11
votes
Why aren't more leaders encouraging protesters to stay home?
I can think of several good reasons why protesting is a really bad idea right now:
- The virus doesn't care if your cause is just.
- If you end up going to jail, that's another hotspot.
- It provides cover for violence.
- The courts are going to do whatever they do at their own pace anyway.
- The long-term work of police reform isn't even going to begin until the crisis is over.
And yet, despite all these good reasons, I don't see leaders, black or otherwise, clearly saying that people should stay home. For example, Obama's statement is carefully neutral on this. It seems to be taboo?
But I'm out of touch. What am I missing?
A bunch of mayors and governors have held press conferences practically begging people to stay home. Several of those pleas have even made the National news, e.g.
https://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2020/05/30/keisha-lance-bottoms-full-address-atlanta-protests-vpx.wgcl
https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1266627406489513984
And many cities have now even instituted curfews to try to force people to do so.
A metric shit ton of pent up anger and frustration that was catalyzed by the death of George Floyd, which is likely being further fueled by the myriad of other long-standing issues still facing the US (systemic injustice, economic inequality, political corruption/ineptitude, etc.). And since people clearly don't feel their voices are being heard, they have decided to make it heard in a way that can't be ignored anymore. People without serious grievances don't protest and riot... and the fact that they are doing so in spite of the dangers of the pandemic should tell you just how fed up and pissed off people really are at this point.
p.s. And it certainly doesn't help that the President of the Unites States is also seemingly trying to fan the flames: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1266231100780744704
Good to know. It seems like for the mayors or governors, telling people to stay home is their job, but there isn't much public support outside that? I'm comparing this to all the passionate essays and memes for staying home due to COVID-19.
If I had to take a guess: much of the pro-lockdown arguing appealed to a sense of shared civic duty. Lots of events over the past month, from the constant reporting on anti-lockdown protests, to the lies of the US administrators, may have eroded people's faith in that shared civic duty. Additionally the COVID-19 outbreak seems to have disproportionately affected Afro-Americans, as well as other marginalized communities, so perhaps a sense has developed that even if they follow along it won't make a difference for them anyways, since they won't receive the help they need?
This is all hypothetical, I don't have hard data to back this up. Additionally I recognize that it might not seem sensible or logical, and I'm not saying it is. But this is what I can imagine making sense from my own, very limited, read on the situation.
I suspect the constant bailouts of corporations with taxpayer money is also playing a part in these frustrations. The overwhelming majority of Americans have seen no meaningful economic relief.
When we bailed out the banks in 2008, what did we see? Money given directly to banks, who then handed out bonuses to their executives and promptly foreclosed on everything in sight. The federal reserve then made changes so that these bailouts no longer need to go through the government, and those bailouts continue into this year. This is, bluntly, the looting of taxpayer money and property by corporate interests. It's been going on for over a decade.
If that money had gone to the homeowners, converting the bad assets held by the banks into good ones, we'd have far fewer homeless people and far fewer derelict houses littering every block in the country. This is the point government continues to ignore - the bailouts must go directly to the people. This is our path to UBI, and I doubt this mess will start to settle down until we have it.
The covid bailouts have made the exact same mistake. The money is either in corporate hands or locked behind a wall of red tape that prevents your average worker from being able to claim their benefits. I filed for my relief in early April and have yet to see it, doubt I'm the only one. I don't need it nearly as bad as most Americans since I have a career in tech and plenty of savings and a cheap place to live. I'm not desperate. The people who have no income other than these tiny handouts are.
Although it's not enough, I wouldn't discount the stimulus checks. I mean, I'm out of touch and I'm just sitting at home reading the news and looking at graphs, but this looks significant?
On the other hand, huge lines at food banks.
I suspect that stat is incredibly misleading. Sure, a lot of upper/upper-middle/middle class people are likely saving a ton of money right now since they have decreased expenses while potentially still earning their full income working from home which is bumping up the savings stats considerably... but minimum wage workers who were already living paycheck to paycheck, those without bank accounts (which is likely way more Americans than you think), and those who are now unemployed, don't have the same luxury of saving their money, are not be reflected in the stats at all (due to being unbanked), and may not even have enough to cover basic necessities anymore (hence the food bank demand).
Also, see: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/may/14/unemployment-us-data-coronavirus
Though, unemployment isn't quite the same financially as it was. Assuming they can actually get through and collect unemployment, some people might be making similar or even higher income while unemployed than they were while working? I don't know how significant that is. More data needed.
Here's one point: With the extra $600 a week, I'm currently making more unemployed than I was employed. I haven't looked into the implications for taxes next year, which may screw me. This far into 2020, though... "next year" seems like "next decade."
Trevor Noah had a really thought provoking video about this. Namely, why rioting makes sense from the perspective of the rioters: https://youtu.be/v4amCfVbA_c
Yes, it's true that there is always someone saying it, but this argument is in danger of proving too much. Are you making a generic argument that protests are always good, because someone is always opposed to them? Or might it be that some tactics are smarter than others?
Also, it seems like there might be other choices, besides traditional protests and doing nothing? It seems like for other important gatherings affected by the virus, such as political rallies and religious worship, we look for alternatives.
You can mute a zoom call, you can't ignore a protest.
There is not likely to be a better time for massive, reforming protests globally. It is literally going to kill people to do it, but the usual choke point of 'I have to go to work to eat' has no power when your workplace is closed due to coronavirus. These protests in the US are going to have steam. It's honestly a crapshoot whether the higher death toll will be from coronavirus or from automatic weapons being sent in to end things (if you think it won't happen, consider your leadership).
No... It isn't. Over 100k Americans have already died from COVID-19. That's more than every war we've ever fought besides the civil war and ww2. Possible? I guess, maybe there's some remote chance? A crapshoot? Nah. COVID will almost certainly remain multiple orders of magnitude more deadly.
You haven't said why it's a better time, though. It seems like you're predicting bad results, which would make it a worse time?
https://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html
Yes, I'm familiar. But what are you trying to say by quoting that?
I quoted it because it seems a pretty appropriate response to this topic, your comment above, and other things you have said in this topic about waiting until Nov, Federal regulations taking time, and how this is a bad time to protest because of Coronavirus.
p.s. Another part of the letter also seems applicable as well:
Yeah, I feel like these quotes are mostly used to shut down discussion by making certain things sacred and beyond criticism. It seems like there ought to be a better way to learn from history?
[Edited - I had said something before about not expecting sympathy from Trump or the Senate.]
Edit: I see you changed your comment while I was writing my response. I will leave my comment below as is, but also want to make it clear that my intent was not to make things sacrosanct (except for the right to protest). My intent was merely to point you to another opinion (one from MLK) that seems to go against your own advocating for people to stop protesting. You're still free to debate the words I quoted, point out if you think I interpreted them incorrectly, point out if I misunderstood you and your intent here, or you think I misapplied MLKs words... and I was not trying to deny you that.
I don't expect sympathy from them either, but quoting MLK wasn't for their sake, it was for you, who keeps advocating for people "staying home", essentially asking everyone to wait for a "more convenient season" to protest. And sure, some police are local, but implementing civilian oversight even on local police from the State and even Federal government is not outside the realm of possibility. See: https://coloradosun.com/2020/05/29/colorado-police-death-investigations-george-floyd.
And as for the Senate Republicans, you can bet your ass that thanks to such large scale protests and riots, they are starting to think twice about their policy of obstruction and blind support of the President. I imagine even the most stubborn of them can see the writing on the wall at this point, especially since Washington itself is quite literally burning right now. St. John’s church across from the White House was set on fire tonight, as was another building just across from it in Lafayette Park (top middle-right buildings in this satellite pic). The Civil Rights Act was passed under somewhat similar, though even less dire, circumstances, so I don't see why a Police Oversight Act couldn't be either.
That sounds promising in Colorado. I don't share your optimism about the Senate.
I edited my comment after I noticed you changed yours, so I hope my edit clears things up a bit... my intent definitely wasn't to shut you down, and I am more than open to discussing this further if you want.
As for the Senate, truthfully, I am not entirely sure they are capable of actually changing their path at this point either, and may even double down as they have often done before. However, the sheer amount of people out in the streets right now is insane and unless they give at least a little, this likely is just going to keep escalating and I don't imagine it will end well for them.
None of these are enough to stop the rage that convinces people to go out and do something about it.
I haven't seen what anybody has said except for Killer Mike, who pretty much said "organize, and beat them up at the polls," but police racism is generally such a hot issue that the response to a police-related death is anger, but anger leads to all sorts of arguably bad behaviors.
I honestly don't know where to start on the rioting aside from it being an expression of this anger fed by an extremely small minority of the large group, or even instigated by agent provocateurs, because I simply have no way of understanding that mindset, or how mob mentality can lead to individuals part of a larger group making terrible decisions. The best I can get, looking at the history of police violence-motivated riots is that it is an irrational expression of this anger. Unfortunately, most avenues of expressing anger are irrational, if not outright dangerous and harmful.
I think you're assuming its two different easily separated groups.
I remember the first riot I went to when I was a kid - it all started peacefully and I sure wasn't interested in rioting - but then the police came. They ran their horses through the crowd, a friend got beat up in an alley when he was going from his home to his job (he had never even been to the protests), one guy got shot, the people I was with who was a peaceful lot who where there protesting got beat up en masse - the day after that I brought a mask and helped build barricades.
The difference is that barricades work and the police didn't care one bit if it was "those lefties who riot" or "those lefties who protest" when they did their horse rushes - and the horses didn't care who they ran down, the dogs didn't care who they bit and the cops didn't care who got maced, clubbed or stomped in to the ground.
When you get beat up by police, get dragged off to be bussed in to the woods, have to lie down and cover your head hoping you wont get a hoof in the head. When you get every single shade of bruise and still feel lucky you're not in hospital - you can either go "You know, I mean the protest is really valuable to me - but I will stay at home" or "Screw these cops" you never go "Hey maybe the cops are right, why protest?".
All protests are frustration based - a valve that needs to be opened to let go of steam combined with a sincere hope "someone notice this anger and do something". I can be a sense of self-definition through self defense too. It can be pure anger. They all contain a mix of motivations, opinions and personalities.
I've never been to one that included looting though - which seems to be fairly common in the US variants. I mean yeah sure, I've been to one where people started passing sodas along from a burnt out shop as it was warm as hell.
Either way, assuming that there is two distinct groups at work or that there is some easy logic that keeps those two kinds of protestors apart is misleading. The longer a protest lasts, the more in-efficient the police and government representatives are at actually facing the issue, the more violent it can become.
Its also far from modern in nature. Hell if you want to be a bit on the nose about it - my country's whole current set up is based partly on the reaction to a massive protest which most definitely included looting (This was "the bread riots" in 1917)
Haven't been to a riot in decades though - actually that is a bit of a lie. Me and my husband hid a couple of kids fleeing the cops once by quickly getting them changed out of the "rioteer" clothing and pretending they where with us at a café table. Oh and demonstrating against nazis where part of the demonstration really got violent even though we wheren't in that part but we didn't leave the demonstration. But beyond that not so much.
I don't think so. They are distinct groups. A protest can turn into a riot for any number of internal or external reasons. A situation with an agent provocateur is specifically a situation where a third party has sought to strategically influence what had the potential to remain a peaceful protest. But, I don't want to get hung up on this, because it's only a minor point. I want to stress that there is a wide amount of possibilities for a group of initially peaceful protestors, either organically or through external influence to turn bad, but the provocateur situation is specifically a separate sort of incitement to violence.
At risk of splitting hairs, I'm not trying to make the argument against protesting, either. I think during a time of a currently unstoppable pandemic, it's a horrible idea, but if done responsibly it would be an even stronger way to make a point. There is nothing at all beneficial in the violent catharsis of riots or looting, in the American contexts I've seen in the past few decades, that is rational or well-meaning, because there is nothing in these riots done with any intent. Even the Minneapolis police precinct that was set on fire was done out of opportunity, rather than as the result of some grand design. In an American context, I'd argue, rioting is accidental at best, and opportunist at worst. This isn't a war or a revolution, it is akin to the many times I've punched a couple walls in anger and only come away with a bruised fist. I wasn't taken any more seriously afterward, and history has shown that people of color won't be taken more seriously after these sorts of events in the US. I sincerely hope that it changes this time, and seeing some responses, I think it's already happening, but only time will tell.
I've never seen an agent provocateur in real life. 20+ years across several countries and I've heard about it, but never seen one.
I've seen random people using protests to get insurance money for their car by torching it, people using the situation to trash a place they don't like etc - but never someone going in with ulterior motives beyond perhaps "come on everybody lets do this thing I want!" and its never very nefarious or particularly covert (seriously how is that gonna work in any realistic way?).
EDIT: I've seen people who wanted to beat the shit out of protestors sneak in and attack them though... but thats about it.
I mean civilian cops dressed as protestors isn't odd - they do this, but mostly as a way to arrest or apprehend people, not to provoke more action.
The chance that its just one person doing one thing because they want to and then others come along is way higher than some secret well planned psy-op false-flag operation thing.
There isn't two distinct groups, just a wide array of motivations that intermingle in the same chaotic way as the rest of life.
As for intent - take the bread riots here - they started with people being hungry and suspecting shop owners for having a black market. So a lot of women mostly looted and rushed stores to get bread which they stole, often torching a place or two and beating up the shop keepers. A couple of months later the royal family fled the country, in the parliament a politician stood up as riots where heard outside screaming "A cheer for the parliament of the streets!" and the end effect was the popular vote, a system of balances in a continuing conflict between interested parties, workers rights etc etc. 100+ years later many of the systems set in play then are still part of our political life.
I wonder if that first lady who went "Screw this, I am stealing some bread today!" thought that would be the end result? Or the kid that flung the first rock at a cop had any notion about the complexities involved by allowing for a yearly recurring conflict between unions and employer organizations to set wages for that year - complexities his tiny moment of release of all that rage in one violent pointless action was part in setting in play?
Or... to move the examples in to the US, the first people dressing up as First Nation people storming some ship and trashing their shipment had any real understanding or plan for what they set in motion?
Not saying this is ALL protests. Just that anger, frustration, and pure unadulterated rage are often meaningless in the long run, and just symptoms for something deeper - but sometimes, just sometimes, the results go beyond anything any well ordered meeting in a town hall can comprehend or even dream of.
EDIT: not saying that the well ordered meetings don't have a place here. They do! Without them a riot is just a punch up in a car park. They provide the "sane alternative" the party that can be reasoned with that anyone in authority needs to cooperate with unless they want to try to talk and cooperate with the rioters.
Regarding "why riot?", the best explanation I've seen was on twitter and went something like "well, we've tried peaceful protests for years now and you didn't like that either." Remember BLM peacefully blocking highways? Kneeling NFL players? Yeah, we all do. Nothing changed though. Now that the capitalists' property is threatened, maybe we'll see some real change. Apparently, the conspiracy nuts are right and if you want to see change in the US, you gotta "follow the money".
That doesn't mean I condone violence against humans in any way here. From either side. Don't beat each other up or tear gas protesters.
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable." Well, as long as the violence is mostly limited to property..
It seems to me that we remember those BLM actions because they were the most effective at getting attention. I would count the Black Lives Matter movement as very successful in bringing attention, sympathy, and greater understanding for blacks, at least from half the country. But it was also polarizing and it also got a lot of negative attention from people already not inclined to listen.
Getting real reform of the police seems harder. I honestly don't know what progress has been made? Not enough, clearly.
Yeah exactly. I mean, we do remember those protests. But apparently, that didn't do it, and it got backlash too. So if peaceful protests get moderate attention and backlash but no change, why not try riots? I'm not sure it's the right choice, but considering the injustice involved, it's worth a shot. You'll get more attention, probably some amount more backlash and a fresh chance at change. And considering how the police is reacting to some of the peaceful protests right now, they're going to get some serious backlash too. Reddit is chock full of footage of atrocities against peaceful civilians. With context often missing, it's hard to judge, but it really doesn't look like an at all appropriate police response. Seems like police is still driving escalation. Which, you know, makes the rioters look comparatively good.
Well, one answer to "why not" is that it could make things worse. And I'm not sure that it's really "no change". Though, terrible incidents keep happening.
It seems like treating this as a national issue obscures crucial details. If there is change to how policing is done or improving relationships between police and communities, it will be local and gradual. Are some cities doing better than others? How would we know, as casual watchers of the news? Seeing the worst incidents doesn't tell us what's going on day-to-day.
If I was a black American, gradual change just wouldn't do it anymore. Heck, if I was any American, after seeing how the protests and unaffiliated civilians are being treated, gradual change wouldn't do it anymore. You can't leave it to local authorities. Sure, they can go right ahead and display how exemplary their police training is and how well their deescalation protocols are working. But what's needed now is a federal law that restricts privileges of cops and raises requirements. Removes their immunity, establishes training minimums, establishes independent investigations into complaints against police. If you rely on states to do it, you're waiting on 50 different bills, at the county level it's already 3000 different jurisdictions.
To make that happen, though, we have an election to win in November, and it won't really start until January. So if you want to see federal action, there's still going to be a lot of waiting. And more if the Democrats lose.
And then, new laws and regulations at the Federal level take time to have a practical impact at the local level.
Federal action usually isn't quick. Some states and some cities will move quicker, I'd guess.
I don't think it's too much to ask for a national registry of documented violent police officers (particularly given the amount of data broadly collected on citizens), including the remedial actions their departments have taken. There have been repeated incidents where a local police department publicly disciplines a violent officer and quietly rehires them or recommends them to another community. There have been numerous instances where a police union intervened to prevent any discipline at all, even when there's extensive documentation of an officer's use of unnecessary force. Having a national, preferably public, registry should help illuminate places with systemic problems, and it's within the power of the federal government to establish this nationwide.
I mean, by all means every level should try and do their part. I wonder though whether continued riots will cause the federal govt. to get some sense. The effect does not need to be immediate. But passing a law now that is both intended and capable of fixing this mess would stop those riots real quick. Now that the riots have started, waiting for an elected regime change is no longer an option. Trump / congress needs to act or this will keep spiraling out of control.
My guess is once the police has the three choices of using live ammo, getting shot at or disobeying orders, the President won't be a president for much longer. Once this thing turns from less-lethal to lethal violence in more than just isolated incidents, everyone will want the govt to provide a fix. Given what we've seen, unless the police significantly pump the brakes and let protesters protest, this will only get worse.
Point being, these riots aren't stopping until you have a national solution for it. Is a national solution quickest or best? Maybe not, but it's too late now. (Ironically, yes, it is too late to implement the quicker solution.)
I mean, hey, what do I know, I'm on the outside.
The US Federal government might not have the power to pass that kind of sweeping law under the Constitution. I was able to find this article from 2016, for example, Federal Power over Local Law Enforcement
Reform: Legal Issues discussing constitutionality and states vs federal powers. I am very much not a lawyer, but the impression i get is that it's much less clear cut than "just pass a federal law".
Having read a three volume biography of Martin Luther King Jr, he comes across as a strategist. It seems like the idea was to get good press for the movement to increase sympathy and to force a reluctant Federal government to get involved.
It was more complicated than that, though. Sometimes he got involved in things he didn't start out of obligation. Also I'm not saying the results were predictable, just that they had some idea about what might work and why.
That sort of leadership seems like a rare exception, though?
I think it's important to remember that these protests aren't the only method by which people are advocating for racial justice -- they're simply what has the nation's spotlight at the moment. There are tons of people who are working for change in manners that are more in alignment with strategy, but their work is often less news-grabbing.
I can recommend two people whose work I've really appreciated: Michelle Alexander wrote The New Jim Crow and Carol Anderson wrote One Person, No Vote. Both books are policy-level views and critiques of systemic racism in mass incarceration and voter suppression respectively.
Axios published an article on this subject today, which links to a couple of other recent ones that include some statements from leaders and more info: