How so? …
As usual, there is a certain amount of equivocation from the left in the “understanding” of riots.
It is very different in degree. The degree of irrational rage reflects the degree to which those engaged in these acts feel frustrated that no one is listening. Again, I am not excusing violent acts in any way whatsoever. I am just explaining human nature.
Yes, but you say it. We can say the same thing about Rittenhouse for example. I can say, “well, I’m not excusing him for what he did but it’s human nature.” One can say this about anything practically.
Or that things are not going the way they want them to, or that they have found this a useful tactic.
I keep going back to John Brown’s terrorist attack at Harpers Ferry in 1859. We do not condone his actions. But do you understand why he did it?LeafByNiggle:
Yes, but you say it. We can say the same thing about Rittenhouse for example. I can say, “well, I’m not excusing him for what he did but it’s human nature.” One can say this about anything practically.
I don’t know if one can’t condone John Brown’s actions. Lysander Spooner admired him, and proposed a similar course of action, in a pamphlet I believe it was, of guerrilla warfare against the slaveholders.
Well, perhaps the same could be said of people who violently protest for Black Lives Matter (even though most of them are peaceful.) I’m sure some people admire them too. As for me, I will stick with what the Catechism says about the use of violence, which is that it cannot be condoned, except in a just war or in self defense, but certainly not to protest injustice. Yet I can understand why they do it.LeafByNiggle:
I don’t know if one can’t condone John Brown’s actions. Lysander Spooner admired him, and proposed a similar course of action, in a pamphlet I believe it was, of guerrilla warfare against the slaveholders.
Perhaps. Though our situation today is quite different than it was in Brown’s day. I can agree with the Catechism of course (one must) that peaceful means must be exhausted before violence becomes excusable.
Why do you keep going back over a century and a half to Harpers Ferry?
Because themes in history tend to repeat. But the Harpers Ferry incident is far enough in the past that people are not emotionally invested in a position about it, and so we can discuss it in a civil manner. And the situation is similar enough (both dealt with racial injustice) to today that observations about Harpers Ferry might apply to riots today.
OK. So, you and your neighbor Joe work for the same company. He gets fired, so he has to express his rage. He takes a crow bar and smashes the windows in your car because you are still with the company and thus you are representing his enemies. Then he sets your house on fire, because he has a right to protest.LeafByNiggle:
As usual, there is a certain amount of equivocation from the left in the “understanding” of riots.
So Joe smashes a wall in anger because he is fired unfairly.
I can understand that happens from time to time, and even that people sometimes feel like smashing something when they are very angry.
But that is a far cry from when Joe does not smash the wall and simply expresses his anger verbally, and his friends tell him they understand…
Let’s see, John Brown, et al, went to Harper’s Ferry to start a slave rebellion and failed, due in part to a really bad plan.
No, it is not as bad as that. But our standards have risen over the time. What is perhaps more relevant is comparing the state of black families today with the state of white families today.
Leaf, I always appreciate your measured and fact-centric contributions.