This is more of a question than anything else:
What causes a riot?
Sure, we’re hearing that, in the case of Baltimore, and in particular the part of Baltimore that’s “ground zero” for the riots, is especially impoverished, either as a result of longstanding segregation, according to Slate, the combination of corrupt city government and failed Great Society programs, according to Rich Lowry (National Review contributor writing in Politico), or Congress’s unwillingness to appropriate new sums of money for child care/universal preschool and other programs, per Barack Obama, as cited by Ramesh Ponnuru. And we’re likewise told by some on the left that the people of Baltimore are rightfully rising up, infitada-style, against their oppressors (see Slate, again), while the right criticizes the mayor’s infamous “space to destroy” comment and the seeming indifference to property destruction evidenced in the delay in calling in the National Guard, while some on the left and right are eager to tell us that the arsonists and looters were only a small minority, thus hardly relevant.
But none of that really answers the question: why a riot? Why looting? Why arson? Were the rioters simply garden-variety criminals, who saw a chance and took it? Were the arsonists here no different than the arsonists who set fire to abandoned homes every night of the year (if not in Baltimore, then certainly in Detroit)? Or were ordinarily law-abiding people sucked in?
Did the protests, here and in Ferguson, simply inexplicably, almost as a force of nature, mutate into violence, or was it the nature of the protest, and the protesters, that the violence and destruction was inevitable and it was just a matter of when that first window is broken?
And defenders of the Baltimorians have been saying, “white people riot, too, and for even dumber reasons, like their team losing, or even winning, a championship game.” Which is true, though I haven’t read of any such riot lately. But here, too: why? What is that moment when the first car is set on fire? Is it someone who, minutes ago, was truly just giddy about the victory or angry about the defeat? Or is it someone who sees an opportunity?
Certainly, in any case, politicians speaking as if rioting is a “natural” response to whatever event they’re nominally protesting would seem to fuel this further, by providing justification.
Anyway, another topic I’d research if I didn’t have a day job on which I’m just taking a lunch break. As always, your comments welcomed.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In