CULTURE
The Double Standard of the American Riot
The nationwide protests against police killings have been called un-American by
critics, but rebellion has always been used to defend liberty.
KELLIE CARTER JACKSON JUNE 1, 2020
Those who rebuke violent responses to injustice should ask
themselves: How should the oppressed respond to their
oppressors? (Phobymo)
Since the beginning of this country, riots and violent rhetoric have been markers of
patriotism. When our Founding Fathers fought for independence, violence was the
clarion call. Phrases such as “Live free or die,” “Give me liberty or give me death,”
and “Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God” echoed throughout the nation, and
continue today. Force and violence have always been used as weapons to defend
liberty, because—as John Adams once said in reference to the colonists’ treatment
by the British—“We won’t be their Negroes.”
Black rebellion and protest, though, have historically never been coupled with
allegiance to American democracy. Today, peaceful demonstrations and violent
riots alike have erupted across the country in response to police brutality and the
killings of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, and Ahmaud Arbery. Yet the language
used to refer to protesters has included looters, thugs, and even claims that they are
un-American. The philosophy of force and violence to obtain freedom has long
been employed by white people and explicitly denied to black Americans.
Think back to March 5, 1770, when Crispus Attucks, a man of African and Native
American descent, became the first casualty of the American Revolution. Attucks
was one of a handful of protesters killed by British forces during the Boston
Massacre. The lawyer tasked with defending the British soldiers in their American
criminal trial was none other than Adams. When presenting his case, Adams
described the men those soldiers killed as “a motley rabble of saucy boys, negroes
and molattoes [sic], Irish teagues and outlandish jack tarrs.” He built his defense of
the British soldiers on the charge that Attucks struck the first blow and led the
“dreadful carnage.” Adams concluded that the “mad behavior” of Attucks provoked
the soldiers’ response, saying that Attucks’s group was “under the command of a
stout molatto fellow, whose very looks, was enough to terrify any person.” Some
250 years later, Adams’s words still underline a central truth in American
disobedience: Freedom through violence is a privilege possessed only by whites.
Seminal moments in U.S. history that historians have defined as patriotic were also
moments that denied patriotism to black people.
[ Read: When police view citizens as enemies ]
If violence is a political language, white Americans are native speakers. But black
people are also fluent in the act of resistance. Attucks stood up to British tyranny.
The numerous slave rebellions led by Gabriel Prosser, Charles Deslondes, and Nat
Turner were all attempts to gain freedom with force. Throughout the 20th century,
black Americans armed themselves in the face of white mobs and organized
protection for their freedom marches. Accordingly, when George Floyd, Breonna
Taylor, and so many others were killed by police, black people and their allies
chose to rise up.
Protests at Philadelphia City Hall on May 30, 2020
(Phobymo)
Americans like to harken back to the civil-rights era as a moment of nonviolence
and civil disobedience. But that movement was an orchestrated response to
violence. Violence at the voting booth. Violence at the lunch counter. Violence
that bombed a church with four little black girls inside. Violence that left a bloated
black boy in an open casket. Violence that left a black husband and father
murdered in his driveway. The movement ended with the violent death of Martin
Luther King Jr. And his death ignited riots in more than 100 cities.
[ Read: The American nightmare ]
It is easy to dismiss the rock thrower; Attucks himself was accused of throwing
sticks. But those who rebuke violent responses to injustice should ask themselves:
How should the oppressed respond to their oppressors? How should the nation
respond to political dissent? How do the oppressed procure power? Throughout
history, black people have employed violence, nonviolence, marches, and boycotts.
Only one thing is clear—there is no form of black protest that white supremacy
will sanction. Still, black people understand the utility of riotous rebellion:
Violence compels a response. Violence disrupts the status quo and the possibility
of returning to business as usual. So often the watershed moments of historical
record are stamped by violence—it is the engine that propels society along from
funerals to fury and from moments to movements.
In December 1866, the famed abolitionist Frederick Douglass wrote an essay for
The Atlantic in which he reflected on the benefits of rebellion: “There is cause to be
thankful even for rebellion. It is an impressive teacher, though a stern and terrible
one.” He then concluded, “The thing worse than rebellion is the thing that causes
rebellion.” Many people are asking if violence is a valid means of producing social
change. The hard and historical answer is yes. Riots have a way of magnifying not
merely the flaws in the system, but also the strength of those in power. The
American Revolution was won with violence. The French Revolution was won
with violence. The Haitian Revolution was won with violence. The Civil War was
won with violence. A revolution in today’s terms would mean that these
nationwide rebellions lead to black people being able to access and exercise the
fullness of their freedom and humanity.
The other night, I was watching the copious news coverage of the protests. I
wanted to be out there. I felt helpless. But I’d just had a baby and had no business
being out in the streets. I called my mother for encouragement. She said, “I was in
college during all of the ’68 riots. Just keep on living; there’ll be another chance.”
History has taught me she is likely right. A riot may be temporary violence, quick
and dirty, but it could become a revolution. And though slow and long-lasting,
when it is fully mature, a revolution is irrefutable change.
We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or
write to [email protected].
