Government has an obligation to the public to put down riots. Government is force and force will be met with greater force. The agents of the state sent to put down the riots do not enjoy the luxury of understanding or sympathizing with the cause of the protest. The only concern is the rioter…
Government has an obligation to the public to put down riots. Government is force and force will be met with greater force. The agents of the state sent to put down the riots do not enjoy the luxury of understanding or sympathizing with the cause of the protest. The only concern is the rioters. Rioting is a fool's errand. Mostly peaceful is not a consideration, only the violence of the riot is.
Protest, even when non-violent, has the issue of agitators showing up to ruin the protest by making it a riot. But even without that, if you want people to listen to your issue, don't spit in their eye. That's how you start a fight.
Back during the civil rights movement, seeing the police sic dogs on the protestors painted the police as bad guys and garnered sympathy and cooperation for the cause. Arson, looting and other forms of violence paints the protestors as the bad guys, making a desire to cooperate with their cause less likely. I think that the non-violence approach of Dr. King had a better affect than violence would have had.
Interestingly, TV shows like All in the family, the Jeffersons, etc. were a force for displaying the absurdity of racial bigotry and it's less likely to piss off people who are laughing. Sadly, those helpful jokes are a thing of the past.
"Back during the civil rights movement, seeing the police sic dogs on the protestors painted the police as bad guys and garnered sympathy and cooperation for the cause. Arson, looting and other forms of violence paints the protestors as the bad guys, making a desire to cooperate with their cause less likely."
Exactly this. John Dewberry, whose speech I link in the original article, puts it beautifully. He says that what the world could see in the men and women who marched peacefully and with dignity was the lie that was being told about them. The lie was that they are violent and dangerous and unreasonable. But then the cameras showed them marching peacefully, hand in hand, defiantly asserting their personhood. And, as King proved, this works.
Sadly, the cameras were often trained on the rioters who affirmed the lie. When these who opposed civl rights wanted to justify their position, all they had to do is post and say, "Look, these are the people who want to be able to share your restaurants and schools and churches. This is what we're trying to protect you from."
A good article and conversation with a reader.
Government has an obligation to the public to put down riots. Government is force and force will be met with greater force. The agents of the state sent to put down the riots do not enjoy the luxury of understanding or sympathizing with the cause of the protest. The only concern is the rioters. Rioting is a fool's errand. Mostly peaceful is not a consideration, only the violence of the riot is.
Protest, even when non-violent, has the issue of agitators showing up to ruin the protest by making it a riot. But even without that, if you want people to listen to your issue, don't spit in their eye. That's how you start a fight.
Back during the civil rights movement, seeing the police sic dogs on the protestors painted the police as bad guys and garnered sympathy and cooperation for the cause. Arson, looting and other forms of violence paints the protestors as the bad guys, making a desire to cooperate with their cause less likely. I think that the non-violence approach of Dr. King had a better affect than violence would have had.
Interestingly, TV shows like All in the family, the Jeffersons, etc. were a force for displaying the absurdity of racial bigotry and it's less likely to piss off people who are laughing. Sadly, those helpful jokes are a thing of the past.
"Back during the civil rights movement, seeing the police sic dogs on the protestors painted the police as bad guys and garnered sympathy and cooperation for the cause. Arson, looting and other forms of violence paints the protestors as the bad guys, making a desire to cooperate with their cause less likely."
Exactly this. John Dewberry, whose speech I link in the original article, puts it beautifully. He says that what the world could see in the men and women who marched peacefully and with dignity was the lie that was being told about them. The lie was that they are violent and dangerous and unreasonable. But then the cameras showed them marching peacefully, hand in hand, defiantly asserting their personhood. And, as King proved, this works.
Sadly, the cameras were often trained on the rioters who affirmed the lie. When these who opposed civl rights wanted to justify their position, all they had to do is post and say, "Look, these are the people who want to be able to share your restaurants and schools and churches. This is what we're trying to protect you from."