Riots Are The Language of The Unheard

By Ada Carpenter Editor-in-Chief

The civil unrest and mass protests currently underway in the United States are an outburst of built-up racial tensions, caused by the long history of discrimination, injustice, and ongoing police brutality against Black people and minority ethnic groups. Around the world, citizens have been taking action in solidarity with the Black Lives Matter protests, as well as standing against issues of inequality in their own country. As stories and snapshots of the clashes between protesters and police officers in these protests reach the mainstream, many have condemned the use of violence as a tool for effective protest. But the very fact that these headlines exist proves the ability of violent protest to reach a global audience. In such poignant displays, the importance and even desperation of the movement is publicized; the fact that it has come to this is in itself a statement. In the face of oppression and brutality, violent protest may be the only acceptable option for many, and the only answer that will achieve change.

However, as confrontations between civilians and police forces escalate, political and media commentary paints protesters as hooligans and thugs, attempting to undermine the legitimacy of their protests. Instead they are called dangerous riots, and the focus is shifted to the short-term effects of the action rather than the motivations of the protestors. Spectators are encouraged to condemn the images of burning flags and smashed glass without fully recognizing the reasons behind the movement itself. This can be fatal to protests that lose public support. Even so, the portrayal of protests will always be adjusted to suit the politics and purposes of the speaker. 

Recently, the media focus on looting during Black Lives Matter protests has served as a convenient diversion from ongoing police brutality against protesters. The use of “non-lethal” weapons including tear gas and rubber bullets to disperse even peaceful marches displays an irony not lost on the demonstrators. In the face of such state violence, suggesting that protesters must remain passive and peaceful is applying a shocking double standard. When government security forces do not use live ammunition, they are called moderate; when protesters so much as pick up a rock, the label of riot is used to justify harsher state responses. Those who denounce violent protest simultaneously normalize police brutality; this often racially motivated bias is the very crux of the movement currently underway. 

Movements that involve direct clashes with state forces or cause property damage are effective in quickly bringing national and global attention to an issue. While peaceful protest can raise awareness, and in some cases slowly effect change, active dissent and civil unrest demonstrate the urgency of the situation. In addition, violent protest has historically been successful in achieving change against oppression; for example in the overthrow of colonizers, or in the democratization of repressive military states, because it cannot be so easily silenced. Passive resistances in the Arab Spring, often celebrated as a triumph for nonviolence, were actually accompanied by strategic violence against national security forces that led to regime change. In Korea, the Gwangju Uprising of May 18, 1980 is considered to be a pivotal moment in the struggle for democracy. 

Martin Luther King himself — often idolized as the symbol of nonviolent protest — described riots as “the language of the unheard.” In the US, racial oppression has existed in different forms for centuries; when the nation has failed to hear the calls for justice, what can be expected but mounting anger? Many protests that begin peacefully escalate to violence and vandalism when it becomes clear that little is changing. In Hong Kong, anti-government protesters have felt that they must turn to extreme measures to protect their freedom;  a graffiti message left on the wall of the city’s vandalized Legislative Council building read: “You taught me peaceful protests are futile.”

Very few individuals would choose violence over pacifism in protest if they were sure to be heard.  But when quiet calls for change have fallen on deaf ears, or met with disproportionate state repression, movements can become violent by necessity — releasing the anger and suffering of the oppressed in a way that cannot be ignored. When protesters feel they have nothing to lose, the world pays attention. To bring significant change, violence is sometimes the answer.

Challenging the Status Quo Through Civil Disobedience

By Jaymee Palma Assistant Editor

The world seems to have reached its boiling point. Protests are sparking up around the world, decrying racism, threats to democracy, and human rights violations — from the prominent Black Lives Matter movement in the US and the Hong Kong protests calling for democratic reform, to lesser known ones such as the protests to protect free speech in the Philippines and the demonstrations against police brutality in Israel and Brazil. Many of the protests that make headlines are widely portrayed as chaotic, with civilians and police forces clashing violently. Historically, violent protests undeniably turn into some of the most successful revolutions that bring about political and social change. However, the power of nonviolent resistance is often ignored. In reality, non-violence is often more effective than resorting to brute force and campaign militarization. 

There are many critics of non-violent resistance, equating “non-violent” to “passive”. But practicing non-violence in protests does not mean standing idly while holding a sign. It can manifest in actively participating in strikes, boycotts, sit-ins, and other forms of civil disobedience. The latest example is the Extinction Rebellion (XR) movement, which uses sit-ins to disrupt the busiest areas in cities to bring awareness to issues of climate change. Although we have not yet seen concrete changes directly caused by XR, it has started a global conversation and gained massive support from public figures and youth around the world. Non-violent action also played a surprisingly large role in the fall of the apartheid government in South Africa. One of the strategies of the anti-apartheid movement was the consumer boycotts of white-owned businesses, which led to a chain reaction of protests and strikes, eventually forcing the government to negotiate and hold the first open elections. Challenging the status quo by refusing to participate in it can be a powerful, disruptive tool to elicit change.

Although there is an ethical argument for non-violence, its effectiveness does not only lie in taking the moral high ground, but on more practical factors as well. Civil disobedience has lower barriers for mass participation, since it doesn’t place people in direct physical danger. Erica Chenoweth, a political scientist at Harvard, has shown that non-violent protests attract up to 11 times more support than violent ones. A large number of active participants practicing civil disobedience can significantly change policies, especially if their actions are coordinated such that it undermines the social and economic power of the ruling class. In fact, Chenoweth’s research says that if 3.5% of the population actively engages in boycotts, sit-ins, and other small acts of protest, success of the movement is inevitable. Another important effect of the strength in numbers, especially in protests, is the possibility of shifting loyalties even within the regime. When faced with orders to shoot down a peaceful crowd, security forces can refuse orders based on moral principles, and by joining the majority, they have less fear of repercussions. The People Power Movement in the Philippines is proof of this; at the height of demonstrations in 1986, over two million Filipino civilians marched in one of the busiest streets of Manila and demanded the ouster of the dictatorial Ferdinand Marcos regime.  A majority of the security forces that were loyal to Marcos defected and declared support for the rebellion, effectively ending the oppressive dictatorship. 

Even if protest movements are repressed by government forces, it is important not to descend into chaos and violence, but to organize and strike back in other forms of resistance. Although easier said than done, descending to the level of the oppressors can do more harm than good in the long run. Regimes that use violent tactics to silence protesters have the advantage in terms of military or police power. There is also less support for protests that are perceived to be violent, as most people tend to support law and order over riots that cause indiscriminate damage — even if it is for a worthy cause. The Black Lives Matter movement is a good example of this; their main goal of ending police brutality and racial discrimination is at the risk of becoming overshadowed by the looting and arson that is now being highlighted by mainstream media. 

Civil disobedience doesn’t always work; for every successful non-violent resistance movement, there are tens or even hundreds more that are silenced by oppressive regimes. However, there is no evidence that resorting to violence can succeed where non-violence fails. Non-violent resistance produces more positive results in terms of long-term impact, and is sustained by the principle of strength in numbers. We must understand the effectiveness of organizing acts of civil disobedience — especially now, at a time when the world is faced with multiple crises and atrocious displays of human rights violations.