Stephen Lawrence centre vandalised

[spartan]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/feb/15/lawrence.ukcrime

£100, 000 windows smashed at Stephen Lawrence centre, which is the fourth attack on the memorial to the student murdered in a racist attack 15 years ago.

The Police have called in a race hate unit to join the hunt for the vandals.

Thoughts?

This should serve as a terrible reminder to us all that racism is still a potent force amongst some sick individuals.

[Zurdito]

This is awful. Stephen Lawrence was killed in the place where I lived a long time. The local white lumpenproletariat is to this day very resentful of the "special attention" he gets from "rich liberals" compared to them. Which jsut goes to show how much work we still have to do fighting racism. :(

[Cencus]

My first reaction is what bunch of c**ts whoever did that.

Then the second reaction is 100 grand on windows kin ell.

[Vanguard1917]

This is awful. Stephen Lawrence was killed in the place where I lived a long time. The local white lumpenproletariat is to this day very resentful of the "special attention" he gets from "rich liberals" compared to them. Which jsut goes to show how much work we still have to do fighting racism. :(

You should ask yourself why he gets this level of attention from the bourgeois state and the media.

The death of Stephen Lawrence has for 15 years been exploited by the ruling class and turned into a vacuous symbol of the state's official 'anti-racist' ideology.

I'm personally sick and tired of the state exploiting the death of this teenager for their own political ends. And so are a lot of the black people i know.



This should serve as a terrible reminder to us all that racism is still a potent force amongst some sick individuals.


This is exactly what the bouregoisie's official 'anti-racist' ideology is about. For them, just like it is for yourself, racism is a problem associated with 'sick individuals', usually white working class people. No longer does anti-racism refer to action against the oppressive capitalist state. Instead, 'anti-racism' in British society has been turned into a stick which the ruling elite uses to beat the working class.

[Zurdito]

You should ask yourself why he gets this level of attention from the bourgeois state and the media.

as a response to popular outrage at the racism of the police.


The death of Stephen Lawrence has for 15 years been exploited by the ruling class and turned into a vacuous symbol of the state's official 'anti-racist' ideology.

yes true, they took the popular anger and tried to coerce and neutralsie it. that's what liberal reformists do. big surprise. I suppose we should now consider all progressive to be "vacuous symbols" now, due to that fact. I wonder what you say about the anti-war movement for example.:rolleyes:


I'm personally sick and tired of the state exploiting the death of this teenager for their own political ends. And so are a lot of the black people i know.

How exactly is that happening then?


This is exactly what the bouregoisie's official 'anti-racist' ideology is about. For them, just like it is for yourself, racism is a problem associated with 'sick individuals', usually white working class people.

I suppose the people who killed Stephen Lawrence and those who vandalised his memorial are not "sick" to your mind, then. They were just reacting against bourgeois liberal opression and all that, perfectly normal working class folk?

Actually, you're wrong. Lawrence's murderers were petty-bourgeois and lumpens. Most racists are one of the two. You're romantic view of the working class as some desperate shat upon mass of furious youth is quite inaccurate.


No longer does anti-racism refer to action against the oppressive capitalist state.

A group which rejects the opressive action of the capitalist state must be anti-racist. Just because the state tries to incorporate leftists with some anti-racist reforms doesn't make anti-racism an invention of the state.


Instead, 'anti-racism' in British society has been turned into a stick which the ruling elite uses to beat the working class

Well let me be clear, I don't call on the state to fight fascism, Trotsky rejected this method as suicidal for the left. Only popular pressure can defeat fascism. I know that, so do many people here. So what? How does that relate to this article? Or did you just want another excuse for a right-wing rant? I notice you had no words of regret for what happened to Stephen Lawrence or his memorial whatsoever.

[Vanguard1917]

as a response to popular outrage at the racism of the police.



Where was this 'popular outrage' exactly? Specific examples? Mass demonstrations? Rioting?

Stephen Lawrence's death was not adopted by the state due to 'popular outrage', but because it suited the official 'anti-racist' ideology which was being devised by the state at the time.


I suppose the people who killed Stephen Lawrence and those who vandalised his memorial are not "sick" to your mind, then. They were just reacting against bourgeois liberal opression and all that, perfectly normal working class folk?

Actually, you're wrong. Lawrence's murderers were petty-bourgeois and lumpens. Most racists are one of the two. You're romantic view of the working class as some desperate shat upon mass of furious youth is quite inaccurate.

Please don't try to put words into my mouth. Stephen Lawrence was the victim of a racist attack. Of that there is no question.

What i said was that, today, the elite's official 'anti-racist' ideology is nothing but a weapon which it uses against ordinary white working class people, who are depicted as the source of racism in British society.

[Zurdito]

Where was this 'popular outrage' exactly? Specific examples? Mass demonstrations? Rioting?

I think if nothing had been done, relations with the black community would have been severely damaged. Who knows where that would lead.



Stephen Lawrence's death was not adopted by the state due to 'popular outrage', but because it suited the official 'anti-racist' ideology which was being devised by the state at the time.


No, you're wrong. Bourgeois anti-racism is a reformist response to an essentially progressive popular demand. And try to find out what "popular demand" actually means before you assume it means mass demonstrations or rioting.


Please don't try to put words into my mouth. Stephen Lawrence was the victim of a racist attack. Of that there is no question.

I didn't claim you denied that. I'm not putting words iny our mouth at all, you're managing to say unbelievable things yourself. Such as that "anti-racism" is a bourgeois invention, rather than a grass-roots demand from an opressed group which the state has been forced to accept. I view struggle and the bourgeoisie being forced to adapt, whereas you apaprently can't see anything progressive at all about an acknowledgement that racism exists in our society. Also, I think your view of the white working class is confused, or at least, your points are confusing me, so here are some questions:

Do you think the white working class is more prone to racism than the middle class or the lumpenproletariat?
Are you clear on the difference between working class and lumpenproletariat, and working class behaviour and lumpen behaviour?
Are you more "tolerant" of racism amongst the white working class than amongst other groups because you see it as a reaction to economic injustice?
Do you think the white working class is actually harmed by "anti-racism" on the part of the bourgeoisie, or that this is just a false explanation for other attacks on the working class, which the bourgeoisie promotoes in the name of scapegoating ethnic minorities?I will appreciate your answers, because right now you're coming across reactionary, butmaybe I am just misunderstanding you. :)

Also, if someone resents anti-racism, then that person has a reactionary social value which needs to be challenged. Or do you propose that ethnic minorities should sit around waiting for the day when the mass of the population finally decides to accept them and grant them the privelidge of being treated as equals, rather than militantly and intransigently fighting against all manifestations of racism by anyone regardless of class, as is their fundamental right.

EDIT: and can I alsop point out that the "sick individuals" quote was NOT by me, and you should make that clear when quoting, as I'd never use petty bourgeois language like that, as it is anti-materialist.

[Vanguard1917]

No, you're wrong. Bourgeois anti-racism is a reformist response to an essentially progressive popular demand. And try to find out what "popular demand" actually means before you assume it means mass demonstrations or rioting.


I disagree with the idea that the ruling class's obsession with Stephen Lawrence's death has anything to do with popular pressure. You have claimed that it has, but you have not shown how.

The bourgeois state's phoney official 'anti-racism' has very little to do with 'a reformist respose' to popular demands. Instead, it has more to do with of the adoption of a new state ideology - an ideology which is not progressive.



Do you think the white working class is more prone to racism than the middle class or the lumpenproletariat?


Not necessarily. It depends on the specific conditions.



Are you clear on the difference between working class and lumpenproletariat, and working class behaviour and lumpen behaviour?


I'm clear on the difference between working class people and lumpens. The latter are a small social minority in Britain, and they have currently have no significant political influence in British society.



Are you more "tolerant" of racism amongst the white working class than amongst other groups because you see it as a reaction to economic injustice?


No, i certainly am not tolerant of racism, especially not racism within the revolutionary class.



Do you think the white working class is actually harmed by "anti-racism" on the part of the bourgeoisie, or that this is just a false explanation for other attacks on the working class, which the bourgeoisie promotoes in the name of scapegoating ethnic minorities?


The 'anti-racism' which the bourgeois state and media has adopted is anti-working class because, as i explained above, it defines racism as being rooted in working class life. As a result, it sees the fight against racism as a bourgeois state struggle against the working class. There is nothing progressive about this at all.


Also, if someone resents anti-racism, then that person has a reactionary social value which needs to be challenged.

Let me emphasise that i do not regard the official 'anti-racism' of the bourgeois state as having anything to do with genuine anti-racism.

[Zurdito]

I disagree with the idea that the ruling class's obsession with Stephen Lawrence's death has anything to do with popular pressure. You have claimed that it has, but you have not shown how.

Have you heard of the Macpherson report? Do younot think the black community placed demands for change on the state after that? Also Stephen Lawrence's parents have campaigned hard to keep his memory alive, and they have been supported by sections of the blackc ommunity and the population as a whole. The ruling class has responded to that. They haven't been the ones who "took the inciative" to remember Stepehn Lawrence.



The bourgeois state's phoney official 'anti-racism' has very little to do with 'a reformist respose' to popular demands. Instead, it has more to do with of the adoption of a new state ideology - an ideology which is not progressive.


Which ideology?



I'm clear on the difference between working class people and lumpens. The latter are a small social minority in Britain, and they have currently have no significant political influence in British society.


the people who killed Stepehen Lawrence are lumpens, and I'd be pretty sure that so are the ones who keep destroying memorials like this. I lived in Eltham for a long time and I know exactly the class of person who hates Stephen Lawrence, and it is not workers.



The 'anti-racism' which the bourgeois state and media has adopted is anti-working class because, as i explained above, it defines racism as being rooted in working class life. As a result, it sees the fight against racism as a bourgeois state struggle against the working class. There is nothing progressive about this at all.

I don't thinkthe bourgeoise needs "anti-racism" as a cover for attacking the working class. Where else in the world, throughout history, has this ever been the case? If anything, the British bourgeoisie in Britain promotes racism and nationalism as cover for their attacks. What you are saying is totally incoherent, think about it: an ideology is a way of rallying support amongst a group to back an assault on another group, and to divide the victimised group itself and get sections of it to support the attacks on it. Who is complicit and sees itslef as benefitting from attacks on the working clas, then? Sections of the petty-bourgeoisie and "middle strata": since when do these groups need to be rallied by "anti-racism"? And since when will claiming to defend the cause of the most opressed sections of society persuade sections of the working class to not resist attacks on itself? The opposite is true. The logical conclusion of what you are sayign is that currently ehtnic minorities are one of the key groups backing attacks ont he working class and percieving themselves to benefit from this. :rolleyes:Ideology doesn't just get plucked out of the air irrelevant to the situation.


Let me emphasise that i do not regard the official 'anti-racism' of the bourgeois state as having anything to do with genuine anti-racism.

What if genuine anti-racism provokes a response from the bourgeois state - as happens with every other progressive demand, ever? Is it then "completely reactionary"? Is there no interaction between the masses and the bourgeoisie these days? Why do the bourgeoisie even bother with ideology then?

[careyprice31]

I have heard about Stephen Lawrence from a person who witnessed hm running down the road after the attack. He published his story and what he had seen in an edition of Canadian magazine Reader's Digest.

It was a terrible crime. And to vandalize this monument is a terrible insult to his memory and to the remembrance of him.

[careyprice31]

sorry for not simply edited my other post but i have something to say needs to be said and noticed.....even though u all would perhaps agree with me, being leftists but still.....

I was watching a movie and I couldnt stop thinking about stephen lawrence.....

He was 18 when he was brutally and viciously murdered....

and then i was thinking about my 13 year old cousin, my 19 year old friends, my 18 year old cousin in college, how sweet they are....and myself when I was a teen and younger and I started school when i was 5 like most children

and what I was thinking was that....Teenagers should have to only think about natural normal things such as dislikeing their math class and how will they find a date for the prom and deciding what courses to take in university.

but many times, as in mr lawrence's case and in my case as well.....they never are able to think about normal things, because some bastards come out from the society which helped to create them.......they come along and FUCKING steal their innocence.

shattering everything good and pure, murdering everything that was or might have been.....

just because, like Mr Lawrence or like myself, they do not conform to expected standards of the crazy society.

and then these young people live in fear, waking up every day of their young lives wondering what will happen to them next. It happened to me, so much so that school was actually dangerous and I have been injured physically and mentally and every other way you can think of.

Many people never have a chance to blossom. I too was nearly destroyed in my teenage years because I suffered the very same persecution because I was a non conformist. Unlike Mr Lawrence I was able to escape, but it took me years to piece my life together.

Oh if society were different......leftist and more merciful.....We would never have to go through any of this.

Except we are not yet in a position to prevent any of this because people are indoctrinated into it from being young. To persecute the non conformists.

Racism came about, I believe, because of profit. People will use anything they can to make capital, and that means exploiting human beings. Using the doctrine that one race is superior than another makes it easier, to them, to justify capitalism, racism, imperialism, and a whole group of other things which are equally as bad.

In order to get rid of bullies, and racists and cappies and so on, we must first change society. I do not mean that they should be killed or vaporized or anything, I am no authoritarian or murderer.

Most times they are charged with crimes and go to jail or they get suspended or transfered to another place.....but that doesnt really change anything. It is a sort of protection for society because the criminal is removed but then u have to deal with the corrupted police who work for the states we live in and we all know what they are like.

Its like putting a bandage over a bullet hole without first looking to find out what caused the wound in the first place.

[Gitfiddle Jim]

Sickening, just sickening.

[Lead Headache]

Vandalism on this level is mindless and, to be politically incorrect, retarded.

Why destroy the windows? Why? What gain is there in destroying valuable architecture?

Sure, I've spraypainted public property before, but it was a drainage ditch. Nobody could even see it unless you went a mile off the road, climbed through some trees, walked down a river bed, and jumped down into the ditch.

But destroying the windows is so stupid.

When those people vandalised some priceless paintings a few months ago, I was furious. What reason is there to destroy these things?

[Sankofa]

Is it a fact that nobody's been convicted for this murder yet?

That's just as disgusting as the vandalism.