Definitely. Mobs on the streets, looting, people are going to be demanding the government stomp them.
While some of that is an issue in some places in the U.S. it certainly isn't reflective of most.
So can we dial back the broad generalization just a bit?
Certainly looting, and burning buildings in one's own neighbourhood is not the most effective idea for advocating social change that I've ever heard of..........
One has to acknowledge, in the same breath, that the U.S political system is reasonably rigged against minority and urban votes.
If you read the article above that I linked, you would note that at the Federal level, the U.S. senate has had Republican majorities much of the last 3 decades, while in fact Democrats received more Senate votes.
The House and State Legislatures have been similarly skewed by gerrymandering.
In a country that has had a litany of racial injustice by police, such injustice often violent and sometimes fatal; there has been remarkably little change since, to pick a date, the Rodney King incident of some decades back.
That is not to countenance violence; nor foolish strategies for advancing political change.
But it is to say, I'm not sure the U.S. has a democtractic path forward just at the moment.
One can hope.
In the absence of that, it does require some measure of extreme action, quite probably illegal (civil disobedience was a hall mark the Civil Rights era under MLK) where the economy is sufficiently disrupted, and white, suburban, Republicans are sufficiently inconvenienced as to consider reform.
That shouldn't look like looting.
But it might look like obstructing a highway, it might look like a general strike, it might look like blocking off a workplace of the affluent or one on which they depend.
It should never come to such things.
But when desperation meets intransigence. The consequences can be real.
www.bbc.com
