There’s nothing political about stealing sneakers
Don't blame the U.K. riots on unemployment or tuition costs
Photo courtesy of mastermaq on Flickr
Eyes were on the Arab world earlier this year as waves of demonstrations catalyzed national revolutions. Civilians took to the street in revolt of brutal dictatorships, corrupt governments and the general lack of basic human rights. As protesters in the Middle East fought with their lives to achieve a better standard of living, there were those of us in the West—equipped with makeshift stop signs and a total lack of perspective—who dreamed that we would see our own Arab Spring. The way to overthrow a democratically elected government is civil disobedience, you see, and rogue acts the key to beginning the process.
And it seems those rogue acts are indeed underway, though not in Canada as a wistful Brigette DePape had once hoped. Rather, several cities in the UK have been set ablaze over the past several days as rioting has spread across England.
But in England, there’s no united cause or discernible reason. That doesn’t mean that explanations haven’t been offered. It started with protests in Tottenham after a man was killed by police nearly one week ago. But the violence has continued to spread.
While few pundits condone the acts of violence, many have offered their own socio-economic explanations. Guardian journalist Stafford Scott says that the behaviour of the rioters should come as no surprise, since restlessness among British youth, especially in impoverished areas, has been provoked by widespread institutional racism, bitter job prospects, the rising cost of tuition and other barriers to education. Scott explains the destruction of property as simply symptomatic of the nihilism among British youth. “On Saturday, instead of imploding and turning inward and violent among themselves,” Scott writes, “the youths exploded.”
Another Guardian writer, Nina Power, is of a similar mind, suggesting that those condemning the acts of violence ought to look at the “bigger picture” of a country with a struggling economy, poor social mobility, and ever-widening gap between rich and poor.
The trouble is, this “bigger picture” is not on the minds of those committing the crimes. Rioters interviewed by the BBC have blamed everything and everyone from the police, to the government, “rich people,” and conservatives, and many—by their own admission—blame no one at all. There are videos of looters grabbing handfuls of clothes and shoes from broken windows, hooded men and women running from shops carrying away flat screen TVs, and one particularly abhorrent capture of a mob stealing a Sony PSP from an injured student on the street. There’s nothing political about stealing a Playstation from a bleeding man.
While there may be very real causes for social unrest in Britain, this recent destruction is not about politics, tuition or unemployment. Protesters who loathe corporatism and big business don’t torch mom-and-pop shops in their local neighbourhoods, nor do they claim to be “getting their taxes back” as they loot from local shops.
And many of the rioters, in fact, are not disadvantaged youth, but 30-something teachers, youth workers, and graphic designers. To ponder socio-economic excuses for these crimes is to give those who have succumbed to mob mentality a political agenda to fall back on. This civil disobedience is not about changing policy. It’s about a moral breakdown — and free sneakers.
I think it is a mistake to assume that, just because the participants are unaware of the political/social/economic subtext of their actions, the event itself has no political/social/economic cause or implications. I don’t think anybody is suggesting that there is an articulated political goal to the riots, but many commentators are correctly suggesting that we need to understand the riots in the political and social contexts in which they occurred. Is stealing sneakers political? No. Is the fetishization of consumer goods as visible displays of economic status correlated with rising income inequality and declining labour market prospects? Yes, strongly. Is this political? Yes.
God, so many problems with this article. I will highlight a handful:
Problem 1: “And it seems those rogue acts are indeed underway, though not in Canada as a wistful Brigette DePape had once hoped”
-This is a gross mischaracterization of Brigette DePape, her actions, and her intentions. There is no need to defame people to get a point across. Ms.DePape never advocated for violence and she never desired for anti-social behaviour. She wanted to get her point across in no uncertain terms. She cited the women’s movement as inspiration for her actions. A movement that had brave women became “rogues”, so that they could be heard and have those basic rights. In a democracy, we want people to be able to protest. You should know the difference between peaceful protests and anti-social rioting. Ms.DePape hopes more Canadians contribute and use their democratic right to vote because as we know from previous elections, that wasn’t the case.
Problem 2:”While few pundits condone the acts of violence, many have offered their own socio-economic explanations.”
-Please, oh pretty please, provide us who these “few pundits” are that actually condone violence, looting, murder, vandalizing, and arson? Who are these people you claim exist?
Right….yet again, another gross attempt to smear by association. You are attempting to smear people who found the explanation to the chaos in Britain as one rooted in socio-economic disparity, and then associating them with these “few pundits” who condone violence, as you claimed. Ridiculous.
Problem 3:”While there may be very real causes for social unrest in Britain”
-Yes, there is and those people you cited have pointed to the problem, which you don’t want to admit to. The very real and documented problem of young British people who are bored, hopeless, and jobless. We know that the Tory government in Britain has skyrocketed university tuition, which has resulted in a dramatic decrease in enrolment. We also know about racial tension and discrimination in disadvantaged neighbourhoods of Britain. This is a recipe for disaster and eventually people take to the streets and trouble happens. And, yes, some people did take advantage of the situation and resorted in mob mentality. And there were others like the far-right racist English Defence League who took to the streets too so that they could take advantage of the chaos. It is inevitable that things got violent when these parties are out, but it initially began as peaceful protests against police brutality. It is just stupid to deny that there are socio-economic issues at play.
Problem 4:”And many of the rioters, in fact, are not disadvantaged youth”
-The vast majority are. Just because you can pluck out a few who don’t fit the description (people who took advantage of the chaos) doesn’t invalidate the true FACT.