Redefining "Violence" Out Of Existence For "Woke" Purposes
Frank Furedi writes at Spiked on the project of the linguistic sanitising of the riots. "Are we allowed to call them riots?":
Rebecca Solnit, writing in the Guardian, goes further: she wants to abolish the use of the word violence in relation to the current upheaval. She warns that it is 'important to be clear about who is violent and what violence is'. She claims that 'property destruction and harming human beings are profoundly different actions, and with a few exceptions... virtually all the violence visited on human beings during this round of civil unrest across the US has been inflicted by police'.There is of course a case for justifying the violence of the protesters. But to deny that there has been violence is to be dishonest and to avoid facing up to the destructive reality that is unfolding in front of our eyes. It not only seeks to censor language - it is also an attempt to alter how people see the world.
...This normalisation of violence, and the broader policing of language around the riots, is closely linked to the cultural project of delegitimising the views of white people on the current upheaval. Numerous commentators use the term 'white fragility' to flag up the moral inferiority of white people who hold supposedly wrong views on the current protesting and rioting. Whiteness has been pathologised; it has become a secular equivalent of original sin that demands constant contrition and penance. A video doing the rounds that shows a group of white people kneeling in front of a group of black people and begging for their forgiveness for the history of racism is the latest example of the bizarre practice of checking one's 'white privilege'.
The people who promote the idea of 'white fragility' are not really demanding that white people make an effort to understand racial oppression - they are demanding an acknowledgement of guilt and a form of penance. One convert to this worldview admonishes his fellow white people for worrying too much about violence and rioting. He writes that 'by focusing first on judging the nature of the protest rather than truly considering their purpose, you are once again invalidating that long history of injustice'. 'As a result', he continues, 'you're becoming a part of that injustice'. And his views are not up for debate. In his mind, that whiteness is a scourge is an incontrovertible truth. 'If you won't accept me calling you a racist, then all I'll say is this: you're certainly thinking like one', he writes.
The collapse of public language is paralleled by a refusal to get to the bottom of the current crisis. Blaming whiteness for the problems of the world might sometimes look like a genuine act of racial contrition, but all it really does is reduce the issues facing America to a simplistic racial common denominator: whiteness. Instead of serving as a tool of liberation, the Culture War against whiteness actually allows sections of the cultural elite to consolidate their moral and political authority.
... We need more honesty about what is happening. Ensuring that the classical meaning of words is not lost is a precondition for restoring open debate and a grown-up public life.
"Riots" is fine. Next.
I don't know what "Spiked" is, and I'm sure Quillette will have a 5,000-word thumbsucker about the whole thing and work "tenure" into the argument, but let's just agree that "riots" works and move along, move along. I'm already bored over the cri de coeur over "Wuhan virus." One would think grownups would have better things to worry about.
Kevin at June 2, 2020 11:54 PM
This is what it's like every six months or so when there's a circumcision blog post on here. Or rather, when there's THE circumcision blog post, because it never changes, not in the post and not in the comments. An unnecessary medical procedure is performed on healthy tissue without the child's consent... Etc. etc. etc.
It's only been a week since the last one. But somehow respect for language has come back into vogue.
Some would credit world events for the dynamism. But I think this needle swings erratically.
Crid at June 3, 2020 12:43 AM
In their anthropology, only the white person (and, usually, the straight, white, male) is a moral actor. He may be their devil, but he alone is free to choose.
I saw a black woman professor on CNN trying to support the protests by saying that black people have a lot of strong emotions, and they want attention, so they channel it into violence. So does your toddler.
People who take the statements of this riot's leaders seriously will conclude that they should not be around black people, whose own apologists say they are lacking in moral agency and who cannot achieve the self-control of a junior high student.
Their special pleading is contrary to any real goal of self-actualization. They are not participating in the power process of making their own way in the world; they are asking again for someone above them to give them something which cannot be given but only attained through work and perseverance. Anyone who swallows this tripe will continue to be unhappy, even if the world gives him the $300,000 per black person that was demanded earlier in these riots as extortion for temporary peace.
El Verde Loco at June 3, 2020 5:37 AM
On the contrary. This would be a great time to correct the unjust law that says defending your property is not cause for deadly force. It absolutely is.
jdgalt at June 3, 2020 10:28 AM
"He who steals my purse steals my right to live … old saws to the contrary. For he steals my bread and meat and bed, and in doing so imperils my life." ~ Jack London (The Sea Wolf)
On the other hand, which items of your property are worth a human life?
Conan the Grammarian at June 3, 2020 10:47 AM
All the contrition in the world won't alter the fact that there are incentives that keep bad cops on the job. Human nature dictates that some cops, who are human, will be reckless or violent. Democrats love unions but cop unions are famous for keeping bad cops on the job no matter what. District attorneys are reluctant to prosecute bad cops. The "qualified immunity" ruling of the courts means they can't be sued in most cases. Police unions should not have a say in firing bad cops (and maybe should not exist).
It is a fact that blacks commit more crime (lots more) and most of it is against other blacks (like shootings). Most violent incidents with cops occur when they try to arrest someone. How should they handle someone who violently resists arrest? Play Peter Paul and Mary songs for them?
The rhetoric on the Left calls the black situation "genocide"--seriously--even though more whites (as a number and as a % of police arrest-with-a-gun incidents) are killed by police. If it is genocide then anything is justified. It is not genocide. 20x more blacks are killed by other blacks in shootings than by cops.
cc at June 3, 2020 11:30 AM
I can't even begin to take seriously any argument for "abolishing" the use of a word.
ahw at June 3, 2020 11:52 AM
Violence is relative.
If you're white (or deemed white, like you Tiger Mom) your speech is violence. If you're not, then your violence is speech and should be shown deference as granted under the 1st Amendment.
Just refuse to play Calvinball word games with these fools.
I R A Darth Aggie at June 3, 2020 12:00 PM
"On the other hand, which items of your property are worth a human life?"
Lotta muddy thinking possible here.
If NONE of your property is worth a life, then ALL of it is NOT worth a life, because zero times any value is still zero.
But your property is the sum of your efforts. Why should anyone else be allowed to:
a) Decide if your possessions should be defended
b) Decide how they are to be defended
I am reminded of a harsh truth that millions are eager to dismiss in a frantic search for anyone and anything to render them blameless: the way to avoid dire consequences is to avoid triggering them.
Every day we see people try to claim that "others" should give them a break for violating even the most sensible laws. The reply they get is simple: play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
If you try to take my wife's remaining mementoes of her mother, you will learn what "violence" means to you. You will not enjoy the lesson.
Mr. Furedi appears to be one of those people to whom pontificating about work is more important than work. Those who work for their possessions know their value. Those who are given everything, by a relative or Uncle Sam, simple do not value anything, because they have been shown there is no link whatsoever between effort and reward.
Then we are shocked that these people commit crimes. Why shouldn't they? Their President said "they didn't build that!"
Radwaste at June 3, 2020 12:03 PM
which items of your property are worth a human life?
Let's turn that around: which items of someone else's property is worth your life?
If no one is there, an intruder won't get killed. Nor anyone else. If someone is there, and the intruder continues forward, it is not unreasonable to conclude the intruder is willing to injure or kill the occupants.
I R A Darth Aggie at June 3, 2020 12:10 PM
Echoes of London's Wolf Larsen (The Sea-Wolf) quoted above.
I don't like the taking of a human life being treated with casually tossed-off bravado. It's a serious subject and deserves a serious tone.
Deciding to take a life in defense of one's own property is a decision for each of us to make individually, depending upon our own conscience. For some, the loss of even a few possessions is catastrophic - emotionally and/or economically.
If you enter my house for nefarious purposes, I have no idea for what purposes you are entering my house. And I'm unlikely to get an honest answer from you, if questioned. My options are then limited; and it was you who limited them.
North Carolina allows taking another life in defense of life, but not of property. So, if I kill you in the process of sneaking out my house with my TV, I'm gonna to go to jail. However, if I kill you in the process of entering my house for whatever purpose, I get the benefit of the doubt that you may be a danger to one or more inhabitants.
Conan the Grammarian at June 3, 2020 12:29 PM
Please sign my petition to the President.
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/we-people-demand-federal-government-put-antifa-out-business-now
jdgalt at June 3, 2020 2:23 PM
'If you won't accept me calling you a racist, then all I'll say is this: you're certainly thinking like one'
If you won't accept me calling you a self-righteous asshole, then all I'll say is this: you're certainly thinking (and acting) like one.
Jay R at June 3, 2020 2:37 PM
if I kill you in the process of sneaking out my house
Never shoot 'em in the back, it's bad form.
I R A Darth Aggie at June 3, 2020 3:03 PM
One more thing to think about, re "On the other hand, which items of your property are worth a human life?"...
A government agent comes to get your guns, which are your only means of self-defense against multiple assailants. What then?
The 1st Amendment was set aside completely for an "emergency". Nothing whatsoever keeps these goons from setting aside the Second, too... except for the threat of violence, and the 4th is gleefully set aside for the illusion of safety. Many are already primed for surrender.
Radwaste at June 3, 2020 3:24 PM
RE Ms. Solnitt - if I am allowed to address her that way - arson is destruction of property. It is violence, in that the chance of serious human injury or death is a foreseeable outcome. Which is why most jurisdictions allow you to use deadly force on an individual in the act of arson.
I heard a story about a residential property that was recently torched that contained at least one child. Firefighters were blocked by the free speech of the protestors. Fortunately, a violent, probably racist, police officer rescued the child.
Amazing how George Orwell predicted Newspeak.
My employer's mandatory re-education training told me, with a straight face that "perception is reality." Now who is the science deniers.
Bill O Rights at June 3, 2020 4:29 PM
Leave a comment