Does the destruction of property automatically make a protest illegitimate?

If a protest ends up taking away from the intended message for reasons including poor behavior, property damage and other illegal activity it’s a complete failure but I don’t think it automatically makes it illegitimate.

No, but often the damage can become the most noticeable part, and that can detract, especially if it’s totally unrelated to the protest.

If you’re protesting high tuition and the financial offices at the school are damaged, that seems apt. Still illegal, but it doesn’t detract from your protest and may add some legitimacy.

If you’re protesting high tuition and someone destroys a fountain, someone else decides it’s a good time to steal a TV, and someone else knocks down the goalposts at the stadium, then that will hurt the perceived legitimacy of your protest.

Protests and protesters aren’t of a single mind so it can be unfair, but there does seem to be some connected responsibility in people’s minds. The protest created the environment and the vast majority of people will only hear about the events as a quick summary.

No, of course not. Just another American pro-establishment retardo-meme.

What do such people have to say about the Boston Tea Party?

I would say it seiously affects whether people are willing to listen.

Destroying property, blocking streets for long periods of time, people getting hurt, all are completely unacceptable to me.

I bitched on Facebook about some of the demonstrations regarding police brutality in the streets of cities blocking traffic. They did that shit in Miami during Elian Gonzalez also. They were setting tires on fire in Miami. Screw that. If you read an article about it, and didn’t know it was in the US, you would easily believe it was happening in some third world country.

Back to the recent events of the demonstrations against the police, I made a post on Facebook that I’m against blocking streets, and then a couple Memphis friends said they (the demonstrators) were blocking the main bridge leading into Memphis and there was a news story of a child not being able to get to her appointment at St. Jude’s hospital. How is that ok? More than one reply to my post said that they were fine with, and if some people need to get hurt to be heard, thems the breaks. Seriously?

No, but it makes it counterproductive.

@JLeslie On behalf of demonstrators everywhere, please accept my apologies for you being inconvenienced in traffic as people protest racial injustice.

So we soon forget. Remember MOVE?

“MOVE is a Philadelphia-based black liberation group founded by John Africa (born Vincent Leaphart) in 1972. The group lives communally and frequently engages in public demonstrations against racism, police brutality, and other issues.”

“The group is particularly known for two major conflicts with the Philadelphia Police Department. In 1978, a standoff resulted in the death of one police officer, injuries to several other people and life sentences for nine members. In 1985, another standoff ended when a police helicopter dropped two incendiary devices on their compound causing a fire, which was a row house in the middle of Osage Avenue. This killed eleven MOVE members, including five children. Fire destroyed 65 houses and prompted widespread news coverage.”

Let The Fire Burn is a good documentary about it.

I would argue that the protesters need to go further. Burn the fucking thing down. But start in the suburbs, destroy the tax-base first so the cities can’t afford cops anymore. Then the free market will take over and people will move to places where this shit doesn’t happen. And then cops will know that if they shoot the negros for sport we will have our houses destroyed again and moving is a total pain.

But about MOVE. The cops did way worse than any of the mini protests where a Taco Bell window gets broken. They Dresdened a few blocks and it was cool.

Yes and no. The protest is always a valuable expression of view but some elements of a “protest” only see it as a means to commit anarchy, vandalism, and general disobedience, which ruins the overall effect and legitimacy of the protest.

@kritiper :: Do you denounce the protests that were orchestrated by the Bundys in Nevada and Oregon?

In my opinion yes. If you want to be taken seriously vandalism, looting and property destruction is the mark of irrational, immature and ignorant people. It’s embarrassing to think that these people really feel they have a leg to stand on. Act like ignorant heathens loose all credibility.

IMO not at all. There are opportunistic parasites out there that know a red hot protest is a looting spree waiting to happen. I heard a stat yesterday that over 70% of those arrested in Charlotte rioting looting were from out of state. The hometown protesters seem genuine and overall make it clear they are there to peacefully protest. Tonight this goal is very evident by those that are still out on the streets.

A protest can be valid and most people there well behaved with a few doing all the antisocial acts. This does not remove the validity of the protest but i think the moral authority of those organizing it does weaken in the eyes of the public if there’s property destruction.

The cause can remain valid, but the protest can be a clusterfuck. Remember this as well: those highly publicized instances of violence and vandalism are often caused by provocateurs, plants from police agencies, but the mainstream press is very bad at reporting this. That was the case throughout the anti-Vietnam War movement. The main culprits were the FBI.

@zenvelo This was not protestors crossing a street. They blocked a bridge. A major bridge; the interstate. You think that’s ok? I’m all for protesting, but not for holding up interstate traffic. Do you also think two wrongs make a right? A child is having trouble getting to St. Jude’s. I’ll assume you know exactly what hospital that is.

I’ve seen plenty a protest in NYC and there are cops helping them walk through the city and cross streets. They hold up traffic also momentarily. I’m fine with that.

Especially now when the media is everywhere. We already have the stories of cops killing black people on TV without any protesting. I’m not saying don’t protest, but I am saying don’t harm others physically. Don’t vandalize and terrorize your own city.

In the case of the cops killing black people, a whole bunch of white people look at black people demonstrating with violence, and decide in their mind that maybe that black person was doing something that caused the cop to worry about his own safety or the safety of others. It is counterproductive.

@zenvelo I’m just curious, if violence and vandalism ensues, does that make you more interested or sway you towards agreeing with the protestors?

Which side were you on with the Elian Gonzalez story? If you were on the side of returning the boy to his father, I don’t think seeing and hearing about civil unrest would change your mind. All that burning trash and tires, and then to top it off a lot of protestors were holding up Cuban flags! How does that make sense to them? That must be a cultural divide. If you want the US to listen, shouldn’t they have a few US flags to show their loyalty and appreciation for being accepted into our country? They want the US government to keep the boy in the US, because Castro is horrible, but they are holding the flag now associated with Castro. I get that they still feel a lot of Cuban pride, and they already hate the democrats, but what they did did nothing. I feel pretty sure if the same thing happened today, under any president, the boy would be returned to his father.

The protesting went on too long and looked too uncivilized, and they just wound up looking like a bad stereotype.

Here is one story covering it. I think it’s fairly balanced. If you’re interested, I’m curious what you think.

I don’t think it “automatically makes a protest illegitimate” but I don’t see what stealing TV’s and other stuff does toward the protest itself. I remember when the Rodney King riots were going on – people were doing smash and grab and running out of stores with all kinds of merchandise. That’s just one example (and I know there are many newer ones) where the stealing just seems like opportunism.

In the case of the child not being able to get to the children’s hospital, I think blocking the bridge is not simply an inconvenience, @zenvelo. How is a child not getting her treatment or surgery or whatever a proper payment for whatever else is going on? If that were your child and she needed cancer treatment or something life and death, would you still feel like it’s simply an inconvenience?

I googled and it seems the child did make it to the hospital in Memphis. It doesn’t change the point though that there are innocent people just trying to get across the bridge, whether it be parents and children or truck drivers trying to make a lining. From what I read, the bridge was blocked for 4 hours. 4 hours! That’s a long time to block interstate traffic.

I lived on Miami Bea ch during the other example. If you read the Seth or some people are upset the police eventually broke up this one demonstration. They had let it go in for hours. Some of the Cuban-Americans said it was their city, neighborhood, whatever, and the police had no right. That the police and America were just like Castro, because they were breaking up people setting fires in the street.

This is why I’m not all up in arms about football players not standing for the pledge. I’d rather that than fire blocking the streets. 9/11 is pushing it, but any other day, go ahead and sit.

The understanding can be derived from the purpose of destruction itself. If a group of demonstrator only stand around with billboard signs and using megaphone nobody will take them seriously as most people can easily ignore this and go on about their life. If these people perform property destruction (especially the ones owned by government) then this will become serious issue and both the public and the government will have no choice but to give serious attention to these demonstrators. With that being said, a protest shall not become illegitimate due to this forseeable action, so long as the message is passed/goal is achieved the demonstrators have done their deed. Demonstration, if seen from another view point is a good thing despite its rather destructive nature, some countries have been liberated/revolutionized due to demonstration (yes, demonstration that involves destruction).

Illegitimate to whom and for what purpose?

The very first thing I teach people when I do organizer trainings is that every action must have a purpose. It’s amazingly common even amongst people who should know better to squander time, resources, and people on actions which have no end goal. They walk around and wave placards until enough people run out of energy that the thing dissolves and everyone goes home defeated and demoralized. To avoid this, every action taken must have an end goal to it, one which is possible to accomplish. In this way we can evaluate whether any given strategy is viable, and can judge objectively in debrief whether an action was successful.

The answer to your question depends on the goal of the protest. Sometimes destruction of property is useful and sometimes it isn’t. Sometimes violence is useful and sometimes it isn’t. It’s going to depend on what is being attempted. If you’re trying to get positive and sympathetic media coverage in order to recruit squeaky-clean middle class college kids to your organization to fill your war chest with cash, then avoid smashing windows. On the other hand, if you want to recruit campus radicals to get some harder-core-than-thou meat shields for your next action, then smashing some windows at McDonalds is almost de rigeur.

I have not read the other answers yet. I do not think a demonstration or protest gives anyone the right to loot, destroy or pillage. I look at some of the footage and see people stealing TV’s, computers and other large ticket items and I know they are just using the chaos to be thugs.
So yes, I feel the destruction does not make a protest legitimate. I don’t look at the footage and think, oh yes, they have a great point.

@chyna ”...to be thugs.”

Just call them niggers, since that’s what you really mean.

@JLeslie So you are fine with nice tidy protestors that don’t disrupt traffic except as escorted and managed by the police escort. I think you might be missing the point of a protest.

And, as you pointed out, the child was inconvenienced, but not prevented from getting to an appointment. While I am not discounting the need for the child’s appointment, it wasn’t an emergency. And, there were alternative ways to get around.

“When diplomacy fails, there is only one alternative. Violence. Force must be applied without apology. It is the Starfleet way.”
Thing is, the violence needs to be targeted.
Breaking shop windows is pointless. It is the state and its lackeys that need to be in the crosshairs.

Thug is a very old term, going waay back to ancient India, given to bands of robbers and assassins from around 1830 by the British.
It denotes anyone of criminal intent, riff raffy behavior, gangsters, and color has nothing to do with it. The dictionary definition is ” a violent person, especially a criminal.”
Just because “thug” has taken on a pop slang meaning doesn’t change the origins of the word or it’s proper definition.

I don’t associate thug with a particular race at all.

similar question, similar arguments…

The US was founded in the idea that violence is an appropriate response to injustice. Why doesn’t that apply to those who are still oppressed?

Once upon a time a bunch of folks were unhappy about something and to make themselves heard boarded a ship and destroyed a bunch of private property. Somehow no one feels that the protest was illegitimate because of this destruction. Quite the opposite in fact – we hail these particular protestors as heros. Of course that was different. These particular protestors weren’t “thugs”, but were wealthy white men of the land-holding and mercantile class.

When “protesting” involves vandalism of innocent peoples businesses, vehicles and causes bodily harm to others, that is the line crossed and it is unacceptable. Thugs trashing their own communities merchants, breaking in, looting, in essence, stealing from their own neighbors and harming their own is unacceptable, period. You want to set fire to a poster of the police dept. in the street fine. You want to hold up protest signs, fine. You want to shout from a bullhorn fine, but if you resort to vandalism and assault, you deserve to be taken down by any means available.

@Coloma
your “country” was founded on vandalism and treason.

Once upon a time there were valid, targeted reasons to get on those boats and destroy property. They were well organized, effective and sent a clear as day message with that particular act. Equating it to these media induced riots that are not targeted and rather aimless does our founders a great disservice.

.

@ragingloli I’m with @ARE_you_kidding_me
What’s happening these days has nothing to do with ancient history. Apples & Oranges.

*apples and slightly greener apples

So destroying the tea was not vandalism of business? It was not stealing? Hell, even Benjamin Franklin found the actions of the tea party protestors appalling and stated that they should pay for the destroyed tea.

Good for Ben.

So is that a “yes” or a “no”?

@Darth_Algar
she means of course that her “founding fathers” were noble white people, and today it is just uppity nignogs

@Darth_Algar Yes, that is a yes, good for Ben to not promote criminal behavior.

@ragingloli I can speak for myself thank you very much. That is not at all what I meant and what the hell is a nignog?

So it’s perfectly okay on Fluther to call people niggers as long as they use the appropriately deniable dogwhistle terminology, but any attempt to point this out or prove that this is in fact what they’re doing gets sent down the memory hole by MinLove enforcers.

And then people wonder why this place is dying by degrees.

@johnpowell Yes. Those guys were self righteous self-serving radicals.

@Coloma nignog = thug

@SmashTheState, where I come from (originally) it is a derogatory term for a black person. See this compilation from Love Thy Neighbour.

What the hell is nig-nog? I’m so glad I don’t know these terms. Although, just two days ago my friend said her daughter calls the ghetto the “trap.” That was new to me, and my friend for that matter. We giggled about it. Is that awful? We thought the name was creative.

See the clip @JLeslie.

I’m wondering now if people still use Kike? I feel like that word was effectively eliminated from usage, but maybe I’m naive? I hate name calling. I don’t hear it done much. To me, calling someone a thug or hoodlum, because they have the behavior (regardless of race) of what I think of as thugs and hoodlums, it isn’t name calling to me. If you’re a vandal and a thief with little thought to the negative impact you have on people then you are what you are.

@JLeslie, some probably do. I’ve not heard the term used in years. I haven’t seen nignog used for years either. It’s an offensive term. I hope I won’t see it used again. It has never meant ‘thug’ where I’m from. It simply means Black person, and if you watch the clip, you’ll see the inference is that Black people are inferior.

To answer the original question, the word “automatically” renders the question nonsense. Of course not. Whether a protest is legitimate or not depends entirely on the people involved and the situation. It has little to do with a mob mentality.

It depends on the type of protest. Take the Black Lives Matters movement. Its purpose is to protest unjustified police violence. If the protestors are looting, destroying property and assaulting instead of protesting police violence, then it makes the protest illegitimate.

Conversely, the destruction of tea by the Boston Tea Party was a legitimate act of protest because the protest was about taxation without representation. The destruction of the tea meant that it could not be sold or taxed. Thus, fulfilling the intended purpose of the protest.

“It depends on the type of protest.”

It depends entirely on one’s point of view, that’s all.