I'm almost embarrassed to ask, but why is this happening? I read that this started saturday as a protest against a policeman who shot someone, but that doesn't seem to be what the protests is about now.
The sources I checked don't reach any kind of consensus.
Forty years ago Harvard Professor Edward Banfield wrote a chapter in his book about the riots of the 1960's. From what I can tell, almost everything he wrote applies to these current riots in London.
The primary reason that people riot is that rioting is fun. It gives an immense surge of adrenaline and other hormones, it gives the thrill of chaos and action, of the power of mindless destruction. In order for a riot to occur there must be some sort of event that acts as a Schelling point or catalyst. This Schelling point might be a real grievance, or a contrived one. It might be some innocuous event, like a sports victory. News of the riot spreads via the news channels of the day - tv, internet, twitter, etc - and the riot snowballs. The final necessary ingredient is weakness on the part of the police. If the police are outnumbered, and only allowed to manually arrest with handcuffs, then the rioters will go wild, and even more rioters will join as they realize they suffer no consequence for their actions. If the police start beating the hell out of people, or even using live rounds, the riot ends fast.
the thrill of chaos and action, of the power of mindless destruction.
I find that really hard to relate to, although I do see this in some people. I wonder if these people have ever had the thrill of creation--birthing something beautiful and unique into the world? That's quite a rush, too. Are riots ultimately a symptom of a failure to educate, to guide, to nurture?
I think the thrill of the riot is pretty widespread. I myself am a pretty staid, law abiding, non-violent fellow. But I definitely feel the urge - whether its wanting to destroy my tennis racket after losing a game or wanting to participate in post-victory riots that I've witnessed first hand. But the thing that holds me back are a) fear of getting in trouble and b) my conscience. My mom brought me up with a very strict sense of right and wrong and that still stays with me. From what I have read and experienced of inner city culture, its the parenting (or lack thereof) and the failure to instill a conscience that makes rioting more common in these communities. Another factor is that the media and/or educational system and/or community culture have generally built up a sense of grievance and entitlement. That sense of grievance gives an excuse to act out, and a rationalization that assuages the conscience. These grievances may be real or not, but the destruction is still completely unjustified, because its certainly not the hard working storekeeper who's shop is getting burned who is responsible for whatever grievances the rioter might have had.
Also, more than likely you would lose your job and professional standing if you got busted for looting. This is a pretty big disincentive for you. But for the looters it's kudos.
Creating is much more difficult than destroying. Creating actually takes preparation, discipline, work, sacrifice, frustration, and the ability to put off till tomorrow the pleasure we want to experience today. In so far as education tempers people with the ability to sustain that process, then yes you're probably right, it is a failure there. Not an easy problem to solve, though.
I totally agree with you. Creating is more difficult than destroying. Although part of me thinks that destroying at this level would be very difficult. I mean, these people are ransacking some 89-year-old's small business and looting retail stores. That should feel different than fighting an oppressor. Even though you are pumped up with adrenaline, isn't there some part of you that just knows that you're being part of the problem? That's what I have a difficult time understanding. But does this just show the brokenness of the situation? Do these people feel trapped, without hope, disaffected, like nothing matters?
Originally it was a protest about the guy that got shot by the police. But, there's a lot of kids with nothing to lose and in the last couple of hours they've realised it's a free for all.
I'm not justifying anything here just trying to make an analysis: The reason they don't care is because they don't have a hope in hell of getting a job in mainstream society that would pay enough to get them out of the bunk bed in their parents house. London is so expensive to live in and there's a lot of poorly educated young people that are stuck with no chance of an independent life. So the attitude on the street is like 'we can't get it by getting a job and living normally so we're just gonna take it'. There's very little chance of getting caught at the moment, no reason not to. So it's not really random violence and stealing, it's probably even at some level a rational choice to do this if you are someone in this position.
The police can't cope because they don't seem to understand how the rioters are organising through BBM and because Britain has relatively fewer police officers per head of population compared to other European countries and the US.
Who knows what'll happen next. Twitter is lit up with people saying 'send in the army' at the moment which seems nuts to me but quite frankly seems like anything could happen tonight.
Started off as a protest against a police shooting (details will depend on which side you ask) and then escalated. Now it is just vandalizing, destroying property, and looting. Some BBC commenters were saying that for the young guys, the austerity measures with a combination of feeling marginalized, unemployed, and no hope for a future plays a part in this too.
Yes, the eighties austerity, cuts, unemployment and we had riots then too.
Local council budgets are being cut. Libraries and swimming pools, after school activities, policing. All being eroded.
From what I see of the news, it's somehow different this time. Perhaps more nihilistic, versus the more confrontational riots in the eighties. It definitely seems there's a goal of hitting shops full of 'shinys'.
Of course, modern messaging may also be playing a part in enabling more 'agile' riots.
I remember growing up and watching demonstrations and protests on TV - unless my memory is seriously impaired, something has changed in the decade and half since then. It seems in recent years black bloc tactics have taken over protesting, to the point where one rarely sees peaceful protests anymore.
Black bloc animals will seize upon any cause, just or otherwise, as an excuse to loot and cause mayhem - and the worst part is, their mere presence erodes the credibility of otherwise legitimate groups with legitimate grievances.
The city of London has it's own police force called the Meltropolitan Police (the Met). This is a different organisation to the normal English police. I think the Met carry guns but the normal police don't.
Rome has a similar thing with the Carabinieri, I understand these guys are part of the military.
The Met is responsible for Greater London (where all the riots seem to be so far). The City of London Police is responsible for the Square Mile (the actual City) in the centre.
The City of London police don't especially carry firearms. That said, you may see more of the specially armed police in the City, simply because of a high terrorist threat
The Met is just another regional police force, similar to (and on a level with) the Hampshire or Sussex police. It is only really special because of the size and importance of its area of operations.
It's long since become little more than hooliganism. I'm sure a variety a deeper societal-reasons will be dredged up in the weeks and months to come; but what started off as a sit-in on Saturday is now just a backdrop for a large number of disaffected people, mainly youths, to smash shops and steal.
It's not native Britons rioting, largely it is young members of immigrant communities. However, given the apparent youth of the rioters I doubt racial politics is a significant issue here. It appears to indeed be rioting for the sake of rioting.
Source required. It's not completely clear what you mean by native and immigrant, but it could be construed as racial slander. Please clarify and source.
NB - I'm not normally a stickler for sourcing, but I feel a statement as controversial as this requires one.
I think by immigrant communities he was also including immigrants children (1st 2nd generation or more). I've seen this used as to visible minorities in many places around the world. Including country that are mostly immigrants like Canada (where I'm from).
What has been reported is that it's youth from poor neighborhoods. Considering the population composition of those neighborhoods, I'm going to guess that it's probable the groups are composed of a majority of people from those immigrant communities. It still doesn't mean it's a immigrant riot. I bet poor non-immigrant (as in their family always been there) are also participating.
