An opinion on the positive and negative values of riots in general
Rioting is a destructive expression of anger used to bring urgency and publicity to issues that concern rioting parties. This expression is not often meditated, but rather, it is a spontaneous action usually caused by tension. This tension is usually due to a social or political stance a group finds unjust; leading to protests that could develop into riots. Whether the protest is peaceful or violent, it is undeniable that the crowd is fuelled with an energy not easily defused. Ignoring the issue only creates a stronger tension, making the group more volatile – which may entice them to erupt in a riot. In general, are riots justifiable as an appropriate means of expression for change, or should they be avoided entirely?
Beginning with the negative, riots, in most cases, cause structural damage. There is no doubt that smashing the windows of a local business and burning cars in the streets has its impact on the whole community. Damages to buildings and streets can have prolonged effects on the city and could cause for serious structural damage that could take extended periods of time to fix. These expenses could also take up a majority of the cities budget, which ultimately limits the amount of funding that the city can offer for its people in the way of grants, community funding, and community outreach. This also hurts small businesses due to the damages and loss of customers to their shops. Economically, rioting is a strain on everyone in the city.
Rioting also dangers the wellbeing of people in the surrounding area. Where there is a riot, there will be people injured. Further clashes occur when are people trying to suppress the riot; usually in non-lethal yet dangerous and painful methods such as tear gas. The rioting party usually has no intention for violence between people. However, injuries among civilians are inescapable. The biggest issue is the unlucky third party that makes rioting very difficult to justify. If we take a condensed city block where a riot has broken out and suddenly a building catches fire, that fire will spread. It is the innocent people in those buildings who suffer and cannot flee in the wake of a burning building. Endangering unsuspecting peoples lives for a cause, whether intentional or not, is difficult to justify as the correct action.
There are, however, positive aspects to rioting that should not be overlooked. A riot does not come about out of nowhere; there is always a catalyst that brings people together and evokes such strong emotion. The riot is always a reaction to something that is deemed unjust by a typically large group of people and they feel that their complaints have not duly been recognized. The intentions of a riot are, in most cases at least, good intentions; people want to be heard and have their issues solved. As a consequence of the havoc that comes along with a riot, it is surely a priority to stop further destruction. Rioting also shows that the issue at hand is important enough for people to risk their wellbeing for a cause. A riot is a powerful statement.
Riots generally have good intentions behind them, but are often misguided in their practical application. They usually end up doing more harm than good for the cause. When something becomes popular by violent means, it transfers over to give the illusion that people who subscribe to that believe are also violent. This can detract from the purpose of the riot because people are afraid of violence. Fear and violence are not effective diplomatic means because once the fear and violence leave, people will likely revert back to their prior beliefs. Finding a non-violent way of educating people is always more effective than instilling fear. People sometimes need to be stirred from their comfortable lives and act against things that are unjust, but violence is not an effective means. Following from that, riots, though usually with good intentions behind them, are not effective ways to solve long-term issues.
Photo by Arash Azizzada via CC BY-NC 2.0