In his speech, The Other America, Martin Luther King famously describes riots as the language of the unheard. He also says a great deal more about riots, but most people don’t bother to quote that part: I've always said, and I will always continue to say, that riots are socially destructive and self-defeating. I'm still convinced that non-violence is the most potent weapon available to oppressed people in their struggle for freedom and justice. I feel that violence will only create more social problems than they [sic] solve […]
The problem with riots is that unscrupulous people use them to foment increased hatred for the rioters. And of course the conditions that motivated protest and riot never get a mention.
Just look at GWB's reaction to the looting in New Orleans; about the only time in his presidency that he showed any passion. His vehemence about punishments to come went over the line of justice deep into sadism.
For decades gay activism was founded on confrontational belligerence. The strategy was to proudly endorse the ugliest stereotypes, even unto standing before audiences and saying "yes, we do recruit children." The political message to the other 97% of the population was "we hate you." Public displays like pride parades were grotesque lewdness, as deliberately offensive as participants and organizers could manage.
Staging riots is every bit as clueless as that was.
"The strategy was to proudly endorse the ugliest stereotypes, even unto standing before audiences and saying "yes, we do recruit children."
It's crazy how accurately this describes trans activism today. I saw a video just a few days ago with a guy saying exactly this.
If there's a verbal form of rioting, this is it. Again, it's nothing except destructive, alienating, and harmful to the aims of the people trying to improve conditions for the marginalised group in question.
Reading the thread, I was thinking some of the same things you then so aptly expressed. Like the way your correspondent just lumped all violence together - if peaceful means alone are not moving the needle (er, well, haven't yet moved it all the way), then riots are OK, as if riots = productive violence.
I appreciate your distinction that unfocused riots are not a language, more like a screech. Much as I appreciate some of Dr King, I think you've extended his metaphor to include more nuance, still needed today.
One further point is that the volume of the screech is not a reliable indicator of the magnitude of the cause. So, say, people rioting in one geographic region and not rioting in anther, doesn't neccessarily mean that the former is motivated by a stronger injustice. Some cultures and subcultures are more ready to jump from words to violence, even given the same degree of stimulus. Also, a good deal of the violence, in France recently or in the US in 2020, was more opportunistic than cause motivated.
Personally, I don't think it's helpful to discuss the 2020 events as one thing. There were two relatively distinct things going on in the US. One was organized mass protests, almost exclusively in daytime with proper permits, and was mostly peaceful. A quite different group of people, overall, gathered in far smaller numbers at night, and were frequently violent. Some of the looters in our area appeared to be gangs coming in specifically to commit criminal acts for profit, opportunistically using the chaos but without any clear political goals.
Of course, sometimes the people planning on a night of violence peacefully attended the daytime protests as well. There are even videos of people switching from civvies to all black around twilight. But they were vastly outnumbered during the day, by peaceful protesters. So I'm not claiming the two things involved entirely different people, but the demographics of the daytime protests and the night time riots differed greatly.
So I believe there were the George Floyd protests (largely peaceful) in the daytime, and the George Floyd riots and looting (largely violent) in the night after the large bulk of the protesters had gone home. Conflating these two creates confusion at best, deception at worst.
"One further point is that the volume of the screech is not a reliable indicator of the magnitude of the cause."
Good God, I may well steal this at some point.😄 Perfect metaphor. I've been complaining for years that in many cases, the volume of the screech is inversely proportional to the magnitude of the cause. Think, for example, about how much airtime pronoun policing gets compared to, say, marriage inequality.
And yep, in the article, I quote a speech from one Rep. John Deberry who talks about marching with MLK and leaving once the rioters turned up because they weren't part of the movement. Certainly most of the protests in 2020 were peaceful. But I think today, too many people sympathise with the rioters because they're "down for the cause" instead of condemning them because they *hurt* the cause.
One aspect of human psychology that always puzzled me is how a mob of people can engage in destructive behavior that is nearly indistinguishable from an angry riot, but do so out of happiness, like when the local sports team wins the national championship.
"like when the local sports team wins the national championship"
Hmm, yeah, this is an excellent question. Maybe mobs, and especially people susceptible to mob mentality, naturally tend towards destruction? There's certainly evidence that joining mobs weaken people's sense of morality.
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."
The problem with riots is that unscrupulous people use them to foment increased hatred for the rioters. And of course the conditions that motivated protest and riot never get a mention.
Just look at GWB's reaction to the looting in New Orleans; about the only time in his presidency that he showed any passion. His vehemence about punishments to come went over the line of justice deep into sadism.
For decades gay activism was founded on confrontational belligerence. The strategy was to proudly endorse the ugliest stereotypes, even unto standing before audiences and saying "yes, we do recruit children." The political message to the other 97% of the population was "we hate you." Public displays like pride parades were grotesque lewdness, as deliberately offensive as participants and organizers could manage.
Staging riots is every bit as clueless as that was.
"The strategy was to proudly endorse the ugliest stereotypes, even unto standing before audiences and saying "yes, we do recruit children."
It's crazy how accurately this describes trans activism today. I saw a video just a few days ago with a guy saying exactly this.
If there's a verbal form of rioting, this is it. Again, it's nothing except destructive, alienating, and harmful to the aims of the people trying to improve conditions for the marginalised group in question.
Nicely nuanced again, Steve!
Reading the thread, I was thinking some of the same things you then so aptly expressed. Like the way your correspondent just lumped all violence together - if peaceful means alone are not moving the needle (er, well, haven't yet moved it all the way), then riots are OK, as if riots = productive violence.
I appreciate your distinction that unfocused riots are not a language, more like a screech. Much as I appreciate some of Dr King, I think you've extended his metaphor to include more nuance, still needed today.
One further point is that the volume of the screech is not a reliable indicator of the magnitude of the cause. So, say, people rioting in one geographic region and not rioting in anther, doesn't neccessarily mean that the former is motivated by a stronger injustice. Some cultures and subcultures are more ready to jump from words to violence, even given the same degree of stimulus. Also, a good deal of the violence, in France recently or in the US in 2020, was more opportunistic than cause motivated.
Personally, I don't think it's helpful to discuss the 2020 events as one thing. There were two relatively distinct things going on in the US. One was organized mass protests, almost exclusively in daytime with proper permits, and was mostly peaceful. A quite different group of people, overall, gathered in far smaller numbers at night, and were frequently violent. Some of the looters in our area appeared to be gangs coming in specifically to commit criminal acts for profit, opportunistically using the chaos but without any clear political goals.
Of course, sometimes the people planning on a night of violence peacefully attended the daytime protests as well. There are even videos of people switching from civvies to all black around twilight. But they were vastly outnumbered during the day, by peaceful protesters. So I'm not claiming the two things involved entirely different people, but the demographics of the daytime protests and the night time riots differed greatly.
So I believe there were the George Floyd protests (largely peaceful) in the daytime, and the George Floyd riots and looting (largely violent) in the night after the large bulk of the protesters had gone home. Conflating these two creates confusion at best, deception at worst.
"One further point is that the volume of the screech is not a reliable indicator of the magnitude of the cause."
Good God, I may well steal this at some point.😄 Perfect metaphor. I've been complaining for years that in many cases, the volume of the screech is inversely proportional to the magnitude of the cause. Think, for example, about how much airtime pronoun policing gets compared to, say, marriage inequality.
And yep, in the article, I quote a speech from one Rep. John Deberry who talks about marching with MLK and leaving once the rioters turned up because they weren't part of the movement. Certainly most of the protests in 2020 were peaceful. But I think today, too many people sympathise with the rioters because they're "down for the cause" instead of condemning them because they *hurt* the cause.
One aspect of human psychology that always puzzled me is how a mob of people can engage in destructive behavior that is nearly indistinguishable from an angry riot, but do so out of happiness, like when the local sports team wins the national championship.
"like when the local sports team wins the national championship"
Hmm, yeah, this is an excellent question. Maybe mobs, and especially people susceptible to mob mentality, naturally tend towards destruction? There's certainly evidence that joining mobs weaken people's sense of morality.
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."
My two takeaways:
1 Go visit the holy land
2 Don't use hyperbole ;)