- Question
- Is rioting ever justified?
- Position‹2 of 2
- No, rioting is never justified
- Argument1 of 2›
Rioters are usually unconcerned with the cause they claim to uphold
Protesting and rioting are two separate actions, and drawing a clear distinction between them is important. While protesting serves as a social or political message, rioting simply denotes a call for violence and anarchy.
The argument
The argument rests on a comparison between two moments of protest. The American Civil Rights movement in the 1960's, as well as the George Floyd protests occurring all over the world in 2020, are treated as key indicators that violence, robbery, and arson are not affiliated with the peaceful movements that look for real change and understanding. On this reading the two things travel together in time but come from different sources: the movement supplies the cause, and the rioting attaches itself to it. Many people today state that the riots are a necessary reaction to George Floyd's death. Proponents answer that the record points the other way. The peaceful marches and demonstrations in the 1960's more effectively secured the black vote for Democrats, and a similar formula can be seen today — that is, the political returns came from disciplined, non-violent mobilisation, which could be defended in public and which drew sympathy rather than fear. Destruction offers no comparable mechanism by which grievance is converted into political change. Ross Douthat of the New York Times is cited for the point: “the political history of both the 1960s and the 2010s suggests a strong presumption against the political effectiveness of looting or vandalism or arson, to go along with the direct costs for the communities where riots are most likely to break out.” Two consequences follow. Since riots do not advance the cause, taking part in one cannot be explained by commitment to it — which is why proponents describe rioters as usually unconcerned with the cause they claim to uphold. And the costs fall locally: these riots, instead of causing some sort of revolution or societal upheaval, are harming the poorer communities they purport to be fighting for. An action that fails to deliver the good it claims, while imposing its costs on the very people it claims to serve, cannot on this view be justified.
Premises
Counter-arguments
In the political arena, rioting is sending a message and it is a necessary evil in toppling the higher powers that look to control people of color. There is no other way of clearly definitively telling political pundits that no one can stand for injustice in any capacity, violence being the only equal response to violence on black bodies everywhere. To show that the people of the country are angry and dissatisfied with the current system, aggression and force are the sole avenues towards hope and freedom marginalized people can gain in a systemically oppressive society.