Saying the rioting and looting that's been going on in multiple cities is "about" the police killing George Floyd on May 25, 2020 is like saying the Iraq War is "about" terrorists killing 3,000 people on September 11, 2001. Excusing the rioting on the basis that the rioters are supposedly driven by good intentions and opposition to racism, and that they're rightly angry about police brutality, is like excusing Bush by saying he was supposedly driven by good intentions and opposition to tyranny, and he was rightly angry about terrorism. (I'm assuming for the sake of argument that all the rioters are truly concerned about police brutality; for instance, I'm not addressing reports that white supremacists are suspected of getting into the act.)
Don't believe what people say about their justifications for violence. Don't accept a framing that glorifies violence and presents it as deeply expressive. That's just asking to be fooled into accepting violence that isn't really justified.
Note: I haven't said that rioting can never lead to a good outcome, just as I wouldn't deny that some wars are justified. We could go on and on about this: maybe these riots will turn out to be worth it because they'll stop police brutality, and maybe invading Afghanistan was worth it because it stopped al Qaeda, and maybe World War II was worth it because it stopped Hitler, etc., etc. But we should at least be highly skeptical of claims that riots or wars are justified, because most of them aren't. The mistake is in readily endorsing or excusing mass violence whenever it feels like it's resonating with your political values. I'm not saying never excuse violence; I'm saying don't do it easily, glibly, without looking closely and in detail at the real suffering it's causing. I don't mean just skimming a news article or reading some statistics, but watching and listening to specific individuals talking about how their lives have been harmed. Do it only reluctantly and after sober reflection.
When I posted the above on Facebook, Ann Althouse (my mom) said:
Portraying The Other as instinctively propelled toward violence is racist. Please be more cautious in your efforts at appearing to be one of the good white people.Yes, when I see people who have young kids and are supporting the rioters, I want to ask them: would you accept this from your own children? Would you accept your kids trying to burn down your house, and using the excuse that he or she is mad about bullies who hurt someone else at school? People are having lower standards for rioting adults than they’d have for young children.
1 comments:
In a constitutional democracy, “never excuse violence” is the right choice.
To the extent “rioting” subsumes attacking police, looting, and vandalism, opposition to both police brutality and rioting are not in tension. They are all unjust and lawless acts. Police brutality has the additional feature of misuse of the power of the state against an individual. Looting and vandalism entail the additional wrongs of depriving innocent third parties of their property, businesses, and livelihoods. The legal defenses to criminal violence are generally based on identification of a morally justifying context, such as the right of self-defense.
Moreover, how would looting, etc., “stop police brutality” if peaceful protest had not? The owners and employees of businesses that were ruined by looting would be unlikely to conclude that the looters "had a good point after all." Nor would very many others reach such a judgment.
Which leads to the further point that, beyond the inherent wrongfulness of violent rioting, there is the practical fact that violent rioting is always counterproductive to the protesters' cause. Always. During the Civil Rights and Vietnam eras, protest organizers were at pains to prevent violent acts by protesters, because the point of the protest was blunted, if not lost, by such acts. There have been similar efforts by leaders of recent protests for the same reason.
By rioting, protesters themselves change the subject from their issue. A peaceful protest is not exciting TV or You Tube. It provides no visual interest. The moment a protester throws a rock or smashes a window, however, that is “the story” and becomes the exclusive focus of the media. Riot porn.
As much as Americans were horrified and repelled by the the George Floyd video, it does not have the personally threatening quality of random predation and mass disorder that looting and vandalism convey. Mob violence has no practical stopping point but the physical exhaustion or emotional satiation of the mob's members. Presented with images of mob violence, people overwhelmingly will identify with its victims. And, as violent mobs are unpredictable, when the media finally gets around to focusing on the victims of the rioting, those victims often include protesters themselves.
Post a Comment