Support NeoGAF

[Maninthemirror]

The American Revolution was a large scale riot in essence. We wouldn't even have a GAF to have this discussion if Colonials didn't riot against the British.

Talk about hypocrisy

What.

The American Revolution was a entire continental civil disobedience movement which resulted in British government turning violent and out of destroy the existence of all revolutionaries at which point the war began

This is nowhere close to that level. Nowhere near as close

 

[Seventy70]

This isn't a black and white issue. There are circumstances and different degrees that factor in. Yes, sometimes violence is necessary, but that's not really saying much.

 

[CrimzonSamurai]

What.

The American Revolution was a entire continental civil disobedience disobedience movement which resulted in British government turning violent and out of destroy the existence of all revolutionaries at which point the war began

This is nowhere close to that level. Nowhere near as close

That's not entirely accurate. The majority of the Colonial population didn't really have a stake in independence. It took considerable rhetorical effort by players concentrated in the major urban centers to even get the revolution started. The bulk of the Continental volunteers didn't start signing up until after the Brits started using their houses and eating all their food. An opportunity was created specifically to take advantage of the outrage of a scorned few, percentage-wise. It wasn't a grand unified movement.

 

[Ponn]

I guess the real trick is correctly identifying the oppressors, which is a lot more difficult in a nation with a more informal caste system and less overt racism. And not everyone seems to agree on who to blame.

I find its not hard to identify "oppressors" but more people have somehow become hamstringed with the sense of being "PC" and being required to play by rules of not calling out oppressors stacked against them. I literally just watched on Fox News a black american special guest literally being crucified by Megyn Kelly for having the audacity to suggest the police and system was being racist in its handling of these cases and police treatment of these victims. You could literally hear the pain in the man's voice of having to backtrack and bite his lip saying no thats not what he meant. Why in hell are people forced to bite their lips and not admit at the top of their lungs what is painfully blatant to everyone?

 

[ronito]

The american revolution would never had succeeded if the revolutionaries hadn't burned down a few liquor stores and burned a few overturned carriages.

 

[LightofRohan]

Actually I don't want to get into this... It controls my night! Haha. Thanks for the thread tho ami.

 

[Massive Duck. C.M.]

The american revolution would never had succeeded if the revolutionaries hadn't burned down a few liquor stores.

They had Native American settlements to burn instead

You seem to be having a good time with this though

 

[ronito]

They had Native American settlements to burn instead

You seem to be having a good time with this though

Wait the revolution was against the native americans?

 

[Massive Duck. C.M.]

Wait the revolution was against the native americans?

It certainly wasn't doing them any favors. Aren't we supposed to be focusing on collateral damage now?

 

[sc0la]

Forget the American Revolution as a whole, you have a modern U.S. political party that named itself after a riot where white people destroyed property.

It's been over two hundred years and they are STILL talking about how cool it was.

 

[werks]

The American Revolution was a large scale riot in essence. We wouldn't even have a GAF to have this discussion if Colonials didn't riot against the British.

Talk about hypocrisy

The american revolution was a violent overthrow of the government.

I firmly believe that you have the right to violently overthrow the government. I also believe that government has the right to kill you if you try.

 

[ronito]

There's a difference though that maybe I'm being dense in picking out though. The riot called the tea party was directed at tea ships to protest the tea tax. Not necessarily like they protested the tea tax by looting and burning down the local apothecary.

 

[sc0la]

There's a difference though that maybe I'm being dense in picking out though. The riot called the tea party was directed at tea ships to protest the tea tax. Not necessarily like they protested the tea tax by looting and burning down the local apothecary.

Hey man. Property is property right?

Let's flip your example around. If this a largely a protest of police violence, would you say it was okay if they were only burning cop cars and smashing police stations?

 

[ronito]

Hey man. Property is property right?

Let's flip your example around. If this a largely a protest of police violence, would you say it was okay if they were only burning cop cars and smashing police stations?

Actually yes. Yes I would.

 

[CrimzonSamurai]

Hey man. Property is property right?

Let's flip your example around. If this a largely a protest of police violence, would you say it was okay if they were only burning cop cars and smashing police stations?

Jumping in here cuz I like this question:

Yep, totally.

 

[sc0la]

Sweet. I'm counting on you two to help me flip some police cruisers over.

 

[ronito]

Sweet. I'm counting on you two to help me flip some police cruisers over.

 

[CrimzonSamurai]

Sweet. I'm counting on you two to help me flip some police cruisers over.

You couldn't pay me enough to go to Baltimore even when it's not on fire haha.

I wouldn't necessarily participate because I find it more acceptable than torching a CVS. I'm more of a verbal, shouting guy.

 

[Lil'DigiOp]

The american revolution was a violent overthrow of the government.

I firmly believe that you have the right to violently overthrow the government. I also believe that government has the right to kill you if you try.

Thank you. You are the only one who has the balls to speak the truth.

Here's the truth people, plain and simple.

All through out history, in every case imaginable, It takes blood in order to make change.

Guilty blood, Innocent blood.... Somebodys blood spills.

There is pretty much no major change that has happened without someone dying for it first.


I love ideals just like the next person, but the truth is we as human beings are violent. Our history has always be violent. I would never want shit to come down to that, but I do know that conflict always ends up showing its ugly face.

Its the reality of the world we live in. In 2015 and forward.

 

[0xCA2]

The US examples listed in the OP and others that come to mind didn't achieve anything concrete, that's a very disingenuous and non historical post. Stonewall didn't change policy. You can argue it inspired gay people to better organize but there's no evidence that wouldn't happen without Stonewall.

Nor does the Blair Mountain example seem historical. 15-16 years later progress was achieved in a different industry? Ok.

What did the Watts riots accomplish? What about Detroit, DC, Baltimore, Cleveland? Absolutely nothing. If anything the Detroit riots helped spur white fight. It strikes me as pure laziness to rewrite history in this fashion.

Violence works in a variety of political ways, sure. I would not deny that. But absolutely nothing has been accomplished by modern "race" riots in the US. Burning down your own businesses doesn't achieve anything. Not voting in local elections sure as hell doesn't achieve anything. Ferguson increased their voter participation this year...to 30%. That's still pathetic. I would imagine that Baltimore's local election participation rate is lower. Why should their mayor worry about backlash due to her calling people thugs - they don't vote. A lot of power is being ceded in inner cities - not just when it comes to judges and sheriffs, but also school boards and municipalities.

I see a lot of rage and anger, which is understandable. But I don't really see any concrete movements to change things on a grassroots level. Getting hashtags trending and verbally annihilating bad posters on GAF isn't changing shit. I'm not saying people should stop doing those things, I'm saying that there is a pretty clear blueprint for starting change on a grassroots level and it is NOT being implemented in these cities.

Really inciteful posts, man.

 

[GameGuru59]

Amirox is dead on with this one. Nobody likes war either. Sometimes it is necessary.

 

[NexusCell]

While I understand that violent protesting and rioting have caused change, I feel that it is purposefully ignoring the possible damage to another persons life and property. If an innocent bystander is killed or attacked by rioters, such as in the LA Riots, I wouldn't feel justified in telling their loved ones that their deaths were because "there was no other option except violence". Similarly, when these riots ruin the livelihoods of others, whether it be the storeowner who had his store looted or firebombed, or a bystander that is attacked and critically injured, violent protests undoubtedly have a much more negative impact on bystanders and innocents. You could tell me that violet protests work, and you may be correct in that statement, but unlike most peaceful protests, riots usually not only have a more minimal chance of succeeding, but there is much higher cost in terms of damages to others.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

Hey man. Property is property right?

Let's flip your example around. If this a largely a protest of police violence, would you say it was okay if they were only burning cop cars and smashing police stations?

At least that would actually make some sense.

 

[Random Painted HIghway]

Thank you. You are the only one who has the balls to speak the truth.

Here's the truth people, plain and simple.

All through out history, in every case imaginable, It takes blood in order to make change.

Guilty blood, Innocent blood.... Somebodys blood spills.

There is pretty much no major change that has happened without someone dying for it first.


I love ideals just like the next person, but the truth is we as human beings are violent. Our history has always be violent. I would never want shit to come down to that, but I do know that conflict always ends up showing its ugly face.

Its the reality of the world we live in. In 2015 and forward.

Breakup and collapse of the Soviet Union? Including most of the Warsaw Pact revolutions.

 

[Lil'DigiOp]

Breakup and collapse of the Soviet Union? Including most of the Warsaw Pact revolutions.

Ooooh thats a good one.

But the rebellion in Caucasus in 1988 led to all of that. Soviets started losing power.

Don't know too much about Warsaw Pact though.

 

[LookAtMeGo]

Forgive the ignorant question but has there ever been a time in history when oppression has been overcome in a peaceful manner?

 

[-COOLIO-]

Forgive the ignorant question but has there ever been a time in history when oppression has been overcome in a peaceful manner?

mlk and gandhi comes to mind.

 

[Random Painted HIghway]

Forgive the ignorant question but has there ever been a time in history when oppression has been overcome in a peaceful manner?

I just posted one example, the USSR breakup. Earlier in this thread there is a link to a study regarding the efficacy of nonviolent civil resistance finding that the success rate is about 50% compared to the 26% of violent protests. Now, how that author Chenoweth arrived at that, I do not know as I have not read her book.

 

[Script Kiddies LLC]

mlk and gandhi comes to mind.

Both wrong as well, but cool.

 

[-COOLIO-]

Both wrong as well, but cool.

can you muster maybe one or two more sentences to explain why you think so? who knows, maybe you'll convince someone of something instead of just encouraging people to not listen to you.

 

[LookAtMeGo]

mlk and gandhi comes to mind.

would you say that maybe this movement needs a leader? Someone with the power to speak to people like they did?

I just posted one example, the USSR breakup. Earlier in this thread there is a link to a study regarding the efficacy of nonviolent civil resistance finding that the success rate is about 50% compared to the 26% of violent protests. Now, how that author Chenoweth arrived at that, I do not know as I have not read her book.

Thanks, I will look up some more. I'm not very educated on the subject which is why I'm asking

 

[-COOLIO-]

would you say that maybe this movement needs a leader? Someone with the power to speak to people like they did?

i was thinking exactly that a little while ago. it would certainly help.

 

[Jacob]

Wait the revolution was against the native americans?

This is a tangent, but the answer is yes. In part, yes.

He [George III] has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

It's worth noting that this passage is not just anti-Indian. The "domestic insurrections" refers in part to the colonists' belief that the British were encouraging slave uprisings. There was also anti-Catholic bigotry present in the Declaration. The bit about "abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province" was political spin for allowing the French-speaking, mostly Catholic inhabitants of Quebec to maintain their own form of government, which pissed off the predominately Protestant English-speaking colonists in the Thirteen Colonies.

 

[trips]

The US examples listed in the OP and others that come to mind didn't achieve anything concrete, that's a very disingenuous and non historical post. Stonewall didn't change policy. You can argue it inspired gay people to better organize but there's no evidence that wouldn't happen without Stonewall.

You are bending over backwards to deny that Stonewall led to concrete change and you're wrong. The riots directly led to the creation of open and confrontational gay rights groups. The riots are the reason gay pride marches (held on the anniversary of the Stonewall riots, ding ding ding...) and gay pride movements exist. These are the cornerstones of the movement. Without them policy changes would never have been possible. Why are you dismissing the fact that the riot inspired people to organize? That should be the POINT of a riot.

"It could have happened differently!" is not an argument.

Stone-Wall was symbolic, it wasn't the riot/violence itself that galvanized people, it was the rare sight and sound in these days of seeing LGBT people standing up for justice, seeing that it was possible. It(rioting) certainly wasn't repeated over n over, LGBT community organized to affect their political and social standing in this country.

Most of what you're saying is true! It was symbolic, LGBT people did organize politically afterwards. But the violent riot was what galvanized people. It was a violent response to the far greater violence of police brutality. That kind of violence boils over when you are oppressed beyond what you can take.

 

[Nesotenso]

Thank you. You are the only one who has the balls to speak the truth.

Here's the truth people, plain and simple.

All through out history, in every case imaginable, It takes blood in order to make change.

Guilty blood, Innocent blood.... Somebodys blood spills.

There is pretty much no major change that has happened without someone dying for it first.


I love ideals just like the next person, but the truth is we as human beings are violent. Our history has always be violent. I would never want shit to come down to that, but I do know that conflict always ends up showing its ugly face.

Its the reality of the world we live in. In 2015 and forward.

whose blood should flow in Baltimore?

 

[striferser]

Reading OP, yes, violence is sometime necessary. A shame that rioting and looting involve someone who just happen to be there in the wrong time.

Hey man. Property is property right?

Let's flip your example around. If this a largely a protest of police violence, would you say it was okay if they were only burning cop cars and smashing police stations?

That actually make more sense, and if there's going to be a riot, i'd prefer it to be that way.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

Coates says it best

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/04/nonviolence-as-compliance/391640/

The people now calling for nonviolence are not prepared to answer these questions. Many of them are charged with enforcing the very policies that led to Gray's death, and yet they can offer no rational justification for Gray's death and so they appeal for calm. But there was no official appeal for calm when Gray was being arrested. There was no appeal for calm when Jerriel Lyles was assaulted. (“The blow was so heavy. My eyes swelled up. Blood was dripping down my nose and out my eye.”) There was no claim for nonviolence on behalf of Venus Green. (“Bitch, you ain’t no better than any of the other old black bitches I have locked up.”) There was no plea for peace on behalf of Starr Brown. (“They slammed me down on my face,” Brown added, her voice cracking. “The skin was gone on my face.")

 

[jakonovski]

Here's a good way to put this:

When nonviolence begins halfway through the war with the aggressor calling time out, it exposes itself as a ruse.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/04/nonviolence-as-compliance/391640/

Or in my own words, the situation is like Putin asking for a cease fire.

 

[Malfunky]

Thank you for encouraging this discussion in such an insightful manner, Amir0x. This is a sight for sore eyes.

EDIT: And certainly the rest of you speaking in defense of the perspective and legitimacy of the rioters.

 

[roknin]

I find its not hard to identify "oppressors" but more people have somehow become hamstringed with the sense of being "PC" and being required to play by rules of not calling out oppressors stacked against them. I literally just watched on Fox News a black american special guest literally being crucified by Megyn Kelly for having the audacity to suggest the police and system was being racist in its handling of these cases and police treatment of these victims. You could literally hear the pain in the man's voice of having to backtrack and bite his lip saying no thats not what he meant. Why in hell are people forced to bite their lips and not admit at the top of their lungs what is painfully blatant to everyone?

Because America really doesn't want to actually deal with this issue, they'd rather sweep it under the rug for the hundredth time. And the few black people that actually get to the point of having a voice have to "be careful" not to lose it.

It'd literally take five seconds for them to take a snip of that, pump up Kelly for lambasting him and then make him look like bumbling idiot.

...aaaaaaand it is Fox News so I would not be surprised if they did that.

Mainstream America would love love LOVE to go back to the status quo. The ONLY reason media is picking this up so heavily is ratings, which will get a nice boost if riots break out.

 

[DontBeThatGuy]

Megyn Kelly is trash.

 

[pa22word]

The american revolution would never had succeeded if the revolutionaries hadn't burned down a few liquor stores and burned a few overturned carriages.

I had family that took part in the Boston tea party (apparently still have a cask in the family).

That doesn't mean I justify people getting tarred and feathered :/

 

[Gordon Shumway]

Great stuff as always, Ami.

 

[Gattsu25]

An opinion piece from Ta-Nehisi Coates pointedly getting at the heart of what Amir0x and many others are getting at:

The people now calling for nonviolence are not prepared to answer these questions. Many of them are charged with enforcing the very policies that led to Gray's death, and yet they can offer no rational justification for Gray's death and so they appeal for calm. But there was no official appeal for calm when Gray was being arrested. There was no appeal for calm when Jerriel Lyles was assaulted. (“The blow was so heavy. My eyes swelled up. Blood was dripping down my nose and out my eye.”) There was no claim for nonviolence on behalf of Venus Green. (“Bitch, you ain’t no better than any of the other old black bitches I have locked up.”) There was no plea for peace on behalf of Starr Brown. (“They slammed me down on my face,” Brown added, her voice cracking. “The skin was gone on my face.")

When nonviolence is preached as an attempt to evade the repercussions of political brutality, it betrays itself. When nonviolence begins halfway through the war with the aggressor calling time out, it exposes itself as a ruse. When nonviolence is preached by the representatives of the state, while the state doles out heaps of violence to its citizens, it reveals itself to be a con. And none of this can mean that rioting or violence is "correct" or "wise," any more than a forest fire can be "correct" or "wise." Wisdom isn't the point tonight. Disrespect is. In this case, disrespect for the hollow law and failed order that so regularly disrespects the rioters themselves.

Nonviolence as Compliance

thanks for posting this


For the posters saying that nonviolent protests are twice as effective: nonviolent protests have been tried time and time again. They're, unfortunately, not having much of an impact.

I, like most, would prefer for change to come out of nonviolent demonstrations. I really would.

Nonviolent protests demand empathy, on the part of the ruling class, to elicit change. When they are met with apathy they are ineffective.

 

[teruterubozu]

Wait the revolution was against the native americans?

Actually Native Americans were demonized as supporting the monarchy, so yes, to a degree.

 

[zorlaczerohero]

Great thread.

I find it somewhat amusing when I see someone say "Arrest the rioting scum" or words to that effect. Would they say the same for the rioting that occurred in North Africa and the Middle East from 2010 onwards? This came about originally through a protest against police corruption and violence. But I'm guessing they'd have no problem with that as many of the governments were known to be non-democratic and as such deserved to be rioted against.

It was basically youths and union workers doing the rioting whilst the middle classes sat at home and moaned that it's a disgrace and the rioters should just go back to their unemployed poverty or (non)minimum wage jobs and shut the fuck up.

You know what? So many people in the US don't realise that their situation is no different. Sit in your ivory tower, no matter how small it is, and pass judgment on people who have nothing to look forward to except a daily fight to stay alive and out of prison.

Then look up 'arab spring' riots and tell me that riots don't change anything, sure, not always for the better, but they do change things. And when you're bottom of the heap any change is a chance for something better.

 

[TheSadRanger]

Actually Native Americans were demonized as supporting the monarchy, so yes, to a degree.

Actually the Seven Years War which is commonly referred to as the French-Indian Wars in the United States probably began the beginning of the huge rift of northern British colonists and Native Americans.

So if we're going by early 18th century, the French-Indian wars is the big thing that started off an already tumultuous relationship between colonists and Native Americans.

 

[Measley]

Wait did the old white guys steal from stores, beat innocent people with rocks, and steal purses from women?

I just want to point out that the patriots did in fact beat people, looted from stores, stoned people, terrorized people, etc.

So to answer your question: Yes.

 

[Ikael]

The whole "violence solves nothing" discourse is just a vapid post-modernist aphorism. It is assumed to be true unreflexively, and like pretty much all things that "conventional wisdom" spouse, it is wrong and simply doesn't resist any historic study.

Violence did solve, many, many problems along the history of mankind, but it does needs a clever political direction for it to be fruitful rather than merely self-defeating. A spontaneous isolated riot is not useful per se. A "do this or else you get riots" discourse, however, works wonders. "Reform your incompetent, violent, abusive and racist police corps, or else" seems like a fairly useful, motivational discourse to me.

 

[MC Safety]

I just want to point out that the patriots did in fact beat people, looted from stores, stoned people, terrorized people, etc.

So to answer your question: Yes.

I think you're working long and hard to tie the American revolution to the kind of unfocused looting and burning that takes place in inner cities after some police malfeasance.

It doesn't quite work, but if it helps push forth the agenda, so be it.