What is the purpose of a riot?
by Latoya Peterson
I have a piece on the Oakland shooting scheduled to run on Monday from a frequent contributor. However, I stumbled across this article in the SF Gate and wanted to throw it out to the room to discuss.
A protest over the fatal shooting by a BART police officer of an unarmed black man mushroomed into several hours of violence Wednesday night as demonstrators smashed storefronts and cars, set several cars ablaze and blocked streets in downtown Oakland.
The roving mob expressed fury at police and frustration over society’s racial injustice. Yet the demonstrators were often indiscriminate, frequently targeting the businesses and prized possessions of people of color.
They smashed a hair salon, a pharmacy and several restaurants. Police in riot gear tried to control the crowd, but some people retreated along 14th Street and bashed cars along the way.
The mob smashed the windows at Creative African Braids on 14th Street, and a woman walked out of the shop holding a baby in her arms.
“This is our business,” shouted Leemu Topka, the black owner of the salon she started four years ago. “This is our shop. This is what you call a protest?”
Wednesday night’s vandalism victims had nothing to do with the shooting death by a BART police officer of Oscar Grant on New Year’s Day – but that did little to sway the mob.
“I feel like the night is going great,” said Nia Sykes, 24, of San Francisco, one of the demonstrators. “I feel like Oakland should make some noise. This is how we need to fight back. It’s for the murder of a black male.”
Sykes, who is black, had little sympathy for the owner of Creative African Braids.
“She should be glad she just lost her business and not her life,” Sykes said. She added that she did have one worry for the night: “I just hope nobody gets shot or killed.”
What the hell was the point of destroying a black owned business to protest the murder of an unarmed black man?
As citizens, we have the right to peacefully assemble and peacefully protest. And the article mentions that the protest started off peacefully – but a smaller offshoot of participants started the violence, mainly against local businesses and parked cars. Some of the cars belonged to the city of Oakland, but others belonged to private citizens, just going about their lives.
Something that always strikes me about those who incite a riot is that they always seem to do it in our neighborhoods. If you want to tear something down after an egregious event, that feeling is understandable. (I don’t feel like it should always be acted on, but that’s another post.) However, why is it that the violence quickly spirals out of control and starts attacking innocents?
Perhaps I am biased because it was only in the last three or so years that Washington, DC finished cleaning up the traces of the last round of riots we went through. A lot of the older folks have painful memories of what it means when a protest starts of well, then turns to chants to burn the city down.
Readers, what are your thoughts?
(Photo Credit: Lacy Atkins for the Chronicle)
Carmen Van Kerckhove is co-founder and president of
Fatemeh wrote:
When I heard about the shooting, I was terrified. I can’t wait to read the piece Monday.
I agree with you about rioting and the futility (and even harm) of destroying things (especially things POC-owned). Violence in this context usually just begets more violence.
Posted 08 Jan 2009 at 3:58 pm ¶
notsuprised wrote:
Riots are always stupid and as far as I am concerned help no one. I’ve seen students riots and burn down classroom buildings, stupid, stupid, stupid!!!!!
Posted 08 Jan 2009 at 4:00 pm ¶
Tim wrote:
Here is the central irony of civil riots: they usually begin with some miscarriage of justice by the state, either an excess of punishment or punishment unmet. The targets of riots, however, are only occasionally representatives/officers of the state, but inevitably representatives of commerce — shops, stores, consumer goods.
It’s almost impossible to imagine the alternative — people storming state offices because of economic scarcity or injustice. But it has happened — google “bread riots” — but almost never here.
Posted 08 Jan 2009 at 4:05 pm ¶
Persia wrote:
I just came to Racialicious after reading this first-hand account of the riot/protests. And the writer points out that there are always people in a crowd who want not to prove a point, but to break stuff.
I think those people are the ones who light the spark, so to speak. And then there’s a split; people like Richard, who holds on to his candle, and people who are ‘caught up’ in the violence and riot. There really is a ‘mob mentality,’ and I think a certain kind of personality can get caught up in it. The mix depends on how much despair and anger people are carrying. After a while, rationality isn’t part of it at all.
Posted 08 Jan 2009 at 4:07 pm ¶
atlasien wrote:
In response to your question — rage in response to injustice always feels good… it feels like righteous, justified rage. In reality, it’s just neutral. It can energize either good actions or bad actions.
When people can’t fight back against the source of injustice, they turn on themselves. That’s true on a community level and on an individual level too.
It’s stupid, it’s a waste of energy, it’s self-defeating, but it’s something beyond logic, driven by the reptilian cortex of our brain. When it comes to irrational raging, you could argue that human beings aren’t much more advanced than the average iguana.
Posted 08 Jan 2009 at 4:08 pm ¶
Taryn wrote:
It saddens me that some of the people didn’t get how it is counter productive to hurt people in our own neighborhoods and businesses. However, I understand the anger and frustration. I realize that people, including myself am just so damn tired of hearing about another child being killed. Then to add insult to injury is the fact that so many Americans don’t get or care to realize that institutionalized racism Exists. Then the news media barely cover this story, but then when the riots happen and their are a few people “not doing the right thing” that will be picked up immediately and aired. Damn I’m just so frustrated right now, but thanx Latoya for bringing this up.
Posted 08 Jan 2009 at 4:21 pm ¶
Paz wrote:
I live in the Bay Area, and watching the riots live last night on the local news station saddened me. I understand the frustration but rioting doesn’t help the case. If anything, it enforces the stereotype that “those people” are menaces to society. I remember one commenter on HuffPo said that black people always riot when things don’t go their way.
A few months ago, some high school kids (mostly Latino) were protesting the ICE raids and bumrushed the BART (mass transit) station without paying. I cringed. Does not help the case. Simply reinforces the stereotype that the “illegals” think they can come here and do as they please without regard for the laws.
That being said, I pray for justice for the family of Oscar Grant. May he rest in peace.
Posted 08 Jan 2009 at 4:22 pm ¶
Michael Pugliese wrote:
sistah, ‘ya gotta get down with the dialectic
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2009/01/murder-in-cold-blood/
Posted 08 Jan 2009 at 4:22 pm ¶
Ugly Deaf Muslim Punk Gurl! wrote:
That is my grip with riots, too. One famous punk rock vocalist, Mike Virus (from The Virus and Cheap Sex) wrote a really angry blog criticizing punks for destroying locally owned businesses, when a riot broke out between punks (anti-Nazi) and neo-Nazi skinhead wannabes at a punk show 3 years ago in So-Cal.
That one made me think a lot, and I can see what you’re talking about. Riots should only target police officers and corporations, not at locally owned businesses.
Riots are about making yourself loud and heard (like the France riots a few years ago over the death of a black French teenager at the hands of cops), and France had to declare a “state of emergency.” It worked and everyone talked about what they could do to help French youths of color…
Otherwise, riots are pointless and costly.
Hell, I didn’t even know there was a riot last night, and I read the news all the time.
Posted 08 Jan 2009 at 4:27 pm ¶
Ugly Deaf Muslim Punk Gurl! wrote:
and by the way, I’m SHOCKED that some people here think riots are a waste of time.
I disagree. South Africa, people?
The apartheid riots in townships?
yeah,, riiight, riots are a real waste of time. *rolls my eyes*
Posted 08 Jan 2009 at 4:31 pm ¶
richard wrote:
Persia, thanks for directing people to my blog, and for your thoughts on my piece.
Latoya, I wanted to respond to your question. I am sad about the black owned businesses that went down. It looked like a lot of Korean businesses got smashed too. There is a strange empathy that i have for the rioters too though.
What is the purpose of a riot? To release anger and frustration, when the source of the anger of frustration is not accessible. Its always the neighborhoods of the marginalized that suffer from riots. It is precisely the marginalization and lack of access that makes what is around people the targets of rage. There will probably never be a planned bussing of rageful rioters to the suburban neighborhoods of these killer cops. And this is how cycles of abuse, work, whether we are talking about domestic abuse, or institutionalized abuse. kids grow up in a abusive home, they kick the dog. Whats the dog have to do with this? It is sadly misplaced anger, anger that is valid, anger of one who is denied access to strike back at the source of abuse.
Perhaps some kind of emergency “riot carnival” could be erected for instances like this, where people can go and punch bags with likenesses of the cops, and have opportunities to smash glass and get anger out in more contained ways. And the media could show up and make sure people’s voices were heard. Just freestylin here…
Posted 08 Jan 2009 at 4:40 pm ¶
richard wrote:
another important note– this was not just black people rioting. If you read my piece, i report that the violence was actually started by white “anarchists”. We need to be careful assuming that all violence was perpetrated by black folks.
Posted 08 Jan 2009 at 4:44 pm ¶
Celeste wrote:
*sigh* WTF…..how does this help? I’ll answer my own question: it doesn’t help and it probably doesn’t do anything to improve the perception of black people by the local law enforcement. Why did they have to do this? As for Ms. Sykes, how do you argue with such nihlism? It’s putting me of the Chris Rock sketch re: black people vs. n-words.
Posted 08 Jan 2009 at 4:45 pm ¶
Vee wrote:
A crowd or people can easily be swayed by emotions alone, not intelligent thought or logic. Throughout history many political leaders understand this. That’s why they’re willing to engage in subversive language. Look no further than the recent presidential election where intelligent politicians were talking recklessly.
Unfortunately I believe Nia Sykes represents a majority of people in general. It’s all about how she feels, how people feel. While they have no problem destroying local business and trashing other peoples cars, they HOPE no one gets shot or killed. No rhyme, reason or logic. It’s purely emotional.
Freaking crazy, but surely human.
Posted 08 Jan 2009 at 4:47 pm ¶
dsantiago wrote:
This sort of ‘protesting’ always disappoints me. I think the people that rioted weren’t necessarily doing it for protest the shooting death they just wanted an excuse to wreck things. If the point really was about the shooting death they should have took it downtown or to the business district where the power to be are at. Being a person of color that used to do this kinda stuff (think-Seattle, RNC, etc.) I know what I’m talking. Government, big business- hell yes, but working poor folks, small businesses (especially owned by POC) that’s bullshit.
Posted 08 Jan 2009 at 4:47 pm ¶
drydock wrote:
I caught the tail end of the protest. It seemed like a large majority of participants were under 25, so perhaps it was a case of pissed off youngsters blowing off their anger in a not particularily productive way. I mean attacking that black woman’s hair salon was pretty damn lame.
I guess I sort of agree with Atlasien’s point about irrational raging in comment number 5.
By the way this trashing didn’t really happen in black neighborhood, it was mostly a downtown business area.
Posted 08 Jan 2009 at 4:52 pm ¶
Kavita wrote:
I agree that it makes absolutely no sense to vandalize Black owned businesses to protest the murder of a Black man by the cops. And that riots seem to be more immediately self-destructive than anything else. But in terms of what the point is–maybe its more than just blind rage of “iguanas”–maybe its also the sense that they are effective? I’m not advocating violence, but it does seem to be what The Man responds to. Now, I firmly believe that as Audre Lorde said so well, “the master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house.” But maybe people riot because that is the language that the master understands? I doubt if a peaceful march of thousands in Oakland would have gotten the same coverage as the dozens of rioters.
Posted 08 Jan 2009 at 4:57 pm ¶
gatamala wrote:
This is just GRAND.
Nia, honey, go sit your ass down.
She comes from the wealthy side to the struggling side -where there are still some blacks building community wealth- to assist in its destruction.
When Restoration Hardware comes to her hood she’ll be the first one talking about what the white folks are doing.
Posted 08 Jan 2009 at 4:57 pm ¶
Sobia wrote:
I’m not as familiar with this particular case but I remember a few years ago when the Danish cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad came out. Riots broke out all over the Muslim world and I remember seeing images of riots in my father’s hometown of Lahore, Pakistan. Streets were filled with smoke from burning cars and businesses and it just didn’t make any sense to me. How does destroying LOCAL businesses, very often the main source of income for a family, going to help the situation? The clean ended up costing the city and country a huge load of money thus hurting only Pakistanis. My mom though said to me that although all this seemed idiotic to us from the outside part of the reason this happens is because the people engaging in the riots are those who are financially and economically frustrated. Much of their anger is not at the cartoons but rather at their disadvantage and at the privileges of others around them. The may think “if I can’t have a car why should they?” Not to take the blame off of the rioters but just to say that the rioting may not have as much to do with the cause as we think it does.
Posted 08 Jan 2009 at 5:17 pm ¶
Political Music wrote:
There is no use (in destroying black businesses and our community).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AKmukv5EO4
Posted 08 Jan 2009 at 5:20 pm ¶
burying.lamps wrote:
@ richard: not all anarchists (or ’self-proclaimed anarchists’, depending on who’s talking) are white. nor is it a movement that exists solely in north america or europe.
from what i’ve heard from folk in oakland, one being from that food not bombs chapter, people who don’t normally engage in mass actions and just had real, visceral anger were the ones attacking the mom-n-pop stores while the ones who have more experience in mass actions, some tending towards anarchism as an ideal, were trying to prevent the harm incurred.
it is to be noted that mcdonald’s, banks, and cop cars were also torched.
Posted 08 Jan 2009 at 5:24 pm ¶
Latoya Peterson wrote:
@Tim – right, and that’s what angers me. The state normally suffers little, it’s the individuals and the neighborhoods that pay the highest price.
@Michael –
That’s covered more – and on a much more personal level than I could produce – on Monday. The article about the riots just happened to jump out at me today.
@drydock – Thanks for the clarification.
@richard –
A riot carnival aspect to a protest is actually a good idea, I think. My beef is not so much with the intent or frustration that fuels the action but the fact that the actions are taken against innocents. Like the four people who found their cars destroyed.
And when you look here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_Washington,_D.C._riots
Rioting did not bring Dr. King back. But as they say here:
The riots utterly devastated Washington’s inner city economy. With the destruction or closing of businesses, thousands of jobs were lost, and insurance rates soared. Made uneasy by the violence, city residents of all races accelerated their departure for suburban areas, depressing property values. Crime in the burned out neighborhoods rose sharply, further discouraging investment.
On some blocks, only rubble remained for decades. Columbia Heights and the U Street corridor did not begin to recover economically until the opening of the U St/Cardozo and Columbia Heights Metro stations in 1991 and 1999, respectively, while the H Street NE corridor remained depressed for several years longer.
Columbia Heights, U Street, H Street are all in various stages of development. I could write a whole other piece on the aftermath of the riots in DC, community self-investment, and gentrification.
Posted 08 Jan 2009 at 5:29 pm ¶
Asada wrote:
if only:
“when you act out of anger, you only hurt yourself.”
too true.
Posted 08 Jan 2009 at 6:02 pm ¶
Lola wrote:
these are criminals not protesters
Posted 08 Jan 2009 at 6:09 pm ¶
Asada wrote:
” As citizens, we have the right to peacefully assemble and peacefully protest. And the article mentions that the protest started off peacefully – but a smaller offshoot of participants started the violence ”
It’s what happens during depressions and hard times. Never go out into protests, what starts out as peacefull turns into a mob scene VERY quickly.
Maybe if the USA took the time to care about the lives of black people, then mobs would not have to tear things up to get attention.
I hope the woman had insurance for her business, but knowing the reality, I doubt it. If someone told me I should be more concerned about my life in relation to undue violence against my business, I would leave. The area is too bad. Her business IS her life.
Posted 08 Jan 2009 at 6:12 pm ¶
Lisa J wrote:
I think it is intersting that I first heard about Oscar Grant’s shooting from someone on Facebook on their status of all things expressing outrage, Googled the name and saw a little info on it mostly from Bay area papers, but today NPR, which I spend a good chunk of the day listening to most weekdays, just reported the shooting today finally and only b/c of the riot. That is truly sickening. Maybe that is why people riot b/c it is the only way to get some attention. Just like little kids who act out b/c they get no attention so they figure bad attention beats being ignored. It is such a shame that innocents have to suffer though for the actions of killers.
Posted 08 Jan 2009 at 6:31 pm ¶
Kjen wrote:
@Richard – the metaphor about the abused kid who kicks their dog made a lot of sense. I’ve always thought that riots tended to be contained within people’s own neighborhood because, on some unconcious level, people knew that they could “get away” with breaking their own things vs. if they did attempt to storm the government buildings or wealthy areas there would be hell to pay. Thus, burn mom-and-pop stores, burn.
@Sobia – Thanks for reminding me that it’s never a single incident that triggers a riot, but a general disenfranchisement (sp).
@ everyone who says riots are useless – riots are simply an extreme, violent form of protest and all protests are meant to bring attention to a situation. Umm, I was in no way, shape or fashion even DREAMING about Oakland until the other day. Now, I’m visiting various websites discussing the riots and its possible causes with others. So for its intended purpose this riot, like the ones before it, and the ones after it, was a success.
Unfortunately that’s all riots have the power to do. They can’t control the reaction of the public in the aftermath.
Posted 08 Jan 2009 at 6:41 pm ¶
Caro wrote:
@ Latoya’s comment — I would love to read your thoughts on the aftermath of the DC riots and gentrification sometime! I live along 7th St NW in Shaw, and I always think about how the buildings that stood there 40 years ago, where my apartment building is now, were completely burned to the ground. That event continues to have repercussions on down to today, when young middle class white people (such as myself) are moving in.
Posted 08 Jan 2009 at 6:53 pm ¶
Aaron wrote:
I was talking to someone yesterday who was reads up a lot on non-violence. She mentioned an argument she had read somewhere that if it has a message, it’s speech (perhaps with some caveats), and if it doesn’t, it’s violence.
So destroying POC owned independent businesses – violence. Boston tea party on the other hand – speech. Even though both were just destruction of property. Apparently the participants in the tea party actually reimbursed the owner of a boat that was accidentally sunk.
So if rioters were to vandalize or steal from, say, Target, or Bank of America, or some global corporation – perhaps a form of speech, and (relatively) non-violent, even if illegal?
What do folks think?
If I’ve understood this argument correctly, I’m not sure I agree completely. Property destruction is generally seen as a form of violence. Perhaps the tea party seems non-violent to us because of how most of us were taught in school, and because we’re very removed from the reality of it, unlike the smashing of Starbucks windows in Seattle in ‘99, or similar incidents.
However, I am not a pacifist, I’m a non-aggressionist. So is the smashing of a Starbucks window justified? Well, the way coffee farmers and even baristas are treated worldwide is easily more violent than some vandalism. In alignment with the original argument though, I would still advocate a more focused message, and the avoidance of any destruction if possible. The Chicago sit-in is a good example. The truth is they were tresspassing. What they did was illegal. But the message was very clear, and they did no permanent damage. Had the owners and authorities tried to kick them out, I think they would have been justified in fighting back in proportional way, but because the message was so clear, the timing was right, etc, that luckily was not necessary.
So, what about the rioters in Oakland. Well, I think their actions definitely crossed the line into violence, and if violence is sometimes justified, it crossed the line into being unjustified. It was completely destructive, not just literally, but in its message as well. I mean, there was no coherent message, other than “we’re pissed off”. The message should say something more. It should make a specific demand, or criticism. Smashing a Starbucks window issued an at least somewhat decipherable criticism, for instance. And it actually accomplished A LOT. That is a point at which Starbucks took a whole new look at their brand image, and at least somewhat increased their efforts to be socially responsible.
Posted 08 Jan 2009 at 6:54 pm ¶
Kat wrote:
Riots are often misplaced frustation.
Posted 08 Jan 2009 at 6:55 pm ¶
gatamala wrote:
It’s 2009.
I saw the taped shooting.
Trashing that lady’s business was not necessary to get “attention”. In this day & age we have methods of drawing attention to wrongs.
What sort of attention does it get any way. The kind LDP linked to. As I said before, these will be the same folks pissed off because they are being developed out of town.
I believe that there is a time and place for such anger, when the target is appropriate. All this does is take attention from Oscar Grant and BART to those who want to act a fool.
***
Sure, be mad. But have the balls to walk (anger is the motivator to not be lazy) your ass to the source and be mad at them.
Posted 08 Jan 2009 at 7:01 pm ¶
Monie wrote:
Latoya,
As someone who lives in the San Francisco Bay Area I can tell you that most of the violence was not done by the organized protesters.
The organized protest began at the Fruitvale BART station where the BART police officer murdered the young man. The station was shut down by BART for most of yesterday afternoon.
After that the organized protesters marched downtown to the BART HQ. That is the point when people who had not been at the organized protest began to join in.
By the time the violence started the vast majority of the people who began the protest at the Fruitvale BART station were gone.
The local media is not distinguishing between the organized protestors and the young people that joined later during the march and did the violence. They are also not reporting that the organized protestors had long gone by the time the violence began.
The mistake, in my opinion, was marching through neighborhoods. That attracted people who simply had nothing else to do and then decided to cause trouble.
I will say this though; the MSM was not really covering this before. I saw a short report on ABC on Monday I believe. The test will be if they report it now that there was violence and if they focus on the violence or on the real story.
Posted 08 Jan 2009 at 7:14 pm ¶
jvansteppes wrote:
If even half of the number of people who participate in any given political riot were to turn their/our efforts towards a direct action like a blockade etc, huge actions with all kinds of potential would be possible.
But I wonder if people riot instead of doing direct actions because the state has crushed our hope of any mass action succeeding at all. So we just inevitably break into violence at moments like these, only to be quelled.
Posted 08 Jan 2009 at 7:20 pm ¶
SayNay wrote:
While I don’t condone rioting, and busting up business, and personal property as a means of “protest,” I see do see them as a point of combustion. I think there is a point at which many people feel helpless and it only takes one thing to be the tipping point. This riot just isn’t about the murder of one black man, it’s a result of the politics in Oakland as a whole. Being a city of around 400,000 with an annual murder rate of well over 100 (the majority of the victims being black and brown folk) it has one of the highest per capita murder rates in the country. Yes it doesn’t necessarily have the most murders as compared with other cities like Philly, D.C., etc., but the “efforts” (read: or lack there of) on the part of the Oakland PD, city government, and local news media I know leaves many people in the community frustrated, especially those trying to do something about it.
Posted 08 Jan 2009 at 7:38 pm ¶
banjiboi wrote:
@ Latonya
Great piece! I’ve long admired your work here at Racialicious, and I check in on the regular. I had to chuckle to myself when I clicked on your site and saw this post which went up at about the same as my piece on the same subject over at Beezo Blue!
http://beezospureandsimple.blogspot.com/2009/01/outrage-in-oakland-over-bart-shooting.html
It sorta felt like a The Twilight Zone moment – in a good way, that is!
Posted 08 Jan 2009 at 7:55 pm ¶
Kelly wrote:
@Aaron:
Please don’t advocate wreaking havoc on Bank of America. I’m a teller at a B of A and would very much like to not be terrified.
Do you think that just because you would protest against a chain or large corporation, you wouldn’t still be scaring or hurting local people? If your point is to not harm a local or independent business, don’t forget that local people who need to make a living work for larger corporations.
Posted 08 Jan 2009 at 8:00 pm ¶
richard wrote:
@burying.lamps: hmmm. i never said that all anarchists are white, or that it is exclusive to the US, Europe, or anywhere else. Not sure where that is coming from. What i did say is that the anarchists that started violence were all white. to be more specific, Black Bloc youth.
I think the larger generalization that is going around is that the “mob” was a homogenous black one. Interesting that you would choose to critique/question the presence of white rioters at this protest.
@Latoya: glad your are feelin the Riot Carnival idea! It would be good to figure out some way to channel valid aggression that did not cause suffering communities to suffer even more, as you documented. Its already a recession for crissakes…
@Kjen: you hear what i am saying! i really see this as a cycle of institutional abuse, and about people reacting within the scope of their access and institutional power. And in truth, the cops IMMEDIATELY set up a huge defensive presence around City Hall, so icons of the government were not accessible.
@Ugly Deaf Muslim Girl: Thanks for raising a the revolutionary point. Riots also have the potential function of empowering the people to reclaim soveriegnity and rights, especially in the face of oppressive violent systems. I am thinking that riots are a subset of uprisings though. and that an uprising would have to mean that it was more widespread, continuing for weeks at least, and having clear leadership that issued demands of the state, or stated an agenda.
Posted 08 Jan 2009 at 8:14 pm ¶
thesciencegirl wrote:
I am sad and angry that legitimate protests about this egregious crime will be too easily dismissed because protests devolved into pointless violence. Riots only serve to silence the legitimate voices of protest in their midst. To me, it seems like a wasted opportunity. I understand the rage, but you have to harness your rage if you truly wish to accomplish change. Rioting makes it only too easy for people (e.g. the police, the media) to make this about angry, unruly black people — that’s what they’re going to try to make the shooting about anyway.
I look forward to the forthcoming post about Oscar Grant’s shooting. When I read about it on feministe this morning (and watched the videos), I was horrified and frightened.
Posted 08 Jan 2009 at 8:55 pm ¶
Elton wrote:
People advocating for violent protest (aka riots) because the ends justify the means,
There are no ends. Just means.
Comments from people like “Aaron” that advocate violence against Target, Bank of America, and Starbucks reveal a kind of hypocrisy and disconnect from reality that only comes from privilege, and a contempt for the real, actual people who depend on businesses, from customers to employees to, yes, managers.
Just because someone is a business owner doesn’t mean they need to be punished through violence, or punished at all. I read a ridiculous anarchist pamphlet in college called “Abolish Restaurants” that I found personally offensive because my parents are restaurant owner/operators. People often seem to think that this job entails sitting back and letting the profits roll in, but my parents work their fingers to the bone close to 16 hours a day, almost every day, cooking, cleaning, dealing with spoiled, greedy customers, desperately trying to keep the business afloat because the Chinese buffet paradigm is a losing game. Every day, I think about the likelihood that they will die young either from stress-related health problems or getting killed during a robbery.
So Aaron, what do your parents do for a living?
Posted 08 Jan 2009 at 10:01 pm ¶
Titanis walleri wrote:
“Throughout history many political leaders understand this.”
And every religious leader that’s ever lived (”emotions over logic” is basically the backbone of every religion!).
Posted 08 Jan 2009 at 10:10 pm ¶
NinaG wrote:
Blame the reactionaries for the riots! It doesn’t make sense to riot anywhere, even if its in wealthy communities or large businesses because that’s where people like us (by us, I mean people who aren’t the ‘enemy’) work and live
Posted 08 Jan 2009 at 10:10 pm ¶
NancyP wrote:
I wonder if some of the riot participants woke up the next day and wondered why they did what they did.
It may just be that the average rioter is at the site of a gathering, angry to the point of bursting, and just goes after the closest object that makes a satisfying mess or loud noise when struck. Striking a blow at least provides tangible proof to his emotional self that he is not powerless. There’s probably little thought content to the action. If there is thought content, it may be very general – “hate the system that humiliates me”. The emotions are in charge of interpreting this – what constitutes “the system”? For those on the economic edge, the concept of “store” may be linked to feelings of humiliation, shame at not being able to buy like those other people inside the store. Smashing any glass storefront will do for releasing shame, if the feeling is so intense that one must do so THIS SECOND.
I think that emotions are greatly amplified in a crowd setting, and increase exponentially with time. A respected and charismatic leader can intervene EARLY (not late) in the crowd dynamic by affirming the audience as both righteously angry AND able to DO something about the topic of anger, and providing a concrete physical ACTION to perform that instant – singing a resistance song, for example, or marching to a symbolic site. The intolerable shame of being an isolated powerless person is averted, and a much “cooler” (compatible with conscious thought) emotion of unity against adversity is created.
OCICBW (Of course I could be wrong….)
Activists, social psychologists, historians (especially collectors of oral histories – ie, taking down multiple accounts of eyewitnesses and participants) – all might contribute to understanding what prevents a protest from becoming an incoherent melee – how to focus the crowd.
MLK, Jr. and others who successfully used non-violence principles in protests were geniuses of human psychology.
Posted 08 Jan 2009 at 11:21 pm ¶
Whitney wrote:
Riots don’t help, and if anything, they make the rioters look like idiots.
There was a “riot” (the police called it a disturbance) in my town after the police broke up a party, so the partiers stormed the streets of downtown, breaking windows, burning couches… anyways, some of the kids said that they were protesting this new ordinance that the city passed, (it’s a “disorderly events ordinance” allowing police officers to break up parties they feel are out of control)… anyways, the thing is, if anything, this “riot” actually reinforced the need for the ordinance, and they showed that they can’t party responsibly. Now, the city will probably pass MORE laws restricting parties.
There are ways to make a statement without harm, and rioting isn’t it.
Posted 08 Jan 2009 at 11:31 pm ¶
NancyP wrote:
Elton, I am impressed. Owning and running a small restaurant is just about the hardest work there is. Anyone who knows someone in the business knows that a successful start-up restaurant is a product of delusion-level optimism and 90+ hour work weeks.
Every owner-operated small low-price Chinese (Vietnamese, Thai, etc) restaurant seems to have a table in the back for the owner’s younger children, often working on homework. I always figured that that was the only way to have family time in the restaurant business.
Posted 08 Jan 2009 at 11:33 pm ¶
clark wrote:
This whole thing has been horrifying. The cell phone video just stopped me in my tracks and I still don’t understand. All I can think, as someone who grew up in the bay, that this is bringing out the insane racial tensions there. Reading the comments on the SFgate piece was like being slapped.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article/comments/view?f=/c/a/2009/01/08/BA2A155RRO.DTL&o=4
check out the comment from hoku, who says “none of this would have happened if Grant and his homies weren’t fighting on BART. THAT was the first violent act that led to all of this.”
Shit.
I’ve always felt racial/class/gender tensions pronounced on BART or on other forms of public trans, and it’s like this whole series of events has brought something of that to a head. I’m just going to pray for everybody who is effected by this. It’s all I can really do, and I hope it helps with the anger.
Posted 09 Jan 2009 at 12:02 am ¶
Seattle Slim wrote:
I am all for riots, but not for the destruction of businesses. I cosign the posters who mentioned South Africa and France. I didn’t finish reading all the comments (gonna go back) but what about the French Revolution? While parts were flawed (thanks the the power hungry) that revolution started with riots in the streets and it was a pivotal change in the world.
Posted 09 Jan 2009 at 12:48 am ¶
L. wrote:
I don’t seem to recall there being any violent mass protesting during the whole Jena 6 episode. What I do recall, however, was the incredibly efficient, unified front that the black community presented. I’m both upset that it didn’t go this way out in Oakland.
Posted 09 Jan 2009 at 1:00 am ¶
Daniel wrote:
@jvansteppes, what narrow definition do you have of “direct action” where a riot does not qualify as direct action? This boggles my mind, as someone who has worked on large scale direct actions and anarchist projects.
@Latoya, I’m glad you mentioned U Street and H Street, because when I read what you saw about DC recovering, I thought of those two neighborhoods first, and I shook my head in shame. Both U Street NW and H Street NE are being reinvented as white neighborhoods for young professionals. Yes, communities are being rebuilt for the first time since ‘68, but the people who were there in ‘68 are being pushed out along with the memory of the riots.
If U street is going to be reinvented from black broadway and Ben’s is going to be about people of color serving overpriced food to white people… or if Horace and Dickie’s gets pushed out of H Street to make way for another yuppie club…. then, I ask, what’s the point of the rebuilding?
The reality is that I don’t think we would have DC Home Rule were it not for the ‘68 riots. The riots helped transform DC from a colonial possession into the bantustan with limited autonomy that it is today, which frankly is a step up, in my view. As much as I don’t like Williams, Fenty, et. al. I prefer having to deal with the jerks in the Wilson Building than the jerks in the Capitol Building.
Posted 09 Jan 2009 at 3:03 am ¶
Kim wrote:
I have to admit that I disagree with rioting/protesting against violence with violence and destruction and it saddens me.
But a question I would like to pose… does the actions of the police spark these type of reactions? If the hostility of the police, had it not been there, would there be the same rebellious-ish riots? (But i suppose a protest pushes for that kind of reaction/unsettling?)
Do the actions of the police (beating, pushing, “restoring order”) cause a sense of chaos and helplessness within people that make us say “fuck everything” therefore let’s destory?
Whether the riot was “wrong” or not, it happened. I think a riot occurs for a reason, for more reasons than one, and exposes a larger issue that we may be overlooking.
Posted 09 Jan 2009 at 3:59 am ¶
jo wrote:
I think part of it may have to do with the fact that seriously pissed-off people don’t demonstrate that much in the US. And I don’t mean seriously pissed-off black people, I mean seriously pissed-off people in general. Due to a series of things like population density and union history, demonstrations are a lot less common–and above all, a lot smaller–than in Europe, for example (and yes, I know it’s the Bay Area, I have family there and people think they demonstrate a lot, but come live in Italy if you want to know what “demonstrating a lot” means). Of course demonstrations can turn into violence here, too, but I think the organizers have a bit more experience with planning ahead to avoid that. And above all, there’s more general familiarity with the idea of a peaceful demonstration being a way to blow off steam while remaining peaceful; in America when there’s a big mob of people in the street, one tends to think “mob”, and act accordingly. Not saying this explains it all, but I think it’s a factor.
Posted 09 Jan 2009 at 4:35 am ¶
jo wrote:
PS: Before somebody says “well, what about Greece, and Paris, and Genoa?”, yeah, they CAN turn into violence here, too. But considering how many damn demonstrations there are all the time, it’s amazing how many don’t.
Posted 09 Jan 2009 at 4:44 am ¶
SayNay wrote:
@clark I am never really surprised by the rampant hate and racism that runs through the SFChron comments sections, especially in a place as “liberal” as the Bay. I found this one by Shukugawa66 to be particularly interesting:
“This is tough to say now but I truly believe we, as in every person who is responsible for hiring/firing, must fire every illegal and replace that person with a black kid. Period. Do this for 3 decades, or a generation and we’ll have a shot at integrating blacks into mainstream America. Instead, for the last 30 years we’ve been hiring illegals to wash our dishes. Jesus. Why don’t we just tell black kids to die off cuz we aren’t going to give them any work and instead hire illegal Hispanics. I know the general feeling is that blacks carry awful work habits into a job. I don’t disagree but if we don’t turn this ship around now there will only be more Richmonds and Oaklands in our future. My apologies to the mostly hard working black people in our society.”
I think I am more burdened by how these tragic incidents become a free for all commentary on “what’s wrong with the “ethnics” in our society blah, blah, blah”; as opposed to a critical interrogation of why this happens and how it’s “handled” by those in power.
Posted 09 Jan 2009 at 9:53 am ¶
gatamala wrote:
@Monie~thanks for info and perspective. Bless the organizers’ hearts for trying. I blame ne’erdowell’s for taking their eyes off the ball. Ironically, these fools will be the first ones victimized by the cops.
@Elton~THANK YOU (I swear, I wonder if laptop revolutionaries have never considered what they will do when they grow up).
I ask, what about the braid shop (a female immigrant-owned business that is always under assault by regulators)? That Black-likely immigrant- woman feeds herself and her employees. She provides a service to those who wanted and needed it. She pays personal and business taxes. She pays for the cops (yes), but didn’t get the benefit of the bargain. Even if they only broke her window, she has to fix it (out of pocket or insurance). What about protecting her equipment from the elements? We don’t know whether she LIVES in her shop (which is very common). btw we are in the midst of an economic catastrophe.
It galls me how those who purport to be looking out for the common folk run right over them to put forth an ideal.
Republicans, St. Milton and St. Ronald aren’t the only ones with ideologies that are cruel when poorly executed.
@saynay~as ugly as that comment is (ummm mainstream?), there are some very real issues within it that ring true. I worked in staffing many years ago and can testify to those “observations” as a black person and employer. Now, that comment barely scratches the surfce, but labor, migration, education, racism…but I’m happy that shukugawa admitted to actively discriminating and realizes that it does have repercussions that affect him/her.
Posted 09 Jan 2009 at 11:10 am ¶
JWiggins wrote:
I was 13 years old when we had racial riots here in Tampa Florida. Although the anger resulting from the shooting of a Black Man in the back was justifiable, the resulting riots did no one any good.
What it did was to destroy a vibrant and viable Black business sector of town. The area never recovered, and is now a park and anentrance to the interstate.
I don’t condone rioting; but if we must, then why turn on ourselves. In Tampa, the white business district is less than a quarter mile from the Central Avenue Area we destroyed. It was never touched.
My Moms just reminded me that three other times here in Tampa, we turned the anger inward, with no positive gains from the activity.
People, will we never learn from our mistakes?
Posted 09 Jan 2009 at 12:30 pm ¶
Elton wrote:
NancyP,
Every owner-operated small low-price Chinese (Vietnamese, Thai, etc) restaurant seems to have a table in the back for the owner’s younger children, often working on homework. I always figured that that was the only way to have family time in the restaurant business.
Yay, thank you for understanding. That is exactly what my childhood was like. I also played milk crate basketball.
Unfortunately, there is no way to “win” at the Chinese buffet business. You can only hang on. My parents are still doing the same thing, nearly 30 years on.
gatamala,
lol @ “laptop revolutionaries.” I went to college with a bunch of these types. I hope I’m not one of them.
My reaction to “Abolish Restaurants”:
Well, how are they gonna eat? Because I know these idiots can’t cook for themselves.
Posted 09 Jan 2009 at 1:41 pm ¶
Genevieve wrote:
Just to add to the discussion. My friends who participated in the organized protest and followed the crowd to downtown Oakland emphasized that the police provoked the marchers who intended to rally in front of the BART station. Before things got out of control they blockaded 14th and Broadway for an hour. Check out the photos and video documenting the station protest and the police response: http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/01/08/18559668.php
Posted 09 Jan 2009 at 2:00 pm ¶
Chester wrote:
So I’ve been glued to the internets since all this went down, and I’m glad to see conversation like this amidst all the stupidity and distortion.
But one thing is bugging me. I think part of the distortion that plays way too well into the hands of the police state is the use of the term “violence” to mean anything from tipping over a trash can to the execution of Oscar Grant.
It’s imperative we see the killing of people as DISTINCT from the destruction of property. When dumpsters are on fire or windows are smashed, that’s some shit going down. When Oscar Grant got killed, that’s violence. When rubber bullets knocked over people, that’s violence. When someone throws a bottle that hits a cop, that’s violence. When someone throws a bottle that hits a cop car, that’s not. See where I’m going with this?
If we don’t want to be treated like objects, we have to stop speaking about ourselves in the same terms as objects. That also helps us to quit treating property as more deserving of defense than life. This might partly explain why people don’t go after the banks or the means by which we’re transformed from citizen to criminal. In America, property, especially corporate property, ranks higher than black lives.
I write this as the helicopters have just returned to 14th street. Damn.
Posted 09 Jan 2009 at 6:29 pm ¶
David Cone wrote:
Can you guys imagine if a racially-charged riot involving black people occurred in a majority-white neighborhood? The carnage would be UNBELIEVABLE.
Had the L.A. Riots occurred in Simi Valley where the citizens of that separate community from L.A. got to decide on the Rodney King beating, a riot wouldn’t have even been allowed to start in the first place and rage on like it did.
Let’s get real, folks: the MLK Riots in DC would never have been allowed to happen in front of the White House or west of Rock Creek Park.
This is like the line in “Hoodlum” when Madame Queen asks Bumpy Johnson where he thinks the war for the Harlem numbers racket will be fought: Park Avenue or Harlem?
Posted 09 Jan 2009 at 7:59 pm ¶
Moomoomoo wrote:
This sort of non-strategic property destruction as protest happens for a specific set of reasons: The lack of viable means to channel rage into strategic action (which I think can include property destruction–frankly, I have no beef with the cop car that got its windows smashed). We’ve spent the last 40 years not providing ourselves with the tools of popular education on how to take mass political and that makes this sort of thing inevitable.
A candelight vigil is not going to satisfy people’s anger when a man is gunned down in the street.
What upsets me about the DC riots (I’m from here) is more that their history has been swept under the carpet but what caused them–police violence–still rages on. We still haven’t had anyone held accountable for the murder of DeOnte Rawlings. Yet the agents of neoliberal displacement have wiped everything away with shiny new and now, thanks to the financial crisis, entirely empty buildings.
Posted 09 Jan 2009 at 8:29 pm ¶
moore wrote:
Has anyone else seen this? The woman quoted above, Nia Sykes, claims she never advocated for violence and was misquoted. She’s been getting so many threats (people actually planned to go to San Francisco and trash her apartment), she’s posted an ad on craigslist defending herself.
I’ll repost it in case it gets taken down.
http://sfbay.craigslist.org/eby/pol/985885255.html
Nia Sykes was mis quoted by Chronicle editor Matthew Stannard. It was an emotional day but I NEVER advocated for ANY violence or destruction of property. I was NOT a part of ANY vandalism that took place that night. I went there to show my support which was a peaceful protest in the beginning. I said that the peaceful protest was Great, not the destruction of property. I am sorry that her shop as well as other individuals property was vandalized. I am sadden too, that the Chronicle chose to make this article about race. The protest was about the execution style shooting of an unarmed man by Bart police. The people who came to the protest were of all races, blacks, whites, asians, and latinos.
By Nia Sykes
Posted 09 Jan 2009 at 11:28 pm ¶
Spinster wrote:
I can see the purpose of a riot (especially in this case), but fucking up businesses and private citizens’ possessions who had nothing to do with what happened is a bit much.
We need to have more riots when ridiculous shit happens to black and brown girls/women. Not to negate what happened in this case, but I don’t remember ever seeing any protesting like this when it comes to black and brown girls/women.
Posted 10 Jan 2009 at 3:27 am ¶
MomTFH wrote:
I think when you throw a tantrum, you throw it where you are. I should know, my four year old is doing it right now. He’s in his room. If he breaks something, it will be in there, not in my room.
I am not saying the freak out is not completely understandable. It’s just not the constructive or mature reaction. It’s hard to have a constructive or mature reaction when one feels like your own kind is being hunted down arbitrarily.
Posted 10 Jan 2009 at 12:14 pm ¶
ART wrote:
Is it wrong to wish this riot had been over the Lesbian that was gang raped?
Posted 10 Jan 2009 at 12:39 pm ¶
Aaron wrote:
Hey everyone. Sorry I wasn’t around to follow up after my first comment. I should have been ready to respond to questions given the highly controversial nature of my comment.
To start out, Elton, my parents are educators. Please don’t attack me or my family personally. Attack my ideas.
Kelly, while the part that specifically mentioned BoA did seem to fairly strongly condone or advocate property destruction/vandalism against BoA, I did make it fairly clear later that resorting to that should be avoided whenever possible. The only time really I would condone that is when a peaceful protest (including something like a sit-in, involving tresspassing or clearly non-violent, non-destructive crimes), are broken up by the authorities. In such a case, it is the authorities using violence or threats of violence against peaceful protests. Would I say that, for instance, in Chicago, the Republic workers would have been justified in destroying Republic Windows property or using force to fight back against he police if they had been called in? Yes, I would.
I did say that the vandalism of Starbucks in ‘99 accomplished a lot. It did. I’m not familiar with the exact sequence of events in Seattle. But I can almost guarantee that not a single window was broken until cops started being highly provocative. It’s also probably the case that protesters were violating any permits they had, and other laws, non-destructively, and non-violently, such as occupying streets. That tends to be the case. I say so what? Let them. Are they harming anyone by filling streets they don’t have permits to block traffic in? Probably not (again, I don’t know for sure). Is the World bank Harming anyone? Yes. Millions. Daily.
I’d clarify that I would rarely if ever condone property destruction against smaller independent businesses. They may be underpaying wokers, etc, the same as big businesses, but at such a small scale, there’s nothing really they can do about it. Small restaurant owners, for instance, like Elton’s parents, who work 12 or 16 hour days, 6-7 days a week are just as much victims as their workers, the workers of their suppliers, etc. And in my experience, people like Elton’s parents are absolutely the norm. The odds are so stacked against them that almost anyone owning a small business, especially a restaurant just has to work 60+ hour weeks to make a profit.
I work at a Starbucks. If protestors came and started smashing up shit, without any threat of violence against them, I would be pissed and work hard to bring them to justice for putting me in that situation, just as it seems you would, Kelly. If they were peacefully (if illegally) protesting the extreme violence perpetrated by companies like Starbucks and BoA, and were told to stop with threat of violence, and were coming toward my store, I would GTFO, and let them have at it. It’s not my job to protect Starbucks against destruction in retaliation against the starvation wages coffee farmers receive. Be mad at the police, who are helping corporations continue to perpetrate violence against billions.
We do not live in a real democracy. It’s sad but true. I vote. I usually vote on a pragmatic basis. The democrats are somewhat better than the republicans. They will slowly make things better. But they also will help big corporations exploit the poor the world over just about as much.
You may find it hard to believe, but I’m not a believer in violent revolution. Obviously, I do think that some property destruction has its place, when provoked. But I do not think destruction on a wider scale serves any purpose. Smashing a few windows does help people temporarily open their eyes. Starbucks did not even carry any fair trade coffee until 2000 or 2001. It is no coincidence that that choice was preceded closely by WTO ‘99. But the usefulness of such events is highly limited. When armed revolutions occur, usually dictatorships emerge. At best, one form of government is replaced by a quasi-democracy controlled by largely the same old hierarchies.
What I do believe in is democratically and non-aggressively (meaning not perpetrating destruction first) taking over those hierarchy supporting structures and implementing new democratic structures.
Again, sorry for the late response.
Posted 10 Jan 2009 at 2:30 pm ¶
Radfem wrote:
Yeah, the people jumping up and down on the police cars looked White yet the assumption of violence is that Black or Latino individuals are doing it. But it wouldn’t be the first time some young Whites showed up at a demonstration, splintered off and destroyed property and then fled into the crowd while the police beat up every African-American or Latino within range.
By the time riots happen, they usually were a long time coming. They might be triggered by one act of police brutality but they’re fueled by the hundreds or thousands of acts that don’t make it in the media, may or may not be blogged about, don’t even get reported, let alone video-taped. There’s a lot that happens for years before a riot erupts. Governmental and police vehicles or buildings might be the focus but the rioting quickly turns towards economic targets as happened in L.A. because they’re about classism and the disparity between rich and poor as well.
I don’t think it’s about right and wrong in terms of what they are. I think it’s about addressing the issues that cause them before they get to that point. Do I condone them? Would it matter if I did or didn’t, from my perspective? And what are those who shun violence and think it’s a waste of time (and I’m not saying that they’re wrong) doing to address these issues before the straw breaks the camel’s back?
In L.A.’s 1992 riots, two major triggering events were Rodney King and Latasha Harlin, the Black teenager who was shot in the back of the head on video by a Korean-American store employee who received probation. And many others. They didn’t just happen b/c of the King verdict (as many people really did believe) but that was just the breaking point.
Is it productive? No, anger set loose rarely is and the point that someone made about how a riot would be treated in certain areas versus others is true. Do innocent people get hurt and killed? Yes they do, because the ones who are responsible for the serious problems that riots stem from are harder to reach.
A riot in South L.A. would be handled different than one with people from there in Beverly Hills. Or in South L.A. versus Simi Valley. Gang violence existed for years in South L.A. but it didn’t get any attention until a woman in West L.A. was killed in the cross-fire.
It’s still early. And uniting a Black community is difficult because there’s not just one.
Then you should have been in Riverside, California Los Angeles and Chicago in 1999 when three Black women were killed by police officers just that year and led at least in Riverside and L.A. to huge demonstrations. Riverside was close to riots but I’m not sure as close as some people argued later on.
I attended protests for Tyisha Miller and Margaret Mitchell (who I ran into several times visiting L.A. before her death).
Tyisha Miller
Miller: 10 years later
Margaret Mitchell
And Kendra James was killed in Portland, and caused a lot of controversy. Does it get as much publicity? Not always. And often when protest and riots erupt over one police death, it’s usually an accumulation of all the deaths that came before. It’s about much more than just one incident.
Posted 10 Jan 2009 at 3:41 pm ¶
jvansteppes wrote:
Daniel:
My ‘narrow definition’ of direct action would simply include actions in which people don’t necessarily erupt into property-destruction-mode without, for example, respecting small businesses.
I’m not condemning property destruction as a whole, but I think it’s best carried out when it’s channeled against specific targets. I agree that ‘rioting’, or whatever we want to call it, can be cathartic and totally reasonable, but I also think some riots/direct actions etc are more productive than others.
And actually, I too have worked on quite a few large scale direct actions, some of which have included property destruction, just for the record.
Posted 10 Jan 2009 at 4:38 pm ¶
Gionnij wrote:
I think that the rioters are unsure of where to channel their anger and feel powerless, so to bring back a sense of power to their lives they attack innocent civilians. I don’t think the riots in Oakland are very productive, but I do think they say something about our society. Violent protests seem to be a product of loss patience. The Weather Underground began when some members of the SDS lost faith in the non-violence peace movement. Maybe these rioters have lost faith in the power of peaceful protest and lost faith in the idea that the law and our government can protect us. A part of me says “can you blame them for losing hope” and a part of me feels that they could channel that anger and rage more productively. I think we as a society needs to look at all violent protest as a cry for help and change, and look at ways to avoid future incidents that incite violent protest.
Posted 11 Jan 2009 at 5:05 am ¶
SayNay wrote:
The Sf Chronicle just posted a new article “Many see race as central to BART Killing”
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/01/10/MNT6155C4G.DTL
I haven’t had a chance to view the comments yet but I’m sure Obama and ‘end of racism’ will appear.
Posted 11 Jan 2009 at 8:54 am ¶
Lynn wrote:
I live in Oakland. I was not downtown during the rioting. I have been very uneasy about every piece of this story, from the initial shooting to the various reactions against it. Riots are immature reactions based in fear, hate and other pent up emotions. Even when the initial incident is horrendous, like it was in this case, it is no excuse for acting out like a angry child. This kind of behavior just shows that we still do not have mature and sane ways of dealing with problems in our culture. I feel like, if we had them, we would use them.
Posted 11 Jan 2009 at 7:40 pm ¶
David Brookbank wrote:
This is an extra-judicial execution by police. It requires investigation locally but also at state and federal as well as international levels. The United Nations special rapporteur on extra-judicial, summary and arbitrary executions, Philip Alston, should be informed of this situation and asked to investigate and report on the situation. I am a 50 year old white male. This is intolerable, that white police execute black males in broad daylight. In Spokane we have been dealing with police who lie, brutally kill innocent citizens, withhold evidence, and engage in spying on citizens. http://spokanepoliceabuses.wordpress.com
Posted 11 Jan 2009 at 9:36 pm ¶
Ann wrote:
KRON interviewed a demonstrator the other day who said that businesses should be happy that their property was being vandalized. He continued by saying that if he had a business, he would want it to be vandalized too.
I nearly choked on my dinner. Clearly that guy has never tried to start up or own his own business in his life, or he would probably know just how f-ing hard it is to maintain, let alone profit from the entire thing. My parents used to own a small Chinese fast-food restaurant (similar to Elton), and nearly worked themselves to death trying to eke out meager profits every month. I can’t imagine the victims of these riots losing their entire livelihoods in one night. These small business owners barely have enough money to pay their rent and their employees, let alone replace their entire store because some idiot juveniles “felt like having fun” by rioting.
Yes, I am angry about the BART police’s actions, but attacking innocent people’s only way of making money (and probably the only thing preventing them from utter poverty) is even more infuriating. I agree that riots are definitely not pointless, but going after people who had nothing to do with the shooting?! WTF.
Posted 12 Jan 2009 at 8:08 pm ¶
richard wrote:
“Is it wrong to wish this riot had been over the Lesbian that was gang raped?”
feelin you ART. was listening to organizers on KPFA talk about this. It is definitely deserving of more attention. the messed up fact is, riots make national news and candlelight vigils don’t. really more than annoyed that the Oscar Grant case didn’t go national until the riots.
Another case that is deserving of a lot more attention is Dymond Milburn, a 12 year old black girl who was dragged off from in front of her house by cops, beaten, and called a prostitute. This happened while the cops were on the look for white sex workers. And the cops said the little girl was wearing “tight shorts”, that’s why. Seriously.
Posted 12 Jan 2009 at 10:57 pm ¶
richard wrote:
OSCAR GRANT’S KILLER COP ARRESTED IN NEVADA!!
Mod Note – I’ve got a post going up tomorrow. – LDP
.
Posted 14 Jan 2009 at 1:28 pm ¶
Evelyn wrote:
the purpose of a riot is one thing and what happens during the riot is another thing. the Purpose of a riot is to bring about change for the malcontents. this does not mean that the malcontents are out in the streets rioting . The malcontents use the ones that receive the least in our society the poor and working poor to do the riots in the poor neighborhoods, notice that 99% of all riots are either in poor areas or in the down town areas in front of a government building where decision are made concerning the poor/people/masses. If we can not negotiate in our own back yard what makes us think that we will negotiate any better in some one else back yard. the sparks of any riots no matter where on the earth is never begun in the back yard where the riot is happening. control is what a riot is started for or a lack of control but always started out side the riot area by some one else. Boston Tea party? Paul Revere may have taken the ride and assist in the dumping of the tea but who’s idea/riot spark was it really? the current war we find ourselves in? who really idea/spark/riot war started that. we are so in the dark about what is what in the cause of the/riot? this is why questions like this are asked to get feed back so that the malcontents can get a poll on where the people that they need to use heads are at? Leader do rise up out of the ashes of riots? some voice of reason is heard among the noise like MLK, Gundi, Fredrick Douglas etc…. Slavery is slavery no matter how you feed the slave with corn pone with beans and fat back, or if you now give the slave the price for the same meal, and the price of the shack, with the cost of schooling way above his slave of an income. there are no working poor just working slaves, the same situation of slavery will cause a riot to happen as it always have by some one that lives out side the poor/slave communities. to bring about control of the masses. too many of us just do not notice or to busy trying to working to pay for our shack and fat back. Slavery may concentrate on one group of people more than others but our system of the have and the have not has found the poor of any color makes a good slave. Slaves will be notice by their lack of life style not the color of their skin. Lord don’t give me to much least i boast, don’t give me too little least I steal. A lie is the biggest theft of all. A lie is a form of ideology that has always been the spark of all riots especially when the truth/a voice rise out of the ashes of the riot
Posted 14 Jan 2009 at 2:05 pm ¶
Moo wrote:
I think we need to stop repeating the falsehood that whites started the property destruction. There is zero evidence beyond hearsay that this is the fact. There is, in fact, a significant amount of evidence to the contrary, showing that it was a mixture of action taken by a variety of different people of different races.
Posted 15 Jan 2009 at 7:33 pm ¶