“When individuals get crowbars and start prying open doors to loot, they’re not protesting. They’re not making a statement. They’re stealing. When they burn down a building, they’re committing arson. And they’re destroying and undermining businesses and opportunities in their own communities. That robs jobs and opportunity from people in that area.” – President Obama at a press conference
In general, I tend to take what Obama says with a grain of salt (if that)…but in the above comment on the Baltimore Riots of 2015, our president has a legitimate point.
While more traditional forms of activism (i.e. protests and marches) might not always make national news headlines like these riots have, what took place in Baltimore was beyond counter-productive.
During April and early May, people in Baltimore protested the injustice surrounding Freddie Gray, a 25 year-old black man who was injured by a policemen and ended up dying from the injuries. Simple protests began after Gray’s death in a hospital, but they quickly escalated to the point where protestors acted in a violent and unpredictable manner.
Rioters in Baltimore looted local stores, such as CVS in an effort to make a statement.
The result was damage that included:
– Rioters both looted and set fire to homes and businesses, with that damage estimated as having reached $8.9 million.
– Extreme damage was caused to two residential homes of unassociated people, causing about $60,000 worth of damage.
– Two local pharmacies (a Rite Aid and a CVS) suffered severe fire damage done by rioters, who torched and defaced their properties.
– Around 150 police cars were burnt, which the municipal police department will have to replace.
– 20 people were injured. One person is still in critical condition.
Rioters destroyed nearly 150 police cars as part of their statement against police brutality.
Essentially, what happened in these riots wasn’t just a statement against an injustice. It was self-sabotage. Rioters destroyed the businesses that keep their local economy stable. They destroyed the homes that their community lives in. And they caused unrest in the streets that they want to be safe.
So the question arises, does violence (especially violence that is this extreme) have a place in activism?
Think about the most “successful” activist moments during the pursuit for civil rights. I mean, just to name a few of these pivotal moments, we have: The Montgomery Bus Boycott, The March on Selma, the protests done by the SNCC (Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee), and the March on Washington that included Martin Luther King Jr’s famous speech.
None of these events involved violence. Yet, all of them made an impact.
During the riots, protestors burned down a senior citizen center, which was under construction and would have greatly benefitted people in the community.
By resorting to violence, the Baltimore protestors/rioters are (in a way) detracting from their message. Yes, they’re making newspaper headlines but policy-makers are not speaking about making changes to the existing system; they’re just worried about minimizing damage and future volatility.
There’s also some hypocrisy going on. People who are enraged by the Freddie Gray injustice are trying to communicate that police violence and brutality is immoral; yet, they, themselves, utilized violence and their community is now suffering because of it.
Protestors threw gas canisters at policemen during the riots, resulting in several nearby buildings burning down.
I’m not concluding that violence does or doesn’t have a place in activism, but am merely stating that in this case, violence did not bring about drastic change or even talk about such change. It brought about a loss of money, a loss of opportunity, and destruction.
I’m not sure where this leaves us, or what we can do to end the never-ending list of unarmed and supposedly innocent people being shot by police officers, but if you have any ideas…or any comments/questions on this post, feel free to leave them in the comment section below.
