The recent london “riots” made us all wonder, just what happened to Earth’s most civilized country? Of course we all saw the videos of “rioters” cueing up for their chance to loot, but even law breakers standing politely in line are still law breakers.
As far as I can tell the unrest began with the attempted arrest and shooting of Mark Duggan, 29-year-old father of 4, after he was pulled from a taxi. Although initial reports had Duggan firing first on the arresting officers, later when a non-police weapon was found at the scene it was wrapped in a sock with no evidence of being fired, the round that hit one of the officers in his radio turned out to be police issue.
However, two days after the shooting Duggan’s relatives and friends marched from their housing development to the local police station to demand an explanation. Unsatisfied with the initial police response the marchers demanded to see a higher officer. At that time other protesters attacked and set two police vehicles on fire. This was the beginning of 5 days of general lawlessness in London as well as other cities and towns in Britain.
While the shooting is still under investigation, the British are sorting out what to do about those arrested. The prime Minister favors stiff sentencing and has endorsed a 6 month term for a young man who stole $5 of water bottles. Two men who were cheering on the rioters on Facebook got 4 years a piece. There are hundreds more left to be judged. I wont endorse or disparage the harshness or leniency of the sentencing, or the execution of the law, that’s up to the courts.
What I will call out the British Government on is the focus on punishment instead of the much harder job of figuring out what happened? Just from the facts this sounds a lot like the Rodney King incident that sparked the LA riots. As we all have learned the LA riots did not happen just because of the illegal and immoral beating of Mr. King. That was just the match to the waiting powder keg that unleashed the fury of a wasted generation.
What filled the powder keg in Britain? There is a lot of gang activity in London and other British cities, just like LA. There is an effective “underclass” that has not done so well during the boom of the last 20 years, just like LA. This subsection of the population has also been hit by the financial crisis harder than most british, and it promises to get worse for them as social services begin to dry up.
Some politicians are blaming the rioters dependance on social services, but it’s not at all clear that social service dependency covered anything more than a minority of the rioters. Racial disparity and inequity has been blamed, as has unemployment, poor policing, gang culture and just general lawlessness. But none of these suffice as an underlying reason for what brought these riots into full bloom. Without a good understanding of what were the underlying causes, a crackdown by the authorities may well just feed the fire.
After listening to some reports of what rioters said during the troubled time I got the impression that they felt the Police were ineffective and also that their own society had sidelined them. Justified or not, the rioters I heard felt they were the “have nots” and they were getting back at the “haves.” Those are the feelings that can spell disaster for a society.
That also describes the one real disparity between the rioters and the rest of the British who were shocked. It’s affluence and access. No one is saying that right now but it’s clear that England has a semi-permanent underclass that is not generally upward mobile. That’s nothing new for England or any other country, the only difference now is awareness of something better by that class.
Rich and poor watch the same commercials, get marketed to by the same media in a constant barrage of “You want this don’t you?” It’s like “lifestyles of the rich and famous” running 24 hours a day pounding it in, making it ever more clear that for some it’s “No, you can’t have that.”
Politicians can complain that social assistance creates a society of ungrateful leeches, but maybe the problem is we cant just throw the unfortunate a check and tell them to be grateful. Maybe gang behavior is a indicator of wanting to belong to something meaningful and gang members have made their own meaning because their society hasn’t. Maybe the police are ineffective and prejudiced, has that ever happened before? You bet your socks it has.
In the 60‘s when parts of New York city were more like the wild west that the urbane economic center it is today, it wasn’t stiff sentencing that made the difference it was doubling police presence and a greater focus on police accountability that made the difference. Its the same with effective social services . It’s cheaper to just write the check, but more effective (and expensive) to design a system that encourages the served to get back into the workforce through training, counseling and opportunities.
I believe that one very telling indicator of the real problem is we have a tendency to look down on those whom society is trying to help. I have often heard the term “leeches” used in referencing those dependent on social services and payments for their room and board. Doesn’t that in itself mean the system we employ is not working? How long does it take before someone wholly dependent on the state, starts to look down on themselves, or worse start to think of themselves as a kind of captive?
The cries in london of “The police can’t stop us” are indicative of a failure of one of the most basic of society’s promises, to protect and to serve. Societies that fall apart have usually bread their own enemies by failing in these two most important promises. Will less services and intense police action solve that problem? It hasn’t in the past, as any student of history will tell you. So as the controversy over punishment goes on in Britian, I can’t help wondering if we all need to stand back and not look so closely at the details, but rather take in the bigger picture.
This has been an interesting year for revolutionary thoughts, and societal crackdowns. A great year for dissatisfaction with government and political systems. A year of changing views and disappointed notions. After all, many said that the revolutions of the “Arab Spring” would result in radical Islamist states, when it now looks like these are much more democratic changes going on. In the US the revolutionaries of the Tea Party were voted in and are now one of the least popular of political groups. All in a year, the knee jerk reactions are proving to be wrong and a general dissatisfaction with unsympathetic and unthinking government is rising.
It is time to re-think social services to move them away from creating dependents and on to being enablers. This is not shrinking their size or cost necessarily, but improving their effectiveness. Effectiveness will eventually decrease their cost. Pledging allegiance to a society should come with safety and reward, and it should come with obligations as well.
As an example let’s look at the 9% percent unemployed in this country who are now receiving their unemployment insurance. This may well be extended due to the current state of the economy, and it’s inability to grow enough to employ those people. Unemployment insurance is only a basic payment and will not cover mortgages, food and any kind of future investment. It is eroding the financial position of anyone who accepts it as well as their psychological health. The way it is now, it may put food in a family’s mouth but not a future in their hearts.
What these unemployed really want, and need, is opportunities they can succeed at, and thereby begin to feel as if they are directing their own lives again. Our social security system is not set up for this. The promise of America and the government is “Work hard and you can succeed.” But the recipients can’t do that when they can’t get a job, or can’t get a job with a fair wage. Just writing the check isn’t working. When will we try something else?
Copyright Prentiss Gray 2011
Prentiss Gray is a writer and columnist and currently writes the Domesti-Tech Blog for Gannett. He can be reached through his website at www.prentissgray.com
Prentiss Gray
Prentiss Gray is a writer/columnist/blogger from New Jersey. After 27 years as a Information Systems consultant and the death of his wife of 21 years, he returned to his roots as a writer, creating the national column Adventures of the Lone Dad/ Daddy chronicles. He now Blogs for Gannet on domestic technology, and writes feature pieces and stories for general publication. He is a member of the American Society of Journalists and Authors and contributes to Bloomberg News, Daily Record, Gannett and the Tribune Syndicate.
Follow Me:
Good job Prentiss. It struck me (this was before my SIM) that the British Government was in denial. They were, especially the Prime Minister, taking this tough stance and talking all big but failing to look at the source of the problem. Things like this don’t happen in a vacuum and if you don’t address it and work on solving the problem(s) it is bound to happen again and again and again. If anyone doesn’t think so just ask Mr. Kaddafi. People will stay suppress but for so long and then they will erupt. People have to be treated fairly.
What happens to a dream deferred?
Does it dry up
Like a raisin in the sun?
Or fester like a sore–
And then run?
Does it stink like rotten meat?
Or crust and sugar over–
like a syrupy sweet?
Maybe it just sags
like a heavy load.
Or does it explode?
Dream Deferred by Langston Hughes (1951)
Report this comment
Prentiss, by far the best I have seen you post. Kudo’s.
“It is time to re-think social services to move them away from creating dependents and on to being enablers. This is not shrinking their size or cost necessarily, but improving their effectiveness. Effectiveness will eventually decrease their cost. Pledging allegiance to a society should come with safety and reward, and it should come with obligations as well.”
This is common sense evaluation that has escaped the social service czars for decades.
Unfortunately social services may not equip people for success, but rather, it often breeds dependence. Yet, in all fairness, by the time social services people come into contact with the clients, their values etc. have long been inculcated in their thinking patterns. It is not simply a matter of teaching job skills and how to do a job search; reshaping thinking to make an investment in themselves is necessary. Some will welcome it, others not. And it will take very skilled people to carry that off.
What is missing in the article I believe, is the erosion of values taught in the home. A dialog and operating family dynamic between parents and children somewhat akin to the following. “You are a member of this family and the community at large. Life is not free, everybody has to carry part of the load, and yours at the moment dear child is to mow the lawn, do the dishes or whatever and earn an allowance. Furthermore, your responsibility is to go to school and learn, learning is your job until you enter the job market. If you learn more, and well, you will be paid more. Others are not responsible for your needs, except on a short term, emergency basis.”
There is an increasing sense of entitlement by young people. Schools are to educate and parents are in charge of the majority of the work in conveying a sense of right and wrong, ethics, morality and personal responsibility. It is hard for me to believe schools, government or agencies can do what should have been done in the home, church, synagog etc. People are emotional, spiritual, physical beings and actions reflect that.
Their is a cauldron on a low boil at the moment by people on all sides of the civil disobedience issue. If things boil over the mob mentality will rule on both sides and things could get very ugly indeed.
Report this comment
An interesting thesis, Prentiss, but for one very significant fact (which may have to do with US media coverage of the riots rather than anything else).
This wasn’t LA. These were not race riots. Nor were they class riots.
They were not, for the most part, ‘the “have nots” … getting back at the “haves.”‘
Among the young people who went on the rampage were an 18-year-old “ambassador” for the 2012 Olympics, and the 19-year-old daughter of a millionaire who is a second-year student at one of our more prestigious universities. (Have-nots? Don’t make me laugh.) Alongside them were thousands of people with no particular social “advantage” or “disadvantage”. And plenty of others who were, are, genuine have-nots with genuine concerns and problems and perhaps even grievances.
But to say that the latter were the driving force behind the riots, or that they were some form of social retribution, is profoundly to misunderstand what was happening.
This was no underclass crying out to be heard. The rioters had no message and no political or social agenda. Their attacks were indiscriminate – the homes and property and livelihoods of ordinary people, not the institutional symbols. The people they killed were the people of their own community and class and background.
I seldom find myself agreeing with Tony Blair, but I think he was right to say yesterday that both the left and right had missed the point. The left because this was not the cry of a dispossessed underclass; the right because it was not just mindless thuggery or a “broken society” (although I think both the dispossessed underclass and the mindless thugs were present). A broken society does not go out to stand up to rioters or to clean up after them, as we saw happening over and over again. And for every disadvantaged young person arguing cogently and persuasively to camera about being marginalised by society, there were others in designer clothes who leered defiantly at the lens and shouted “Best night of my life”.
So what was it that we saw two weeks ago? It was all of the above and none of the above. It was, above all, incredibly complex – just like the solutions will be. It is far too easy and simplistic to label it as a have/have-not divide, as some of our press has tried to do – and doing so will not even begin to solve the problem.
Yes, the trigger for the first riot was a police shooting that should never have happened. It is not the first misjudgement by front-line police and it will not be the last. But what happened next had nothing to do with that. Yes, there are deep-seated social problems in Britain, as there are in the US and in every other Western society (far more so in those societies that have not started to tackle their sovereign debt crises). I disagree with Kaye; I don’t think most politicians are in denial about this, though they will disagree about how to tackle it. Yes, there is a prospect of cuts to front-line policing; but this was neither a cause nor a factor last week, as the cuts have not yet been implemented.
Whatever else was going on, there were two aspects that stood out. One was the materialism of the looting, the crazed fixation on consumer goods. You are right, Prentiss, about the constant “You want this, don’t you?”, but you are wrong about “No, you can’t have that” – the message is always “You CAN have it and you can have it NOW”. Our mass media, and the popular culture they peddle, have a share in the responsibility for the riots – though they’re in far deeper denial than the politicians.
Two, the indiscriminate nature of the violence and destruction, and the mindlessness of the mob. These are the things we really need to be thinking about. Because these are the things that say something about every one of us – and that we have the power to change. Over and over again, people arrested for taking part said “I don’t know why I did it… I don’t know what came over me.” But something *did* come over them and they *did* do it. And this mindless mob behaviour by ordinary people got ordinary people killed.
If there is a crumb of hope from this whole experience, it is in the public reaction to what happened. Because it was so shocking that it might just get people thinking “What can *I* do?”, rather than just saying what the politicians should do. We started to see it in the clean-up and we need to keep up the momentum.
(Incidentally, I have not once heard the word “leeches” applied to the rioters, or used anywhere in the UK media’s analysis of the events of two weeks ago. Nor have I heard ANY UK politician or commentator of ANY party describe benefits claimants as “ungrateful leeches” or try to pin the riots on them. Also, for clarity of language, what you describe as ‘social services’ is referred to in the UK as ‘social security’, i.e. financial support from the state for those not in work. ‘Social services’ in the UK refers to professional services for children, families and older people, including everything from residential care and mobility assistance for the disabled, to child protection, fostering and adoption, interventions where children are at risk of harm, and so on.)
Report this comment
Kaye, thanks you and I agree on this. However, I’m not sure the British Government understands that they are oppressing, or even mis-managing expectations.
Ben, it’s very good to hear commentary from someone in Britian. “Leeches” is certainly a derogatory American term for social security recipients, I’m glad you haven’t heard it.
I probably failed to communicate effectively that I believe that this was mostly a reaction to undelivered expectations. You are right in that many of those participating were swept up in the activity. However, it would be wrong to think that the general disenchantment with the delivery on expectations of government was blameless. Instituting austerity measures when the economy was in free fall was, and still is a mistake. Even though many of these measures are still to take effect, they have been well publicized and create their own atmosphere of depression.
Imagine young men and women whose entry into the working world of their society is marred by the recent economic difficulties in England, or America. How depressing is that? Weren’t they supposed to be entering a world that was better than their parents had? This kind of deep disappointment is bound to spur rebellion and disgust with established authority. I believe that as unfortunate as the whole situation was it provided a much needed example for English government and the governments of many other countries. For all of them it’s become apparent that managing the economy is not quite as important as managing expectations of their own actions.
Report this comment
Prentiss, I know several young people who went to school to enter the world of teaching; they can’t the jobs aren’t there, at least not right now. Two young ladies are now working in our local supermarket just to have some income. They are among the fortunate because they have parents who can help support them until something opens up. I give them credit for taking even a low wage job to assist. But, it is a shame.
Report this comment