Photo by Joshua Miranda from Pexels

I saw a picture making the rounds comparing the disparity of treatment of protestors in Minneapolis and Michigan. The message was that the most of protestors in Minneapolis were peacefully protesting the murder of Greg Floyd and were met with tear gas, while the protestors in Michigan, who brought guns into the capital and shouted down police officers to protest executive overreach, were allowed to protest unobstructed. 

It’s quite an effective meme. At face value, it makes sense, and it communicates an apparent injustice of disproportionate treatment. But when I looked into the images in the meme, it became clear that whoever created it wasn’t trying to tell the truth, but seems to be trying to cause a visceral feeling. And when the truth is sacrificed for a cause, no matter how righteous the cause may be, one loses the moral authority of the cause. Let me hash this out a bit.

Li Zhou and Kainaz Amaria writing for Vox frame the Minneapolis protests in the following way: 

“The protest, which included chants of ‘It could have been me,’ was met at times with tear gas and rubber bullets. It’s a response that was incredibly harsh — and one that marks a stark contrast with how law enforcement has reacted to lockdown protests, several of which have included armed white men,” they write. 

In the framing of the picture, along with the news article, we’re meant to believe that the police fired tear gas at innocent people protesting. 

However, that’s not what happened. Vox editorializes it’s an unnecessary escalation, which I guess can be debated, but the implication is that the police fired on simple, peaceful protesters, which is simply not true. 

Now, let’s contrast that with the Michigan rally in the picture. First, the event was peaceful. Second, the men carrying guns into the capital building were legally allowed to do so. 

Third, Vox and others want to paint this as a “white man’s” protest, but it wasn’t. Finally, no law was actually broken by the protestors, outside of disobeying an executive order, which isn’t a law, and was the subject of the protests.

So at face value, the contrast painted in the picture falls flat, and ultimately it is not telling the truth. The purpose seems to be to create more division and “othering” of our neighbors. And in my opinion, this contrast ends up being emotional manipulation parading as virtue, which distracts from the reason for the protest in the first place.

Subscribe For Latest Updates

Sign up to receive stimulating conservative Christian commentary in your inbox.

Invalid email address
We promise not to spam you. You can unsubscribe at any time.
  1. This article is a failure on multiple levels.

    First, the article implies that that the police violence was deserved, but cites zero evidence. Exactly what laws were broken to justify the use of tear gas/rubber bullets?

    Second, what is the point of bringing assault rifles to a protest? Intimidation. Legality has nothing to do with it—if you bring a gun to an argument, then it is an implied threat to do harm. Obviously.

    Third, multiple vids show white men angrily waving around assault rifles while literally screaming in police officer’s faces, and the police did nothing—which was the correct response. Yet they responded more violently to the unarmed protesters compromised primarily of black Americans…which was the whole point of the protest!

    This author’s denial of the clear juxtaposition between the way in which the police responded to the 2 protests is a clear indication that he is either too basic to understand social issues, or he straight-up supports systemic racism.

    Regardless, this article is a disgusting dismissal of human suffering.

  2. I completely agree with the comments before mine, you are just hocking your excuse for Trump supporters to be comfortable not supporting the changes that must come for our country to have justice for all.

    No one knew one would be violent or not before each protest began, and yet each day the AK-47 nuts arrived they were not confronted with a pre-emptive expectation of violence.

    But you decide to protest the treatment of human life being killed by cops? Oh that’s greeted with a strong lesson.

    When peaceful but justifiably pissed off protests started about the death of a man are met with full riot gear, and batons. All it did was serve to escalate tensions and violence.

    But assholes who arrive with guns? Are met with barely armed forces who remain calm?

    Who are you to ignore the truth and sleep at night?

Comments are closed.

You May Also Like

CyHawkThoughts: Week 2 (Part 1)

Steve & Chuck assess week 1 and give their predictions for week…

Chaplains to Air Force Academy: Obey the Law Concerning Oaths

(Washington, DC) The Chaplain Alliance for Religious Liberty is receiving calls from…

Corporate Insanity

Ok.  My family and I have Netflix.  We like other Netflix customers…

Friday Five Items of Good News (Vol. 10)

Every Friday, Shane Vander Hart shares five items of good news or inspiring stories from the week to end the work week on a positive note.