Ferguson: In Defense of Rioting

[Nemo]

Interesting argument, but IMHO, garbage.

Nemo

http://time.com/3605606/ferguson-in-defense-of-rioting/

Ferguson: In Defense of Rioting
Darlena Cunha @parentwinn Nov. 25, 2014

A police car burns on the street after a grand jury returned no indictment in the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri A police car burns on the street after a grand jury returned no indictment in the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri November 24, 2014. Jim Young—Reuters

Darlena Cunha is a Florida-based contributor to The Washington Post and TIME among dozens of other publications.
The violent protests in Ferguson, Mo., are part of the American experience. Peaceful protesting is a luxury only available to those safely in mainstream culture

When a police officer shoots a young, unarmed black man in the streets, then does not face indictment, anger in the community is inevitable. It’s what we do with that anger that counts. In such a case, is rioting so wrong?


Riots are a necessary part of the evolution of society. Unfortunately, we do not live in a universal utopia where people have the basic human rights they deserve simply for existing, and until we get there, the legitimate frustration, sorrow and pain of the marginalized voices will boil over, spilling out into our streets. As “normal” citizens watch the events of Ferguson unfurl on their television screens and Twitter feeds, there is a lot of head shaking, finger pointing, and privileged explanation going on. We wish to seclude the incident and the people involved. To separate it from our history as a nation, to dehumanize the change agents because of their bad and sometimes violent decisions—because if we can separate the underlying racial tensions that clearly exist in our country from the looting and rioting of select individuals, we can continue to ignore the problem.


While the most famous rant against the riots thus far comes from Hercules actor Kevin Sorbo, where he calls the rioters “animals” and “losers,” there are thousands of people echoing these sentiments. Sorbo correctly ascertains that the rioting has little to do with the shooting of an unarmed black man in the street, but he blames it on the typical privileged American’s stereotype of a less fortunate sect of human being—that the looting is a result of frustration built up over years of “blaming everyone else, The Man, for their failures.”

Because when you have succeeded, it ceases to be a possibility, in our capitalist society, that anyone else helped you. And if no one helped you succeed, then no one is holding anyone else back from succeeding. Except they did help you, and they are holding people back. So that blaming someone else for your failures in the United States may very well be an astute observation of reality, particularly as it comes to white privilege versus black privilege. And, yes, they are different, and they are tied to race, and that doesn’t make me a racist, it makes me a realist. If anything, I am racist because I am white. Until I have had to walk in a person of color’s skin, I will never understand, I will always take things for granted, and I will be inherently privileged. But by ignoring the very real issues this country still faces in terms of race to promote an as-of-yet imaginary colorblind society, we contribute to the problem at hand, which is centuries of abuses lobbied against other humans on no basis but that of their skin color.

Sorbo is not alone. A webpage devoted to Tea Party politics has hundreds of comments disparaging the rioters, bemoaning the state of our country and very much blaming skin color as the culprit of this debauched way of dealing with the state of our society.

“To hear the libs, one would think that burning and looting are a justifiable way to judge negative events that effect (sic) the black,” one person wrote. “I intentionally used black because of a fact that you do not hear of these events when another skin color is in play. It is about time that the blacks start cleaning their own backyards before they start on ours.”

However, even the Tea Party gets its name from a riot, The Boston Tea Party. For those who need a quick history brush-up, in 1773 American protesters dumped an entire shipment of tea into the Boston Harbor to protest The Tea Act, which colonists maintained violated their rights. In response to this costly protest and civil unrest, the British government enforced The Coercive Acts, ending local government in Massachusetts, which in turn led to the American Revolution and created our great country.

Samuel Adams wrote of the incident, claiming it “was not the act of a lawless mob, but was instead a principled protest and the only remaining option the people had to defend their constitutional rights” according to John K. Alexander, author of Samuel Adams: America’s Revolutionary Politician.

That protest back in 1773 was meant to effect political and societal change, and while the destruction of property in that case may not have ended in loss of human life, the revolution that took place afterward certainly did. What separates a heralded victory in history from an attempt at societal change, a cry for help from the country’s trampled, today? The fact that we won.

In terms of riots being more common in black communities, that is true only when the riots are politically aimed.

The obvious example here is the L.A. Riots of 1992, after the Rodney King beating and verdict. I would put forth that peaceful protesting is a luxury of those already in mainstream culture, those who can be assured their voices will be heard without violence, those who can afford to wait for the change they want.

“I risk sounding racist but if this was a white kid there would be no riot,” another person wrote on the Tea Party page. “History shows us that blacks in this country are more apt to riot than any other population. They are stirred up by racist black people and set out to cause problems. End of story.”

Blacks in this country are more apt to riot because they are one of the populations here who still need to. In the case of the 1992 riots, 30 years of black people trying to talk about their struggles of racial profiling and muted, but still vastly unfair, treatment, came to a boil. Sometimes, enough is simply too much. And after that catalyst event, the landscape of southern California changed, and nationally, police forces took note.

And the racism they are fighting, the racism we are all fighting, is still alive and well throughout our nation. The modern racism may not culminate in separate water fountains and separate seating in the backs of buses, but its insidious nature is perhaps even more dangerous to the individuals who have to live under the shroud of stereotypical lies society foists upon them.

Instead of tearing down other human beings who are acting upon decades of pent-up anger at a system decidedly against them, a system that has told them they are less than human for years, we ought to be reaching out to help them regain the humanity they lost, not when a few set fire to the buildings in Ferguson, but when they were born the wrong color in the post-racial America.

[Burt Gummer]

I wonder If there's going to be any punching bags for sale this black Friday because I feel as if I need one after reading this.

[Grudgie]

So it basically says, black people are poor and discriminated against so they are justified in stealing and destroying property. Mostly from other blacks.

[Burt Gummer]

Pretty much nailed it Grudgie.

[Kentactic]

I posted this in the other Ferguson thread but then I saw this one so I'll post it here too.

As far as the looting and rioting, a Facebook friend of mine said it best.

" Looting and rioting are a symptom. You don't get rid of the flu worrying about the cough."

Peaceful protests never get anything done. If it does, there are a lot of protesters so their physical presence alone is a big enough threat of violence.

Anyone who believes you can get a government to do anything without the threat of violence, is a fool.

Government is violence, you can only control violence with violence. Government exists only as a constant will to be violent. They don't care what peaceful people want. If you had the entire country protesting peacefully and government somehow knew they would not become violent no matter what, government would not listen to them.

No threat of violence, no change. If you're protesting then be ok with violence or threatening with it or just go home, you're wasting your time.

[Kentactic]

My question to any person who is against the looters actions is, How do you, IF you do, support government looting and not the Ferguson looters?

Whats the difference?

[JohnyMac]

Ken. Happy Thanksgiving! 

I think the discussion is towards "why" do people feel looting is OK not the political ramifications of looting. I can assure you, that very few of the looting folks in Ferguson was doing so for political reasons. 
 

[Grudgie]

Because the people being looted are innocent. And the police officer was most likely acting in self defense, or at the least, could not have been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

I don't support government looting my pocket, but I do support people being able to defend themselves without having to consult a lawyer first. Even if they are state hired thugs.

[Kbop]

I suppose the Boston Tea Party was an act of looting, vandalism, political statement, anti-caffeine or all of the above, acts?

[Kentactic]

Ken. Happy Thanksgiving! 

I think the discussion is towards "why" do people feel looting is OK not the political ramifications of looting. I can assure you, that very few of the looting folks in Ferguson was doing for political reasons. 

But how can a person be pro-government and anti-looting?

My point is that everyone calls the looters trash, but many then support armed robbery by their government.

At least the looters have the balls to screw over innocent people themselves.

[Kentactic]

Because the people being looted are innocent. And the police officer was most likely acting in self defense, or at the least, could not have been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

I don't support government looting my pocket, but I do support people being able to defend themselves without having to consult a lawyer first. Even if they are state hired thugs.

Heres a fun twist though...

Do you support the police officers victims more than, less than or equally in their right to defend themselves?

A government cop can NEVER claim self defense while on duty because their existence as a cop makes them the automatic aggressor in every situation they encounter.

You can't create a situation with aggression towards others and then reacte to the victims reaction to your aggression, in self defense.

[Grudgie]

You have given me a conflicted opinion here Kentactic. It's an interesting grey area. Before being shot down, Michael Brown robbed a convenient store of Cigars and shoved the store owner around:

Surveillance Shows Michael Brown Suspected In 'Strong Arm' Robbery

So shoplifting doesn't warrant death, I grant you that, but it does give us a little window into the life of Michael Brown. His principles and character.

This is purely opinion, but I don't think Michael Brown was protesting a police state. What we have here is violent people doing violent things to violent people. What'r you gonna' do?

I know Anarchy isn't a popular opinion to hold, but just because you think you have reached political enlightenment doesn't give you the right to go around killing people who disagree with you. It is the anarchist's responsibility to patiently and peacefully bring about a rational understanding of reality. Let's hold off on the Molotov cocktails atleast until people understand the definition of violence.

[Nemo]

Michael Brown robbed a convenient store of Cigars and shoved the store owner around:

So shoplifting doesn't warrant death, I grant you that, but it does give us a little window into the life of Michael Brown. His principles and character.

This is purely opinion, but I don't think Michael Brown was protesting a police state. What we have here is violent people doing violent things to violent people. What'r you gonna' do?

You are a bit off on the committed crime there Grudgie.  It was not a shoplifting.  It was a strongarm robbery.  Very similar to a mugging.  He basically mugged the shop owner.  Just picked up stuff off shelf and walked out, after shoving owner back.

Routinely carries a substantial prison possibility.  Routinely 20 or more, up to life in some states.

Shoplifting is taking from a shelf, stuffing a pocket and sneaking it out.

Nemo

[Grudgie]

You got me there. You are correct.

[JohnyMac]

I have heard several people compare the Boston Massacre and the Boston Tea Party to the protesters and rightful looting in Ferguson. Total bullshit!

May I suggest to the folks who are using that argument to do some research.

The Boston Massacre. Keep in mind John Adams was the soldiers lawyer.

Then there is...

The Boston Tea Party. This act of defiance was in protest of the Tea Tax. The tea was thrown into the harbor not taken home and used.

[sledge]

A government cop can NEVER claim self defense while on duty because their existence as a cop makes them the automatic aggressor in every situation they encounter.

You can't create a situation with aggression towards others and then reacte to the victims reaction to your aggression, in self defense.

I don't exactly agree with this, although it does point to a problem of over aggressive police with non violent citizens.  A large part of the reason police exist or were created is to deal with violent citizens involved in any number of violent crimes. (robbery, rape, murder etc.)  Police aggression is very likely self defense when dealing with these individuals. 

The problem is the manner that police tactics have evolved in a significant portion of todays current police population.  There are great cops out there.  But there are also way to many, as caught on video time and again, who's idea of tactics is to jump into thuggish behavior when it isn't warranted with a non violent citizen.  Good cops get their reputations tarnished due to the unwritten code of supporting other cops no matter what.

Most states do have laws stating that a citizen can resist and defend themselves against an illegal police action.  Whatever that means today.  The justice system isn't perfect because there is to much money involved.  This potential source of funds has corrupted the system to a degree.  The justice system certainly isn't the fair and just system that we were taught in school as children.

In the Brown affair, I see it as I have many of the others which have occurred.  A thug got shot for being thuggish.  I can't say that was wrong.  But I will say it only happens to citizens who are thugs, not to todays individual police officers when unwarranted thuggish tactics are employed.

I really like the idea of police being mandated to carry cameras on their person which are on with any interaction with anyone.  Where implemented, it has resulted in better, more professional police behavior among those police officers not inclined to display that trait. 

     

[JohnyMac]

Very well written Sledge and I agree with your sediment 100%.

May be so bold to also add...The men & women who work as our police, are only as good as their Chief.

In my many many years in management, almost 100% of the time; If a group of employees were under performing it would lead right back to their boss.

[rah45]

Also to JMac's point, I believe the company who ultimately owned the ships was the British East India Company. Very much in league with many aspects of the British government, it was hardly an innocent entrepreneur caught up in a violent event with which it had nothing to do. The colonists didn't burn the entire town of Boston - they specifically targeted one of the sources of their frustrations.