For five days from late August to early September 1921, some 10,000 armed coal miners confronted 3,000 lawmen and strikebreakers (called the Logan Defenders)[6] who were backed by coal mine operators during the miners’ attempt to unionize the southwestern West Virginia coalfields when tensions rose between workers and mine management. The battle ended after approximately one million rounds were fired,[7] and the United States Army, represented by the West Virginia National Guard led by McDowell County native William Eubanks,[8] intervened by presidential order.[9]
In the short term the battle was an overwhelming victory for coal industry owners and management.[52] United Mine Workers of America (UMWA or UMW) membership plummeted from more than 50,000 miners to approximately 10,000 over the next several years, and it was not until 1935—following the Great Depression and the beginning of the New Deal under President Franklin Delano Roosevelt—that the UMW fully organized in southern West Virginia.
This union defeat had major implications for the UMWA as a whole. As World War I ended, the demand for coal declined adversely impacting the industry. [citation needed] Because of the defeat in West Virginia, the union was also undermined in Pennsylvania and Kentucky. By the end of 1925, Illinois was the only remaining unionized state in terms of soft coal production.
So in this example, most of us today would say the riot was justified as the coal miners were seeking safer working conditions under unionization. This riot failed and largely destroyed the union.
So was the riot justified: yes. Did it lead to positive change: no.
The Tulsa race massacre was a two-day-long white supremacist terrorist[13][14] massacre[15] that took place in the Greenwood District in Tulsa, Oklahoma, United States, between May 31 and June 1, 1921. Mobs of white residents, some of whom had been appointed as deputies and armed by city government officials,[16] attacked black residents and destroyed homes and businesses. The event is considered one of the worst incidents of racial violence in American history.[17][18] The attackers burned and destroyed more than 35 square blocks of the neighborhood—at the time, one of the wealthiest black communities in the United States, colloquially known as “Black Wall Street.”[19]
More than 800 people were admitted to hospitals, and as many as 6,000 black residents of Tulsa were interned, many of them for several days.[20][21] The Oklahoma Bureau of Vital Statistics officially recorded 36 dead.[22] The 2001 Tulsa Reparations Coalition examination of events identified 39 dead, 26 black and 13 white, based on contemporary autopsy reports, death certificates, and other records.[23] The commission reported estimates ranging from 36 up to around 300 dead.[24][25]
So in this example most of us today would say the riot was NOT justified as the black residents were just trying to live their lives in peace and prosperity before the white supremacists came in with violence and murder of black residents.
So was the riot justified: no. Did it lead to positive change: no.
The original premise by that poster is questionable as only through the lens of history can we pick out specific riots that lead to positive policy or positive societal change.
The Tulsa massacre is a wild example, because while it led to no positive change, it did help accomplish the white supremacist’s goals of keeping Black people from building generational wealth. The terrorism of the KKK and non state sanctioned attacks against native Americans played a crucial war in building all the inequities of America. The injustice wasn’t inevitable or even based on legal discrimination alone, but bolstered and reinforced by extrajudicial actions they knew the state wouldn’t stop.
Does this mean the left can do anything close to the same thing as the KKK? Fuck no, we’ll pay extra in jail time and executions. The state allowed an encouraged that evil. It does make the moralizing bullshit about illegality being the only way to change things even more hollow.
it led to no positive change, it did help accomplish the white supremacist’s goals of keeping Black people from building generational wealth. The terrorism of the KKK and non state sanctioned attacks against native Americans played a crucial war in building all the inequities of America. The injustice wasn’t inevitable or even based on legal discrimination alone, but bolstered and reinforced by extrajudicial actions they knew the state wouldn’t stop.
I agree with 100% of what you said here. It is an absolute travesty that this occurred at all, but then was hidden from mainstream recorded history for decades.
Does this mean the left can do anything close to the same thing as the KKK? Fuck no, we’ll pay extra in jail time and executions. The state allowed an encouraged that evil. It does make the moralizing bullshit about illegality being the only way to change things even more hollow.
I wasn’t defending the “illegality” argument. I was pointing out that the supposition of the thread post ascribes riots as the primary driver of liberal democracy. I’m pointing out that that is only true if you pick out specific riots and ignore dozens of others that don’t support the thesis. Even riots whose outcome could have shaped liberal ideas but didn’t like Blair Mountain have to be ignored for the thread post to be true.
I also reject that riots were the only shaping device of liberal democracy in the USA. I would argue FDRs New Deal was a bigger driver of modern liberal democracy than any riot. While the New Deal was certainly influenced by protest from the Bonus Army, but there was no riot from that. Further, the Race Riot of 1943 had occurred in Detroit under FDR’s watch, but FDR stayed silent on it and I’m not aware of any changes in policy that occurred because of it though I admit I only know of the riots occurrence and not much more.
You aren’t going to win every battle, even if you end up winning the war. And obviously, winning any battle is never a foregone conclusion, but sometimes you have to fight anyway.
The response by quasi-normalcy reads like a cherry picked simplification to lead to a likely incorrect conclusion.
The statements suggest all (or most) riots:
Here are some examples:
Battle of Blair Mountain
So in this example, most of us today would say the riot was justified as the coal miners were seeking safer working conditions under unionization. This riot failed and largely destroyed the union.
So was the riot justified: yes. Did it lead to positive change: no.
Tulsa race massacre aka Tulsa riot
So in this example most of us today would say the riot was NOT justified as the black residents were just trying to live their lives in peace and prosperity before the white supremacists came in with violence and murder of black residents.
So was the riot justified: no. Did it lead to positive change: no.
The original premise by that poster is questionable as only through the lens of history can we pick out specific riots that lead to positive policy or positive societal change.
The Tulsa massacre is a wild example, because while it led to no positive change, it did help accomplish the white supremacist’s goals of keeping Black people from building generational wealth. The terrorism of the KKK and non state sanctioned attacks against native Americans played a crucial war in building all the inequities of America. The injustice wasn’t inevitable or even based on legal discrimination alone, but bolstered and reinforced by extrajudicial actions they knew the state wouldn’t stop.
Does this mean the left can do anything close to the same thing as the KKK? Fuck no, we’ll pay extra in jail time and executions. The state allowed an encouraged that evil. It does make the moralizing bullshit about illegality being the only way to change things even more hollow.
I agree with 100% of what you said here. It is an absolute travesty that this occurred at all, but then was hidden from mainstream recorded history for decades.
I wasn’t defending the “illegality” argument. I was pointing out that the supposition of the thread post ascribes riots as the primary driver of liberal democracy. I’m pointing out that that is only true if you pick out specific riots and ignore dozens of others that don’t support the thesis. Even riots whose outcome could have shaped liberal ideas but didn’t like Blair Mountain have to be ignored for the thread post to be true.
I also reject that riots were the only shaping device of liberal democracy in the USA. I would argue FDRs New Deal was a bigger driver of modern liberal democracy than any riot. While the New Deal was certainly influenced by protest from the Bonus Army, but there was no riot from that. Further, the Race Riot of 1943 had occurred in Detroit under FDR’s watch, but FDR stayed silent on it and I’m not aware of any changes in policy that occurred because of it though I admit I only know of the riots occurrence and not much more.
You aren’t going to win every battle, even if you end up winning the war. And obviously, winning any battle is never a foregone conclusion, but sometimes you have to fight anyway.