2. BLM & Violent Protest: A Justification and a Warning
Anonymously published, March 2020
Editor's note & Preface: This article, like others in this edition of The Magazine, was controversial from its inception. Is it ever right to condone violent protest? Do you have a right to express an opinion if you're not black? Allying one's self with the black community is somewhat different from expressing your own opinion. However, we have an obligation to stand with those that do not have what some already possess: equality and justice. This article expresses controversial but relevant opinions on some of the most pressing topics related to the Black Lives Matter movement and protests.
Violence in the Civil Rights Movement
On May 25, 46-year-old George Floyd died after a police officer pinned him to the ground with his knee in Minneapolis, Minnesota. The police officers were responding to a call claiming that Mr. Floyd had tried to use a counterfeit $20 bill at a community store. Despite Mr. Floyd’s clear pleas that he was unable to breathe, Derek Chauvin continued to employ force restraining Mr. Floyd’s neck, a tactic that police are taught is both unnecessary and dangerous. Horrifying footage of the incident took over social media, with calls for justice for Floyd and condemnation of the legacy of police brutality against the Black community coming to life through petitions, hashtags, and campaigns. The four officers in question, Derek Chauvin, Thomas Lane, Tou Thao, and J. Alexander Keung, were fired, and Chauvin was arrested on May 29 on the charge of third-degree muder and second-degree manslaughter.
The delayed arrest of Chauvin coupled with the leniency in the charge enraged the public. Across the U.S., demonstrators have taken to the streets to protest the systematic racism and brutality the black community continues to grapple with. Onlookers watched in anguish as peaceful protests erupted into violence and chaos, with multitudes of buildings ransacked and set on fire.
Mass assemblies of the public united by a common desire to invoke change are nothing new. From the Boston Tea Party to the Civil Rights Movement, the March for Our Lives to the Climate Strike, and now protests in the name of justice for those who have fallen victim to police brutality, the right to assemble through protests and demonstrations has long reigned as a crucial method to express the will of the public.
In recorded history, most instances of civil unrest have come in the form of riots. It was in the 20th Century that Gandhi pioneered peaceful demonstration for India’s independence as a mechanism to invoke social change, and Martin Luther King Jr. solidified it during the Civil Rights Movement. The Civil Rights Movement spanned two decades, and was a mass protest to grant Black Americans equal rights and protections under the law and in society. It ranged from peaceful demonstrations like the March on Washington in 1963, which were promoted by M.L.K. Jr.’s nonviolent teachings, to the immense bloodshed of riots such as those that took place during the Long, Hot Summer of 1967. Although the movement is championed in history textbooks, the inequality and systematic racism they fought against are still inherently present today.
Ultimately, the right to assemble remains a central pillar in the foundation of democracy. It is undeniable that the riots currently sweeping across the nation are an act of grievance and rage against a broken society that was built on oppressive principles and continues to fail Black America. When activists feel their voices go unheard, movements can quickly morph into riots as a desperate attempt to bring attention to their cause. The question remains, can violent civil unrest actually lead to positive social progress? One thing is certain: tens of thousands of people would not be protesting across the country if true injustice was not occurring. The sheer existence of these riots and movements should be signal enough that change needs to happen.
On May 25, 46-year-old George Floyd died after a police officer pinned him to the ground with his knee in Minneapolis, Minnesota. The police officers were responding to a call claiming that Mr. Floyd had tried to use a counterfeit $20 bill at a community store. Despite Mr. Floyd’s clear pleas that he was unable to breathe, Derek Chauvin continued to employ force restraining Mr. Floyd’s neck, a tactic that police are taught is both unnecessary and dangerous. Horrifying footage of the incident took over social media, with calls for justice for Floyd and condemnation of the legacy of police brutality against the Black community coming to life through petitions, hashtags, and campaigns. The four officers in question, Derek Chauvin, Thomas Lane, Tou Thao, and J. Alexander Keung, were fired, and Chauvin was arrested on May 29 on the charge of third-degree muder and second-degree manslaughter.
The delayed arrest of Chauvin coupled with the leniency in the charge enraged the public. Across the U.S., demonstrators have taken to the streets to protest the systematic racism and brutality the black community continues to grapple with. Onlookers watched in anguish as peaceful protests erupted into violence and chaos, with multitudes of buildings ransacked and set on fire.
Mass assemblies of the public united by a common desire to invoke change are nothing new. From the Boston Tea Party to the Civil Rights Movement, the March for Our Lives to the Climate Strike, and now protests in the name of justice for those who have fallen victim to police brutality, the right to assemble through protests and demonstrations has long reigned as a crucial method to express the will of the public.
In recorded history, most instances of civil unrest have come in the form of riots. It was in the 20th Century that Gandhi pioneered peaceful demonstration for India’s independence as a mechanism to invoke social change, and Martin Luther King Jr. solidified it during the Civil Rights Movement. The Civil Rights Movement spanned two decades, and was a mass protest to grant Black Americans equal rights and protections under the law and in society. It ranged from peaceful demonstrations like the March on Washington in 1963, which were promoted by M.L.K. Jr.’s nonviolent teachings, to the immense bloodshed of riots such as those that took place during the Long, Hot Summer of 1967. Although the movement is championed in history textbooks, the inequality and systematic racism they fought against are still inherently present today.
Ultimately, the right to assemble remains a central pillar in the foundation of democracy. It is undeniable that the riots currently sweeping across the nation are an act of grievance and rage against a broken society that was built on oppressive principles and continues to fail Black America. When activists feel their voices go unheard, movements can quickly morph into riots as a desperate attempt to bring attention to their cause. The question remains, can violent civil unrest actually lead to positive social progress? One thing is certain: tens of thousands of people would not be protesting across the country if true injustice was not occurring. The sheer existence of these riots and movements should be signal enough that change needs to happen.
The Futility of Violence
Yes, police brutality must end. Yes, the system allows for it. No, the answer is not violence.
There is a principle in governance known as Weber’s Orthodoxy, which states that violent protest is only justified as an action against the state itself and that violence is otherwise incompatible. The most notable defier of Weber’s Orthodoxy was Malcolm X.
Malcolm X, a prominent mid-20th century civil rights figure, condoned violent protest as a means of gaining government recognition and fostering policy change on a national level. He once remarked that “I am for violence if non-violence means we continue postponing a solution to the American black man's problem just to avoid violence.” This quote summarizes the commonplace argument for violent activism.
This apostate to nonviolent crime heavily contradicted Martin Luther King, Jr., one of the largest proponents of nonviolent protest. In 1958, King was quoted saying, “Hate begets hate; violence begets violence; toughness begets a greater toughness. We must meet the forces of hate with the power of love.” Both Dr. King and Malcolm X were assassinated for their beliefs. Both wanted the same outcome: a better life for black children, black parents. Both wanted a better future for those discriminated against and the subject of unmitigated yet lawful racism.
One went down in history as a supremacist, a controversial man that was assassinated and ended an era of violence associated with the Civil Rights movement. A week before his murder in 1965 his home was firebombed. The other is remembered as a hero to African Americans and one of the greats in American history, spoken about in reverent tones for his nonviolent methods of protests. The March on Washington, which occurred on August 28, 1963, is largely considered the pinnacle of the Civil Rights movement, amassing 250,000 people to protest unjust wages and to relate his vision for a just America. He will be remembered as a hero.
There are a few questions violent protestors must ask themselves, however: If I get captured, can I make change from jail? If I am considered a danger to my enemies and a liability to my friends because I am perceived negatively by those around me, will anyone listen, or just consider me a radical? Is it worth being dismissed as a terrorist in exchange for sacrificing my ability to make actual change within the system?
Malcolm X believed it was worth it, and has a legacy of violence and controversy as his reward. Dr. King, Jr. had an influential role in drafting the famed Civil Rights act of 1964, which banned all segregation, in both public and private accommodations. Additionally, the act held states accountable for suppressing black voters. Dr. King, nearly inarguably, was the most influential leader in giving African Americans a voice.
Police brutality comes from racism inherent not in the system, but in people. Would anarchy be preferable to law enforcement? What violent action could end racist practices inherent in police officers, and not the system? Should your philosophy be an eye for an eye? Violence is not the answer. Anarchy is not the answer. Revenge is not the answer. Punishing all police across the nation for an action that four of them took is not the answer. As King discovered, the only constructive method of fixing a system is from within it.
Editor's note: We understand that not all violence is related to the Black Lives Matter protests themselves.
Yes, police brutality must end. Yes, the system allows for it. No, the answer is not violence.
There is a principle in governance known as Weber’s Orthodoxy, which states that violent protest is only justified as an action against the state itself and that violence is otherwise incompatible. The most notable defier of Weber’s Orthodoxy was Malcolm X.
Malcolm X, a prominent mid-20th century civil rights figure, condoned violent protest as a means of gaining government recognition and fostering policy change on a national level. He once remarked that “I am for violence if non-violence means we continue postponing a solution to the American black man's problem just to avoid violence.” This quote summarizes the commonplace argument for violent activism.
This apostate to nonviolent crime heavily contradicted Martin Luther King, Jr., one of the largest proponents of nonviolent protest. In 1958, King was quoted saying, “Hate begets hate; violence begets violence; toughness begets a greater toughness. We must meet the forces of hate with the power of love.” Both Dr. King and Malcolm X were assassinated for their beliefs. Both wanted the same outcome: a better life for black children, black parents. Both wanted a better future for those discriminated against and the subject of unmitigated yet lawful racism.
One went down in history as a supremacist, a controversial man that was assassinated and ended an era of violence associated with the Civil Rights movement. A week before his murder in 1965 his home was firebombed. The other is remembered as a hero to African Americans and one of the greats in American history, spoken about in reverent tones for his nonviolent methods of protests. The March on Washington, which occurred on August 28, 1963, is largely considered the pinnacle of the Civil Rights movement, amassing 250,000 people to protest unjust wages and to relate his vision for a just America. He will be remembered as a hero.
There are a few questions violent protestors must ask themselves, however: If I get captured, can I make change from jail? If I am considered a danger to my enemies and a liability to my friends because I am perceived negatively by those around me, will anyone listen, or just consider me a radical? Is it worth being dismissed as a terrorist in exchange for sacrificing my ability to make actual change within the system?
Malcolm X believed it was worth it, and has a legacy of violence and controversy as his reward. Dr. King, Jr. had an influential role in drafting the famed Civil Rights act of 1964, which banned all segregation, in both public and private accommodations. Additionally, the act held states accountable for suppressing black voters. Dr. King, nearly inarguably, was the most influential leader in giving African Americans a voice.
Police brutality comes from racism inherent not in the system, but in people. Would anarchy be preferable to law enforcement? What violent action could end racist practices inherent in police officers, and not the system? Should your philosophy be an eye for an eye? Violence is not the answer. Anarchy is not the answer. Revenge is not the answer. Punishing all police across the nation for an action that four of them took is not the answer. As King discovered, the only constructive method of fixing a system is from within it.
Editor's note: We understand that not all violence is related to the Black Lives Matter protests themselves.
Violence: The Solution to Systemic Failure
Public schools teach about MLK, not Malcom X. They preach the perspective of peaceful protest, insinuating that the structures which keep hold on society are receptive to civil discourse. With these stories, it’s unsurprising that society’s knee-jerk reaction in the face of social issues may be toward peaceful protest. The problem with this, however, is that the message students receive is a direct product of the nature of their messenger. Public schools are inclined to teach narratives of peaceful protest because they are designed to prepare students for what the school system likes to call “the real world.” In reality, they’re only raising a generation that is best positioned to maintain their idea of the real world, one which has been built for the perpetuation of white supremacy and racism.
The killing of George Floyd has resulted in protests that bear contrast to the traditional model of civil disobedience that is taught in schools. The education system would traditionally direct people to write letters, voting in favor of their perspectives, and protesting peacefully if they gathered at all. In this case, protests have escalated to the point where national monuments are being vandalized and the National Guard has been called in as riot control. The perspective which supports these more violent forms of protest claims that riots make a statement on police power dynamics, and are the only mechanism for black liberation.
Since Floyd’s murder, the phrase “A.C.A.B.,” acronymous for “All Cops Are B*****ds,” has gone from a score of 3/100 on Google Trends, to a score of 100, meaning it is at its all-time peak of popularity. Clearly, something about Floyd’s killing has created a more overwhelmingly negative view of police than prior incidents of police brutality. To understand the reason the black community is calling for the dismantling of key police practices it is critical to understand the history of US policing. Those who favor the riots cite the origins of policing which, in the American South, was established to protect the institution of slavery. From this, protesters argue that there is no way to reform the system to serve them, too, because the system is intrinsically linked with their oppression. Police cannot be reformed, advocates argue, because the base idea of a police force is historically anti-black.
The riots are meant to be a statement of power, as well as a demonstration that police control only has the power to which society allocates it. The riots, destruction, and looting are all mechanisms for showing that police power is an illusion, and ends at the moment society says it does. The riots are every bit as self-sustaining as they are a call to action, meant to show society the necessity of disempowering the police.
Those in favor of riots argue that as long as the police exist, they will continue to be held in the system of oppression at its core and held down by rampant police brutality in the United States.
Ultimately, the argument rests on this: The system is not broken for black America. The system is fundamentally built against it. Peaceful protest did not work to dismantle policing and its oppressive tendencies. In this way, the events of the status quo are a key step of the progression toward justice.
Public schools teach about MLK, not Malcom X. They preach the perspective of peaceful protest, insinuating that the structures which keep hold on society are receptive to civil discourse. With these stories, it’s unsurprising that society’s knee-jerk reaction in the face of social issues may be toward peaceful protest. The problem with this, however, is that the message students receive is a direct product of the nature of their messenger. Public schools are inclined to teach narratives of peaceful protest because they are designed to prepare students for what the school system likes to call “the real world.” In reality, they’re only raising a generation that is best positioned to maintain their idea of the real world, one which has been built for the perpetuation of white supremacy and racism.
The killing of George Floyd has resulted in protests that bear contrast to the traditional model of civil disobedience that is taught in schools. The education system would traditionally direct people to write letters, voting in favor of their perspectives, and protesting peacefully if they gathered at all. In this case, protests have escalated to the point where national monuments are being vandalized and the National Guard has been called in as riot control. The perspective which supports these more violent forms of protest claims that riots make a statement on police power dynamics, and are the only mechanism for black liberation.
Since Floyd’s murder, the phrase “A.C.A.B.,” acronymous for “All Cops Are B*****ds,” has gone from a score of 3/100 on Google Trends, to a score of 100, meaning it is at its all-time peak of popularity. Clearly, something about Floyd’s killing has created a more overwhelmingly negative view of police than prior incidents of police brutality. To understand the reason the black community is calling for the dismantling of key police practices it is critical to understand the history of US policing. Those who favor the riots cite the origins of policing which, in the American South, was established to protect the institution of slavery. From this, protesters argue that there is no way to reform the system to serve them, too, because the system is intrinsically linked with their oppression. Police cannot be reformed, advocates argue, because the base idea of a police force is historically anti-black.
The riots are meant to be a statement of power, as well as a demonstration that police control only has the power to which society allocates it. The riots, destruction, and looting are all mechanisms for showing that police power is an illusion, and ends at the moment society says it does. The riots are every bit as self-sustaining as they are a call to action, meant to show society the necessity of disempowering the police.
Those in favor of riots argue that as long as the police exist, they will continue to be held in the system of oppression at its core and held down by rampant police brutality in the United States.
Ultimately, the argument rests on this: The system is not broken for black America. The system is fundamentally built against it. Peaceful protest did not work to dismantle policing and its oppressive tendencies. In this way, the events of the status quo are a key step of the progression toward justice.
