Rioting in UK capital

[Limehouse]

Is there some reason that the the idea that society is to blame for a great deal of these people's problems is considered mutually exclusive to the idea that they are still in fact responsible for their own actions?

I'm not entirely sure why it has to be one or the other, when really in no other aspect of life is it one or the other. Some of these people have been seriously screwed over. That doesn't mean they get to be violent. If you walk in on some guy screwing your wife, you have every right to be angry. You don't have the right to kill them.

But just because they did get violent doesn't negate the underlying issues. It would if it were a high school debate class, but it's not. Fixing say, inequalities in the system is not "giving in". Neither side is relieved of it's responsibilities by the misbehavior of the other.

And anyway, it's ridiculously easy to make the government look barbaric and cruel without stooping to violence. Why give up good press to get what you want?

As always Errata - a great post.

[Fleetwood Mac]

[QUOTE=Errata;186978]

Is there some reason that the the idea that society is to blame for a great deal of these people's problems is considered mutually exclusive to the idea that they are still in fact responsible for their own actions?

I'm not entirely sure......

[\QUOTE]

Well, you wouldn't have to skim the pages of an introdcutory guide to philosophy to arrive at the conclusion that 'society is to blame for these people's problems' (which presumably means lacking the wherewithal to purchase a television) is akin to diluting individual reponsibility.

Yes. There is some reason.

That reason is called choice.

Now you or the next man could appeal to arbitrary notions such as 'inequality', which at best can only ever be a theory, and this will undoubtedly dilute individual initiative and responsibility. Like a self-fulfilling prophecy, those who are told they're unequal use it as an excuse to break the law and attempt to divert the blame elsewhere; in fact, anywhere but with themselves.

Accepting responsibility for your actions is a very uncomfortable proposition for many, not just law breakers, because it removes the safety net. You become the master of your own destiny: many people can't handle this. Shifting responsibility comes in many guises: fate, liberalism, society, god, the boss at work etc.

There is very good reason to accept that you are the master of your own destiny; similarly, there is very good reason to deny this (to deny one's own freedom has its advantages - see Simone de Beauvoir). Depends upon what you want to achieve in life I suppose, and whether or not you wish to be a fraud running round blaming everyone else for your choices and actions (general you).

[jason_c]

Is there some reason that the the idea that society is to blame for a great deal of these people's problems is considered mutually exclusive to the idea that they are still in fact responsible for their own actions?

I'm not entirely sure why it has to be one or the other, when really in no other aspect of life is it one or the other. Some of these people have been seriously screwed over. That doesn't mean they get to be violent. If you walk in on some guy screwing your wife, you have every right to be angry. You don't have the right to kill them.

But just because they did get violent doesn't negate the underlying issues. It would if it were a high school debate class, but it's not. Fixing say, inequalities in the system is not "giving in". Neither side is relieved of it's responsibilities by the misbehavior of the other.

And anyway, it's ridiculously easy to make the government look barbaric and cruel without stooping to violence. Why give up good press to get what you want?

Which inequalities are these? Many(not all) of these looters had decent enough jobs.

[Sister Hyde]

Here it's hard to get an objective point of view from the medias. the opinion we hear the most from the reporters is "It's very shocking for us french people to see that the UK is handling this situation with an "economic" perspective rather that an "social" perspective."... moron... it's lucky I don't live in a country where guns are legal cause I would probably need a new tv set every week.

[mariab]

I had a sociology prof state that "the Rodney King beating and the L.A riots were the best thing to happen to sociologists since the late 60s".

Actually, Errata, this is pretty deep AND it cracked me up.
Also thanks to Chris Phillips for the insightful comparison to the Thatcher era in his post #177.

[Robert]

Once a week Mr Smith used to pass a certain beggar, and each time he did so Mr Smith put money in the beggar's bowl. Then one day, out of the blue, the beggar went bersek and mugged Mr Smith of all his money. Smith called in the police and the beggar went up before the beak.

Needless to say, the beggar was soon back on the streets. However, from that time on Mr Smith refused to put any money in the beggar's bowl - Smith was a rather retarded fellow who had not had the benefit of attending a Rioting Awareness Course, and he actually believed that the beggar didn't deserve his money. Hard to understand, I know, yet true.

Some time later, the unfortunate Mr Smith was mugged again, this time by someone who was in work. That person too went up before the beak, and was soon back on the streets.

Mr Smith realised that he couldn't stop giving money to the second mugger - because he hadn't been giving any before. So, in the interests of equality, he recommenced putting money in the first mugger's bowl.

Mr Smith often tells this story with pride, to anyone who visits him at the asylum.

[lynn cates]

four letter word

Hello Robert. I came across a clipping in "Lloyd's Weekly" in which a beggar accosted an old lady on the street.

"If you please, miss. Just a shilling and you will save me from something I greatly fear and dread."

"You poor man!" she replied, giving him a shilling. "Now that I have helped you, can you please tell me the dread thing I have saved you from?"

"Going to work." was his quick reply.

Cheers.
LC

[Robert]

Ha! Good one. I liked what Keith Waterhouse wrote about beggars - how they were always giving hard luck stories and swearing that the money was for a good purpose. Waterhouse said that he did give money to a beggar in America, because he told him that the money would be put to no good use whatsoever!

Shaw once told a story of how his father or grandfather used to help the poor, but one man infuriated him because, when asked why he wasn't in work, replied "Because I'm too lazy."

[lynn cates]

honesty

Hello Robert. Quite true and refreshing.

This past summer, on the road between campuses (campi?) I passed a lad, same corner every day, with a cardboard sign which read, "Why lie? I need a beer."

I truly appreciated his candour.

Cheers.
LC

[Errata]

Which inequalities are these? Many(not all) of these looters had decent enough jobs.

That was a for example inequalities in the system. It's a problem every government has in some form or fashion, and it makes an easy example.

Most looters don't do it because they need something (though clearly in cases like Hurricane Katrina some did). Typically it starts with defacement and arson, and then people decide to grab a TV before burning a place, and it goes on from there. Most people think they deserve a flat screen, but that's not what makes them break in and take it. The desire is to strike fear into the hearts of the people they perceive as being part of the problem.

You can have a decent job, and one day notice that the only time you ever see cops with guns is in your mostly black neighborhood and you have the right to be angry about that. Or realize that most people you know who have had run ins with the police get hurt. Or get mad when the only thing keeping your kid out of a gang gets cut by the government. Or just hate it that nobody cares that you can't catch a break, and you think someone should care. It can be a lot of things. And the first actions are usually targeting people perceived as the problem. Police officers, government buildings, mail boxes, whatever. But beyond that, the mob can target white people for looking down on them, or businesses that don't hire people like you, or who won't help people like you. And then yes, some people show up who just want a Wii.

But the best way to stick it to a government you think is not on your side is to riot and to loot. The citizens will blame you, and rightfully so. But they will also blame the government for not protecting it's citizens, for not securing the streets, for not arresting enough people, for not preventing it in the first place. Administrations are tanked over this kind of thing. Rioting and looting is an extremely effective form of punishment, and the punished often cannot recover.

If you want to change hearts and minds, have a sit in. If you want to ruin political careers, have a riot.

[Errata]

Ha! Good one. I liked what Keith Waterhouse wrote about beggars - how they were always giving hard luck stories and swearing that the money was for a good purpose. Waterhouse said that he did give money to a beggar in America, because he told him that the money would be put to no good use whatsoever!

Shaw once told a story of how his father or grandfather used to help the poor, but one man infuriated him because, when asked why he wasn't in work, replied "Because I'm too lazy."

http://wiw.org/~jess/wp-uploads/ninjabeg.jpg

I'd give this guy money.

[Robert]

Well, at least that's inventive!

[jason_c]

That was a for example inequalities in the system. It's a problem every government has in some form or fashion, and it makes an easy example.

Most looters don't do it because they need something (though clearly in cases like Hurricane Katrina some did). Typically it starts with defacement and arson, and then people decide to grab a TV before burning a place, and it goes on from there. Most people think they deserve a flat screen, but that's not what makes them break in and take it. The desire is to strike fear into the hearts of the people they perceive as being part of the problem.

You can have a decent job, and one day notice that the only time you ever see cops with guns is in your mostly black neighborhood and you have the right to be angry about that. Or realize that most people you know who have had run ins with the police get hurt. Or get mad when the only thing keeping your kid out of a gang gets cut by the government. Or just hate it that nobody cares that you can't catch a break, and you think someone should care. It can be a lot of things. And the first actions are usually targeting people perceived as the problem. Police officers, government buildings, mail boxes, whatever. But beyond that, the mob can target white people for looking down on them, or businesses that don't hire people like you, or who won't help people like you. And then yes, some people show up who just want a Wii.

But the best way to stick it to a government you think is not on your side is to riot and to loot. The citizens will blame you, and rightfully so. But they will also blame the government for not protecting it's citizens, for not securing the streets, for not arresting enough people, for not preventing it in the first place. Administrations are tanked over this kind of thing. Rioting and looting is an extremely effective form of punishment, and the punished often cannot recover.

If you want to change hearts and minds, have a sit in. If you want to ruin political careers, have a riot.

Since 1968 riots have barely any significance to a politicians career. All riots do is in the short term they turn the populace right wing. If a politician doesnt react to this rightward backlash then it may then hurt him/her. Reacting to a riot is a no brainer for any competent politician.

Apart from a brief period on Saturday night no establishment group was being targeted. The rest was simple gang induced theft.

And ive noticed something about rioting. Despite the theft, destruction, fire and occassional death, rioting looks like its fun.

[Archaic]

If you want to know what I think I'd take a wild stab in the dark that as a % of the population more whites break the law than muslims; and I'd be surprised in the event this theory proved to be wide of the mark.

Are you aware that many "whites" are Muslim?

To be a Muslim is to be a follower of Islam.

It's a religious faith and has nothing to do with skin color.

Archaic

[Errata]

Since 1968 riots have barely any significance to a politicians career. All riots do is in the short term they turn the populace right wing. If a politician doesnt react to this rightward backlash then it may then hurt him/her. Reacting to a riot is a no brainer for any competent politician.

Apart from a brief period on Saturday night no establishment group was being targeted. The rest was simple gang induced theft.

And ive noticed something about rioting. Despite the theft, destruction, fire and occassional death, rioting looks like its fun.

The politics thing may be more of an American phenomenon than a British one. Certainly there were quite a few people who attributed George Bush's failure to win re-election to the LA riots.

And political or establishment targeting almost never lasts more than 24 hours, though I was under the impression that London police officers were attacked a couple days running. It's like we just don't have the focus and commitment for a reign of terror anymore. We devote maybe a night to political or social upheaval, and the next three days perfecting the five finger discount. There was an interview I watched in sociology class of someone from the LA riots, and he said for about 12 hours after the verdict, he felt sort of a righteous hatred for law enforcement, and as it started to fade he got scared of cops again, and turned towards less targeted more anonymous destruction to vent. I wouldn't think that's uncommon.

My teacher said that the way you know that looting isn't always about acquisition was that a ski supply store was completely emptied. If you live in South Central LA, you don't ski. A: it's not a super popular sport amongst American blacks and b: it's an expensive hobby. Even the shelves in that place were taken, and probably saw a lot more use than the skis ever did. I mean, electronics and liquor are very popular with looters, but then there's the occasional plumbing supply store that get emptied to sort of make you wonder about the real motivation of it all.

I can't say rioting looks fun. But then again, I'm not big on crowds and I hate being pushed around. If I could riot in a giant hamster ball to preserve my personal space, I might be more open to it.