Violence and its Effect on Success
The cause for which Black Lives Matter stands is righteous: that Black people should be equal, respected and unoppressed. But how do we ensure the movements’ continued relevance and eventual success? By having zero-tolerance for violence. A righteous and impactful movement can remain thus in the absence of violence.
George Floyd’s death was an all-too-common tragedy. Watching his last moments on video, feeling as though I have seen this situation play out a thousand times. I found myself shaking my head in disgust at how some US police officers treat our fellow Black human beings.
Black individuals in the US are 250% more likely to be killed than White individuals by police. Black people have been historically and contemporarily oppressed. Their untimely deaths at the hands of some officers seems to be a manifestation of said oppression. Some American people are rightly incensed by this. They have the right peacefully to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. As per the Constitution’s First Amendment.
I concede as to the limits of my knowledge of the US situation. Instead, I thought I may focus on the domestic UK situation, wherein I have slightly more of this (still limited) knowledge. Nonetheless, I feel I have something to add. You may (will undoubtedly) disagree.
On 3rd June 2020, thousands marched on (among other places) Westminster. On the whole it was peaceful, powerful and inspiring to see such international support for the movement and condemnation of the brutal acts across the Atlantic. However, a few protestors became violent outside of Downing Street, culminating in the punching in the face of a British police officer.
How illustrative is it that my focus has been occupied with such a minutia of wrong-doers, despite the majority of protestors remaining admirably peaceful? This is because it takes only a fraction of the movement to sour the optics of said movement. And optics, whether we like it or not, are key to a movement’s survival. And are usually an eventual determinant of its success.
When thinking about writing this piece, I found that presenting the philosophical underpinnings of liberty and its supreme importance would be a fruitless and thankless task. With such raw emotional outrage at the epicentre of the protests. I would instead rather spend the time exploring how such a movement could be more effective and increase its success. Helping to better the situation of the oppressed.
Extinction Rebellion found that their non-violent campaigns succeeded about 53% of the time, compared to 25% for a violent resistance. Stephan and Chenoweth, in their Why Civil Resistance Works, found that when comparing the outcomes of 323 non-violent and violent resistance campaigns from 1900–2006, non-violent resistance methods are likely to be more successful than violent methods in achieving strategic objectives. The International Center on Nonviolent Conflict’s found that, when looking at 308 uprisings from 2013, that non-violent protests are three times more effective in stopping mass repressions and killings.
Although far from exhaustive, the claim that only violence in protests can bring about real change is seemingly unfounded in evidence. Yet, the protests of our focus have not set out with violent intent. And so, once again, why am I focussing on this small minority of violent protestors? What is their significance?
I believe in this movement. Any action which hinders it is something we need to criticise, in order for the movement to develop and be as impactful as possible. Increasing the likelihood of its overall success. Focussing on this violence does not mean I am attributing to the whole a violent label. Quite the opposite. If you truly believe in a cause, like I do this one, then you want it to succeed.
Some claim that we should only focus on the good (and without doubt there is so much good) of the movement. Seeking to not draw attention to any uncharacteristic violence. I find this uncomfortable. China brought millions of its citizens out of poverty this millennium. That is fantastic, and the reduction of poverty is a cause I support. So, should I be quiet about their imprisonment of Muslims in camps? Just because I advocate their overall programme of reducing poverty? I do not think so.
The idea that because a movement has a broad goal with which we agree — that Black Lives do Matter — that they should be forgiven, from time-to-time, for being violent. We should not allow any entity (aside from the state) an ability to be violent. Namely because:
1. It opens the movement up to criticism from those seeking material with which to invalidate the cause.
2. It tends to make them less effective in realising their aims.
3. It is immoral, and destructive to the very civil liberties the cause is seeking to strengthen. A Rawlsian conception of Civil Disobedience is public and not violent. And ‘any interference with the civil liberties of others tends to obscure the […] quality of one’s act’ (Rawls, 1971).
It is peaceful protesting that ostensibly brings about the more optimal result: the success of the movement.
For the sake of those civil liberties we find desperately lacking, especially for the Black people who have suffered at the hands of police brutality, let us remind the world of their worth. In how they should be respected, no matter their ethnicity, creed or religion.
My focus here is not to scold the movement, nor brandish it intrinsically violent. It is instead a plea. A plea to condemn violence in all its forms, and in particular when protesting. In doing so, the movement can circumvent criticism from those who seek to write it off as opportunistic and essentially shallow. Increasing the likeliness of its success. Ensuring that Black civil liberties and Lives really do Matter.
By Connor Axiotes
