The riots - I just don't understand

[momofkhm]

All riots, really.  The recent ones over black men being killed by police/ in police custody.  I understand the anger.  The unrest.  The distrust.  But the riots??

 

I understand crowd "peer pressure".  I understand being carried along once its big.  I understand "no one will know I did it.  With so many others I won't get caught."  But why does it start?

 

On a MUCH, much smaller scale, 'riots' over a win or loss of a ball game make no sense at all.  From what I've heard, UNC virtually destroys Franklin St over a win or loss in basketball, especially (only?) when they play Duke.  Students supposedly in higher learning.  I understand excitement, sorrow.  But how does that escalate to violence and destruction?

 

Maybe I'm just naive?  Be nice.  We don't want this to get locked.

 

 

[3 ladybugs]

I don't get it either. I just watch in horror to see all these old buildings get destroyed. There was one that looked like it could have been on the set of Mad Men last night that was burned out. Sad. 

 

Peaceful protests are welcomed and I believe even encouraged. We were founded on that (though I know some would argue they were not always peaceful in the early days) but riots don't seem to help anyone. In fact I heard that some of the areas previously effected by riots years ago are still not being revitalized. Sad. I love living in the city and it seems to be the place to live now a days, but not if it isn't safe. 

[kewb]

I don't understand rioting and looting either. I have no basis to understand the conditions that lead to a rioting situation. Watching it unfold from my living room or reading in the paper leaves me shaking my head in wonderment and dismay and at the same time thankful that my children do not have to experience rioting.

[Anne in CA]

I don't understand either.

[Guest]

What else can they do? This is not the first black man killed due to a 'rough ride'. In this situation, to shed light on a horrible injustice, I understand the riots.

[Pawz4me]

All riots, really.  The recent ones over black men being killed by police/ in police custody.  I understand the anger.  The unrest.  The distrust.  But the riots??

 

I understand crowd "peer pressure".  I understand being carried along once its big.  I understand "no one will know I did it.  With so many others I won't get caught."  But why does it start?

 

On a MUCH, much smaller scale, 'riots' over a win or loss of a ball game make no sense at all.  From what I've heard, UNC virtually destroys Franklin St over a win or loss in basketball, especially (only?) when they play Duke.  Students supposedly in higher learning.  I understand excitement, sorrow.  But how does that escalate to violence and destruction?

 

Maybe I'm just naive?  Be nice.  We don't want this to get locked.

 

I believe the bolded isn't really true and thus hurts the credibility of the rest of your post.

 

From what I understand what the UNC students typically do to celebrate is have a bonfire(s) on Franklin Street.  The campus and Chapel Hill police departments know it's going to happen.  The students can get permits to have the bonfires.  So a totally different situation than a riot.  I believe there has only very rarely been some minor vandalism/property damage over the years, but nothing anywhere akin to "violence and destruction."  See this article about the celebration on Franklin Street last year.

 

 

The Chapel Hill Police had extra officers available for the storming.

 

No storming-related arrests had been made as of 12:30 a.m., according to Chapel Hill Police Chief Chris Blue.

 

Blue said officers spent most of their night trying to control the crowds and prevent anyone from getting injured in the bonfires.

“We had a few bonfires as usual,†Blue said.

 

“We worked to try to get them extinguished as quickly as we can.â€

 

There were no reported bonfire-related injuries, Blue said.

 

The crowds began thinning out around 12:30 a.m., and officers hoped to have the streets cleared out and ready for traffic by 2 a.m.

 

Chapel Hill Police Sgt. Preston Oppegard said the department hadn’t experienced an increase in calls by midnight Thursday.

 

 

No injures.  No arrests.  No increase in calls to the PD.  Real crazy time, huh?

 

And here's a video clip.  Looks pretty tame to me.

 

(And yes, I've got a kid at UNC so may be a little biased.  Or maybe just a little more well informed.)

[mom2scouts]

There is a huge difference between protesting and running out of the mall with electronics.  One is trying to get things changed and the other is being the problem.  That isn't going to "shed light on a horrible injustice".  It feeds the stereotypes and makes the police more fearful for their own safety when they see other officers ending up in the hospital.  That will not make them go easier on suspects.

[momofkhm]

 

 

From what I understand what the UNC students typically do to celebrate is have a bonfire(s) on Franklin Street.  The campus and Chapel Hill police departments know it's going to happen.  The students can get permits to have the bonfires.  So a totally different situation than a riot.  I believe there has only very rarely been some minor vandalism/property damage over the years, but nothing anywhere akin to "violence and destruction."  See this article about the celebration on Franklin Street last year.

 

 

 

 

 

But I did say a much much smaller scale.

 

And the fact that they know its going to happen.  From your article "extra officers available" shows there is a history.  The current students may have it under more control. 

 

And no, "over the years" they have set people with businesses on Franklin St back financially, not simply"only very rarely been some minor vandalism/property damage".  I've seen pictures of the day after.  Maybe the current student population has it under control, but not historically.

 

Yes, I concede you may be correct about the current years, but not "over the years".  

[marbel]

There is a huge difference between protesting and running out of the mall with electronics.  One is trying to get things changed and the other is being the problem.  That isn't going to "shed light on a horrible injustice".  It feeds the stereotypes and makes the police more fearful for their own safety when they see other officers ending up in the hospital.  That will not make them go easier on suspects.

 

This is what I was thinking.   Looting, burning, throwing bricks at people doesn't shed light on anything.  It helps fuel hate and fear.

 

Rosa Parks shed a lot of light by sitting on a bus.  Others shed light by sitting at a lunch counter.  

[SporkUK]

Riots and general large property damage aren't really the same. There are large cases of post-sporting events this last year and in history that have had large property damage but they aren't really comparable to what is going on Baltimore. 

 

Police have never gone easy on such things even when they are civil and even in the few cases where looters have not taken advantage (and that ignores COINTEL and similar where police and government agencies have put their own people into protests to distrupt them and made them more violent to give them more public sympathy and excuse when they become violent on people). It''s odd how the police are excused for being violent from being scared when their collegues are hurt (even though the myth that policing is the most dangerous profession has long been disproven it keeps coming up in the media as all important - and laughable when people like medical professionals daily have to deal with face violent people without that sort of backup), but the people in the community who are seeing their families harmed and murdered without justice (and seeing those loved one smeared by the police and the media even after proof of perjury and foul play by police) are not given them same consideration. 

 

Riots are the language of the unheard. Over 5 black men have been killed by police or in police custody by Baltimore police just this month. Baltimore has a very long history of police violence - there are eerily similar photos comparing recent events to those decades gone. In the US, the average is 3 black people are killed by police officers or in police custody every. single. day. And the vast majority of their families are silenced and the officers unpunished and in many cases rewarded. We have repeated cases of proven perjury by police officers, police offices planting evidence on people, and people filming police officers (which is legal in most places) being badly hurt and arrested for trying to hold the police to account. Nothing is being done. 

 

Rosa Parks was an activist, she was a trained professional who was repeating previous events by several other black women who were fined or otherwise thrown off the bus. She was specifically picked because they thought her appearance would appeal to White people. Her actions were only a small part to bring people on side. Her 'sitting on a bus' was a carefully thought out part of a campaign that was part of a far larger action. Absolutely nothing came out of her just sitting on the bus, it was only that alongside a lot of other action including the bus boycotts that lasted over a year, along with Black Panthers patrols because black people were not being protected by police. Those people sitting at the lunch counters were often professionals as well who had been trained by their collegues to withstand large amounts of abuse so they would withstand them. Those people at the lunch counters often had often had the police sick dogs on them, their peaceful protests often had power hoses turned on them. No one has gotten their rights recognised by sitting on a bus, at a lunch counter, or asking nicely and the current history that teaches that them sitting their is what changed the status quo of White supremacy in law is doing the current generations a lot of disservice because that is not how change was won. 

[poppy]

This is what I was thinking.   Looting, burning, throwing bricks at people doesn't shed light on anything.  It helps fuel hate and fear.

 

Rosa Parks shed a lot of light by sitting on a bus.  Others shed light by sitting at a lunch counter.  

 

There have been peaceful protests in Baltimore every single day since Freddie Gray died, April 17.

On April 25, 2000 people marched.  Last night, 100 people rioted.

 

The media coverage made this seem like a race riot issue, not a peaceful protest. 

 

 

http://mic.com/articles/116524/outrage-over-baltimore-riots-completely-misses-the-point

 

But maybe violence is what's needed to be heard.  Did you hear about the 2000 or the 100? When did you first heard Freddie Grey's name?

[bolt.]

Riots are a complex psychological-sociological phenomenon that, really, *nobody* understands -- not even the experts in those fields who make it their life's work to try to get a grasp on it. All they really know is that riot behavior is an instinctive, irrational, and sometimes irresistible result of certain crowd conditions. It resembles a state of altered consciousness, and some perspectives consider it to be "induced" rather than involving any element of personal choice.

 

As such, I don't think it's sensible to ask about 'the point' or why rioters think they are accomplishing something. They don't think that they are accomplishing a goal. Maybe they came with some intentions or goals, but riot behavior does not involve thinking anything -- because it does not involve thinking. It's basically (in my words) temporary insanity... And unless we figure out how to do portable brain scans on people who are actively in 'riot state' I don't think it will be understood any time soon.

[marbel]

There have been peaceful protests in Baltimore every single day since Freddie Gray died, April 17.

On April 25, 2000 people marched.  Last night, 100 people rioted.

 

The media coverage made this seem like a race riot issue, not a peaceful protest. 

 

 

http://mic.com/articles/116524/outrage-over-baltimore-riots-completely-misses-the-point

 

But maybe violence is what's needed to be heard.  Did you hear about the 2000 or the 100? When did you first heard Freddie Grey's name?

 

So, there aren't riots now?

 

I actually had heard about this earlier. But I don't live too far from Baltimore.

 

Have there been any good effects from violent protests?  Not a snarky question, truly asking. I read something recently, about places where there had been protests that turned violent with looting, burning, etc.  (I can't remember where or I'd cite it.)  Years, perhaps even generations later, the areas were still blighted.  There were still buildings that had not been rebuilt, businesses had not returned, etc.   And nothing had changed for the good. There were no positive benefits from the violence.  

 

Is that true or not?  Sometimes but not always?  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[bettyandbob]

I understand being angry. I understand ,but do not condone the violence in Baltimore (I will never understand violence over sporting events). It may be that violence directed at the police in this situation was a message the police needed. Perhaps there was another way to get the message across, I have no idea. This is not the first time a "nickel ride" has resulted in serious injury in Baltimore. Mr. Grey had actually not done anything that could result in charges. So, intense anger is to be expected. The police in Baltimore need to fix this problem and they need to regain community trust. That will take years and years.

 

I don't get the looting. If you are mad at the police, why are you destroying stores in your neighborhood (and destroying jobs in your neighborhood in the process). Looting is just destroying property not directing violence toward police. Looting will result in the neighborhood being blighted and loosing opportunities for community members for years to come. We've seen it in recent history with DC neighborhoods only recovering from the 1968 Martin Luther King looting and riots in the 1990s. We've seen how long it took neighborhood in LA to recover from riots and the resulting looting. I don't get ruing your own neighborhood.

 

I really don't understand not listening to the wishes of the family. They announced a neighborhood meeting set for tonight on Saturday. They announced they wanted to get through the wake and funeral without protests. They left the funeral and were met with total chaos. If anyone's desires should have been heeded it was theirs.

[CaffeineDiary]

For those of you who don't understand, maybe this article by Ta-Nehisi Coates will help.

 

When nonviolence is preached as an attempt to evade the repercussions of political brutality, it betrays itself. When nonviolence begins halfway through the war with the aggressor calling time out, it exposes itself as a ruse. When nonviolence is preached by the representatives of the state, while the state doles out heaps of violence to its citizens, it reveals itself to be a con. And none of this can mean that rioting or violence is "correct" or "wise," any more than a forest fire can be "correct" or "wise." Wisdom isn't the point tonight. Disrespect is. In this case, disrespect for the hollow law and failed order that so regularly disrespects the rioters themselves.

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/04/nonviolence-as-compliance/391640/

 

Stated generally, I think that violence as a response to continued and ongoing oppression is absolutely predictable.  

 

That's not a value judgment, that's just a statement of fact: we have literally thousands of years of history demonstrating it.

[zoobie]

I thought this was thought-provoking from the Orioles' COO: http://ftw.usatoday.com/2015/04/orioles-john-angelos-baltimore-protests-mlb

[poppy]

So, there aren't riots now?

 

I actually had heard about this earlier. But I don't live too far from Baltimore.

 

Have there been any good effects from violent protests?  Not a snarky question, truly asking. I read something recently, about places where there had been protests that turned violent with looting, burning, etc.  (I can't remember where or I'd cite it.)  Years, perhaps even generations later, the areas were still blighted.  There were still buildings that had not been rebuilt, businesses had not returned, etc.   And nothing had changed for the good. There were no positive benefits from the violence.  

 

Is that true or not?  Sometimes but not always?  

 

Let me ask this. Why are we talking a lot about the behavior of criminals we can't do much about, and not at all about this?

 

On April 12, 2015, 25-year-old African American Freddie Gray was taken into custody by the Baltimore Police Department for possession of a switchblade.^[1] Whilst being transported, Gray had experienced what was described by officers as a "medical emergency"; within an hour of his arrest, Gray had fallen into a coma and had been taken to a trauma center, where it was determined that he had suffered from a spinal injury.^[2] According to his family, Gray's spine was "80% severed" at his neck, he had three fractured vertebrae, and his larynx was injured.^[3][4] The events that led to the injuries are unclear;^[3][4] Officer Garrett Miller claimed that Gray was arrested "without force or incident."^[1]

Despite extensive surgery in an attempt to save his life, Gray died on April 19, 2015.^[4] Pending an investigation, six Baltimore police officers were temporarily suspended with pay.^[3] Police Commissioner Anthony Batts reported that the officers "failed to get [Gray] medical attention in a timely manner multiple times", and did not buckle him in the van while he was being transported to the police station.^[5]

 

They either beat him to death or put him into the van with such force that it broke his spine. Then lied about it.  Then minimized it.  Isn't that infuriating?

[Rivka]

I live in Baltimore.

 

There have been peaceful protests, larger and larger, every day since Freddie Gray was killed. Saturday night a small fraction of protestors became violent and damaged property. Yesterday afternoon, teens getting out of school arrived at a major bus transit junction to find hundreds of riot police and the buses shut down. There are no school buses in Baltimore, so kids take public transit to school - sometimes two or three buses, across the city. They were scared and mad about Freddie Gray, had no way to leave where they were, and were surrounded by threatening authorities. Not surprising to me that it spiraled out of control.

 

Last night's violence and property damage didn't come out of protests, though. The looters were opportunists responding to a perceived breakdown in social order. They're people who are disconnected from the society they live in and a total lack of expectation that they will ever "make it" through traditional/legal means.

 

For those who are baffled at why violence, why not work peacefully within the system, please read this Baltimore Sun report about police brutality: http://data.baltimoresun.com/news/police-settlements/

 

 

"Over the past four years, more than 100 people have won court judgments or settlements related to allegations of brutality and civil rights violations. Victims include a 15-year-old boy riding a dirt bike, a 26-year-old pregnant accountant who had witnessed a beating, a 50-year-old woman selling church raffle tickets, a 65-year-old church deacon rolling a cigarette and an 87-year-old grandmother aiding her wounded grandson.

 

Those cases detail a frightful human toll. Officers have battered dozens of residents who suffered broken bones — jaws, noses, arms, legs, ankles — head trauma, organ failure, and even death, coming during questionable arrests. Some residents were beaten while handcuffed; others were thrown to the pavement.

 

And in almost every case, prosecutors or judges dismissed the charges against the victims — if charges were filed at all."

 

Over the years there have been countless public meetings, peaceful demonstrations, political efforts, nonviolent protests, and court actions to stem police brutality in Baltimore. Nothing has worked. More than 100 people WON THEIR COURT CASES - how many more didn't even go to court? - and even with that acknowledgement by the legal system of the problems, nothing has changed. It's easy for you to say "they should be patient, they're only hurting themselves" when you're not the 87-year-old lady whose shoulder was broken because the cops handcuffed her so roughly.

 

Freddie Gray was healthy and completely subdued, in shackles, when he was placed in that police van. When the paramedics eventually got to him, his spine was almost severed. Imagine the brutality that must have taken.

 

No, I don't think that looting is okay. But if the only wrong thing that's happened in Baltimore lately that you feel the need to post about is broken windows at a CVS and people loading themselves up with stolen shoes, I think you have to ask yourself why.

[MomtoCandJ]

From what I understand of the Baltimore "riot", a majority of people are protesting peacefully and then you have the handful of people who think that violence and all of that will get them what they want. Most protests are peaceful with the exception of the few idiots who seem to ruin for everyone and for the cause they are trying to speak for.

[bolt.]

Here is an introduction to crowd behavior theories that has some good basic information, and provides the vocabulary for further research.

 

https://books.google.ca/books?id=jbdiMvYedm8C&pg=PA225&lpg=PA225&dq=sociology+introduction+riot&source=bl&ots=QeJZhjg1lO&sig=seRYuEskefsTEzALbUAwMR_39QY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=wok_VaiJCtiyyATkjYGABg&ved=0CBoQ6AEwADgK#v=onepage&q=sociology%20introduction%20riot&f=false

 

This one has really good "case study" analysis of the sociological factors around populations who rioted recently in the UK (including racial tension) but no info on the psyco-social dynamics of rioting as a crowd behaviour.

 

http://catalogue.pearsoned.co.uk/assets/hip/gb/hip_gb_pearsonhighered/samplechapter/1408269546.pdf

[DawnM]

I lived (and worked) through the L.A. riots.  We teachers were told to report to work the day after the riots started.  Bad move on the district's part.  We had to be police escorted off the school grounds by 11am because the entire surrounding area was on fire.  

 

People are frustrated and angry.  They don't know what else to do.  They get the attention they seek, and often the outcome they seek.  On that level it works.

[Slojo]

All riots, really.  The recent ones over black men being killed by police/ in police custody.  I understand the anger.  The unrest.  The distrust.  But the riots??

 

I understand crowd "peer pressure".  I understand being carried along once its big.  I understand "no one will know I did it.  With so many others I won't get caught."  But why does it start?

 

On a MUCH, much smaller scale, 'riots' over a win or loss of a ball game make no sense at all.  From what I've heard, UNC virtually destroys Franklin St over a win or loss in basketball, especially (only?) when they play Duke.  Students supposedly in higher learning.  I understand excitement, sorrow.  But how does that escalate to violence and destruction?

 

Maybe I'm just naive?  Be nice.  We don't want this to get locked.

Let me say, I don't understand riots either. I really don't. But I do understand Dr. King's quote: "Rioting is the language of the unheard."  What I don't understand more actually is why these killings are happening in the manner they are happening, especially among a force that is supposed to be trained -- because it appears like at least a percentage of police officers are not in a "state of mind" to police well. Every one of your sentences could be applied to policing and (at least a portion of) police forces in cities. "I understand the anger, the distrust... the 'peer pressure', 'being carried along...', no one will know I did it..."

 

I am really not trying to bait, but I think seeing these words and applying it to the police may allow for some ability to see the entire situation - starting from Freddy Gray (one of the latest of a long line of black men shot by the police) - as beyond comprehension. I do not condone the riots, nor do I understand them from a personal perspective, but they are hardly the only "not understandable" thing in what's really been a year of sustained attention on this issue, which is itself remarkable. 

 

I don't think change will come from the riots, but I do hope change will come from this moment in which more people's eyes are "seeing" - wow, there's injustice here. Change will come from lots of different things. 

 

This is what I was thinking.   Looting, burning, throwing bricks at people doesn't shed light on anything.  It helps fuel hate and fear.

 

Rosa Parks shed a lot of light by sitting on a bus.  Others shed light by sitting at a lunch counter.  

 

The looting, burning only fuels hate and fear if you allow it to fuel hate and fear. I know it's hard, but, honestly, the vast majority of actions have been peaceful protests -- so hate and fear are quite irrational reactions in the scheme of things. Who are you going to direct the hate and fear towards?  How would you be able to possibly assess those deserving of hate and fear? By zip code of residence? By their outward looks (i.e., race or perceived race -- isn't that the problem already with this issue)? By whether or not they are walking around with a brick?  This moment requires something bigger from all of us - so let's be bigger, or really we're no better than the few hundred looters -- we end up becoming "sociological and psychological looters."  And a few hundred looters up against a society that "condones this state of affairs by their silence" (not suggesting individuals think it's okay for these men to be shot/killed needlessly - but at some level, we, as a collective body, are accepting of it).  Really doesn't make any of us "better" - just socially more acceptable.

[redsquirrel]

For those of you who don't understand, maybe this article by Ta-Nehisi Coates will help.

 

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/04/nonviolence-as-compliance/391640/

 

Stated generally, I think that violence as a response to continued and ongoing oppression is absolutely predictable.  

 

That's not a value judgment, that's just a statement of fact: we have literally thousands of years of history demonstrating it.

 

I was just going to post this exact link. I was given lots to think about.

 

"When nonviolence is preached as an attempt to evade the repercussions of political brutality, it betrays itself. When nonviolence begins halfway through the war with the aggressor calling time out, it exposes itself as a ruse. When nonviolence is preached by the representatives of the state, while the state doles out heaps of violence to its citizens, it reveals itself to be a con. And none of this can mean that rioting or violence is "correct" or "wise," any more than a forest fire can be "correct" or "wise." Wisdom isn't the point tonight. Disrespect is. In this case, disrespect for the hollow law and failed order that so regularly disrespects the rioters themselves."

 

[Joanne]

For those of you who don't understand, maybe this article by Ta-Nehisi Coates will help.

 

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/04/nonviolence-as-compliance/391640/

 

Stated generally, I think that violence as a response to continued and ongoing oppression is absolutely predictable.  

 

That's not a value judgment, that's just a statement of fact: we have literally thousands of years of history demonstrating it.

 

Intellectually and professionally, I understand the rage and how powerlessness leads to the rioting.

 

As a white woman in a conservative suburb of Houston, I don't get it.

[CaffeineDiary]

 

As a white woman in a conservative suburb of Houston, I don't get it.

 

Sure.  Let me see if I can come up with an analogy.

 

Have you ever felt unsafe walking down the street by yourself?  Better yet, have you ever gone out on a first date with a guy and had that feeling of "I wonder if I'm safe?  I wonder if I'm going to be assaulted tonight?  He seems like a nice guy, but I have to worry about my safety?"  Did you ever take small precautions?  Maybe making sure to mention to your mom, or your sister, who you were going out with and when you were expected back?  Did you maybe write the name and address of the guy you were going out with down, just in case?

 

I promise you that most men cannot conceive of the danger you felt.  If you brought it up to them, some men might even react defensively.  Men are in a position of privilege with regards to sexual assault - absolutely some men are sexually assaulted, but the risk of sexual assault is not a daily reality for most men the way it is for most women.

 

Similarly, I think that you are in a privileged position with respect to your relationship with the police.  As a white woman in a conservative suburb, when you interact with the police, you don't have to think to yourself "I wonder if today is the day I will be murdered, like a dog, by a cop who will suffer no repercussions for his crime."  But having to account for that possibility is the daily reality for most African-American men, regardless of class or economic status.

 

So I think it's OK to not get it, as long as you want to get it.

[goldberry]

Riots are a complex psychological-sociological phenomenon that, really, *nobody* understands -- not even the experts in those fields who make it their life's work to try to get a grasp on it. All they really know is that riot behavior is an instinctive, irrational, and sometimes irresistible result of certain crowd conditions. It resembles a state of altered consciousness, and some perspectives consider it to be "induced" rather than involving any element of personal choice.

 

As such, I don't think it's sensible to ask about 'the point' or why rioters think they are accomplishing something. They don't think that they are accomplishing a goal. Maybe they came with some intentions or goals, but riot behavior does not involve thinking anything -- because it does not involve thinking. It's basically (in my words) temporary insanity... And unless we figure out how to do portable brain scans on people who are actively in 'riot state' I don't think it will be understood any time soon.

 

:iagree:  :iagree:  :iagree:  This is the same conclusion that I reached.  It does no good asking "Why are they doing this when it hurts their cause?"  There is no longer any rational thought going on.  It is a pure expression of emotion (sometimes justified emotion, sometimes random and base emotion.)  No logic there, so no point in expecting any.

 

ETA, agreeing that with racial issues like this one, violence is a predictable outcome for the unheard.  I just think that once violence takes over, there is no logic there anymore.

[Rivka]

At my homeschool community center yesterday, well before the violence erupted, I heard one of the directors, a black woman my age, dressing down a black teenage boy. He was heading to Starbucks with some of his friends and made a stupid joke about robbing a store. There was PANIC in her voice. It was the voice you might use on a kid who ran blithely out in front of a semi truck.

 

It's a conversation I will never have to have with my middle-class white son.

[kahlanne]

Sure.  Let me see if I can come up with an analogy.

 

Have you ever felt unsafe walking down the street by yourself?  Better yet, have you ever gone out on a first date with a guy and had that feeling of "I wonder if I'm safe?  I wonder if I'm going to be assaulted tonight?  He seems like a nice guy, but I have to worry about my safety?"  Did you ever take small precautions?  Maybe making sure to mention to your mom, or your sister, who you were going out with and when you were expected back?  Did you maybe write the name and address of the guy you were going out with down, just in case?

 

I promise you that most men cannot conceive of the danger you felt.  If you brought it up to them, some men might even react defensively.  Men are in a position of privilege with regards to sexual assault - absolutely some men are sexually assaulted, but the risk of sexual assault is not a daily reality for most men the way it is for most women.

 

Similarly, I think that you are in a privileged position with respect to your relationship with the police.  As a white woman in a conservative suburb, when you interact with the police, you don't have to think to yourself "I wonder if today is the day I will be murdered, like a dog, by a cop who will suffer no repercussions for his crime."  But having to account for that possibility is the daily reality for most African-American men, regardless of class or economic status.

 

So I think it's OK to not get it, as long as you want to get it.

 

This makes my heart hurt. Don't know what else to say. I cannot fathom ever being angry or discouraged enough to riot or harm another person or their things. Even so, the fact that some people are that angry and discouraged makes me sad. It is not understandable yet it is. Perfect analogy btw.

 

[Ausmumof3]

There is a huge difference between protesting and running out of the mall with electronics. One is trying to get things changed and the other is being the problem. That isn't going to "shed light on a horrible injustice". It feeds the stereotypes and makes the police more fearful for their own safety when they see other officers ending up in the hospital. That will not make them go easier on suspects.

I don't know about these specific riots but there are always opportunists like war pickpockets who may have nothing to do with the initial conflict but grab what they can for themselves out of the situation. Even when people are part of a mob they are still individuals with different emotions and goals.

[Word Nerd]

I understand the anger, desperation, and other heightened emotions behind those actions but not why anyone would think burning down buildings, looting, and putting one's neighbors in danger is any kind of solution or will result in positive change. 

[AimeeM]

What else can they do? This is not the first black man killed due to a 'rough ride'. In this situation, to shed light on a horrible injustice, I understand the riots.

If I recall (given, it was before my time), much progress was made during the 50's and 60's regarding social justice, in the form of PEACEFUL protests, and God knows if there were ever a time when black people were terribly mistreated, it was then. Still, somehow, they got their point across, made progress (loads of it, actually) without hurting innocents, taking electronics and kiddie trains from malls, and destroying their own community.

[Mimm]

I'm white, and I've always lived in safe areas. But I can understand. They feel so unheard, so powerless, so ignored. They're afraid and feel like nothing legal or peaceful they do will get anyone's attention, and they're right. They'll be ignored and swept to one side and nothing will change. And so they lash out violently. And now this will be used against them. It's a lose lose situation. :( I feel for them. And I feel for the cops, the good ones, the ones stuck in the middle. And of course the victims who are just there, in the wrong place at the wrong time and now see their neighborhoods and livelihoods torn apart.

[CaffeineDiary]

If I recall (given, it was before my time), much progress was made during the 50's and 60's regarding social justice, in the form of PEACEFUL protests, and God knows if there were ever a time when black people were terribly mistreated, it was then. Still, somehow, they got their point across, made progress (loads of it, actually) without hurting innocents, taking electronics and kiddie trains from malls, and destroying their own community.

 

I think this description of social progress through peaceful protest ignores most of the history of racial conflict in the 20th century.

 

I understand that that is the narrative we like to focus on today, but it is simply not accurate.  In the late 1960s, for example, there were riots in LA, Chicago, Washington DC, Philadelphia, Louisville, New York, Baltimore, Kansas City, Buffalo, Michigan, Cleveland, and Boston, and that's only a partial list.  The narrative that America's social advancement on race issues (limited as it has been) came solely from peaceful protest is false.  (And that's not even getting into the lynch mobs and counter-riots of the 1910s, 1920s, and 1930s.)

 

[Lisbeth]

Hmmm...yeah...I don't think most of the looters, assailants and arsonists last night were involved in some philosophical need to demonstrate out of righteousness against injustice. I think it was an excuse to run wild, get free stuff and "polar bear hunt."

[redsquirrel]

If I recall (given, it was before my time), much progress was made during the 50's and 60's regarding social justice, in the form of PEACEFUL protests, and God knows if there were ever a time when black people were terribly mistreated, it was then. Still, somehow, they got their point across, made progress (loads of it, actually) without hurting innocents, taking electronics and kiddie trains from malls, and destroying their own community.

 

Actually, the time of only peaceful protests was fairly brief. Dr King was constantly having to plead with his followers to reject violence.  And those non-violent protestors didn't do what they did without a tremendous amount of preparation and practice. They had actual schools where people would learn how to be taunted and pushed and goaded into violence and not react or react with prayer. Things like Rosa Parks not moving to the back of the bus did not happen spontaneously, she had been going to meetings, along with  many others in her community. They were planned actions of protest.

 

Have you watched Eyes On The Prize? The first one stops in 1965, and things really changed after that. There is a second series Eyes On The Prize 2 covers 1965-85. There is a whole lot written on these subjects, I suggest these not because they are superior, but because they are easily accessible and understandable. But you can find a lot of books on the subject. At least a couple years ago, the first series was available to stream on Amazon Prime and the second was on You Tube.

 

If all you know of the civil rights movement is Doctor King and non-violent protests, and you think those protests happened spontaneously, without a tremendous amount of preparation and education, then, respectfully, there is a lot that is missing from your education.

[Lisbeth]

Sure. Let me see if I can come up with an analogy.

 

Have you ever felt unsafe walking down the street by yourself? Better yet, have you ever gone out on a first date with a guy and had that feeling of "I wonder if I'm safe? I wonder if I'm going to be assaulted tonight? He seems like a nice guy, but I have to worry about my safety?" Did you ever take small precautions? Maybe making sure to mention to your mom, or your sister, who you were going out with and when you were expected back? Did you maybe write the name and address of the guy you were going out with down, just in case?

 

I promise you that most men cannot conceive of the danger you felt. If you brought it up to them, some men might even react defensively. Men are in a position of privilege with regards to sexual assault - absolutely some men are sexually assaulted, but the risk of sexual assault is not a daily reality for most men the way it is for most women.

 

Similarly, I think that you are in a privileged position with respect to your relationship with the police. As a white woman in a conservative suburb, when you interact with the police, you don't have to think to yourself "I wonder if today is the day I will be murdered, like a dog, by a cop who will suffer no repercussions for his crime." But having to account for that possibility is the daily reality for most African-American men, regardless of class or economic status.

 

So I think it's OK to not get it, as long as you want to get it.

Yet, I'm not seeing groups of women rioting, assaulting all men they see, burning buildings and stealing everything they see every time a woman is assaulted by a man.

[poppy]

Hmmm...yeah...I don't think most of the looters, assailants and arsonists last night were involved in some philosophical need to demonstrate out of righteousness against injustice. I think it was an excuse to run wild, get free stuff and "polar bear hunt."

Yeah. So what? Are you more outraged by them than the officers who killed Freddy Gray?

[poppy]

The other thing to note about the nonviolent protest is that they were often met with violent resistance . Police dogs, fire hoses. Assassinations. It is a bloody history no matter how you slice it.

[bolt.]

Hmmm...yeah...I don't think most of the looters, assailants and arsonists last night were involved in some philosophical need to demonstrate out of righteousness against injustice. I think it was an excuse to run wild, get free stuff and "polar bear hunt."

That assessment reveals your base-level assumption that ordinary people actually have the desires to "run wild" and/or "get free stuff" and/or "polar bear hunt" (whatever that means).

 

Personally, I don't think that ordinary people actually want to do those things, not do they wait for an "excuse" to do so. Ordinary people want to live normal lives, just like everybody else. When people riot, there's a reason.

 

It's not ok to assume that the "reason" is because they lack some fundamentally normal human characteristics, and have other unusually filthy selfish urges instead. If you think so, you need to wonder to yourself why you automatically think of "them" as likely to be unusually lacking in morality. A more logical (and more likely) assessment is that "they" are ordinary people, and that getting caught up in a riot is something that can happen to ordinary people.

[Guest]

Let me ask this. Why are we talking a lot about the behavior of criminals we can't do much about, and not at all about this?

 

On April 12, 2015, 25-year-old African American Freddie Gray was taken into custody by the Baltimore Police Department for possession of a switchblade.^[1] Whilst being transported, Gray had experienced what was described by officers as a "medical emergency"; within an hour of his arrest, Gray had fallen into a coma and had been taken to a trauma center, where it was determined that he had suffered from a spinal injury.^[2] According to his family, Gray's spine was "80% severed" at his neck, he had three fractured vertebrae, and his larynx was injured.^[3][4] The events that led to the injuries are unclear;^[3][4] Officer Garrett Miller claimed that Gray was arrested "without force or incident."^[1]

Despite extensive surgery in an attempt to save his life, Gray died on April 19, 2015.^[4] Pending an investigation, six Baltimore police officers were temporarily suspended with pay.^[3] Police Commissioner Anthony Batts reported that the officers "failed to get [Gray] medical attention in a timely manner multiple times", and did not buckle him in the van while he was being transported to the police station.^[5]

 

They either beat him to death or put him into the van with such force that it broke his spine. Then lied about it. Then minimized it. Isn't that infuriating?

See, I think what happened to Gray was just awful, and I hope appropriate action against any involved occurs. But to jump from that to protests, property damage, rioting, fires, and then looting complete ruins the credibility of the cause for me. I cannot understand the values of a single person involved in that. I can't see why that would be someone's response, no matter their outrage. That is morally foreign to me, and nearly as depraved as the initial beating (which is also evil and senseless). Protests, sure. The escalation leaves me shaking my head. And it is happening more and more frequently.

 

I want justice for Gray. Burning down someone's store is just more evil apropos to nothing.

[Guest]

That assessment reveals your base-level assumption that ordinary people actually have the desires to "run wild" and/or "get free stuff" and/or "polar bear hunt" (whatever that means).

 

Personally, I don't think that ordinary people actually want to do those things, not do they wait for an "excuse" to do so. Ordinary people want to live normal lives, just like everybody else. When people riot, there's a reason.

 

It's not ok to assume that the "reason" is because they lack some fundamentally normal human characteristics, and have other unusually filthy selfish urges instead. If you think so, you need to wonder to yourself why you automatically think of "them" as likely to be unusually lacking in morality. A more logical (and more likely) assessment is that "they" are ordinary people, and that getting caught up in a riot is something that can happen to ordinary people.

You talk of people getting "caught up in the rioting"'as though each individual doesn't have a choice or control over their actions and response to the situation at hand. I reject that premise.

 

The police had a choice.

 

The rioters had a choice.

 

We all have a choice. And what we choose reflects fundamentally on our character as human beings. A greater evil doesn't really justify lesser evil, no matter how much we wish it would.

[bolt.]

There is no reason to allow the fact that crowd conditions during a protest devolved into riot state to "ruin the credibility" of a cause that is obviously completely sound and legitimate in their objections and the reasons for the protests.

 

The fact that riots happen in some crowds has no bearing on the legitimacy of the cause for which the crowd gathered -- because it there is no logical connection between those two pieces of information.

 

Sometimes proponents terrible "causes" are able to have peaceable gatherings: their ability to avoid riots does not make them legitimate "causes". Similarly sometimes when people gather for a legitimate "cause" crowd conditions become unstable and induce riot state. Nobody knows why: but I do know that it has nothing to do with whether the gathering was for a good or poor "cause" in the first place.

[tmstranger]

One perspective:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/04/28/what-you-really-need-to-know-about-baltimore-from-a-reporter-who-lived-there-for-30-years/

 

[bolt.]

You talk of people getting "caught up in the rioting"'as though each individual doesn't have a choice or control over their actions and response to the situation at hand. I reject that premise.

 

The police had a choice.

 

The rioters had a choice.

 

We all have a choice. And what we choose reflects fundamentally on our character as human beings. A greater evil doesn't really justify lesser evil, no matter how much we wish it would.

Sociologists and psychologists all agree that individuals under certain crowd conditions have significant impairment (or a complete lack of choice) over their own response to that situation. You may reject that consensus, but scientific analysis of riot conditions and behaviour have yielded a conclusion that is considered solid in those fields of study.

 

There are many situations where the fact that we are a human species (with various instinctive and compulsive behaviours) overrides the illusion that we "always" have the capacity to make a choice that would otherwise be in keeping with our values and "character".

[poppy]

See, I think what happened to Gray was just awful, and I hope appropriate action against any involved occurs. But to jump from that to protests, property damage, rioting, fires, and then looting complete ruins the credibility of the cause for me. I cannot understand the values of a single person involved in that. I can't see why that would be someone's response, no matter their outrage. That is morally foreign to me, and nearly as depraved as the initial beating (which is also evil and senseless). Protests, sure. The escalation leaves me shaking my head. And it is happening more and more frequently.

 

I want justice for Gray. Burning down someone's store is just more evil apropos to nothing.

 

Did you read the part in the thread where 2000 people marched in nonviolent protest?

That doesn't matter because some criminals looted?

Even if it did, not caring about a murder because of some looters (who didn't kill anyone) makes zero sense.  To me.

 

[blondeviolin]

At my homeschool community center yesterday, well before the violence erupted, I heard one of the directors, a black woman my age, dressing down a black teenage boy. He was heading to Starbucks with some of his friends and made a stupid joke about robbing a store. There was PANIC in her voice. It was the voice you might use on a kid who ran blithely out in front of a semi truck.

 

It's a conversation I will never have to have with my middle-class white son.

Why is that?

[CaffeineDiary]

Yet, I'm not seeing groups of women rioting, assaulting all men they see, burning buildings and stealing everything they see every time a woman is assaulted by a man.

 

I absolutely believe there is a lot that you don't see.

[redsquirrel]

The other thing to note about the nonviolent protest is that they were often met with violent resistance . Police dogs, fire hoses. Assassinations. It is a bloody history no matter how you slice it.

 

And it only works if the larger world is able to see and be shocked by the treatment of non-violent protestors. That is KEY to non-violent resistance. If the larger community doesn't see the violent response, if the larger community has signaled it doesn't care if the protesting population is mistreated, then it won't work. It is a tool of the weak to make the powerful show their worst face to the world. Abusers become more violent and controlling when they feel like they are losing control. Non-violent protest is about causing that reaction and taking the punishment for a longer term goal.

 

I think large parts of the African American population in this country has reason to think the larger society won't care all that much if they are beaten and have fire hoses turned on them. It certainly doesn't seem to care if their sons and fathers are shot in the streets.

 

Imagine the protests if what happened to Freddie Grey happened to a dog. I bet the response of society would be much stronger.

 

And FTR, we still have not been told why the police went after Freddie Grey. He approached and ran, he was chased and later found to have a switchblade, but the knife was found after the fact. From what I can find, the Baltimore police have still not released the reason why police approached Freddie Grey as he was talking to friends on a street corner. But maybe it has come out? I mean, from the actual police, not conjecture.

 

And if anyone wants more info, The Baltimore Sun, an excellent paper, has made it's coverage of this open to the public.

 

http://www.baltimoresun.com/

[Amber in SJ]

The assumption that outrage at the senseless violence of the rioters negates a person's outrage at the senseless, violent death of Gray is ridiculous.  I can be horrified at what happened to that young man as well as dismayed at the response that is harming innocent people.  Asking a person which terrible action they find more reprehensible is also ridiculous.  Neither violent action is excusable.  None of those culpable, from the police officers to the looters & rioters, should get a free pass for their actions.  

 

Amber in SJ

[fdrinca]

I think this description of social progress through peaceful protest ignores most of the history of racial conflict in the 20th century.

 

I understand that that is the narrative we like to focus on today, but it is simply not accurate.  In the late 1960s, for example, there were riots in LA, Chicago, Washington DC, Philadelphia, Louisville, New York, Baltimore, Kansas City, Buffalo, Michigan, Cleveland, and Boston, and that's only a partial list.  The narrative that America's social advancement on race issues (limited as it has been) came solely from peaceful protest is false.  (And that's not even getting into the lynch mobs and counter-riots of the 1910s, 1920s, and 1930s.)

 

 

Actually, the time of only peaceful protests was fairly brief. Dr King was constantly having to plead with his followers to reject violence.  And those non-violent protestors didn't do what they did without a tremendous amount of preparation and practice. They had actual schools where people would learn how to be taunted and pushed and goaded into violence and not react or react with prayer. Things like Rosa Parks not moving to the back of the bus did not happen spontaneously, she had been going to meetings, along with  many others in her community. They were planned actions of protest.

 

Have you watched Eyes On The Prize? The first one stops in 1965, and things really changed after that. There is a second series Eyes On The Prize 2 covers 1965-85. There is a whole lot written on these subjects, I suggest these not because they are superior, but because they are easily accessible and understandable. But you can find a lot of books on the subject. At least a couple years ago, the first series was available to stream on Amazon Prime and the second was on You Tube.

 

If all you know of the civil rights movement is Doctor King and non-violent protests, and you think those protests happened spontaneously, without a tremendous amount of preparation and education, then, respectfully, there is a lot that is missing from your education.

 

Exactly. The Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s/early 1960s was NOT simply peaceful protest marches and bus boycotts. 

 

I don't know how to quite articulate this, but I fear that the persistent image of the CRM as peaceful and nonviolent is in a way a means of preserving power and control over poor minorities. The message is "we'll give you *some* rights, we'll listen to *some* of your grievances, but only if you ask nicely over and over and over and over again."