Issue 14, Volume 17 ANONYMOUS This article is a response to a piece entitled “On Violence,” which appeared in Issue 14, Volume 17 of De Minimis. The author of that piece warned against the use of violence as a form of protest; they express concern that people who see violence as a legitimate form of process “celebrate the destruction and damage visited on communities and norms of social cohesion.” This is not the case. People who look upon the looting and damage that has been caused by the protests against the murder of George Floyd and see that damage as legitimate recognise that the “virtues of civil discourse,” and “norms of social cohesion,” which the original author exalted so highly are the very same virtues which perpetuate a culture of repression. Therefore, violent disruption of the status quo is the only effective response to the violent repression of people of colour by law enforcement.
To that end, I put forward 2 theses in reply.
Let’s be clear, these protests – or “riots” if you insist upon that term – are not an isolated incident, and there is a reason they have spread across multiple major U.S. cities and across the world. On Saturday, there will be a Black Lives Matter protest right here in Melbourne on the steps of Parliament House, a protest against the murder of Indigenous Australians in police custody. The Washington Post reports that 1,023 people have been shot and killed by police in the past 12 months in the United States. Black Americans account for just 13% of the United States population but are killed at twice the rate of White Americans. These shootings have taken place in every single U.S. state. More alarming however, is that these shootings are continuing to increase on a steady trajectory. It is not to be disputed that these shootings in the United States are emblematic of a system in which the police are given legal immunities in respect of the use of militarised force to keep racialised communities ‘under control.’ The United States is systemically violent towards people of colour.
The police embody the state apparatus of the law, as do judges, and lawyers, and every other person you encounter in an institution of law or law enforcement. Embody is the key term here: the law works in and through actual human beings, people who err, who are biased, and whose actions sometimes produce horrifically unjust results. Which one of us hasn’t read a judgement and thought “this isn’t a just outcome.” The recognition of the simple fact that people err is the reason we have an appellate court system. Similarly, the original author acknowledges that the murder of George Floyd was “horrific and grotesquely wasteful,” of human life. To be clear, I am not saying we should throw the law out entirely – that would put the lot of us out of business. But we must recognise that sometimes the law fails people – more than this, the law can be an instrument of violence, both repressive and ideological. The repressive aspect of the law is obvious to anyone – it inheres in law enforcement, the Police and, even potentially the Army. The ideological functioning of law may be less clear, and legal scholars have written entire books on this complex point, but suffice it to say that the law expresses a certain set of values about how our society should be. To quote Louis Althusser as an example, “the distinction between the public and the private is a distinction internal to bourgeois law.” That is to say, this distinction is internal to the institution of the Law as it functions in a western, capitalist democracy, and is not to be taken as a universal given. This is one simple way in which the law expresses an ideology. Legal ideology is perpetuated in judge-made and statutory law; it imposes itself with the repressive authority of the Law upon the whole of society. To avoid getting too Foucauldian about it, this is a form of ideological violence which has the potential to repress minority voices. Ideological struggle is a legitimate form of protest. Symbolic gestures like peaceful protest express that one does not consent to the current politico-legal discourse. But when these forms of protest are met with repressive violence by the police, people begin to realise that ideological resistance is only one element in fighting back against a system that is violently repressive. To summarize the gist of my response; violent protest is the only way to counteract a violent system. It is not enough to resist symbolically a system which uses repressive violence to silence minority voices. Yes, violence disrupts the norms of social cohesion, but this is precisely the point. Stonewall was a riot which paved the way for LGBTQ rights. The 1968 DC riots led to the Civil Rights Act of 1968. Real change starts when ‘business as usual’ stops. Anonymous is a group of first year JD students.
Reggie banks
5/6/2020 06:41:58 pm
Hey, original author of On Violence here. I appreciate the thoughtfulness of your response, however I believe it may miss my concern. To clarify and hopefully explain myself a bit better then, we’re in absolute lockstep on your first thesis, and the claim that we all face an unequivocal moral obligation to combat the injustices levelled against minorities in America and other nations around the world by racialised policing. On those instances of isolated violence in the present protests, I can only plead genuine uncertainty; the ultimate justification will be in the outcomes which I’m not in a position to know or evaluate. I hope my point is understood as a more cautionary concern over misreading the underlying legitimacy of a social struggle as an imprimatur to normalise violence as a political tool in general. Irrespective of one’s evaluation of violence in the present protests, I’m concerned that otherwise well-meaning people have taken away the wrong message, that a general commitment to non-violence is always just a tool to distract from legitimate struggle or maintain structures of power. I think there are real and obvious concerns, historically political violence has rarely achieved long term justice, has degraded the internal cohesion and trust in societies, and in an urgency to grapple with an apparatus of power has often mis-targeted otherwise innocent people. I’ll be glad if I’m mistaken about how widespread this attitude is, and am merely preaching to the choir on these points. If I’m not however, we need to recognise that any violence, even when born from necessity, is a tragedy, rather than just the new cost of doing business.
Means do not justify ends
5/6/2020 06:56:52 pm
"the ultimate justification will be in the outcomes" is surely not the basis of a stable system of law or morality... Violence must be a last resort, after all other means of peaceful change have failed.
Still Reggie
5/6/2020 07:27:58 pm
Eh - I mean it depends, no? Think of war by analogy - it makes absolute sense to treat it as a last resort and a tragedy whenever it occurs, but to still accept that it can be morally justified in extreme cases. That’s my thesis re. violence, but I’m placing a very heavy reminder on the ‘last resort’ part that I think a lot of people want to forget about.
Lost the plot
5/6/2020 06:48:51 pm
These lame academic justifications for the wanton mob violence occurring in the US invariably come from those insulated from the consequences: middle class, university-educated whites living in safe and isolated suburbs. They cheer on the burning of urban social housing and the looting of minority-owned businesses. They clap seeing innocent bystanders viciously attacked. Then they argue it's OK because "the system is bad".
ANONYMOUS
5/6/2020 08:01:58 pm
I don't feel the need to use big words or legal jargon but WHAT are you saying. Peaceful action has not been exhausted but African Americans are. The reason African Americans don't vote is systemic racism. They have been red-lined into communities without local economies, have been denied the loans that help build inter generational wealth, have poorly funded school systems because of property taxes and have job opportunities a fraction of those of their white counterparts with equivalent education and accomplishments in the next neighborhood. Many of the people in the communities created by red lining are underemployed or unemployed, they don't have childcare services and aren't given time off to vote. Some of the poorest communities don't even have voting stations. Additionally, many don't have a drivers licenses because they a) don't have a car or b) can't afford a license. Drivers license requirements are one of many tools that has been used to turn people away from voting since African Americans were given the right to vote. For some voting it is simply not an option. I understand the people writing these articles condemning violence have never seen an American slum like skid row in Los Angeles, the mission district in San Francisco or the ones that exist just behind Capitol Hill. I wouldn't even be surprised if none of them have been to America. Nor can the authors of these articles understand what it feels like to see the violence perpetuated against people who look like them when they turn on the news. Particularly when their brethren are murdered and abused by the people who are supposed to uphold the law. Whoever wrote the original article and this response should think beyong the theory of non violence and look at the reality. Do some investigations into the metrics and demographics of the 42 million Americans living below the poverty line IN THE WORLD'S RICHEST country. Consider the options you feel like you would have in that situation. Consider why they don't vote. Do some research to try and empathize with the plight of the people who are protesting just to feel like they are heard. Read Colony in a Nation by Chris Hayes. Read about qualified immunity and why it is near impossible for a victim of police brutality to achieve justice in the legal system. Watch Just Mercy. Listen to the voices of black activists who are constantly having to justify their existence and actions in a system which continues to oppress them.
thoughtful
5/6/2020 09:16:53 pm
I appreciate your thoughtful reply - I am sorry if it seemed that I was making too generalist statements without acknowledging the systemic factors that have led to where we are now.
voting: necessary but not sufficient
5/6/2020 08:10:58 pm
Voting is super important indeed but issues of entrenched racism go beyond a President (or PM) or even an entire administration. A Democratic black President couldn't solve the issues. Leadership can definitely help or wildly hinder (Trump) but if voting is your only example of "peaceful protest" then I am unpersuaded by your argument. The electoral system as it stands doesn't lead to accurate representation.
Systemic oppression, voting, and why MLS is indeed failing.
5/6/2020 09:29:02 pm
wow MLS is definitely failing to teach the consequences of ad hom argumentation when students are stating assumptions like "...invariably come from those insulated from the consequences: middle class, university-educated whites living in safe and isolated suburbs".
Plot Still Lost
5/6/2020 10:03:48 pm
Incredible that you slam the above as "ad hominem" and then weave smug attacks into your reply. Another example of how when the left does it, it's "educating" and when anyone else does it, it's "bigoted lecturing" - so tiresome.
What a time to be alive!
5/6/2020 10:58:02 pm
LOL I died at this:
CINA BB
6/6/2020 12:54:34 am
"To summarize the gist of my response; violent protest is the only way to counteract a violent system." Comments are closed.
|
Archives
December 2021
|