Shorter one today.
If you haven't heard there has been serious violence and rioting in the United Kingdom recently. It started out when a young man was shot in a minicab in Tottenham. I am, admittedly, a little vague on the exact details of the situation. According to reports that I read on the BBC police officers with guns (they don't all carry them over there) shot a young gentleman at a crime scene. The man, Mark Duggan, was in a minicab when, according to police, he fired on them. Mr. Duggan was shot by the firearms officers and killed.* The shooting sparked a series of peaceful vigils in North London in memory of the man shot. From these peaceful meetings a small group of "young" protestors began the riots. The riots quickly dissolved into looting and arsine that burned down large amounts of various parts of London. Many reasons have been given for the violence. Several people believe that the violence was caused by unrest due to the economic downturn in England. It has been pointed out that the recent austerity measures and tax hikes seem disproportionately harmful to the lower classes. That the violence, arsine, and looting are a product of civil unrest. Others say that this gives the looters a handy excuse. They claim the blame lies with the attitudes of the people involved and on the parents for not stopping it or raising the kids right. In other words; thuggery.
It is heartbreaking for me to see this kind of violence. If the first group is correct and it is an outbreak of civil unrest then the violence is aimed at the wrong people. The buildings burned, according to Morning Edition, were houses of locals and local merchants, not worldwide corporations. Also, looting as a means of relieving civil unrest is frankly ridiculous. It is awfully convenient that by looting you make a statement and get a kick-ass new TV and Wii console in the mix. Burning houses and local businesses also makes very little sense since the only people affected by it are the house and business owners. So I would agree that the political statement idea is a little ridiculous. However, it is also interesting that we choose to blame the parents. In the end good upbringing only goes so far. People who are brought up very well and taught to behave kindly often make ridiculous choices. In the end I have a different view.
We live in a culture that praises possessions and strength through violence. What do you suspect will happen when a violent act with a questionable motive is performed? Particularly when this act is done in a low income neighborhood with many groups on the fringes? We teach our children through our international policies that threats and violence are a means of gaining what we want. The US is particularly guilty of this over the last several decades and the Cold War, but the UK has been historically very involved with this. The fact that we have people so far on the fringes that they form into gangs for protection and as a means of gaining money plays a part here as well. When you have a group of people who feel the need for protection and you make violence an element of protection and strength you set up the situation for the riots you saw.
Please understand I don't want to place any blame for the terror that we saw in London. There are so many different factors involved, not the least of which is prejudice, violent attacks by authority, fear, and greed. What I wanted to say was that it was the initial violence that was to blame. The shooting led to a good reaction of peace by the families involved, but was a good enough excuse by others to start violence and theft. We need to remove violence as an option if we don't want to see violence used.
-------------------
*http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-14459516
No comments:
Post a Comment