So what do we call this kind of political violence?
“Shoot that cop!” shouted one of the rioters on the streets of Oakland, California. “Shoot him!”
As violence broke out in that city following an unpopular jury verdict, I found myself asking again: What do we call this kind of political unrest?
By most accounts, the verdict was astonishing: an all-white jury convicted a Bay Area Rapid Transit cop of the minor charge of involuntary manslaughter, after the white officer shot an unarmed and subdued black man in the back.
The officer claimed that he meant to reach for his Taser.
Outrage, protest, serious questions about the criminal justice system that led to this outcome, all of those responses would be legitimate.
But for African-American rioters to smash storefronts, set fires, and mob streets — no. This from the LA Times:
As darkness fell about 8 p.m. and most of the demonstrators went home, a group of people dressed in black and wearing black masks moved toward police.
“It was clear that they were taking an aggressive posture. … We started taking a number of rocks and bottles,” [Oakland police chief Anthony] Batts said.
Roughly 80 people have been arrested so far.
And once again, this raises a legitimate question about the people in our society who are actually deploying violence as part of their political voice.
(A similar In Box discussion involving the recent G20 meeting in Canada can be found here.)
Imagine the national outrage if tea partiers rioted in the streets after a jury verdict went against their cause or their allies.
The political backlash would be extraordinary, and rightly so. National conservative leaders would be called upon to condemn the mayhem.
It strikes me that a similar statement is needed here from Democratic and African American community leaders.
Yes, they should call for a Federal probe into the way that this verdict was reached, and into BART’s record of interacting with minorities.
But they should also condemn unequivocally members of their activist community that resort to this kind of violence and intimidation.
But if a black cop shoots a white in the same situation you don’t get riots. Why?
It’s called American history, Bret. Read some.
Not to worry anon. That’s what I spend my time doing most evenings. But that has nothing to do with this discussion. Slavery is long gone. Are you of the opinion we should still be apologizing for something we never took part in, that in some cases our ancestors fought and went to war over?
What are you reading? I recommend the LBJ books by Robert Caro. It will tell you a whole lot about how modern politics works. And doesn’t. And it’s all factual. Not that facts seem to matter to people. http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/07/11/how_facts_backfire/?page=full
One last question for Brian: What does this incident have to do with the North Country? It’s provocative to discuss race, certainly, and a lot of us got sucked into this discussion. But how is this relevant to NCPR listener’s lives, except in a carnie kind of way?
Currently I’m reading “The 5000 Year Leap” and “A Patriots Guide to US History”. Just finished “1776”, 3rd time I think, and “Undaunted Courage”. Recently finished Amity Shlaes “The Forgotten Man”, I highly recommend it.