Can we not make comparisons between revolutions against oppressive monarchies for the right to representation and opportunistic looting and rioting? People's homes and livelihoods are literally going up in smoke and these riots aren't even over yet--can we hold off on the vague defenses of political violence?
The American Revolution certainly included a good share of looting. Wealthy local townspeople who were viewed as sympathetic to Britain were brutally driven out of their homes, and whatever possessions they could not take with them as they fled to Canada or the Caribbean were plundered by the revolutionaries.
While the ideologues of the American Revolution were arguing for lofty Enlightenment-era ideals, on the ground things were much more opportunistic, with people joining the secessionist movement in order to plunder those Tory households, or to earn some money as a soldier or mercenary.
No doubt, but I don't see what this has to do with anything. The fact that opportunistic looting took place doesn't refute the fact that the American Revolution was overwhelmingly about independence and representative government.
Our government isn’t oppressive. There are actual oppressive governments. We have some bad police and a law that protects them too often. Mostly things are as good as they’ve ever been and getting better all the time. Everything else is the media money machine going brrrr.
If things are as good as they've ever been then how come on one side of the political spectrum there's a broad movement to "make America great again" and on the other there's a mass movement taking to the streets? Does anyone think things are as good as they have ever been besides the bankers?
Is it not political violence when a black man is killed in the street without due process, treated differently than a white person would be?
I still haven't seen any evidence whatsoever that any homes have been looted or burned by protestors, or that anyone has been killed by protestors. Only "what if"s, like "what if the fire killed someone?" It didn't, but we have a very real case of a police officer killing someone -- shouldn't that be the most important thing we're focusing on here?
No, that's racist violence, not political violence.
It doesn't have to be burning homes for arson to have potential to kill. Burning a Target can easily kill someone too.
And, "it hasn't kill anyone yet" is a pretty weak counter to the claim that arson can be violence. In fact, people do die from arson. The fact that nobody has - yet - in these protests does not change that whatsoever.
Racist violence is political violence. It is agents of the state enforcing a racial order which is inextricable from (and perpetuated by) the politics of the state.
> And, "it hasn't kill anyone yet" is a pretty weak counter to the claim that arson can be violence. In fact, people do die from arson. The fact that nobody has - yet - in these protests does not change that whatsoever.
Okay, but then people are more likely to be killed by a police officer than by arson. So why don't we focus on the actual violent catalyst for all the protesting (and the ones playing out all over the country), which actually happened? Why are we so focused on the potential of the protestors to accidentally kill someone, rather than the very real threat of police actually killing unarmed US citizens?
One of these types of supposed violence is actually much more deadly than the other, with ample evidence.
> Racist violence is political violence. It is agents of the state enforcing a racial order which is inextricable from (and perpetuated by) the politics of the state.
Boloney. It is individuals, even if in positions of authority (and even if far too many of them), carrying out their own warped agenda, not that of the state.
> Okay, but then people are more likely to be killed by a police officer than by arson. So why don't we focus on the actual violent catalyst for all the protesting (and the ones playing out all over the country), which actually happened?
Why should I choose? I oppose violence (or even excessive force) by police officers, and I oppose arson by rioters. And I oppose both for the same reason.
> Boloney. It is individuals, even if in positions of authority (and even if far too many of them), carrying out their own warped agenda, not that of the state.
We'll have to agree to disagree. I believe that the justice system in the US is inextricably tied to systematic, institutionalized racism, and that the justice system and its roots cannot be divorced from those who are enforcing its laws. Minorities in this country are arrested, prosecuted, and sentenced differently from their white counterparts because of that institutionalized racism.
> Why should I choose? I oppose violence (or even excessive force) by police officers, and I oppose arson by rioters. And I oppose both for the same reason.
> I believe that the justice system in the US is inextricably tied to systematic, institutionalized racism...
Yeah, I disagree. And yet...
> Minorities in this country are arrested, prosecuted, and sentenced differently from their white counterparts because of that institutionalized racism.
I'm not sure I can disagree with that. I wish I could...
Even if you oppose both for the same reason, you should be able to recognize that they are not, in fact, the same. You're ignoring the power dynamics at play here which makes violence and excessive force by police officers far worse than arson by the rioters.
If you equate all violence as being the same, then you're saying that the violence committed by the oppressed is the same as the violence committed by the oppressors. Once we recognize that they are not the same, then we can understand that yes, rioting is bad, but the police response is far worse.
The arson targets are oppressed by definition, but often they are also part of impoverished communities. There is real concern that the few remaining grocers will cut their losses and leave rather than rebuild, creating even more food desserts. Flippantly disregarding this makes it sound as though you are happy to watch these communities burn if it means you can bring some political points home to the tribe.
Burning and looting homes and businesses is absolutely violence, but there are plenty of assaults and murders if you're not convinced. This is an abhorrent take.
Businesses like Target, who come into small communities, push out the mom-and-pops, then raise prices?
> there are plenty of assaults and murders if you're not convinced
I'm not convinced, and I need evidence that a) the shootings that you're about to link to are in fact linked to the protests (because in one case it seems like a drive-by) and b) the assaults were not self-defense from e.g., someone pointing a weapon at a crowd of people or e.g., a truck driver attempting to plow through a crowd of peaceful protestors.
Do your own homework. It's been going off 24/7 for days on social media or on the news station of your preference. We're talking about the mom and pop shops, not the big chains, but I'm sure you know that already.
