Since the police killing of George Floyd this summer, the United States has been reckoning with systemic racial inequality. This has led to many conversations among activists and commentators about which tactics are most effective in creating change. One camp might say the best way is to vote or get involved in party politics, another might say mass peaceful demonstrations are the way, while yet another says peaceful means have been exhausted without bearing fruit. President Kennedy said in 1962, “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.” Nearly 60 years later, has the country reached that point?
Calloway: Destruction distracts from protesters’ goals
While some may see violence and looting as acceptable methods of fighting racism in capitalism, I see it as a distraction from what the fight is really for: to acknowledge and destroy systemic racism.
I see no problem with calling out big corporations and businesses for their persistent acts of racial discrimination. I want these companies to take accountability, change and become a part of the solution. But the looting and property damage has broadened its target from just megacorporations to smaller and local businesses. It is no longer targeted civil misconduct and has instead become an opportunity for individuals to steal whatever they want for fun.
Wrecking property creates yet another distraction right-wing politicians use to diverge away from the actual problem. People who sit in a position of power purposely overlook systemic racism and instead draw attention to the looters and the destruction.
I agree that merchandise can be replaced but lives cannot. I get that. But real change starts with education. Education leads us to understand the problem, see where it stems from and find the right steps to make change happen. Peaceful protests show unity. Signing petitions and donating to organizations shows support. Looting and destruction shows irresponsible anger.
Aghel: Controlling protest tactics does nothing but ruin its purpose
As several protesters smashed windows and sprayed paint at Wells Fargo in downtown Eugene during a July 25 protest, other protesters stepped in to try to prevent the vandalism. “Stop trying to please the white man,” a woman cried at the so-called protest police. “These banks don’t care about you.” The woman and I agree: fear-mongering the threat of looking like “bad protesters” to muzzle protesters’ expression of anger compromises the purpose of the protest.
Advocating for a “diversity of tactics” isn’t a call to violence; it’s merely a call to place control of protesters’ actions in their own hands. They get to choose how they express their anger. After all, spray paint and a broken glass can be replaced in just a couple of days. Human lives, though, cannot.
If you support the Black Lives Matter movement, then you must acknowledge that no change has been effective or implemented. That is cause for anger. That is cause to place pressure on institutions, businesses and officials. Diversity of tactics creates that pressure. If our form of protest is dictated by what media and officials characterize as good and bad, then the protest does nothing but merely appease and solidify the existing hegemony. Anti-racist groups must undergo a paradigm shift. They must support each other in whatever protest tactic they choose, not tear each other apart.