Part 2, Section ii
2b. The Function of Language in Rhetorical Strategies
The language used to describe rioting is sometimes similar to that used to describe warfare. In reality, the privilege of true “war” is given only to the elites whereas the riot is associated with the poor and otherwise powerless. If we look at labor movements in America, even these have used coercion to persuade, this being the “brawl” (another term for the riot). A cornerstone of American society has been to limit government, often by street revolt. This allows for checks and balances by the American people on their own government, simultaneously expressing people’s agency. What is this, if not the contemporary “riot and looting”?
Unfortunately, democracies have institutionalized protest and persuasion, so these methods alone — that is, without violence — may not be enough to counter the state, and this is a current dilemma being seen with the spread of “peaceful protests.” Labeling and enforcing peace at a demonstration detracts from and attempts to purify the sentiments that precede the protest itself.
The focus should be on the reason why people take action instead of how they are doing so, as this further demonizes protestors, especially Black ones. Mass media is also complicit in the perpetuation of anti-Black messaging by focusing on protest tactics instead of police tactics. All protest actions are inherently conflictual once the police arrive: the police arrive with the sole purpose of neutralizing resistance – physically, morally, and psychologically – and repressing protesters.
In the words of folks from the Youth Justice Coalition in Los Angeles: “Showing up to a conflict with the mentality that you’re labeling protesters as ‘peaceful’ totally erases the power dynamic between a militarized force and unarmed residents of color. AND even if people at protests are doing things that are deemed ‘not peaceful,’ it’s either as a response to systemic violence OR they’re police/agents themselves.”