"A riot is the language of the unheard"

[Revoltingest]

Which peaceful demonstrations have been successful?

You really don't know of any?
I've seen many such demonstrations during the Viet Nam war.
I say they worked.
Would burning your car or breaking your windows have been better?

There are many movements where the "peaceful" side of the movement worked within a context of violence: MLK had Malcolm X, Gandhi had Chandra Bos, etc.
Or Boston.
The effects of riots vary. And riots tend to happen when other avenues of protest aren't available, or have proven themselves ineffective.

Of course riots happen.
I say they're best avoided.

 

[Deathbydefault]

I think that's what he was going for. It doesn't seem to me that he was saying that riots literally have vocabulary and syntax.

Ah, perhaps.
I felt like he was saying that violence is, in and of itself, the language of the unheard.

 

[LuisDantas]

No, what I'm saying is that if they behaved responsibly and didn't confirm men's ideas that they were all too emotionally inept to vote then that would have been better. By confirming people's biases you only serve to shoot yourself in the foot.

That is only correct if there is another way. There isn't always.

 

[Rival]

They sent those rioting wimminz to jail for breaking windows as a political protest:

They sent them to jail for vandalism. They didn't give them the vote!​

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Remember the suffragists?
Men had the idea that women couldn't vote because they were too emotional.
So what did the suffragists do?
They chained themselves to fences and screamed and threw things.
Ergo, the men's biases were confirmed so they even more refused women's suffrage.
The women only got the vote later.

That would be the Suffragettes you're thinking off. The Suffragists were the original group who campaigned peacefully for womens' suffrage and continued to do so while the Suffragettes took more drastic action. Suffragist campaigns were ineffective and women continued to remain politically marginalised & disenfranchised because it didn't benefit the patriarchy of the day to even acknowledge they had legitimate grievances. The Suffragettes forced people to talk about the issue, got it into the spotlight and made sure it stayed there. They may not have done so glamorously but you can't deny the success of their methods.

 

[LuisDantas]

@Rival :

True enough. I find it premature to conclude that the riots were not justified, useful or even necessary, though.

There are situations where a display of firmness and willingness to pay the price for defiance has no substitute.

 

[Rival]

That would be the Suffragettes you're thinking off. The Suffragists were the original group who campaigned peacefully for womens' suffrage and continued to do so while the Suffragettes took more drastic action. Suffragist campaigns were ineffective and women continued to remain politically marginalised & disenfranchised because it didn't benefit the patriarchy of the day to even acknowledge they had legitimate grievances. The Suffragettes forced people to talk about the issue and got it into the spotlight. They may not have done so glamorously but you can't deny the success of their methods.

Can you imagine that I wasn't vaguely interested when we studied this stuff at school?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, what I'm saying is that if they behaved responsibly and didn't confirm men's ideas that they were all too emotionally inept to vote then that would have been better. By confirming people's biases you only serve to shoot yourself in the foot.

So rather them "confirm men's ideas" that they were too emotional to vote, they should have confirmed men's ideas that they were too passive to vote?

The suffragette movement led to women's suffrage. The effect wasn't immediate - it was a long, hard slog - but women wouldn't have been granted the vote without demanding it forcefully.

 

[Rival]

So rather them "confirm men's ideas" that they were too emotional to vote, they should have confirmed men's ideas that they were too passive to vote?

The suffragette movement led to women's suffrage. The effect wasn't immediate - it was a long, hard slog - but women wouldn't have been granted the vote without demanding it forcefully.

Oh my goodness no.

Flyers? Meetings? Peaceful protests? Banners? Marches? Find a sympathetic MP (they did exist) to bring it up in Parliament? Of course it will take time; change always does.

Even when women did obtain the vote, it wasn't all women. Just like not all men could vote. The full vote was only granted in the 1920s. Pretty much all the lower classes were barred from voting, sex irrelevant.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You really don't know of any?
I've seen many such demonstrations during the Viet Nam war.
I say they worked.
Would burning your car or breaking your windows have been better?

There was plenty of violence in the campaign against the Viet Nam War.

 

[Revoltingest]

That will depend almost entirely on how willing to listen the target people are with and without those riots, won't it?

Ever been in or near a riot?
The violence is usually directed towards people & things who don't deserve it.
If a rioter burned down your business or beat you, would you think to yourself.....
"Justice is served!"
The victims of rioting did no wrong, but they have no face, so they garner no sympathy.
Rioters have no excuse to make them scapegoats & objects of their violent anger.

 

[Kirran]

It's worth noting in that quote from MLK that he's not saying riots are a good idea inandof themselves, he's just saying that naturally they're what's going to happen when people are marginalised and don't feel their voices are heard.

And of course the ruling establishment is going to show disapproval of riots, that's kind of a given!

But riots are a big deal in helping causes gain publicity, getting them into the public eye when they're being made invisible - you can't always just go along with what the ruling social hegemony deems to be 'appropriate'. When the BLM movement was getting going the American conservative media essentially condemned every single instance of black people demanding publicity and awareness of the problems going on, including sitting down during an anthem, protesting, rioting, everything - you are always going to be rejected by the establishment when your very cause is a protest against its inequalities.

Another good example - Stonewall riots.

 

[Revoltingest]

There was plenty of violence in the campaign against the Viet Nam War.

And plenty of non-violence.
You didn't see that?

 

[HonestJoe]

Do you agree with MLK? Do you see a riot as the language of the unheard?

No, and I’ve just gone out to set my neighbours car on fire so you’re all bound to agree with me now.

 

[Thief]

From Martin Luther King (his speech at Stanford entitled "The Other America"):



Do you agree with MLK? Do you see a riot as the language of the unheard?

i cannot agree altogether

such things hold peace and tranquility hostage
by anyone with a gripe

Peace first

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Many suffer injustice without rioting.
It's a choice...an unproductive one.

A riot in the UK is when a mass of people are "declared as a riot". (under the Riot Act) They need not be causing any harm at all , simply too numerous to control. Violence usually only starts when they are physically opposed. The police are responsible in law for paying for any damage caused to limb or property in a riot. So it is in their interest to quite the situation not inflame it.

Those that suffer persistent injustice, most certainly should demonstrate, if possible with out causing any damage. unopposed with force it would not turn into violence.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

No, and I’ve just gone out to set my neighbours car on fire so you’re all bound to agree with me now.

That is not Riot that is arson.

 

[Thief]

If people suffer injustice and they have no effective voice and are ignored.
They will eventually take direct action.

i would hope that action is ....directed to the source of the problem.....
and done so with calm determination

 

[Revoltingest]

A riot in the UK is when a mass of people are "declared as a riot". (under the Riot Act) They need not be causing any harm at all , simply too numerous to control. Violence usually only starts when they are physically opposed. The police are responsible in law for paying for any damage caused to limb or property in a riot. So it is in their interest to quite the situation not inflame it.

Those that suffer persistent injustice, most certainly should demonstrate, if possible with out causing any damage. unopposed with force it would not turn into violence.

The UK definition of "riot" would be bunk then.
I personally don't like any crowds....but if they're peaceful, then they're OK with me.

 

[Kirran]

Also, property destruction is not violence. In many cases it is certainly problematic, but it is not attacking somebody.