Why the Youth of London are Rioting
This Guardian headline begins to answer the question –
“Looting ‘fuelled by social exclusion: Young looters from poor estates have nothing to lose and no reason to obey social norms, say experts.”
My initial reaction to the riots is a simpler version of the same answer – Food and Money. People with reasonable amounts of food and money don’t riot. A writer who lives in the area of the riots, Darcus Howe, claims that racial prejudice by police also led to the riots. Howe said his grandson has been stopped and searched by police countless times, just for being black.
This combination of social exclusion and persecution, along with the continued trend of the world’s wealthiest carving themselves an ever-larger share of the pie while millions are unemployed and hungry is the reason for the London riots.
Are the people justified in looting and rioting? On the face of it, it seems like marching into a Wal-Mart and grabbing from a soulless corporation is a victimless crime. A few points to the contrary –
1. The rioters were not discriminating. They burned down local businesses along with looting major chains.
2. Rioting is at best a short-term reaction to a long-term problem. The people rioting have legitimate complaints – racial inequality and economic injustice. Smashing windows and stealing only provides justification for the people doing the oppressing. You want real change? Educate yourself on the cause of the economic inequality. Tell people what’s going on. Show me a David Cameron or Barack Obama supporter and I’ll show you someone who wants to make the world a better place. Many people just haven’t realized that Cameron and Obama are puppets of the bankers causing the financial crises. If the same amount of people rioting handed out flyers in the middle class areas or held sit-ins at banks for the sake of economic and social equality, then you would accomplish something.
3. Rioting won’t change you. When we make internal changes, starting with our selfish desires for the self alone and anger and judgment, the world around us will reflect our changes.
Darcus Howe
httpv://youtu.be/biJgILxGK0o
Finally, I would like to share with you a comment from reddit.com on the BBC anchor’s behavior during this interview.
“Do you want to see an amazing example of how reporting the news should really look like? Take for example, a journalist covering a story in another country.
Let’s say Mike Smith is covering a story in some foreign country. As a journalist, his job is to report the events happening, and offer you, the viewer, insight by interviewing local people who have first hand knowledge.
The journalist has no reason, nor does he have any agenda in directing the conversation into any one direction. He is not from this country. He has no personal vested stake, or any financial vested stake. Obviously his job is to report the events from this area. He is supposed to ask questions and then give insight into the atmosphere surrounding the story. This bitch right here, just like all local (country-wide) news stations do not want to listen to what someone has to say; they simply want to direct what the person says to fit their pre-scripted narrative.
Sometimes this is subtle, especially during coverage of a catastrophic event (hurricanes, floods, storms). Or when covering the political/economic/social events of a foreign country. Seriously, watch CNN report on news from another country, like these riots – and then compare how they cover an event like this in America. If this video right here does not show you how news is no longer news, but more staged commentary, then… well… not sure what to tell you.
That lady, that do-good, know-it-all, self entitled woman had no respect for his opinion. She asked him a question because he was there – that is her f—ing job. She’s not a shrink, she’s not an economist or a civics teacher. She cared NOTHING about what this man was speaking of. He could have told her that the sky was falling and her emotionless, care-free responses and inflection in her voice would have remained the same: “Mhm, sure, ok sir. Sorry! We have to cut it off here. Now, we bring you BREAKING NEWS on this new product hitting the shelves.”
By definition, news is something so rare that it almost never happens. That’s why it’s news. The more often an event occurs the more our feeling of security moves closer to our model of security. 20 years ago AIDS was what everyone was scared of. We’ve grown to assess our risk managements towards it, and now you never hear about an AIDs related death on the news. My point is, I’m sick of everything new being turned into news. Yes, these riots ARE NEWS. But along with the constant 24/7 news cycle, there is not only a push to define anything happening in reality as news; but there is also a push to create news out of news. This could have easily been spun as, “So and so condones riots!” I’m not saying the BBC would necessarily participate in this type of behavior, but we need to clarify what is news, and what is commentary. We’re merging the two ever closer as time goes on.”