My friend wrote to me, "Some say that riots succeed when the cost to quell them is more expensive than the cost of the riot itself. What do you think?"
You're welcome to answer in the comments.
But let's be clear that the question is about RIOTS not (peaceful) PROTESTS.
Here's my answer:
That's an extremely complex statement.
How do you decide when a riot has been "successful"?
Some believe that Americans have made almost no racial progress for the last 50 years despite dozens of riots.
Others disagree.
Who's right?
Measuring the cost of the riots vs. the cost of suppressing them is also hard.
It's especially hard because riots often cost many lives.
All I can say is that riots are sometimes effective expressions of exasperation, anger, and a desire for a revolution.
Some can argue that riots are like war.
WWII killed about 80 million innocent people.
Countless women were raped on both sides.
There was a lot of collateral damage.
Perhaps we would have saved more lives and property had the Allies not fought against the Axis.
Still, most people would argue that WWII was worth it because it rid our world of two evil regimes (Germany + Japan).
Similarly, riots can be effective despite their collateral damage.
However, just like wars are often ineffective and counterproductive, so are riots.
Rejoice said it well in our recent video.
She said Afghanistan, Sudan, and Somalia have had lots of war and riots. What progress have they made?
Israel and Palestine have also indulged in a cycle of violence that has gone nowhere.
I'm unsure what's the correct answer, but it seems that riots/wars are usually counterproductive.
If so, then let's hope this current riot is an exception.
