Rioting is the public explosion of anger in a group of people who are no longer acting as individuals, but instead are a collective primitive beast broken loose from the constraints of societal controls. It has always been my contention that you should not shit where you eat.
However. . .
After the smoke cleared in South-Central LA in 1992, job offers and urban renewal plans were heaped upon the citizens there. In New York a widening portion of our population has expressed dissatisfaction with our Police Department. The mayor and the police commissioner have staunchly defended the actions of the police
Until. . .
Our riot. Not much of one as riots go. Rocks and bottles were thrown and police were hurt. A few days later 1 to 4 (reports vary) police officers chase a pot smoker through a school yard filled with elementary school children with guns drawn (I mean the police had thier guns drawn). The mayor and the commissioner call for an investigation! Put one of the officers on desk duty! Release the pot smoking suspect!
I don’t know about that. 25 years before the last LA riots, we have another huge riot. They put together strategies and plans to make sure the situation never got to the boiling point again. Then it got quiet and all the plans and strategies fell by the wayside until…riots again and time for some more empty talk!
In many ways riots are beneficial. I can’t think of a more effective way to remind people in power structures that those structures only exist because people feel like it, and that if people were to change their minds, all the political authority in the world couldn’t do a damn thing.
This is the sort of thing that people in positions of authority need to remember at all times. Especially people in non-elected positions of power(think the police).
While it would be nice if there were some equally effective non-violent means of achieving this end, I would support it. However I seriously doubt that there is.
Still later, Gerald did a terrible thing to Elsie with a saucepan.
People in postions of political authority do what they do because the majority of the people in the land think as they do. If the majority thought differently, they wouldn’t be elected. Riots are not effective because they “scare” anyone, they are effective because the media shows them on the news, and it looks bad for the elected politician.
The problem is, rioters aren’t always rioting for a just cause. Sometimes they are wrong, and sometimes they are indifferent.
Things may change quicker with a riot, but change isn’t good by itself.
So, who decides when the cause justifies a riot? The KKK? The ACLU? The NRA? Al Sharpton? If everyone decides that riots are the best way to initiate change, then the strongest group will make all decisions in politics. This would not be a good thing for any minority groups.
Seems to me that the gov’t reaction to riots was just that… reactionary.
It’s easy enough to throw the disgruntled few a bone and make an example of a few offenders by punishing them.
My understanding is that few things in South-Central LA changed with respect to it’s residents. For the most part, their lot in life has not improved a whole lot just because the city tore down some condemned buildings and built a park.
I suspect that the cop running through the school yard with his gun drawn would have landed in the soup anyway, had enough civilians complained. The riot did not ensure him his desk duty for such a stupid stunt.
The pot smoker would have been released in 24 to 48 hours anyway. Unless you are dealing, few people do time for smoking pot.
Also lets remember, that in a riot, mob mentality rules. People who have a genuine gripe rarely resort to the kind of violence you are likely to see in a riot. It’s always the mean opportunists that take advantage of the mob mentality and sparks off the chaos.
I witnessed a riot myself once. In Montreal. Les Canadiens won a Stanley Cup and the crowd poured out onto the streets after the game. They broke into stores, looted, destroyed public property, turned over a brand new car in the middle of the intersection and proceeded to build a bonfire with wood from a nearby construction site. This was a riot brought on by what? Rage? Nope. Government oppression? Nope. Drunkenness? Perhaps. Mob stupidity and criminal opportunism? Most deffinately.
What change did these rioters accomplish. None at all. They were just having a bit of fun and making personal profit through looting … and I dare say, most rioters seem to be quite amused by the havoc they wreak. In Montreal, LA, NY, wherever.
In 1968 the West side of Chicago experienced riots due to the shooting of Dr. King. THe buildings that were burned down are still vacant lots today. I don’t feel there were any benefits from this riot, the businesses that we destroyed, shut down forever or moved elsewhere. The community was worse off than before.
[mildly off-topic]Ironic, isn’t it, that King was a man who dedicated his life to peace, protesting unjust laws through peaceful means, striving for understanding between different races, and GAVE HIS LIFE for the cause of peace and equality, yet his death was celebrated with violence and lawlessness?[end off-topic]
Riots are not the way to effect change. They are a sign of breakdown in the system, not a method for improving it. And during the LA riots, what vital political statement was being made by smashing a window and running off with a couple of vcr’s? What were they saying when they pulled an innocent driver from his vehicle and beat him nearly to death?
Catalyst for social change? I don’t buy it. Excuse for lawlessness and thievery is more like it.
There is one safeguard known generally to the wise, which is an advantage and security to all,
but especially to democracies as against despots. What is it? Distrust.
– Demosthenes
I live two blocks from H street in DC where the riots occured in the 60’s. The area still hasn’t recovered, just like kknick34 said regarding Chicago.
When I hear about these campus “riots” after a team wins or loses a big game, I just shake my head and think of students that protest in other countries. They riot for human rights, we do it for an early NCAA exit.
Well, on the one hand, riots are destructive and disruptive. There’s obviously no denying that. On the other hand, a riot is an excellent way to get attention for a cause. Before Seattle '99, who in America really knew about the WTO and it’s potential harmful effects? Now everyone knows. They may not care, but they know.
I just thought I’d comment on this. Sports riots are not a phenomenon limited to the United States. Remember those infamous British soccer riots? Hell, remember the Nika Revolt, which was triggered by a dispute between two factions of chariot racing fans in the Byzantine Empire, 1500 years ago? Oh, certainly it’s juvenile and wanton, but at least we’re not alone…
Heck is where you go when you don’t believe in Gosh.
Generally speaking, rioters are not considering abstract ethical questions. They are not attempting to rationally influence social policy. They are caused when people feel that lawlessness and random violence have more emotional appeal than peaceful behavior.
Calling riots “unethical” or “not the correct way to implement social change” is like saying that a tornado is not the ethical or correct way to implement atmospheric dynamics.
Inciting a crowd to riot, however, is an intentional act and may be considered on ethical grounds: it is always wrong.
It is interesting to note that there have been at least two instances of significant, nay, radical social change acheived by largely peaceful means: The independence of India, and the overthrow of Marcos in the Phillippines. Both required strong, charismatic leaders committed to non-violence, and intolerable social pressures. Both situations, IMHO, could very easily have degenerated into serious violence, but for the dedication of Ghandi and Aquino.
A great many riots are started by drunken idiots and a great many participants are opportunistic lawbreakers. I did not mean that All riots are catalysts for social change.
Quicksilver: Nothing would have happened to that police officer who chased the suspect through the schoolyard if it were not for the fear put inot our local government officials by the mini-riot. I base this opinion (and it’s only my opinion) on years of questionable behavior by the police being answered by defensive posturing of our government officials.
Joe Cool: Yes, riots are a sign of a breakdown in our social system. I said as much (or tried to) in my OP. I don’t think rioters are making any kind of politica statement. The riots themselve make the point.
Let me see if I can make my argument a little clearer. Rioters are a destructive and mindless bunch. I was very glad that the police rushed in with their riot gear and quelled the mod in Brooklyn before any real damage was done. But that particular riot was a clear expression of rising anger. Impotent anger.
In LA they got a park and a few condemned buildings torn down. And a review of police proceedures.
In NY we got a more responsive mayor.
I am a peaceful, tax paying, law-abiding citizen. I too have been caught in a riot. They are scary and dangerous. How bad have things gotten that I can seriously entertain the idea that the reactionary response to a riot is the best answer we can hope for to a deeply felt social injustice.
I am leaving it up to you guys to convince me otherwise.
There were some riots in Greenwich Village in 1969 outside the Stonewall Inn which led to fairly major worldwide social evolution. So under some circumstances, yeah, riots are pretty effective.
The riot in the Warsay ghetto during the Nazi occupation was a justifiable, if ultimately doomed, attempt for change.
It was of course an uprising (not technically a riot) against a cruel and unjust oppressor. But isn’t every riot/uprising an attempt at civil (or uncivil) disobedience against a governing authority? Whether or not the governing authority is percieved to be oppressive is the only thing that differentiates a riot from an uprising.
In the eyes of the Chinese gov’t, Tienamen Square was a riot. To us, in the democratic west and the chinese students, it was an uprising.
So, I guess a riot can be a call for change. But often, and especially at sporting events, it’s hooliganism.
I think that there’s something being ignored here.
What about the victims?
I’m not talking about the oppressed who feel that it’s necessary to riot in order to get their outrage noticed.
I’m talking about the people who get their homes, stores, and lives destroyed.
Back in New Jersey, a friend of mine once walked out the front door of his high school and was immediately hit over the head with a (glass) Pepsi bottle. It seems that what started as a fight in the school yard had turned into a full-fledged riot. The cops showed up and it only got bigger.
My friend was just trying to catch the bus home.
I admit I don’t know what the riot was all about. I doubt that it was an attempt to bring about change in the high school, but, for the sake of argument, let’s say that’s what it was.
I don’t think that matters. My friend didn’t have anything to do with it except he was there.
Or Reginald Denny. He was a truck driver who got pulled out of his cab and beaten near to death during the L.A. riots.
As an aside, I think it’s interesting that Reginald Denny happens to be white and became something of a poster boy. Certainly, more innocent black people got hurt in the L.A. Riots than white ones (I dunno, I wasn’t there, but simple logistics makes it seem more than a safe bet). Also interesting as far as Denny is concerned, only once did I ever see the videotape of the beating played all the way to the end. At that point, a VERY large, VERY angry black man chases the kids away.
Ben Stein once observed, quite correctly and cleverly, that every black riot has been followed by a white riot. Not that white people take to the streets and/or commit vandalism. Oh no, said Stein, white people have their own way of “rioting”: by moving farther out into the suburbs, and voting for Newt Gingrich.
The notion that riots have helped black America is ludicrous. Violence may make a few angry blacks feel better for a moment, but the net result is to convince white Americans that “those people” are animals, and the only solution is to get out of the city entirely.
The sad fact is, riots have USUALLY occurred in places where the government was FAR from oppressive! The worst of the riots of the 60s didn’t take place in cities with brutal cops or racist mayors (like Philadelphia)- they took place in cities like Detroit, where liberal mayors (like Jerome Kavanaugh) were already bending over backwards to meet demonstrators’ demands!
It’s pretty clear from the record that rioters don’t go nuts in cities where a crackdown is likely. On the contrary, they run rampant in cities where they have reason to believe the mayor and police are afraid to lower the boom.
SingleDad addressed the difference between a riot, and inciting a riot.
How many riots happen without a pre-meditated plan of action and a small group of motived agitators?
I think we all remember during Seattle there were stories flying all over about the guys in black sweatshirts and head phones who were inciting the crowd.
Does anyone remember the funeral a couple of weeks ago in NYC for the man shot while wrestling with a cop? That almost erupted into a full fledged riot. There were “leaders” for that group also.
I was not around in the 60’s, and was in kindergarten in the 70’s :), so I have no clue as to the origins f any riots back then, but it seems to me that a riot is unlikely to happen on it’s own.