Riots are fascinating things. How lawless greed, cruelty, and violence suddenly set fire to the minds of men is one of the most mysterious, almost magical (though not in the positive sense) manifestations of human behavior.
And because they are a manifestation of human behavior, riots are as old as human nature. They were a common affair in cities before ancient Rome was new. This should invite humility in anyone purporting to know why riots happen.
Advertisement
Already, on both sides of the Atlantic, lots of people are sure they know why England is burning.
“The economic stagnation and cuts being imposed by the Tory government inevitably create social division,” explained former London mayor “Red” Ken Livingstone. Livingstone is joined by an intellectual mob of liberal members of Parliament — particularly members of the Labour party, which ran the country for more than a decade (the social incubation period of most of the rioters) — and left-wing pundits both there and here who insist that the new Tory government’s budget cuts have led to widespread violence, even though most of the relevant cuts haven’t even gone into effect.
Of course, they always manage to say “there’s no excuse” for violence. But there’s always a “but” that leads a long parade of excuses.
Invariably, these rationalizations amount to a license to spend ever more on the social programs that have, at the least, helped to produce the sort of “youths” who will burn homes and cars and beat people to death should the programs be even moderately curtailed. Indeed, according to liberal logic, the mere threat of reforming such programs is enough to cause wholesale violence.
In other words, the cuts don’t justify the violence, but the threat of violence justifies avoiding cuts. It’s a clever rhetorical trick, but policy-wise it’s both appeasement of and appealing to thuggery, pure and simple.
This helps to clarify how economic inequality has come to replace poverty as the most cited “root cause” of social unrest. Poverty, while a more slippery concept than you might think, is still a definable thing. If you lack adequate housing, food, and clothing, you’re very poor. Western democracies don’t have much of a problem, comparatively speaking, with that kind of poverty.
But we do have income inequality. Inequality is a statistical artifact, an aesthetic offense. Its chief advantage as a bogeyman is that it will always exist and thus always justify programs to reduce it.
On the right, there are a host of explanations that hinge on theories of cultural decay, lapsed or nonexistent parenting, and the corrosive effects of a government that saps the vitality from civil society.
I’m much more sympathetic to this suite of theories. The last time I was in London, the tabloids were making a huge fuss over some lower-class parents’ staging quasi-gladiatorial fights with their toddlers so they could put the videos on YouTube. That’s not a good sign, I thought at the time.
The problem, of course, is that even if conservatives are right, there’s precious little government can do to fill the holes in such souls.
Moreover, I think we put way too much effort into intellectualizing or romanticizing mob violence. Whatever the root causes of such behavior, the simple and unavoidable truth is that looters loot because they can. As one looter explained on a British radio show: “The government aren’t in control — because if they was, we wouldn’t be able to do it, could we?”
This is the shame of Britain right now. Four days of murder and mayhem demonstrated that the police have become an incompetent social-worker program. As goons of all ethnicities destroyed the livelihoods of hardworking storeowners of all ethnicities (sorely in need of gun rights), as they targeted shops not for their political symbolism but for their inventory of the latest sneakers and video games, police held a delicate seminar on the propriety of water cannons.
Meanwhile, as the mobs’ useful idiots organized conferences trying to imbue the wanton bloodshed and avarice with political nobility, the savages were announcing on their BlackBerrys which shopping district to swarm for “pure terror and havoc & free stuff.”
Mustn’t forget the free stuff.
There’s an adage that the “plural of anecdote is data.” Maybe so. But what we know for sure is that the plural of criminal is criminals. And the people tearing apart English society are simply criminals, whose villainy is not diluted by their numbers, but magnified by them.
If Britain lacks prisons to hold them, build more prisons. Call it a jobs program if it helps.
I was a LEO for a lot of years and I am amazed how many times I heard this little excuse, "well everybody else was doing it and I wanted to get some stuff before it was over." One of the things I have seen work is when something like this starts you hit them fast and you hit them hard. You arrest and handcuff each and every one and publish the names (public record except for juveniles) of those who are arrested. Then you hold them for the allotted time. You make the experience as unpleasant as you can. It does get harder though in a society in which parents and peers think its "cool". The sentences handed down should be as severe as possible including restitution for those who were the victims of this kind of nonsense.
A criminal is a criminal..and placing a political spin on it to justify expanding Leftist policies will only provide more criminals.
At what point do those being bludgeoned and robbed (both legally and illegally), stop reaching into their pockets to fortify the idle hooligans who bludgeon and rob them.
As Mr. Goldberg points out economic inequality is not synonymous with poverty. The Left would have you believe otherwise. The calls for 'social justice' have become the new mantra for many Leftist organizations. And by 'social justice' they mean 'economic equality'. Wealth redistribution based on nothing more than envy, lies and a complete indifference to the facts of human nature.
Just as there will always be some workers who work harder and longer and smarter than others, there will always be those who earn more. Those who risk more and in turn gain more.
There is no such thing as a level playing field, not when it comes to human attributes or attitudes. It's all a lie, created by those who want something without working for it.
Just like the criminals rioting and stealing from the very people whose labors feed, clothe and house them.
"The problem, of course, is that even if conservatives are right, there’s precious little government can do to fill the holes in such souls."
Perhaps not in the immediate term. But in the longer term, eliminating the welfare system that allows people to live comfortable lives without working or marrying, showing zero tolerance for infringement, and allowing the law-abiding majority to defend themselves would force families back together, and force "yoofs" into the workforce, for survival. And if people are forced to accept responsibility and self-reliance if they want to have a tolerable life, they'll develop the character traits that prevent this type of amoral outburst.
Why should it be any surprise that the Left would romanticize thuggery when it has romanticized thugs for decades? Stalin, Mao, Castro, Che, Chavez: all thugs wrapping themselves in the cloak of revolutionaries striving to free the masses from the oppression of a corrupt government. And all past or present heroes to the Left and its insipid followers.
Excellent Mr. Goldberg, here’s some more proof that to call British Socialism insane is an insult to crazy people.
I was fortunate to hear Mark Steyn on WIND Chicago this morning driving in to work. He told the story of how Britain has cooked the books. To reduce the number of people on Welfare, a few years back many welfare recipients were simply reclassified as disabled.
It gets better (actually worse). Seems that Se*ual Intercourse is an entitlement in Britain. So the British government pays for disabled men to travel to Holland to fulfill their needs with prostitutes, the doxy’s fee is on the government dime too.
Here are two (unabashedly cynical) ideas to help save Britain and ourselves.
1. Britain should employ its own lady’s (i.e. the unemployed ones running rampant in Tottingham to fulfill the needs of the disabled). This way they don’t have to spend $’s on travel to Holland, and they keep the money within the British economy. Now that’s stimulation...uhh economic stimulus I mean.
2. If the US goes bonkers like Britain and collapses to that level of liberal folly (entirely feasible). We can do the same for our disabled but throw in the caveat that all services must be provided on the Northwestern Campus (or other liberal institution of your choice) so that the ever popular campus s*x ed courses/peep shows will not have to pay for the services of the performers. This will help reduce our ever rising college tuition costs.
Well Jonah, Derb would disagree with your bland, obfuscatory statement that people of all ethnicities are responsible for the riots. While technically true, that statement papers over some very uncomfortable, and perforce telling, sociocultural truths.
1. These acts of violence are unacceptable: I agree
2. It is wrong to blame one side of the politcal spectrum for this mayhem: I agree
3. There has been a consistent breakdown of "society" in poor and working-class Britain: I agree
4. This breakdown can possibly, but not completely be assigned to poor parenting, lack of education, unemployment, poor cultural values, and a collective sense of being disenfranchised: I agree
5. More harsh, draconian police tactics will NOT stop this from happening again: I agree
6. There is no easy solution: I agree
The photo coverage of the riots is so funny!! How many hours of tape were thrown away when they revealed naught but a sea of sulky dark faces assaulting whites and asians. "Quick - get back out there and find some white yobbos!!!".
Just like the "cops" TV shows - one has to wonder why they would go to the trouble of filming in Washington State. Answer: so that less than 90% of the criminals are black.
So difficult to film prisons - almost every convict is "of color", and the dress code is obviously "be proud of your gang membership".
In the metro areas, you also see why prisons have a contraband problem: the entire staff is black - recruited from the same cultural environment as the inmates (with 500 lb. women sporting door-knocker earrings and Sheila Jackson-Lee style 3 foot tall wigs heavily represented).
England is already toast. This entire generation of entitlement rioters cannot be imprisoned or deported, and now that they know the police will do nothing the fences are down.
Next up: shari'ia law officially adopted for "certain neighborhoods".
Sounds like the spirit of Neville Chamberlain is alive and well in the UK. In the short run appeasement is the easy way out. But oh the cost of appeasement in the long term.
The riots in England were nothing more than young people with little or no regard for anything but themselves doing a smash and grab on the 'rich' business owners. People can try to spin it any way they want but it was, as David Cameron said, 'pure criminality'.
The kids that went around looting don't care if they get arrested because they know there will be no consequences for their actions. What are they going to do - lock up the hundreds of people they have arrested? No, because the prisons are already full and there's no money left, thanks to 13 years of Labour rule. Perhaps they'll give them a fine? Great! They'll simply flight the spoils from their looting and pay it. If not, they'll simply rob someone else - problem solved.
This is a difficult issue to address, but trying to rationalise it won't work - there is no other explanation other than pure opportunism. And as that great Liberal thinker Rahm Emmanuel once said 'Never let a crisis go to waste'.
In evolutionary terms, mob violence is an adaptive response of members of a tribe. The term "adaptive" in prehistorical biological terms means that those who are capable of engaging in this behavior have statically improved chances of having offspring, i.e., of passing their genes into the next generation, so their descendents will also display the behavior. Thus it is a survival trait.
Mob behavior (in the evolutionary past) has resulted in:
1) protecting the tribe and its members from external threats (from other tribes and from packs of dangerous animals), by exposing these external threats to concerted, frenzied attack by large numbers of tribal members unconcerned with their personal safety
2) provides tribes with resources (food) by encouraging tribal members to neglect their personal safety to herd large, dangerous animals into a trap or off a cliff.
3) resolving political disputes within the tribe, where groups of friends (invariably extended family members) impose their will on other tribal members through physical mob (i.e., gang)threats.
In each case mob violence works by allowing individual tribal members to momentarily experience energized euphoria, accompanied by much reduced concern for personal safety. These adaptive psychological benefits are ONLY triggered by the presence of nearby tribal members acting similarly; i.e., the behavior is self reinforcing.
The behavior is also instinctive. We all have it as part of the physical (i.e., structural neurological) expression of our genetic makeup. It rests within our genetic makeup, ready to be triggered by the correct circumstances.
Knowledge of the nature of tribal violence allows government authorities (or communities) to create methods to raise the threshold for triggering this innate reaction in ordinary crowds, or to stop the behavior quickly when it begins.
In very general terms the proper response requires recognition that:
A) Crowds are not tribes. Members of a crowd have much weaker bonds of friendship than members of tribes. Obviously the bonds of a mob can vary depending on how homogeneous it is and how related its member are.
B) Members of a mob will be more likely to destroy and seize local community property if they do not have a stake in in the community; if they do not know the people there, and if they have do not have jobs and earn their livelihood working there: i.e., if they have no tribal ties to it.
C) Once mob violence begins, it is critical that police response be seen as overwhelming, and that action be taken to isolate and split apart individuals from the crowd.
I didn't follow all that, but I understood enough to identify it as a sociological apologia for mob violence. All you've really shown me is that when any social group descends to the level of mere animalism, bad things happen. Tell me something I don't know.
This is why the decline of Judeo-Christian morality matters. We all know man is an animal and thus capable of animalistic violence. But to the Judeo-Christian, man is not merely that. As obvious as is the similarity between man and mere animal, it's the dissimilarities between man and animal that truly astound. Your bloodless "analysis" misses all that.
The cleverest ape that ever lived never authored the simplest radio jingle. We are NOT mere animals. There IS a thing called "morality." And rioting is wrong.
Point of clarification -- my comment, posted a little while ago, was in response to an earlier comment by Mjfin. But it popped up as a comment on Jonah's piece, which ii is not. Jonah, I love the piece and agree with you. I don't agree with reducing the London riots to some sort of "sociological event." Anyway.
Whatever else they are, my comments are certainly not a "sociological apologia" for mob violence.
Rather they are a fair description of the biological origins of mob violence, and a reason why the behavior persists and is difficult to eradicate.
To put it another way, "man was born with the mark of Cain".
Put it into the class of comments of "know your enemy". Behaviors which in the long prehistoric obviously conferred some useful survival benefit on local, isolated, and threatened aboriginals can, and often do misfire when these biological impulses are loosed upon us by rootless street thugs in London.
Knowing the origins makes it is easier to understand the cure.
The exact wrong thing to do to eliminate mob violence, is for the state to generate an empty sense of entitlement by encouraging the rootless detachment from the community that comes from simply handing people money and welfare benefits.
Fair enough, mjfin. I'm not discounting the significance of social science research in identifying the root causes of -- and thus predicting and hopefully eradicating -- bad behavior.
BUT - the problem we face today is that there's a lack of consensus about JUST WHAT IS "bad" behavior. I've heard numerous pundits with national audiences rationalize the mob violence in London in terms which seriously imply it's okay to physically attack people, to loot and steal, so long as you're "disadvantaged."
Since when? Granted that we need to examine root causes in a dispassionate way, our very first - and guiding - reaction to the London rioting should be that it is an affront. It is an affront to the victims, it is an affront to honest, hardworking people everywhere. It is an affront to God. The first question to a London rioter is not "how can we understand you better?" but "how dare you?"
One definition of "bad behavior:" being unable to characterize breaking a store window and helping oneself to the contents within as bad.
I believe it was the English who first coined the term "smash and grab" as a description of this form of "bad behavior."
Not to understand that such conduct is bad reveals a major disjunction between the current English educational system, its evaluation of human conduct and the understanding of how one should live in a civilized society.
Follow
