What we need is some pundit to write a defense of rioting

Darlena Cunha is identified as a "contributor to the Washington Post and Time."  Apparently, Darlena ran out of ideas on what to write about the Ferguson riots, so she decided to stir the pot a bit.

As a couple of dozen Ferguson business owners (almost all of them minorities) watched helplessly as their lifetime dreams went up in smoke, Cunha gave a pass to the rioters and looters by claiming that "peaceful protesting is a luxury of those already in mainstream culture."

When a police officer shoots a young, unarmed black man in the streets, then does not face indictment, anger in the community is inevitable. It’s what we do with that anger that counts. In such a case, is rioting so wrong?

Riots are a necessary part of the evolution of society. Unfortunately, we do not live in a universal utopia where people have the basic human rights they deserve simply for existing, and until we get there, the legitimate frustration, sorrow and pain of the marginalized voices will boil over, spilling out into our streets. As “normal” citizens watch the events of Ferguson unfurl on their television screens and Twitter feeds, there is a lot of head shaking, finger pointing, and privileged explanation going on. We wish to seclude the incident and the people involved. To separate it from our history as a nation, to dehumanize the change agents because of their bad and sometimes violent decisions—because if we can separate the underlying racial tensions that clearly exist in our country from the looting and rioting of select individuals, we can continue to ignore the problem.

While the most famous rant against the riots thus far comes from Hercules actor Kevin Sorbo, where he calls the rioters “animals” and “losers,” there are thousands of people echoing these sentiments. Sorbo correctly ascertains that the rioting has little to do with the shooting of an unarmed black man in the street, but he blames it on the typical privileged American’s stereotype of a less fortunate sect of human being—that the looting is a result of frustration built up over years of “blaming everyone else, The Man, for their failures.”

Because when you have succeeded, it ceases to be a possibility, in our capitalist society, that anyone else helped you. And if no one helped you succeed, then no one is holding anyone else back from succeeding. Except they did help you, and they are holding people back. So that blaming someone else for your failures in the United States may very well be an astute observation of reality, particularly as it comes to white privilege versus black privilege.

Well, bless me, but I learn something new every day.  Who would have thought burning, smashing, and especially looting could be legitimized by claiming it's all a big misunderstanding?  The riots aren't some knee-jerk nihilistic response that gives gratification to those taking part in the mayhem, but rather, it's a serious political statement, and we had better do what the rioters say, or else.

There are, indeed, justifications for breaking the law.  But there is nothing "political" about destroying property not your own, injuring people, and taking what you want without payment.  Even if you buy into the dubious "white privilege" sociological crap, you must recognize that when law and order break down, we are left with the rule of the jungle.  And in a jungle, only the strong benefit from mayhem.  The victims are those who can't or won't fight back.

So Ms. Cunha is actually supporting jungle law vs. civilization – a civilization that makes possible her freedom to publish nonsensical screeds like this without worrying about anyone setting her house on fire or looting her belongings.

Wouldn't that be a "political" statement, too?

Darlena Cunha is identified as a "contributor to the Washington Post and Time."  Apparently, Darlena ran out of ideas on what to write about the Ferguson riots, so she decided to stir the pot a bit.

As a couple of dozen Ferguson business owners (almost all of them minorities) watched helplessly as their lifetime dreams went up in smoke, Cunha gave a pass to the rioters and looters by claiming that "peaceful protesting is a luxury of those already in mainstream culture."

When a police officer shoots a young, unarmed black man in the streets, then does not face indictment, anger in the community is inevitable. It’s what we do with that anger that counts. In such a case, is rioting so wrong?

Riots are a necessary part of the evolution of society. Unfortunately, we do not live in a universal utopia where people have the basic human rights they deserve simply for existing, and until we get there, the legitimate frustration, sorrow and pain of the marginalized voices will boil over, spilling out into our streets. As “normal” citizens watch the events of Ferguson unfurl on their television screens and Twitter feeds, there is a lot of head shaking, finger pointing, and privileged explanation going on. We wish to seclude the incident and the people involved. To separate it from our history as a nation, to dehumanize the change agents because of their bad and sometimes violent decisions—because if we can separate the underlying racial tensions that clearly exist in our country from the looting and rioting of select individuals, we can continue to ignore the problem.

While the most famous rant against the riots thus far comes from Hercules actor Kevin Sorbo, where he calls the rioters “animals” and “losers,” there are thousands of people echoing these sentiments. Sorbo correctly ascertains that the rioting has little to do with the shooting of an unarmed black man in the street, but he blames it on the typical privileged American’s stereotype of a less fortunate sect of human being—that the looting is a result of frustration built up over years of “blaming everyone else, The Man, for their failures.”

Because when you have succeeded, it ceases to be a possibility, in our capitalist society, that anyone else helped you. And if no one helped you succeed, then no one is holding anyone else back from succeeding. Except they did help you, and they are holding people back. So that blaming someone else for your failures in the United States may very well be an astute observation of reality, particularly as it comes to white privilege versus black privilege.

Well, bless me, but I learn something new every day.  Who would have thought burning, smashing, and especially looting could be legitimized by claiming it's all a big misunderstanding?  The riots aren't some knee-jerk nihilistic response that gives gratification to those taking part in the mayhem, but rather, it's a serious political statement, and we had better do what the rioters say, or else.

There are, indeed, justifications for breaking the law.  But there is nothing "political" about destroying property not your own, injuring people, and taking what you want without payment.  Even if you buy into the dubious "white privilege" sociological crap, you must recognize that when law and order break down, we are left with the rule of the jungle.  And in a jungle, only the strong benefit from mayhem.  The victims are those who can't or won't fight back.

So Ms. Cunha is actually supporting jungle law vs. civilization – a civilization that makes possible her freedom to publish nonsensical screeds like this without worrying about anyone setting her house on fire or looting her belongings.

Wouldn't that be a "political" statement, too?