But haven’t they sorted poverty, the housing crisis, the CoL crisis, the education crisis, the need for food banks, child benefits etc, I mean we are so much better off than last year why would anyone be pissed off
I think it’s a mistake to handwave general anger and discontent from citizens and to put the entire blame on the symptom.
Where are all the far right groups being organised? Is it in the wealthier areas where people are able to live? Or is it in the regions that are being hardest hit by austerity? Right wing groups latch onto anger that people have due to their quality of live deteriorating. They divert the anger towards their own populist agenda, and people will fall for it as it feels tangible and achievable, even if it won’t do a god damn thing. Crumbling infrastructure? Must be the migrants who are also using that infrastructure. Oh the building was sold off to a foreign investment firm? Oh the employees who maintained that infrastructure are now paying exorbitant rates for housing? Nah, that’s far too complex of a problem to tackle.
Wealth inequality will continue to grow, and the government isn’t doing anything to truly tackle it. To think that anti-immigration sentiment exists entirely in a vacuum is naive and I think extremely dangerous, as you risk alienating those who are being hit hardest by this inequality. This will only get worse, and you can’t bury your head in the sand forever.
If you believe violent rioting against people already seeking asylum is an ethical way to be heard then I, and the majority of this country are happy for you to be silenced behind bars.
That’s an extremely bad faith interpretation of what I said. It’s the exact opposite of what I’m saying, and I’m unsure if this is an elaborate troll/gotcha, but I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you meant no ill-will.
My entire point is that focusing on the symptom, in this case the the rioting and the racism, is short sighted and is prone to create reactionary takes that dismiss the concerns that lie beneath. That dismissal will only further antagonize and drive people further towards populist movements, and I don’t think that’s the smart thing to do. We should not be driving people towards these movements, but rather offering them a tangible and real way to alleviate the root cause of their discontent, catch it before a populist preys upon it.
Preys upon them? They’re people not deer. Every time you speak you frame them as victims. Nobody forced them to violently riot, they’re individually and collectively reprehensible. Violent rioting is not the way to encourage people to listen to you.
I don’t think it’s a controversial take to say that people who are struggling are easy prey for extremist ideology. I can happily link a handful of articles that describe why those in lower economic positions tend to be easily swayed to populist right wing ideas. And I absolutely do see them as victims, I see most people as victims in some way shape or form. After WW2 we had an extremely wide distribution of wealth, the lower classes had homes and some core assets, the middle class had one or more homes and some luxuries, and the upper class had additional land and the best of the best. Over time the ability to get even meager assets has become harder and harder, to the point where the lower class has almost no assets to speak of, and what little the middle class has left is draining directly to the ultra-wealthy. We are all victims of circumstance in this manor, and the system is failing to address this.
I strongly disagree with the focus on individualism, especially when we’re dealing with large groups of people. On a case by case basis, sure, at the end of the day someone may make a conscious choice to engage with something, but to only hyper-focus on that while disregarding the view from only a few steps back? That’s the naive bit. I can find their views reprehensible and look at their choices with disdain, but I don’t think that should be the end of the analysis.
I do not advocate for violent rioting, but to say it doesn’t encourage people to listen to you I think is just wrong. Look back through history, the Civil Rights movement was nonviolent at its core but the presence of the Black Panther Party utilized armed self-defence to keep the police at bay, the threat of violence was the deterrent. The stonewall riots where queer individuals resisting police brutality sparked the birth of the pride movement, it was only the retaliation against the arrests and beatings the police performed that allowed for gay rights to no longer be ignored. The Suffragette movement in the UK set fire to post boxes and sabotaged local businesses. Even more blatant examples like the anti-apartheid movement in South Africa led by Nelson Mandela, although again like the Civil Rights movement was at its core non-violent, they didn’t renounce any of the violence until negotiations were well underway.
So violence is absolutely a tool in a huge number of successful political movements. This is why I think we should be careful about dismissing it, and rather than just shunning them, forcing them deeper into their hatred, we should unify against a common target that would benefit all, and that is the ultra-wealthy that keep us divided on these lines. If we can’t unite on common ground, then I don’t think we’ll ever see change, we’ll just be kept in a state of hating each other as our quality of living slowly deteriorates.
But haven’t they sorted poverty, the housing crisis, the CoL crisis, the education crisis, the need for food banks, child benefits etc, I mean we are so much better off than last year why would anyone be pissed off
Last summer’s riots were far-right anti-immigration riots, not riots about standards of living.
I think it’s a mistake to handwave general anger and discontent from citizens and to put the entire blame on the symptom.
Where are all the far right groups being organised? Is it in the wealthier areas where people are able to live? Or is it in the regions that are being hardest hit by austerity? Right wing groups latch onto anger that people have due to their quality of live deteriorating. They divert the anger towards their own populist agenda, and people will fall for it as it feels tangible and achievable, even if it won’t do a god damn thing. Crumbling infrastructure? Must be the migrants who are also using that infrastructure. Oh the building was sold off to a foreign investment firm? Oh the employees who maintained that infrastructure are now paying exorbitant rates for housing? Nah, that’s far too complex of a problem to tackle.
Wealth inequality will continue to grow, and the government isn’t doing anything to truly tackle it. To think that anti-immigration sentiment exists entirely in a vacuum is naive and I think extremely dangerous, as you risk alienating those who are being hit hardest by this inequality. This will only get worse, and you can’t bury your head in the sand forever.
You sound like you’re trying to justify the rioting.
“A riot is the language of the unheard” - Martin Luther King Jr
If you believe violent rioting against people already seeking asylum is an ethical way to be heard then I, and the majority of this country are happy for you to be silenced behind bars.
That’s an extremely bad faith interpretation of what I said. It’s the exact opposite of what I’m saying, and I’m unsure if this is an elaborate troll/gotcha, but I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you meant no ill-will.
My entire point is that focusing on the symptom, in this case the the rioting and the racism, is short sighted and is prone to create reactionary takes that dismiss the concerns that lie beneath. That dismissal will only further antagonize and drive people further towards populist movements, and I don’t think that’s the smart thing to do. We should not be driving people towards these movements, but rather offering them a tangible and real way to alleviate the root cause of their discontent, catch it before a populist preys upon it.
Preys upon them? They’re people not deer. Every time you speak you frame them as victims. Nobody forced them to violently riot, they’re individually and collectively reprehensible. Violent rioting is not the way to encourage people to listen to you.
I don’t think it’s a controversial take to say that people who are struggling are easy prey for extremist ideology. I can happily link a handful of articles that describe why those in lower economic positions tend to be easily swayed to populist right wing ideas. And I absolutely do see them as victims, I see most people as victims in some way shape or form. After WW2 we had an extremely wide distribution of wealth, the lower classes had homes and some core assets, the middle class had one or more homes and some luxuries, and the upper class had additional land and the best of the best. Over time the ability to get even meager assets has become harder and harder, to the point where the lower class has almost no assets to speak of, and what little the middle class has left is draining directly to the ultra-wealthy. We are all victims of circumstance in this manor, and the system is failing to address this.
I strongly disagree with the focus on individualism, especially when we’re dealing with large groups of people. On a case by case basis, sure, at the end of the day someone may make a conscious choice to engage with something, but to only hyper-focus on that while disregarding the view from only a few steps back? That’s the naive bit. I can find their views reprehensible and look at their choices with disdain, but I don’t think that should be the end of the analysis.
I do not advocate for violent rioting, but to say it doesn’t encourage people to listen to you I think is just wrong. Look back through history, the Civil Rights movement was nonviolent at its core but the presence of the Black Panther Party utilized armed self-defence to keep the police at bay, the threat of violence was the deterrent. The stonewall riots where queer individuals resisting police brutality sparked the birth of the pride movement, it was only the retaliation against the arrests and beatings the police performed that allowed for gay rights to no longer be ignored. The Suffragette movement in the UK set fire to post boxes and sabotaged local businesses. Even more blatant examples like the anti-apartheid movement in South Africa led by Nelson Mandela, although again like the Civil Rights movement was at its core non-violent, they didn’t renounce any of the violence until negotiations were well underway.
So violence is absolutely a tool in a huge number of successful political movements. This is why I think we should be careful about dismissing it, and rather than just shunning them, forcing them deeper into their hatred, we should unify against a common target that would benefit all, and that is the ultra-wealthy that keep us divided on these lines. If we can’t unite on common ground, then I don’t think we’ll ever see change, we’ll just be kept in a state of hating each other as our quality of living slowly deteriorates.