When Rioting is Rational
January 2, 2015 1:50 PM   Subscribe

“Riots” aren’t random occurrences. They’re a reaction to structural oppression.

The recent revival of urban protest has prompted a revival of that hoary urban legend, in which property owners and officers of the peace are the hapless victims, while targets of state terror are the aggressors. The riot is made out to be the root of all evils, the rioter the source of all maladies. But the legend quickly unravels in the face of the facts.
posted by standardasparagus (11 comments total)

This post was deleted for the following reason: An op-ed on a charged topic we've discussed at length here is going to bring a lot of heat and little light. Very similar to Jay Smooth's video, mentioned here previously. -- mathowie



 
The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.
posted by kmz at 2:00 PM on January 2, 2015 [6 favorites]


(Or the crime of taking the wrong seat on the bus, or the crime of drinking from the wrong fountain?)
posted by solitary dancer at 2:01 PM on January 2, 2015 [2 favorites]


Like the crimes of sodomy or homosexuality?

The appropriate response to sodomy being a crime is not to randomly burn down the houses of people (who themselves may or may not be sodomites, and may or may not feel that sodomy should be a crime). It's not even to randomly burn down the houses of lawmakers. It's to make sodomy not a crime.

Don't justify violence in order to condemn state mistakes. Instead, do something about the state mistakes.
posted by saeculorum at 2:01 PM on January 2, 2015


Don't justify violence in order to condemn state mistakes. Instead, do something about the state mistakes.

Sometimes you need violence to get the state's attention.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 2:02 PM on January 2, 2015 [2 favorites]


But what about self defense?

If people are being oppressed to the point they are suffering- at what point can they fight back?

At what point can a starving person ethically steal food to feed their kids?

I don't think ethics fits into linear clear sets of rules or that the law represents morality, justice, or the welfare of human being.

Often the law is a tool used to destroy and harm innocent and vulnerable people, robbing them of housing, property, food, and employment options, and the very right to live off the land.

But injuring innocent people is a different matter. In matters of systemic oppression, it's strange that we excuse the oppressors of making choices that lead to deaths or horrible suffering for the vulnerable, but hold those who fight back accountable.
posted by xarnop at 2:02 PM on January 2, 2015 [6 favorites]


Remember kids, politics is like the PBS News Hour. There's a debate, and then the best side wins. Then policy changes.

Sadly, few people know that the American Revolution was really a series of moderated panels. That's how articulate, reasonable people accomplish policy changes!
posted by wuwei at 2:03 PM on January 2, 2015 [7 favorites]


The idea that you aren't responsible for throwing a Molotov cocktail that burns down a building is dumb.

Please do quote the part of the article that says otherwise.
posted by billiebee at 2:04 PM on January 2, 2015


If people are being oppressed to the point they are suffering- at what point can they fight back?

Never. If the law outlaws resistance you must comply. You must allow yourself to be held down, robbed, walked upon. To punch the man who holds you down that you might be robbed and killed is even worse than holding people down so that they can be robbed and killed.
posted by Pope Guilty at 2:05 PM on January 2, 2015 [5 favorites]


I read the article. It's a didactic and professorial "macro" view of rioting. There is a thesis (“Riots” aren’t random occurrences. They’re a reaction to structural oppression) and the whole essay drives on towards making that point. It's an argument, not an investigation. Hard to take seriously.
posted by Nevin at 2:06 PM on January 2, 2015


And actually, when you look at a lot of riots, you'll also see that the damage done by them can be pretty ...selective. That gouging pawn shop might go up in flames, but the health clinic next to it may be mysteriously untouched.
posted by MartinWisse at 2:06 PM on January 2, 2015


Violence doesn't solve problems, say the proud representatives of a government that routinely executes unarmed people in the street.
posted by wuwei at 2:07 PM on January 2, 2015 [4 favorites]


« Older "There is hope!"   |   The Dystopian Future is Now Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments