Embers of chaos

I threw on some shorts and read on Leigh’s balcony, which is a good sun trap in the afternoons, even if there is still a chill in the air. Fantastic books are coming thick and fast at the moment. I can’t wait to read Dervla Murphy’s Through The Embers Of Chaos, about journeys through the Balkans, and Far From The Tree, about parents adjusting their relationship to their children when their children exhibit ‘horizontal’ characteristics, i.e. those not reflected in the parents and those not necessarily inherited, such as criminality, disability or transgenderism. I will alternate a chapter of each book, as neither will be particularly light (including weight-wise, as both are hefty hardbacks).

I’ve been thinking about the act of protest, following yet another awful example of police brutality in the US. The mayor of Chicago appealed for the public to remain calm after the shooting of a 13-year old Latino boy, which had been avoidable if the police hadn’t been so trigger-happy. Again.

Many people seem to be opposed to the act of protest, based on responses I’ve seen to protests for racism and women’s safety over the last year. Even peaceful protestors are often rubbished for going against decorum in society, but in fact protests are a vital democratic tool, and how virtually all advancements have gathered sufficient attention for structural change and a shift in attitudes.

I suspect the strength of support for protest directly equates to the level of silence and injustice that society has doled out in the recent past to a group a person identifies with, if a protest involves rights and social justice (which not all do). Women are probably more supportive of protest than men, black people more than white, gay people more than straight, climate change advocates more than climate change deniers. Oppressed groups have less to lose if the status quo doesn’t serve their interests. Those who have less experience of oppression have less motivation to change the status quo. However the status quo is deeply unfair and requires restructuring to achieve what on the face of it most people claim they want to see; fairness and equality.

Where protests don’t remain peaceful, due to anger, police violence or activities of counter-protestors, attention immediately shifts to the immediate damage caused by protests themselves. In these cases the crux of the original protest is rarely the focus of powerful commentators. Isn’t protest that can’t remain peaceful what may be needed to redress the imbalances in our society, and drive forward important social change? In Chicago if Latino residents feel unfairly treated by, in this case, police, isn’t it understandable if their response includes street activism, that isn’t ‘calm’? Calmness may maintain the status quo.

‘Advanced’ societies have allowed themselves to be dominated by small groups who don’t support the interests of wider groups, yet who purport to. Protests that turn violent are not something to ‘condone’ per se, but are something entirely understandable in the circumstances if other peaceful avenues to effect change such as voting and lobbying have not worked. By not acknowledging this and especially by not legitimising protest, we are effectively locking people into systems they feel are unfair. Based on centuries of society developing in the way it has, and the progress still to make, peaceful protests alone are very unlikely to achieve their goals. Collateral damage may help to garner attention, and it’ll be nothing remotely on the scale of the legacy of collateral damage dished out by the dominant members of society. Wrongs need to be righted, and this won’t always be possible calmly.