ONUS OF NONVIOLENCE
I was listening to a podcast by one of my favourite political reporters, Ezra Klein, and he was discussing the current protests we are witnessing erupt over the USA and the manner in which they are being handled.
As Ezra so succinctly pointed out in the quote shown, civilians are being subjected to the call of order that the police force are not subject too. That the police force is immune from. And herein lies the conception of the protests: if a nation-wide force whose establishment was intended to be the restoration of order to an otherwise civilised society is to blame for the majority of violent action, and is furthermore IMMUNE to calls of order, that force has failed and must be removed.
Why are civilians expected to have an innate non-violent response to direct physical threat while trained “professionals” are free to shoot at non-existent threats?
Why does the onus of non-violence fall upon the civilian population, and not the powerful? If the powerful hold the monopoly of violence, how can it be considered a democracy?
Why does the onus of non-violence fall upon the civilian population, and not the powerful? If the powerful hold the monopoly of violence, how can it be considered a democracy?
The American police force do not create or restore order, they maintain power relations. And if these power relations can only exist via the incarceration and murder of black lives and those that stand with them, then peace cannot be restored until a revolt alters such a paradigm.
