In Defense of the Indefensible

Now comes slouching toward Bethlehem, courtesy of Time, “Ferguson: In Defense of Rioting.” No, really.

The violent protests in Ferguson, Mo., are part of the American experience. Peaceful protesting is a luxury only available to those safely in mainstream culture.


When a police officer shoots a young, unarmed black man in the streets, then does not face indictment, anger in the community is inevitable. It’s what we do with that anger that counts. In such a case, is rioting so wrong?

So the fact that he was young, black and unarmed should guarantee an indictment? Sure, let’s proceed from that faulty assumption and go all Jon Lovitz as Harvey Fierstein. Surewhynot. Boy howdy.

Riots are a necessary part of the evolution of society.

No shit?

Unfortunately, we do not live in a universal utopia where people have the basic human rights they deserve simply for existing, and until we get there, the legitimate frustration, sorrow and pain of the marginalized voices will boil over, spilling out into our streets.

Wait, we don’t “live in a universal utopia”? Crap. Live and learn.

Do “the basic human rights [we] deserve” include strong arm robbery and assaulting law enforcement personnel? Given that premise, sure–“the legitimate frustration, sorrow and pain” of those unfairly denied the exercise of those “rights” must inevitably lead to rioting. Duh.

As “normal” citizens watch the events of Ferguson unfurl on their television screens and Twitter feeds, there is a lot of head shaking, finger pointing, and privileged explanation going on.

Apparently the author believes that those who find strong arm robbery and assaulting law enforcement personnel abnormal are only kidding themselves, and indulging their condescending, misbegotten “privilege”–although she deserves credit for avoiding the popular construction, “whitesplaining,” I suppose.

We wish to seclude the incident and the people involved.

“We”? Does the author see herself as part of the “normal” citizenry she so obviously loathes? Color me confused.

Then again, the entire sentence doesn’t make very much sense. It’s not like “normal” people have failed to take note of what went down in Ferguson.

To separate it from our history as a nation, to dehumanize the change agents because of their bad and sometimes violent decisions—because if we can separate the underlying racial tensions that clearly exist in our country from the looting and rioting of select individuals, we can continue to ignore the problem.

Perhaps if I reread that sentence several more times, the author’s intended meaning will emerge.

The argument, as nearly as I can tell, seems to be that if we condemn “the looting and rioting of select individuals” (I’m hoping this woman has a day job), we are tacitly signing on to the continuation of “the problem.” One is left to infer and/or assume just what “the problem” is. Presumably she is referring to racism–the racism that asks young black men to adhere to the same standards of us “privileged” white people; that dares to address the fact that young black men are far more likely to engage in violent criminal behavior than young white men; that thinks is really sucks when “select individuals”–or should I say “change agents”–burn down businesses, most of them black-owned, for the struggle. Etc.

While the most famous rant against the riots thus far comes from Hercules actor Kevin Sorbo, where he calls the rioters “animals” and “losers,” there are thousands of people echoing these sentiments. Sorbo correctly ascertains that the rioting has little to do with the shooting of an unarmed black man in the street, but he blames it on the typical privileged American’s stereotype of a less fortunate sect of human being—that the looting is a result of frustration built up over years of “blaming everyone else, The Man, for their failures.”

Kevin who?

Well, whatever–whoever he is, he’s right.

Interesting that the author concedes that “the rioting has little to do with” Michael Brown, eh?

And “the typical privileged American’s stereotype of a less fortunate sect of human being” is another bizarre construction. Sect? Girlfriend, what are you prose-ing about?

Because when you have succeeded, it ceases to be a possibility, in our capitalist society, that anyone else helped you.

Hello, Straw Man argument! Long time no read! It’s been at least an hour since last we met. Man, if I had a dime for every time that conservatives have made that argument–that networking doesn’t play into success–I’d be, well, just about as broke as I am right now.

And if no one helped you succeed, then no one is holding anyone else back from succeeding.

Implicit argument: Black people are being kept down by white people.

Except they did help you, and they are holding people back.

Now slightly more explicit.

So that blaming someone else for your failures in the United States may very well be an astute observation of reality, particularly as it comes to white privilege versus black privilege.


And, yes, they are different, and they are tied to race, and that doesn’t make me a racist, it makes me a realist. If anything, I am racist because I am white. Until I have had to walk in a person of color’s skin, I will never understand, I will always take things for granted, and I will be inherently privileged. But by ignoring the very real issues this country still faces in terms of race to promote an as-of-yet imaginary colorblind society, we contribute to the problem at hand, which is centuries of abuses lobbied against other humans on no basis but that of their skin color.

I’m sorry that the author feels that she is racist. That must be a heavy burden to carry around. Not quite a White Man’s Burden, but pretty close.

So the argument seems to be that if we condemn black criminality–thug culture if you will–that means we are piling on to the “centuries of abuse” of black people?

Sure, tell it to the black businesspeople who had their livelihoods destroyed Monday night in Ferguson.

As to the “as-of-yet imaginary colorblind society,” try as I might, I can’t quite figure out how white people excusing rioting by black people is anything but a tacit belief that black people are incapable of behaving like civilized human beings.

Sorbo is not alone. A webpage devoted to Tea Party politics has hundreds of comments disparaging the rioters, bemoaning the state of our country and very much blaming skin color as the culprit of this debauched way of dealing with the state of our society.

‘Tis neither here nor there, dear author. I’m sure we could find hundreds, if not thousands of comments elsewhere on the ‘net–not just disparaging white people, but advocating that violence be directed against them, for no other reason than that they are white–with a quick search.

“To hear the libs, one would think that burning and looting are a justifiable way to judge negative events that effect (sic) the black,” one person wrote. “I intentionally used black because of a fact that you do not hear of these events when another skin color is in play. It is about time that the blacks start cleaning their own backyards before they start on ours.”

One (presumably white) person wrote?

How about what one black person said? “Burn this bitch [Ferguson] down!”

That would be Michael Brown’s stepfather.

However, even the Tea Party gets its name from a riot, The Boston Tea Party. For those who need a quick history brush-up, in 1773 American protesters dumped an entire shipment of tea into the Boston Harbor to protest The Tea Act, which colonists maintained violated their rights. In response to this costly protest and civil unrest, the British government enforced The Coercive Acts, ending local government in Massachusetts, which in turn led to the American Revolution and created our great country.

Now there’s an original defense of rioting. First time I’ve seen that. No, really. Honest.

Samuel Adams wrote of the incident, claiming it “was not the act of a lawless mob, but was instead a principled protest and the only remaining option the people had to defend their constitutional rights” according to John K. Alexander, author of Samuel Adams: America’s Revolutionary Politician.

Note that Sam Adams did not advocate burning down Boston. Oh, that.

That protest back in 1773 was meant to effect political and societal change, and while the destruction of property in that case may not have ended in loss of human life, the revolution that took place afterward certainly did. What separates a heralded victory in history from an attempt at societal change, a cry for help from the country’s trampled, today? The fact that we won.

The author would have us ponder what difference there might be between the American Revolution and riots that destroy black neighborhoods. Ponder away. Shouldn’t take too long.

In terms of riots being more common in black communities, that is true only when the riots are politically aimed.


The obvious example here is the L.A. Riots of 1992, after the Rodney King beating and verdict. I would put forth that peaceful protesting is a luxury of those already in mainstream culture, those who can be assured their voices will be heard without violence, those who can afford to wait for the change they want.

Yes, that is, in fact, an obvious example. The author can feel free to take a midnight stroll through South-Central and get back to us about what a garden spot it is now, 22 years later–and blame whatever problems that remain on white people.

“I risk sounding racist but if this was a white kid there would be no riot,” another person wrote on the Tea Party page. “History shows us that blacks in this country are more apt to riot than any other population. They are stirred up by racist black people and set out to cause problems. End of story.”

I wonder why the author didn’t see fit to name, let alone link to, the website she keeps quoting. Must have been an oversight.

Blacks in this country are more apt to riot because they are one of the populations here who still need to.

Odd that the author doesn’t invoke Martin Luther King, Jr., who seems to have effected change in race relations far more effectively than riots ever have. Probably another oversight.

In the case of the 1992 riots, 30 years of black people trying to talk about their struggles of racial profiling and muted, but still vastly unfair, treatment, came to a boil. Sometimes, enough is simply too much. And after that catalyst event, the landscape of southern California changed, and nationally, police forces took note.

So South-Central is a success story? A poster child for the utility of rioting?

Oh, the author lives in Florida. Never mind.

And the racism they are fighting, the racism we are all fighting, is still alive and well throughout our nation. The modern racism may not culminate in separate water fountains and separate seating in the backs of buses, but its insidious nature is perhaps even more dangerous to the individuals who have to live under the shroud of stereotypical lies society foists upon them.

I’ve largely held my tongue, sorta kinda, but if you think things are worse now then they were during Jim Crow, you’re a blithering idiot–and engaging in an emotive jerk-off that is truly dangerous. Really.

Instead of tearing down other human beings who are acting upon decades of pent-up anger at a system decidedly against them, a system that has told them they are less than human for years, we ought to be reaching out to help them regain the humanity they lost, not when a few set fire to the buildings in Ferguson, but when they were born the wrong color in the post-racial America.

A “system decidedly against them” that tells them they are “less than human”?

Dear author, don’t give up your day job.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: