PDA

View Full Version : Are riots effective?



TimH
12-10-2010, 02:32 PM
Seems that rioting has proven successful toward getting the commoners what they want in general.

Take the riots in France for example.

The US very seldom has riots. If we do its for stupid reason (I was there when the Chicago Bulls won the NBA championships and people started burning and looting to celibrate).

Should the US have more riots? Is it an effective way for the lower class people to be heard?

S.V. Airlie
12-10-2010, 02:38 PM
Tough question.. Riots for personal gain such as say the Haymarket riots of the 1880's. Roits that cause indiscriminate damage NO.. Riots at basketball games and the like are not meant to have an effect. They are just destructive.

I think King and Gandhi accomplished more by not rioting

boatbuddha
12-10-2010, 02:43 PM
Should the US have more riots?

Um no.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsa_race_riot

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Los_Angeles_riots

S.V. Airlie
12-10-2010, 02:48 PM
A disorganized riot with no direction or purpose is just a mob.

skuthorp
12-10-2010, 02:52 PM
I have a cousin in the Football Squad in Britain, he reckons that the same faces crop up in fottball violence that do in extreme right 'political' violence and the latest student 'riots' in London. They just want an excuse to start a fight.

TimH
12-10-2010, 02:53 PM
The race riots seemed to work. After all we now have a black president.

S.V. Airlie
12-10-2010, 02:56 PM
All also had those who sang
"We Shall Overcome..."

Ted Hoppe
12-10-2010, 03:20 PM
Would you consider Jesus and his crew throwing the money changers out of the temple a riot? His example of direct confrontational anger is considered an act of great piety.

Never forget it is Pete Seeger who wrote "We shall overcome". MLK saw strength in a song that gave a minority focus in an active physical presence. Like the Jesus temple example, strength with a pious position is a hard opponent for any counter play by the more general society.

S.V. Airlie
12-10-2010, 03:32 PM
When riots become political there are potential results Roosevelt with the coal miner strikes and/riots is an example. Balancing what the effects would be over the country at large had results. But otherwise

nw_noob
12-10-2010, 03:58 PM
The race riots seemed to work. After all we now have a black president.

I'm not sure there's anything that could get modern Americans angry enough to riot anymore.

There's plenty of stuff going on that I think should warrant large acts of civil disobedience, but my outrage is not shared by many, and small scale demonstrations generally don't accomplish squat. It seems X-Box games and cable t.v. celebrity worship are more interesting pastimes that paying attention to what our banks, and our government is doing. Come to think of it, the closest thing I've seen to riots in the U.S. lately were the mobs of black Friday shoppers. It seems discounted toasters are worth hitting the streets en mass for, but civil rights infringements, protecting freedom of the press, and opposing foreign military adventurism aren't worthy of the same zeal.

S.V. Airlie
12-10-2010, 04:04 PM
Well as the original poster said that Riots are rare in the US. I tend to think you are not the only one who would rather watch the banks, and our government than riot.

nw_noob
12-10-2010, 04:32 PM
I tend to think you are not the only one who would rather watch the banks, and our government than riot.

My point was the opposite of that. If more people gave a rats-ass what was going on around them, and how it was directly impacting their lives, riots would be inevitable.

As it stands, we've got cheap flat screen tv's so riots don't happen.

Bruce Hooke
12-10-2010, 04:41 PM
I'm not sure there's anything that could get modern Americans angry enough to riot anymore.

Maybe not white, middle and upper class Americans, but it was not so long ago that there were some fairly serious riots in Los Angeles as a result of the Rodney King verdict.

I tend to think that civil disobedience is more effective than rioting in many cases, but I don't want to generalize too much because there are a wide range of types of riots and civil disobedience, from the March to Selma to the riots that brought down Nicolae Ceauşescu of Romania.

S.V. Airlie
12-10-2010, 05:04 PM
It's rather like saying "Are terrorists effective?"
The answer (to both) is obviously "Yes". They eventually get what they want.
Remember Mandela? South African terrorist, freedom fighter and president?
Remember Golda Meir?
Vide Osama bin Laden and the Taleban. Aren't we about to negotiate?



David Cameron has made some concessions to the rioting students (I'd like to think that they were gambits, rather than concessions, but I'm afraid I'm wrong). So they've won something that they wouldn't have won with a peaceful protest.
French student riot often: and they win often.

Our 'democracies' were won by rioting.
If you won, you were not a terrorist, if you lost the fight you were. I'm mixed on Golda. As Islreal finally became a country in '48 she probably wasn't called a terrorist. On the other side, having a majority of the israeli population supporting her is a bit different than rolling a few cars over in the parkinglot at a football game.

At the beginning of the Revolution, I sense that the founding fathers were called terrorists by the Brits.

Cuyahoga Chuck
12-10-2010, 05:13 PM
The race riots seemed to work. After all we now have a black president.

An intersting take of history which I don't think will be taken up by any historians worth their salt. Since I was around at the time I think it was more likely the result of Obama graduating magna cum laude from Harvard Law among other things. But, I may have missed it. Could you point out when this race riot took place?

S.V. Airlie
12-10-2010, 05:31 PM
Are you referring to the Black Friday Riots. If so they happened in Columbus Ohio and were over star wars games.
The only one I could figure out on the net. May have been others who knows

nw_noob
12-10-2010, 06:31 PM
Maybe not white, middle and upper class Americans, but it was not so long ago that there were some fairly serious riots in Los Angeles as a result of the Rodney King verdict.

I tend to think that civil disobedience is more effective than rioting in many cases, but I don't want to generalize too much because there are a wide range of types of riots and civil disobedience, from the March to Selma to the riots that brought down Nicolae Ceauşescu of Romania.

Sadly, it's white middle class and working class Americans that would have to be involved for a popular movement to gain any steam on a national level. Even something as big as the tea party has done nothing but shift a major political party a little bit to the right. The changes they actually effect will likely be minimal.

I agree on the civil disobedience point, that's basically the only way 'rioting' can be effective in the information age. Any move toward violence totally undermines support for the cause, and gives credence to smear tactics. Just look what kinds of smears are applied to all G-20 protesters when a couple of windows get smashed.

nw_noob
12-10-2010, 06:45 PM
Are you referring to the Black Friday Riots. If so they happened in Columbus Ohio and were over star wars games.
The only one I could figure out on the net. May have been others who knows

There weren't a lot of what you'd call "riots" going on, but lot's of pushing, shoving and general douchebaggery was happening coast-to-coast. It is as far as I can tell, the only thing these days that can bring together massive numbers of people, nationwide, to gather in large groups in the cold, at midnight no less.

A relevant YouTube video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Co6Vfwh4hbs)

S.V. Airlie
12-10-2010, 06:49 PM
I agree though I used the term riots because that is what they were called on the web. Otherwise I would not have used that term in that instance/

Chip-skiff
12-11-2010, 12:49 AM
When a riot spreads and doesn't stop, then it's called a revolution.

seanz
12-11-2010, 12:55 AM
When a riot spreads and doesn't stop, then it's called a revolution.

No, that's a revolt.

A revolution is when a group of pointy-heads claim they started the riots and that the revolt was their brilliant idea too. And, no, sorry, they're keeping the secret police and most of the worst excesses of the previous regime.

Then the riots start again.........

Chip-skiff
12-11-2010, 12:57 AM
No, that's a revolt.

A revolution is when a group of pointy-heads claim they started the riots and that the revolt was their brilliant idea too.

Thus earning the title of "founding fathers."

seanz
12-11-2010, 01:04 AM
Thus earning the title of "founding fathers."

Bunch of liberal do-gooders.........

;)

TimH
12-11-2010, 01:27 AM
I'm not sure there's anything that could get modern Americans angry enough to riot anymore.

There's plenty of stuff going on that I think should warrant large acts of civil disobedience, but my outrage is not shared by many, and small scale demonstrations generally don't accomplish squat. It seems X-Box games and cable t.v. celebrity worship are more interesting pastimes that paying attention to what our banks, and our government is doing. Come to think of it, the closest thing I've seen to riots in the U.S. lately were the mobs of black Friday shoppers. It seems discounted toasters are worth hitting the streets en mass for, but civil rights infringements, protecting freedom of the press, and opposing foreign military adventurism aren't worthy of the same zeal.

You are probably on to something there. Good observation.

jbelow
12-11-2010, 01:37 AM
Riots are effective only if a few rioters are shot dead for their cause (Kent State)

seanz
12-11-2010, 01:44 AM
Riots are effective only if a few rioters are shot dead for their cause (Kent State)


Can't tell the difference between a protest and a riot?

Stay home, don't go to any further meetings.

jbelow
12-11-2010, 01:57 AM
Can't tell the difference between a protest and a riot?

Stay home, don't go to any further meetings.

Go back and learn your history . Kent State was a protest that turned into a riot.

seanz
12-11-2010, 04:35 AM
No, it was a protest that turned violent.

And it's your history and you really should learn it.