On June 18 2011 10:15 419 wrote: As the inimitable Mark Steyn points out, the fact that the rioters smashed a bookstore's windows, yet didn't loot any books is quite ... illuminating.
In a just world, there would be resignations coming from the incompetent police department officials, but I predict there will be none.
How are they incompetent? They can't just stop people from starting a riot in a crowd of more than 100,000. I wonder how well you could have handled that situation...
There have been plenty of recommendations made ever since the 1994 riots. For one, allowing vehicles to remain in high-population density zones is just asking for trouble. Vehicular torching is one of the more popular pursuits of the average rioter (see: Paris, etc.)
By some accounts, the police did next to nothing as the first incidents of property destruction occurred due to no orders from superiors -- this indecision was quite costly.
In some other reality, you'd be correct--this is like Monday-morning quarterbacking--but there's a huge base of prior knowledge to draw on as far as dealing with sports rioting. Instead, the police department acknowledges no mistakes, and blames a "small group of hooligans", when in fact everyone who loitered around spectating the property destruction were enablers of the situation. Seems like standard "cover your ass" play.
PS. I believe Boston, during the game, made a conscious effort to avoid having too many people into their downtown area, while Vancouver did just the opposite...
While there are external factors that may have influenced people's decisions to riot (Vancouver's reputation as a fairly high drug use city, the fact that the game was being held in Vancouver, etc.), I think that this really highlights just how silly it is to pack 150,000 people into a small geographic area.
PPS. I also believe that the outcries of "police brutality" after the G8 (or G20?) riots hamstringed the ability of the police to react effectively, though of course this is just speculative.
On June 16 2011 14:24 Deapht wrote: cant win in the only thing they are good at? fuck it just destroy the city
Only thing they're good at? Ever heard of curling bro?
Lol this is the most unintentionally hilarious response to anything I've ever read. Clearly I should not be laughing this hard but holy shit. Rofls
If you new anything of Canada, you'd know that the humor was entirely intentional. Unless of course the poster hailed from Saskatchewan, but their use of the term, "bro" would indicate otherwise.
On June 18 2011 10:15 419 wrote: As the inimitable Mark Steyn points out, the fact that the rioters smashed a bookstore's windows, yet didn't loot any books is quite ... illuminating.
In a just world, there would be resignations coming from the incompetent police department officials, but I predict there will be none.
How are they incompetent? They can't just stop people from starting a riot in a crowd of more than 100,000. I wonder how well you could have handled that situation...
There have been plenty of recommendations made ever since the 1994 riots. For one, allowing vehicles to remain in high-population density zones is just asking for trouble. Vehicular torching is one of the more popular pursuits of the average rioter (see: Paris, etc.)
I agree.
By some accounts, the police did next to nothing as the first incidents of property destruction occurred due to no orders from superiors -- this indecision was quite costly.
In some other reality, you'd be correct--this is like Monday-morning quarterbacking--but there's a huge base of prior knowledge to draw on as far as dealing with sports rioting. Instead, the police department acknowledges no mistakes, and blames a "small group of hooligans", when in fact everyone who loitered around spectating the property destruction were enablers of the situation. Seems like standard "cover your ass" play.
Of course the police wouldn't act right away. The absolute worst thing they could have done would have been for the riot police to rush in with tear gas and their batons as soon as the riot began. They did the right thing by allowing time for people to leave, angry people to calm down, etc. The crowd thinned down significantly all by itself without the police doing anything. Attacking such a tightly packed crowd with tear gas and rubber bullets like some people seem to think they should have would have resulted in people being trampled to death.
Overall, the police never have a good choice available. If they inadvertently cause a crush there would be a huge inquiry. If they wait too long for things to calm down they are blamed for indecisiveness. I think they made the right choice.
PS. I believe Boston, during the game, made a conscious effort to avoid having too many people into their downtown area, while Vancouver did just the opposite...
Well after the positive experience at the Olympics it didn't seem like such a bad idea to let people gather and watch the game.
I heard that Vancouver was very multi-ethnic and laid back, and made me want to visit sometime. This incident didn't bother me so much of the actual riot as it seemed to show a side of Vancouver I was unfamiliar with: the drunk white frat boy side that I really despised when I lived in Eugene, OR. A lot of stories detailed racial slurs and such being thrown around, and as I look at pictures of the crowd, it's almost entirely the white frat boy type.
Not to generalize all of Vancouver, and I'll still end up going there one day probably, but I suppose my original view was too idealistic.
On June 18 2011 12:18 Ocedic wrote: I heard that Vancouver was very multi-ethnic and laid back, and made me want to visit sometime. This incident didn't bother me so much of the actual riot as it seemed to show a side of Vancouver I was unfamiliar with: the drunk white frat boy side that I really despised when I lived in Eugene, OR. A lot of stories detailed racial slurs and such being thrown around, and as I look at pictures of the crowd, it's almost entirely the white frat boy type.
Not to generalize all of Vancouver, and I'll still end up going there one day probably, but I suppose my original view was too idealistic.
i, and a lot of people i know, were downtown and didn't see any racism. can you link to these "lot of stories" that detail racism? google news -> "vancouver riot racism", "riot racism", google -> "vancouver riot racism", etc all bring up 0 responses.
it sounds like you're trying to create a narrative that doesn't exist, but feel free to link these stories and prove me wrong
On June 18 2011 12:18 Ocedic wrote: I heard that Vancouver was very multi-ethnic and laid back, and made me want to visit sometime. This incident didn't bother me so much of the actual riot as it seemed to show a side of Vancouver I was unfamiliar with: the drunk white frat boy side that I really despised when I lived in Eugene, OR. A lot of stories detailed racial slurs and such being thrown around, and as I look at pictures of the crowd, it's almost entirely the white frat boy type.
Not to generalize all of Vancouver, and I'll still end up going there one day probably, but I suppose my original view was too idealistic.
i, and a lot of people i know, were downtown and didn't see any racism. can you link to these "lot of stories" that detail racism? google news -> "vancouver riot racism", "riot racism", google -> "vancouver riot racism", etc all bring up 0 responses.
it sounds like you're trying to create a narrative that doesn't exist, but feel free to link these stories and prove me wrong
Yeah there was a large number of young males of Middle Eastern and Asiatic descent, and smaller numbers of those with Indigenous, other heritages, that were also actively participating in the more destructive behavior of the riot. If anything the destructive acts were just as multi-ethnic as the city itself. As always idiots come in all shapes and colors.
I was born downtown Vancouver. I've lived in the city all my life and I'm starting to become ashamed to call myself a Vancouverite. I don't think Vancouverite has any meaning anymore. It was once a community of different peoples of all races and cultures. The city it used to be made it inviting to immigration, however its starting to feel like the people who were born and raised here are being overwhelmed by the amount of new people taking up residence.
Its not about race or where they are from its the fact that they are not from this city and they lack the respect for someone else's community they have been welcomed into. I rarely get to have a conversation with someone where they question of where were are you from is answered with, "I'm born here", and its never really spoken proudly as it once was. It almost always ends with where else they are from and how great that place with no regard for Vancouver as a comparison.
It makes me wonder then why so many people come here. The answer is, that Vancouver has so much to offer. Beaches by the downtown core, mountains, fresh lakes and great outdoors less then an hour away. Most importantly one of the most racially and culturally diverse and accepting populaces that I've seen.
This makes me sick to my stomach to see this. I just came back from Kauai, Hawaii where people are proud to show you around the island. The respect they have for the land and water, and the native peoples and culture. The attitude that the people there have for there island, has been lost in the Vancouver populace. The respect for helping each other has gone. Smiling as strangers and helping tourist's is almost non-existent. Even if its lending your cell for a minute to help someone on their way if they need to make a call.
Hastings and Main St. is the worst ghetto in North America, ( Google it if you don't believe me) I once walked as a teenager in perfect safety, would now be asking to be mugged or assaulted. Even the people considered the "lowest" (poor and drug addicts) of society were neither violent or aggressive but were still good people with a problem or disability,who just needed a hand and used to usually get one. We had to help them they were Vancouverites as well, even if it was just buying them a meal when you stopped in at McDonalds.
This attitude has been lost and those people destroying my home and my city are NOT Vancouverites they are visitors and thugs, and people looking for a mob to perform for and entice into violence. They have no rhyme or reason to be doing this other then they do not care for my home and the home of other Vancouverites. I really would like to know how they would feel if I was doing this to their home city. I really hope that this isn't what sticks into people and TL's minds when they see this of my city.
It really doesn't take much to be a Vancouverite, just respect, socially morale, and polite, even if you are a visitor you will be considered one of us if you have these qualities. At least any true person from here will treat you as such. I wish all these people who rioted would go home and take the negative attitudes with them. It makes me sad they wont though, since they now live here since its much better then where ever they came from. But to those who realize what this city has to offer and have the right attitude I would like to welcome you, just I warn you its not the city that was once at the top of the best 10 cities list in the world.
PS. I would like to throw a shout out to the few of us (Vancouverites) left that went downtown to help clean and reclaim our downtown core. I only regret that I wasnt in the country to help as well.
On June 18 2011 16:06 Bobble wrote: lol Canada lost.
Yeah, I have no opinion here, just wanted to join in the thread...
Eh, it's subjective. The Boston team is composed of 66% canadians and the canucks team 54%.
But the Boston team is American, well, as long as my random glances at map are correct. I don't know how you think about sporting teams, but it doesn't matter what the team is composed for, it's what the team represents that is important. For example, in the AFL, Richmond was allowed to play in the annual game that honours aboriginals and aboriginal football players. That was because they had the most Aboriginal players in their team. We still get to play in Dreamtime at the 'G, even though we know have an all white team now, and a lot of aboriginal people still barrack for Richmond. They don't jump to the team which has a tonne of Aboriginals now. What I'm saying is that when you barrack for a team, you barrack for the team, the banner a group unites under, not the players.
EPT![[image loading]](http://publicshamingeternus.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/mallory-newton.jpg?w=497&h=538)
![[image loading]](http://media.topscms.com//MetroNews/Published/images/e8/67/707fe50b4103b4b500516dfd66b6.jpeg)
