So apparently there was a riot or something in Baltimore, or at least that's what my Facebook feed says. However I'm going to ignore it's specifics for a bit and look at the reactions to it, or more precisely the negative ones.
The case is pretty open and shut, rioting/looting destroys property without any benefit. Often plunging the area already afflicted by poverty into a worse situation, which then spirals even further. Thus not only failing in it's assumed goals of political change, but also harming those who want change and destroying there case, like the store they loot and burn. These are just short sighted thugs seizing the opportunity to behave like hooligans, or so their detractors say. People with a little more sympathy to the case being made will shake their head and complain of the "senseless destruction".
But tinged with racism or not the point stands and is difficult to argue with, burning down a community center doesn't appear to advance the case against police violence very much. Even if you are angry and feel like the protesters do it's hard to sit down and make a rational case for looting and vandalism.
But...
Let's leave America for a second, or even just leave our time. It's not very hard to find examples of violent and destructive mobs starting things that turned out well, or at least that we have a hard time criticizing.
The Boston Tea Party being the most Patriotic example, and in many ways representing a situation not that dissimilar to a modern riot. Alternatively Westerners of all political stripes were generally supportive of Euromaiden, or the protests in Syria/Egypt/Libya. These started peacefully, but descended into riots and looting as well, though perhaps not as openly as the Boston Tea Party.
How do we reconcile this without resorting to a statement about vandalism being a force for good if "freedom fighters Patriots" are doing it and bad when "Terrorists Thugs" are doing it?
The case is pretty open and shut, rioting/looting destroys property without any benefit. Often plunging the area already afflicted by poverty into a worse situation, which then spirals even further. Thus not only failing in it's assumed goals of political change, but also harming those who want change and destroying there case, like the store they loot and burn. These are just short sighted thugs seizing the opportunity to behave like hooligans, or so their detractors say. People with a little more sympathy to the case being made will shake their head and complain of the "senseless destruction".
But tinged with racism or not the point stands and is difficult to argue with, burning down a community center doesn't appear to advance the case against police violence very much. Even if you are angry and feel like the protesters do it's hard to sit down and make a rational case for looting and vandalism.
But...
Let's leave America for a second, or even just leave our time. It's not very hard to find examples of violent and destructive mobs starting things that turned out well, or at least that we have a hard time criticizing.
The Boston Tea Party being the most Patriotic example, and in many ways representing a situation not that dissimilar to a modern riot. Alternatively Westerners of all political stripes were generally supportive of Euromaiden, or the protests in Syria/Egypt/Libya. These started peacefully, but descended into riots and looting as well, though perhaps not as openly as the Boston Tea Party.
How do we reconcile this without resorting to a statement about vandalism being a force for good if "