We Still Here by Marc Lamont Hill

Author:Marc Lamont Hill
Language: eng
Format: epub
Publisher: Haymarket Books
Published: 2020-10-19T00:00:00+00:00

LANGUAGE OF THE UNHEARD

What do you make of the riots that took place in the aftermath of George Floyd’s death?

First, we should not use the term riot to describe the political resistance that took place in cities across the United States in the aftermath of the George Floyd killing. Riot is a word used to frame these actions as random, irrational, and unnecessary acts of violence. Riots would be better applied to the suburban consumers who tear down department stores on Black Friday or the White undergraduates who destroy property after a football game. Of course, we rarely use that language in those instances.

The term rebellion is more appropriate because it spotlights organized resistance by the oppressed against the systems that dominate them. The stores that were burned, the police cars that were destroyed, and the statues of White supremacists that were taken down were all part of a strategic effort to challenge a state that continues to kill us with indifference and impunity. These were political acts.

When I say “strategic,” I do not mean to overstate or romanticize the way that rebellions occur. Every act in a rebellion isn’t the result of strategy sessions and collective consensus. There is a great deal of spontaneity and emotion involved, as well. But these acts are rarely as random, unsophisticated, or self-defeating as they are framed by critics and corporate media.

Although I prefer the term rebellion over riot, I do so as a way of framing our resistance through a more overtly political lens. This does not mean that the word riot is, in itself, morally or politically problematic. In its literal meaning, a riot is a violent public disorder. There is nothing wrong with creating public disorder as a means of resisting state violence, particularly since so much of it happens in the public sphere.

And violence cannot simply be dismissed as a morally unacceptable and strategically ineffective tactic. I believe that we must prioritize and utilize nonviolent strategies. But people have a right to defend themselves against violence, whether from individuals, groups, or the state.

How do you respond to critics who say that the protestors undermined their own success by using non-peaceful methods?

The idea that protestors compromise their moral authority or strategic advantage through violent tactics is equal parts disingenuous, ahistorical, and inaccurate. It’s disingenuous to suggest that peaceful tactics are available, yet people simply choose violence. It’s inaccurate to suggest that the use of violence is not an effective tool in the fight for freedom. And it’s ahistorical to ignore the role that violence, or the threat of violence, has always played in resisting structures of power.

Rebellions are the result of political, moral, and emotional exhaustion. We do not rebel in response to a single act of injustice. If Black people were that reactive, we would be in a constant state of rebellion. We rebel because we have a legitimate distrust—and constant reminders—of the system’s capacity to produce justice. We take to the streets because other strategies are dismissed, resisted, or altogether ignored.

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.