In this deceitful American game of power politics, the Negroes (i.e., the race problem, the integration, and civil rights issues) are nothing but tools, used by one group of whites called Liberals against another group of whites called Conservatives, either to get into power or to remain in power. Among whites here in America, the political teams are no longer divided into Democrats and Republicans. The whites who are now struggling for control of the American political throne are divided into "liberal" and "conservative" camps. The white liberals from both parties cross party lines to work together toward the same goal, and white conservatives from both parties do likewise.
The white Liberal differs from the white Conservative only in one way; the Liberal is more deceitful, more hypocritical, than the Conservative. Both want power, but the White Liberal is the one who has perfected the art of posing as the Negro's friend and benefactor, and by winning the friendship and support of the Negro, the White Liberal is able to use the Negro as a pawn or a weapon in this political football game, that is constantly raging, between the White Liberals and the White Conservatives. The American Negro is nothing, but a political "football game" that is constantly raging between the white liberals and white conservatives.
Truer words have never been spoken. The same game happening then is happening today.
The widespread riots following the death of George Floyd has focused attention on the issues of racial relations and police brutality. The bigger picture isn't necessarily on how America can improve the conditions in certain communities, I believe it's merely election-year politics.
The frustration with arbitrary state guidelines, lockdowns, and widespread joblessness coincided with a video of a white police officer killing a black man. It was the perfect storm. There was an opportunity for activists to rally their troops. People could get out in the street to protest, voice their frustrations with whatever angered them, and use "fighting for black lives" as the excuse.
Once again, black lives are used as pawns in the bigger game of electoral politricks. It happens every four years to a certain degree, and the Democrats are continually appealing to black people for support. Once black folks give that party the vote, they move on to bigger and more lucrative things, leaving black people where they always have been, on the political chessboard, waiting for the next move.
Conservatives are all about lifting yourself up, finding your way, and needing less government in your life. They come out and tell people you are on your own. The truth is, they love big government when it suits their needs. They have no interest in reducing the budget, the deficit, or the national debt. They haven't since Ronald Reagan. They aren't interested in using the government to solve the needs of particular groups. They are honest in what they are all about—themselves!
That's fine with me. At least I know where I stand.
With liberals, I feel they are the proverbial wolf in sheep's clothing. They pretend to be a friend of black people, but they are more often than not, mortal enemies in reality. The policies that they push are often detrimental to many black communities.
Multinational corporations are now pretending to care about racism and black lives. In the past, they've profited handsomely from ideas that are damaging to many black communities. They have promoted music, tv shows, movies, books, and other media that show some black people's worst aspects. They've actively promoted the very things that feed the problems of those they supposedly care to help.
Now we have an author, with the desire to support black people, defending the illegal act of looting.
Writer Vicky Osterweil has written a book called, In Defense of Looting. It was released last week. She argues that looting is a powerful tool to bring about real, lasting change in society. She feels the rioters who smash windows and take items from stores engage in a powerful tactic that questions the justice of "law and order" and the distribution of property and wealth in an unequal society.
Some excerpts from the interview:
For people who haven't read your book, how do you define looting?
When I use the word looting, I mean the mass expropriation of property, mass shoplifting during a moment of upheaval, or riot. That's the thing I'm defending. I'm not defending any situation in which property is stolen by force. It's not a home invasion, either. It's about a certain kind of action that's taken during protests and riots.
What would you say to people who are concerned about essential places like grocery stores or pharmacies being attacked in those communities?
When it comes to small business, family-owned business, or locally owned business, they are no more likely to provide worker protections. They are no more likely to have to provide good stuff for the community than big businesses. It's actually a Republican myth that has, over the last 20 years, really crawled into even leftist discourse: that the small business owner must be respected, that the small business owner creates jobs and is part of the community. But that's actually a right-wing myth.
A business being attacked in the community is ultimately about attacking like modes of oppression that exist in the community.
Can you talk about rioting as a tactic? What are the reasons people deploy it as a strategy?
It does a number of important things. It gets people what they need for free immediately, which means that they are capable of living and reproducing their lives without having to rely on jobs or a wage—which, during COVID times, is widely unreliable or, particularly in these communities is often not available, or it comes at great risk. That's looting's most basic tactical power as a political mode of action.
It also attacks the very way in which food and things are distributed. It attacks the idea of property, and it attacks the idea that in order for someone to have a roof over their head or have a meal ticket, they have to work for a boss, in order to buy things that people just like them somewhere else in the world had to make under the same conditions. It points to the way in which that's unjust. And the reason that the world is organized that way, obviously, is for the profit of the people who own the stores and the factories. So you get to the heart of that property relation and demonstrate that without police and without state oppression, we can have things for free.
During recent riots, a sentiment I heard a lot was that looters in cities like Minneapolis were hurting their own cause by destroying small businesses in their own neighborhoods, stores owned by immigrants and people of color. What would you say to people who make that argument?
People who made that argument for Minneapolis weren't suddenly celebrating the looters in Chicago, who drove down to the richest part of Chicago, the Magnificent Mile, and attacked places like Tesla and Gucci—because It's not really about that. It's a convenient way of positioning yourself as though you are sympathetic.
But looters and rioters don't attack private homes. They don't attack community centers. In Minneapolis, there was a small independent bookstore that was untouched. All the blocks around it were basically looted or even leveled, burned down. And that store just remained untouched through weeks of rioting.
I was amused by the statement about the small independent bookstore being untouched while everything else around it was destroyed. It completely ignores that the bookstore is likely no longer viable because it is surrounded by destruction.
Let me address just a few of my most prominent objections to her assertions.
Bookstores. Would she approve of looters stealing books from a store where her books were being sold and give them out for free?
She's not in favor of home invasions. That's peculiar. Why not? She claims,"Most stores are insured; it's just hurting insurance companies on some level. It's just money. It's just property. It's not actually hurting any people." Isn't her home insured? I hope so. Even if she doesn’t have insurance, why does it matter? According to the author, it's just property. Stealing from her home isn’t actually hurting any people.
She feels deploying looting is a tactic or strategy that "gets people what they need for free immediately." Sounds great, Vicki! Can people who need money have total access to your bank accounts and make transfers? Can people get what they need for free immediately so they no longer have "to work for a boss?"
I found more writing from Vicki. The author wrote this in 2014:
Looting is extremely dangerous to the rich (and most white people) because it reveals, with an immediacy that has to be moralized away, that the idea of private property is just that: an idea, a tenuous and contingent structure of consent, backed up by the lethal force of the state. When rioters take territory and loot, they are revealing precisely how, in a space without cops, property relations can be destroyed and things can be had for free.
On a less abstract level, there is a practical and tactical benefit to looting. Whenever people worry about looting, there is an implicit sense that the looter must necessarily be acting selfishly, "opportunistically," and in excess. But why is it bad to grab an opportunity to improve well-being, to make life better, easier, or more comfortable?
And the further assumption that the looter isn't sharing her loot is just as racist and ideological. We know that poor communities and communities of color practice more mutual aid and support than wealthy white communities—partially because they have to. The person looting might be someone who has to hustle every day to get by, someone who, by grabbing something of value, can afford to spend the rest of the week "non-violently" protesting. They might be feeding their family, or older people in their community who barely survive on Social Security and can't work (or loot) themselves. They might just be expropriating what they would otherwise buy—liquor, for example—but it still represents a material way that riots and protests help the community: by providing a way for people to solve some of the immediate problems of poverty and by creating a space for people to freely reproduce their lives rather than doing so through wage labor.
The reality is this; Vicki isn't one of the people who would be in any street looting. I have a strong feeling she hasn't stolen a thing since she became an adult. She probably realizes the consequences of illegal actions. Those actions that would result in criminal penalties. Penalties that are more likely to be harsher with brown people.
It seems as if progressives like Vicki are utterly ignorant of human nature. Did people forget what happened five months ago with toilet paper hoarding at the beginning of the pandemic? Even when things aren't free, people are generally looking out for their interests. If left to their own devices, do progressives like Vicki feel humans will take a small amount and leave enough for everyone else?
Back during the first set of protests in May, I remember seeing all types of footage of people who weren't brown, committing all kinds of acts of vandalism, violence, and mayhem. Much of it was done during the day when many were out and about.
Brown folks have learned that law enforcement will come down hard on them in ways many white people understand. They understand the ramifications of committing brazen acts of criminality. That's why most criminals act when it's nighttime, where the likelihood of getting caught it significantly reduced.
I can't be the only one who remembers events like this:
Police departments who held back policing efforts during the past few months have enabled anarchists and those who sow chaos, confusion, and lawlessness to run rampant. With less law enforcement to hold people accountable, the more confident criminals feel with avoiding prosecution.
In Defense Of Looting seems to be a manual for more of the same. Lawlessness may not affect the author and her neighborhood at the moment. Right now, it's affecting the people she is supposedly trying to help. Vicki isn't directly hurt by communities being burned and looted. Black folks are the ones dealing with the fallout.
If this author feels looting is acceptable, why can't people take what's hers and redistribute it?
Can someone who has to hustle every day to get by, stop by her book publisher's warehouse and grab something of value to get back to "non-violently" protesting? What about the people who might need to feed their families? Shouldn't they expropriate what they would otherwise buy—the contents of her pantry and refrigerator, for example—because it will still represent a material way to help their community? If she gives out her address and we all take turns looting her home while she's away on her book tour, wouldn't that provide a way for people to solve some of the immediate poverty problems? It might create a space for people to freely reproduce their lives rather than doing so through wage labor.
Bottom line, she's full of shit. The same liberals who say they want to help are the hypocrites who will turn their back when push comes to shove. Progressives want to 'save lives,' but there are often caveats. For example, the Upper West Side of Manhattan is the perfect example of liberal hypocrisy. When their lives become affected by the measures taken to save lives during a pandemic, people say, "not in my backyard."
Helping people is one thing. Pushing ideas that are detrimental to the people you say need help is another.
Looting is illegal. There is no virtue in criminality.
Christine Rosen wrote in Commentary Magazine:
If looting is virtuous rather than criminal behavior, it's not something that needs urgently to be stopped, and its victims don't matter. If criminal conduct is heroic, then we limit our ability to engage with crucial questions about how law enforcement can and should be reformed (and instead simply demand the end of policing). If demonstrations that lead to destruction and death are "mostly peaceful," then language, and consequences, mean nothing.
What we call things has an impact on what we are willing to do about them. The power of the slogan "black lives matter" (as opposed to the BLM organization) is that it insists we face the ways in which our nation has failed some of its citizens, come together, and do something about it. That message is being undermined, day by day, by the actions of its supporters.
Thought-Provoking Articles:
‘The Denial of Cancel Culture‘ – Excellent follow-up piece in Quillette by Professor Eric Kaufmann to the recent report he co-authored for Policy Exchange on the perilous state of academic free speech
‘Academics Are Really, Really Worried About Their Freedom‘ – John McWhorter takes up the cry in the Atlantic
‘We need to end cancel culture‘ – Excellent piece in Spiked by Promise Frank Ejiofor
Something Interesting:
What a great movie.
Clayton Craddock is an independent thinker, father of two beautiful children in New York City. He is the drummer of the hit broadway musical Ain't Too Proud. He earned a Bachelor of Business Administration from Howard University's School of Business and is a 25 year veteran of the fast-paced New York City music scene. He has played drums in several hit broadway and off-broadway musicals, including "Tick, tick…BOOM!, Altar Boyz, Memphis The Musical and Lady Day At Emerson's Bar and Grill. Also, Clayton has worked on: Footloose, Motown, The Color Purple, Rent, Little Shop of Horrors, Evita, Cats, and Avenue Q.