Riot apologetics
The last week was heartbreaking as anyone with an internet connection could watch George Floyd be executed by a police officer in Minneapolis. I experienced a wide range of emotions, ranging from sadness to anger to disgust and frequently a mash-up of them all. We witnessed a white American execute a black American. We witnessed an American execute another American.
The days that followed contained more heartbreak as peaceful protests devolved into looting, vandalism, and full-blown rioting. I watched and, to extent possible given the many ways in which I am privileged and given that I was not experiencing the violence (or police violence) firsthand, could sympathize and empathize with the anger. But strangely, that emotion manifested itself in others in an unexpected way.
Apparently many of my friends (and many public figures) have become riot apologists. I’m noticing. an assumption that riots are the logical and inevitable result of the oppression imposed on black people by law-enforcement (white supremacy, etc.).
Think about the low to medium grade of racism that is required to think this way. People are watching looting and the burning of buildings. They’re witnessing violence and the imposition of incalculable trauma on the residents of these cities. They’re witnessing small, minority-owned businesses get destroyed. And they are claiming “how can we blame them for this behavior?“
If you asked these people 5 or 10 or 15 years ago, “is violence a good means by which to achieve your political goals?“ What do you think they would’ve said? Almost certainly they would’ve said that violence was not the solution.
But now those people are saying that it is. Or if it’s not the solution then it is a behavior which we must not criticize because it is the extension of the aforementioned oppression. But anyone justifying or apologizing for the riots needs to decide where they stand. Is violence a means by which you should achieve political ends or is it not? There’s no place in between. And if you decide to stand at the place where you think violence is a good way to achieve political ends then I think you should try to put yourself in the shoes of the oppressed as much as possible. In those shoes would you resort to violence? Would you encourage your peers in your movement to resort to violence? If you would, then your position is logically consistent. If you would not then your position is not logically consistent and it demonstrates a certain level of racism. Because what you’re saying is that the group of people protesting George Floyd’s heinous murder just simply cannot contain themselves like you can. And why do you think that? What makes you different than them? What makes you, hypothetically, more able to contain yourself and not resort to violence compared to any of the protesters?
You’re saying “who can blame them?“
The answer to that question is “a lot of people”. These are autonomous, decision-making, adult individuals. They make decisions. They can make better decisions and they can make non-violent decisions. (Coleman Hughes made a similar point here.) To criticize violent protests is not to justify the murder of George Floyd. To criticize violent protests is to recognize that in a civil society political change should not be brought about by physical violence.
If you’re still not convinced then consider this. What if you saw your child stealing something out of one of those buildings? Or smashing the window of a car? Or setting a building on fire? Can you honestly say that you would tell that child “Oh I understand. That’s a totally justified behavior given your circumstances.”? You’d almost certainly be disgusted. And rightly so. The fact that you’re not disgusted when you see video of the violence is the bigotry of low expectations.
I notice that people are also cherry picking an MLK quote. MLK was obviously a proponent of nonviolent protests. The full context of the quote shows that MLK did not support rioting, but understood why it might occur. Pointing out that you understand why a woman would kill an abusive husband does not mean you support murder as the way a woman should deal with an abusive husband. And it’s certainly not some sort of counterpoint to someone that says murder is a bad way for a woman to handle an abusive husband.
If you are condoning rioting or looting, apologizing for it, or claiming that’s the logical extension of oppression (or calling out those that condemn it), then you are failing to understand the trauma being unleashed on those very communities you claim to care about. You’re doing mental gymnastics to justify something you know is wrong.
Listen to this woman and see if you can maintain your stance that rioting is somehow justified.
The murder of Floyd was a grotesque abuse of force by the officer and abhorrent complacency on the part of the officers that watched. It’s a goddamned tragedy. The violence that’s ensued is also abhorrent and is creating incalculable trauma in the communities in which it occurred.
It’s becoming apparent that some of the violence has been started/perpetuated by ideological extremists, many not from the communities where they are causing destruction. This makes the situation even more tragic, means we should wait to get as many facts as possible before forming an opinion, and does not in any way invalidate my argument.
Again, one needs to decide whether they support violence as means by which to solve political goals. You can’t on one hand support or apologize for violence and then condemn violence by bad actors on the other hand. It just proves my point. You’re condoning violence from certain groups because “who could blame them” and condemning it from other groups because “they’re bad actors”. If violence is a valid means by which to reach political ends then why would you condone it in the former, but not the latter group?
