Flash Mobs -- Not

I got a link to a brief clip about an incident in Kansas City in toady's email from a frequent correspondent. It arrived wihout comment, but with this as the subject line: "A cure for the common flash mob." I opened the clip and watched it.http://gunfreezone.net/wordpress/index.php/2011/08/08/a-cure-for-the-common-mob/

Not always the best solution, but in some cases the best and only solution: oppose force with countervailing superior force and be prepared to shoot. That old 7.62x54R M1944 Russian bolt-action carbine may not be the best defensive combat tool, but it worked in this case just fine.

Now, neither the YouTube poster, the person who reposted it to Gun Free Zone, nor the news outlet from which this clip was taken ( http://www.fox4kc.com/news/wdaf-metro-man-says-teen-mob-terrorized-his-neighborhood-20110616,0,4762112.story) mentioned the term "flash mob." That was added by my correspondent, and I sent him a response, which I will share with you-all, since it addresses a point near and dear to me: accuracy in reporting. And that includes the casual reporting among email or Facebook friends and/or acquaintances.

"As you know, I am somewhat of a stickler for accuracy. The media has taken to calling the various and numerous mobs of predominately Black -- and in London, Black and Muslim -- youths "flash mobs." According to the dictionary definition of "flash mob" these riotous activities don't fit. From our friends at Wikipedia: "A flash mob (or flashmob)[1] is a group of people who assemble suddenly in a public place, perform an unusual and sometimes seemingly pointless act for a brief time, then disperse, often for the purposes of entertainment and/or satire.[2][3] Flash mobs are organized via telecommunications, social media, or viral emails.[4][5][6][7][8][9] The term, coined in 2003, is generally not applied to events and performances organized for the purposes of politics (such as protests), commercial advertisement, publicity stunts that involve public relation firms, or paid professionals." ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flash_mob) This is the understanding I have had for the term and if the use of a term in advertising defines it, then this is the definition most people will have from a current AT&T commercial for their text service.

In fact, in the case of the incident in Kansas City, the element of electronic communication seems wholly absent. The mob had already formed before they took action.

While it is possible -- even likely -- that many of the riotous bands of youths -- young thugs might be a better term, and until the various white anarchists got involved in London, mostly young,  Black thugs -- used the various electronic media to communicate their desire to gather and commit crimes, the rest of the definition counts them out as "flash-mobbers." If there was a political agenda -- and the spark in London seems to have been a possible act of police misconduct in the death of a young Black man ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/aug/08/mark-duggan-profile-tottenham-shooting) -- then the initial gathering might be considered political protest. It quickly devolved into looting, pillaging and arson, with a couple of beatings and at least one murder thrown in. Hardly entertainment as we understand it or satire. Flash-mobs also usually disperse without the government contemplating activating the military, as the London Metropolitan Police and the city government did.

Another fairly similar explanation of a flash mob can be found at http://www.answers.com/topic/flash-mob. "A group of people who gather at a predetermined time and place to perform a silly prank such as yelling at the top of their lungs for 30 seconds and quickly dispersing before the police arrive. Using cellphones, the flash mob can change its venue if the first one has been compromised. Why do they do this? Because they can!" (more at the website linked)

So I am hoping that we can all refrain from calling these groups of young men --they are  mostly male  --  "flash mobs" and call them what they are: "Rioters, Looters, Vandals" or other older and more accurately descriptive terms. And, when they are mostly Black, we should not shy away from calling -- pardon me -- a spade a spade. And we also need to stop trying, as many articles recently published about the mob violence in Philadelphia and London, to shift the blame for these acts away from the perpetrators and onto society at large. The times are tough for most of us workers, Black, White, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, male, female and everybody and anybody else. But most of those effected by the current economic and social strife don't gather together and riot, loot, burn and vandalize in a relatively mindless and often counter-productive manner.

Frankly, I can see the possibility of groups of conservative, perhaps Christian and mostly white folks, young and old alike, using the same technology that are typically used to call one of these things into being showing up to oppose the rioters with armed and determined force. Perhaps if the revolution is to begin, it will begin there. And it will be a race and class war as much as a revolt against the government. Perhaps that is just what some in the government want. It's not what I want, but I don't fancy gangs of rioters, looters, vandals, rapists and murderers of any race or class running free in a town near me."

Or a city or town near any of you either. Let me know how you feel and if you feel, like I do, the the US press is pretty much sweeping the fact that these riots and attacks are for the most part being perpetrated by Blacks, both here in the US and in the UK under any convenient rug.