= new reply since forum marked as read
their cause.
Silly little St. Louisians, thinking they get to enjoy their bread and circuses AND keep their racist white supremacist constabulary.
NOT!
First rule of the ruling class is to try to sow divisions among the resistance by planting doubts about certain members' bona fides ("some of the protesters were COINTELPRO"
. Given that there were by all accounts no more than 20-30 protesters at this Rams game, I'd say it's far more likely that all the protesters knew one another.
Would President Obama and Atty. General Holder be authorizing COINTELPRO operations against Ferguson? Possible, but not likely.
I wish I could be there with them to lend my support, even if, as a white male, you'd be calling me COINTELPRO.
she will wind up in jail, because she assaulted a guy on tape. she makes the protesters look violent and racist. she defeated her own cause.
"The 17-year-old was booked on suspicion of two counts of third-degree assault. Police say she spit in the face of a man, 47, and then punched him in the eye. She also spit in the face of another man, 35."
this is your idea of heroes?
running up to people, spitting on them, and punching them?
she's doing a lot to single-handedly destroy the credibility of people protesting. she played right into the RW stereotypes.
and no, someone calling her nasty names doesn't justify violence. it would make her just as bad as the person you imagine instigating her.
MLK and Ghandi would be proud.
disrupt the oppressor? Would you also recommend getting shot so you can deprive them of bullets?
In the main you are correct. They don't need organizers yet, they need to disorganize what is organized against them first, then use some of its power to re-organize. Many people find it profitable to just start with that second step (especially political fundraisers and bankers. (That, btw, is an easy way to create an organization with no spirit, soul, or moral principles. Leave the people out, just give it money, it moves that way).
Had they maintained their discipline and were shown being attacked by something other than speech, or perhaps even videos of racist speech hurled at them, those would have been great videos, transposed with the great game of FOOTBALL...that would be disruptive, disorganizing. Likely the only disruption here is a potential jail sentence, a criminal record, and perhaps being on the losing end of a very expensive civil lawsuit.
In just my opinion, they played right into what the oppressors are set up to do, very efficiently, and these people were served up, or served themselves up, as menu items for a recipe that just needed their assistance.
On the other hand, if they could delay or stop the game, that would be disruptive as hell
Also, perhaps they could demonstrate to get the federal government to start hiring black people instead of trying to lower the deficit while paying banksters to suck up record profits. This would give black folk a LOT more POWER (unlike any they might get from the food stamps they qualify for by not having jobs), Especially if those people could then afford to buy driver's licenses and gas to vote.
THAT would be disruptive as hell to the oppressors, too. (Maybe that's why we aren't doing it. hmmm) 
When you only have 30 people, there are other ways, better ways, to disorganize the oppressor. But just my opinion. Getting jailed and having to pay fines and paying for it in many other ways the rest of your life is a fine price to pay when it is part of a larger strategy that others are working on., such as if entire towns are refusing to use public services, and that is combined with lawsuits and training and other actions, much like was done in the period prior to '65, which resulted in the grudgingly given Rights Act.
But I understand what drove them to it. For too many people they are living like they are in 1965 again. And doing the same thing, while expecting a different result, might not be the best path. They are trying to find the way, and I hope they do.
I almost want to say your response deserves to be an OP of its own.
That said, you ask "How did getting arrested disrupt the oppressor? Would you also recommend getting shot so you can deprive them of bullets?" I'll engage each in turn, since the two are quite different in nature.
"How did getting arrested disrupt the oppressor?" While this story may be apocryphal, legend has it that Ralph Waldo Emerson paid a visit to Henry David Thoreau while Thoreau was spending the night in Concord's jail for refusing to pay taxes to support the slaveocrat Mexican-American War. Emerson asked Thoreau, "What are you doing in there?" To which Thoreau famously replied, "What are you doing out there?" This may be the first case in American life and letters of 'serving' someone, as the kids say these days 
The short answer to your question is that 'getting arrested' did not disrupt the oppressor. Protesting disrupted the oppressor. Perhaps not in material ways but in ways that are not dreamt of in our philosophy. If the two arrests on Sunday turn into a flood of arrests down the line, such that St. Louis jail cells are choking on arrestees, we may look back to these two arrests as the catalysts that indeed 'disrupted the oppressor.'
"Would you also recommend getting shot so you can deprive them [the oppressors] of bullets?" Too many people have already been shot - "How many deaths will it take till he knows that too many people have died?" Your question is really asking about strategy and tactics (I think) and I will say up front that I'm a big fan of 'hit and run' tactics when going up against a materially- and numerically-stronger adversary. So I don't recommend anyone get 'shot.' How could I recommend that, unless I were to volunteer myself to be first in the line of fire? Such would represent the height of arrogance on my part, when I am struggling to manifest humility.
Then one day they might not have to ask these people anything. They are certainly smart and capable enough, but I think they are letting passion get in the way. I lived through a period in the 60's and later when the government provided the opportunity that private business never has. Some of those organizations are still around and still providing some support, but in a very tiny way compared to the need. So today we are in a different age, where people are more on their own.
Note: In the 40s? a priest was assigned to the Basque region of Spain. The priest he was to work for had been murdered by the dictator Franco's soldiers, and he had escaped from prison himself. He set about trying to find ways to help, realized unemployment was a key, and started a technical school in which the curriculum gave important weight to the "Rochdale Principles of Cooperatives". The people who graduated tried working for others, but eventually borrowed money from other villagers and bought a paraffin stove factory - ALL under a bloody dictator with people who were fighting and dying - and today is the Mondragon Cooperatives, with an unemployment rate of this citizen-owed business lower than the rest of the country.
The interesting thing is that this priest COULD have followed the route of the other, helping the "protesters" (villagers fighting the dictator) in the traditional way, giving aid and comfort, maybe even hiding them, and perhaps thus seen as a "criminal", and was killed.
BOTH of those ways are ways to fight your oppressor, but only one leads to something different than what you had. The other just leads to more fighting, perhaps temporary victories "Mission Accomplished", and more fighting. Look at where we live today, for example.
Getting back to your question, however - What if these people kept up a protest but with some protections and training against it becoming something that can be used against them (as it has at the game) and then organize lots of others into figuring out how they could own the assets being used against them today? That could actually mean a combination of gathering some money to buy a business or two - perhaps across the street from your most vocal critics - some boycotts, other actions, and a lot of training.
In the 60's, they had police beating people, mostly black protesters, shooting salt-laden shotguns at them, turning police dogs loose on children and others. They had training sessions to help people mentally prepare how they would deal with those things without turning violent, because they knew that would destroy their movement.
Imagine how much harder that was than having some football fans call you names?
I would have them sit their asses down and start learning about what has worked in movements over the years, figure out what needs to be updated, decide what they want to accomplish, create a plan and put it into motion. There would be lots of input from the people in Ferguson, but you HAVE to have someone with an agenda to step in as a guide, (that's essential) someone they will see as an expert or have faith in or listen to or be led by or whatever.
That would be a Saul Alinsky, Mary "Mother" Jones, Myles Horton, Paulo Freire - today it could be a handful of women, it's hard to predict what form it would take, the real problem is that most "organizers" really aren't of that caliber, and thus wind up unsuccessful at best, getting people hurt for no gain at their worst. Most organizers, frankly, exhibit a mindset framed by the oppressors, and that makes them impotent.
But even that would just be for Ferguson, and the problem ranges from coast to coast. There are so many actors from which such a thing would have to coalesce, many of whom profit from the way things are, and many of whom may not really represent what is coming out of the face they are presenting at the moment. And all the while there are tens of millions of "villagers", most without any historical knowledge to help themselves, with the Harriet Tubmans of the world only able to snag a few
The odds of it happening, I think, are less than some evangelical leading the country over the edge. So most likely we will just see this continue, unless something sparks a change. Or we burn ourselves up.
'Cause I don't see white people lining up in droves to fix this, and they are the only ones who can.
"Rams fans and Ferguson protesters fought" ... your whole opening post mentioned only the altercation between protestors and people at the Ram's game. So that's what my word "fighting" was referring to... not to the protestors' chant or their overall intent or police brutality or anything else. Now you are introducing a new topic and then trying to humble me with misplaced sarcasm.
I am white. I support the protestors. I would not be combative or upset if they were demonstrating at the grocery store, or anywhere else. I would be HAPPY to see them.
"St. Louis can have its racism and white supremacy OR it can have its professional sports. But it CAN'T HAVE BOTH!"
I guess you meant the racists in St. Louis can't have peaceful professional sports watching... not that St. Louis can't have professional sports?
American law enforcement (St. Louis-style) at its finest.
...indicated that you were making the topic about yourself. Its also ironic that your other posts were criticizing the sampling statistics of a poll. 
With these tactics, I'm sure public opinion will swing their way in no time.
for digging up any additional footage. If you want to, be my guest.
Because dragging a flag on the ground is wrong, just like extra-judicially executing Michael Brown was wrong.