry Sax]

Always wonder why these supposed hardcore nikkas that have no issue shooting up our own neighborhoods are scared to bust shots at these cops

Idk where you live but where I'm from nikkas shoot at troll

 

[ⒶⓁⒾⒶⓈ]

This fraudulent huckster is gonna get simple mided nikkas killed

 

[ⒶⓁⒾⒶⓈ]

He believes this because he is an educated man. Any studied individual from Noam Chomsky to George Galloway to Elijah Muhammad will tell you the same thing. History tells us that oppression does not end itself.

Historical context expands that only through violence or threat thereof can an oppressed people liberate itself.

If you take the most recent example of true liberation (India from Britain) you will see that despite promoting peace and being ignored for 30 years, Ghandi was immediately successful when he threatened to organize Indian defection from WWII.
This would have resulted in 100,000 dead and or raped cac brits. So as agreement to not do that he negotiated India's freedom from Britain.

Ghandi talked that peaceful talk for 30 years. No results.
India became free in 1947, as soom as the war was affirmed to be over. Violence was his only leverage. Ever.

Without war and threat of violence to their cac oppressors, Indians would be slaves to Brits to this day.

#FACTS

So when people talk that "Ghandi was peaceful" shyt, just remember they don't know what they are talking about.

Thats totally false...Ghandhi actually beat the colonialists through economic warfare and non cooperation

The British had controlled India since about the time of the American Revolution. Gaining independence would be difficult, because Indians were far from united. Although most Indians were Hindus, a sizeable minority were Muslims . The relationship between the two groups was always uneasy and sometimes violent.

One of Britain's main economic interests in India was to sell its manufactured cloth to the Indian people. As Britain flooded India with cheap cotton textiles, the village hand-spinning and weaving economy in India was crippled. Millions of Indians were thrown out of work and into poverty.
Gandhi expanded his nonviolence platform to include the swadeshi policy—the boycott of foreign-made goods, especially British goods. Linked to this was his advocacy that khadi (homespun cloth) be worn by all Indians instead of British-made textiles. Gandhi exhorted Indian men and women, rich or poor, to spend time each day spinning khadi in support of the independence movement.[95]

Gandhi even invented a small, portable spinning wheel that could be folded into the size of a small typewriter.[96] This was a strategy to inculcate discipline and dedication to weeding out the unwilling and ambitious and to include women in the movement at a time when many thought that such activities were not respectable activities for women. In addition to boycotting British products, Gandhi urged the people to boycott British educational institutions and law courts, to resign from government employment, and to forsake British titles and honours.[97]

They dont tell you this but the true power came from starving the empire and not giving up their cash so the costs of colonizing india became too high for the British
and they were forced to withdraw.

 

[notPsychosiz]

Thats totally false...Ghandhi actually beat the colonialists through economic warfare and non cooperation


They dont tell you this but the true power came from starving the empire and not giving up their cash so the costs of colonizing india became too high for the British
and they were forced to withdraw.

India had been trying to gain its independance since the 1700's.
It actually did gain it in 1944 and it was finalized in 1947. You think thats a coincidence?
Guess when WW2 ended. September of 1945. The gap between 1945 and 1947 is Britain doing paperwork.

Technically they negotiated their independance during the war in 1944... but the agreement was that things would remain stationary until it was over.

Anyway, I don't feel like teaching history right now. Read up if you genuinely care.
Indian independence movement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

India refusing to fight would have meant Britain had 2.5 million less troops. The UK would have literally lost WW2 by every estimation.
The UK murdered thousands of indians and arrested 100 thousand or so (yes that number is accurate. 100,000 indians arrested just because of this)

So believe that non-violence spiel if you want.
The facts are well documented.

Britains were scared of being raped and murdered and having their own land stolen for a change. They needed brown people to help stop that from happening. The brown people demanded freedom or there would be cac blood and cac tears.

THATS why India is free.
They negotiated their freedom under threat of mass Violence.

#FACTS

 

[ⒶⓁⒾⒶⓈ]

India had been trying to gain its independance since the 1700's.
It actually did gain it in 1944 and it was finalized in 1947. You think thats a coincidence?
Guess when WW2 ended. September of 1945. The gap between 1945 and 1947 is Britain doing paperwork.

Umm NO..it was Britain being broke from fighting ww2

Technically they negotiated their independance during the war in 1944... but the agreement was that things would remain stationary until it was over.

Anyway, I don't feel like teaching history right now. Read up if you genuinely care.
Indian independence movement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Im well versed in the history of the region

"At the end of World War II, the overwhelming question for the British was what to do about India. There were basically two schools of thought. One school–that of Winston Churchill–said keep it. As Churchill himself said, “India is the crown jewel of the British empire.” However, the majority of Britons had accepted that it was time to give up India. Even before World War I, successive British governments had taken steps to allow for a transfer of power.
This impulse accelerated over the course of World War II and grew until finally it became a major issue. The person who was responsible for this growing sense that it was time to give up India was Mohandas Gandhi"

India refusing to fight would have meant Britain had 2.5 million less troops. The UK would have literally lost WW2 by every estimation.
The UK murdered thousands of indians and arrested 100 thousand or so (yes that number is accurate. 100,000 indians arrested just because of this)

So believe that non-violence spiel if you want.
The facts are well documented.

They are but you refuse to read them..Ghandhi actually was instrumental in getting them to fight..from your very own link.............

"Overall, the Quit India Movement turned out to be not very successful and only lasted until 1943. It drew away from Gandhi's tactic of non-violence; it eventually became a rebellious act without any real leader."

Britains were scared of being raped and murdered and having their own land stolen for a change. They needed brown people to help stop that from happening. The brown people demanded freedom or there would be cac blood and cac tears.

THATS why India is free.

Your very own link tells you the "quit india" movement failed and the real reason they succeded was THIS

The Royal Indian Navy mutiny (also called the Bombay Mutiny) encompasses a total strike and subsequent mutiny by Indian sailors of the Royal Indian Navy on board ship and shore establishments at Bombay (Mumbai) harbour on 18 February 1946. From the initial flashpoint in Bombay, the mutiny spread and found support throughout British India, from Karachi to Calcutta and ultimately came to involve 78 ships, 20 shore establishments and 20,000 sailors.[65]

The agitations, mass strikes, demonstrations and consequently support for the mutineers, therefore continued several days even after the mutiny had been called off. Along with this, the assessment may be made that it described in crystal clear terms to the government that the British Indian Armed forces could no longer be universally relied upon for support in crisis, and even more it was more likely itself to be the source of the sparks that would ignite trouble in a country fast slipping out of the scenario of political settlement.[66]

They negotiated their freedom under threat of mass Violence.

Umm did you even READ the link you posted
It totally refutes everything you said...this is the real reason they dont teach this properly if you want to be free you must include economics
running around busting guns at your oppressor doesnt mean shyt if you have to go back to the same person to ask for food or a job..
Ghandhi knew this