I'm going to London next month (to speak at the annual conference of the UK Speechwriters' Guild, in Bournemouth).
So you'd think I'd be following the riot story over there closely, but honestly, it sounds like every other riot story since the Chicago Race Riot of 1919, the Harlem Riot of 1935, the Notting Hill race riots of 1958, the Watts Riots, the Hough Riots, the 1968 Chicago Riots, the 1992 Los Angeles Riots and the dozen urban riots in between each one of those urban riots.
The only unique entertainment value of this riot has been listening to the British authorities sputter as only British authorities can, about bad seeds and the bad apples they grow.
On the BBC, I actually heard London's deputy mayor sternly remind us through clenched teeth that there are thousands of young people in London who aren't rioting, who are trying to be good human beings, who are thinking of their futures, etcetera.
No wonder Monty Python came out of England.
But then, early last week, prime minister David Cameron finally cut his holiday short and delivered a big speech on it. Cameron seems like a smart guy to me, and I was interested to hear what he had to say. After a sharing his plan to quell the riots, he launched into a section on "Tackling the Deeper Problems."
I leaned in, hoping Cameron had done some thinking on the beach:
Responsibility for crime always lies with the criminal. But crime has a context. And we must not shy away from it.
Well said, Prime Minister. Continue.
I have said before that there is a major problem in our society with children growing up not knowing the difference between right and wrong.
Whenever Person A accuses Person B of not knowing the difference between right and wrong, there are only two possibilities, neither of which Person A will be happy to hear:
1. If Person B literally does not know the difference between right and wrong, he or she should be spared punishment, in the same way a desperately mentally deficient person would not be put to death (except in Texas).
2. More likely, Person B has simply developed a different idea of "right and wrong" than does Person A, probably because Person B's circumstances are very different from that of Person B. Just as all is fair in love and war, anything goes in the ghetto. At my wife's school on the west side of Chicago, parts are stolen off teachers cars in the parking lot.
But a more honest way to say it (or, to use Cameron's terms, a more "right" way to say it) would be, "There is a major problem in our society with different groups of children growing up in such vastly different worlds that they grow into adulthood with incompatible values and contempt for one another's codes of behavior."
This is not about poverty, it’s about culture. A culture that glorifies violence, shows disrespect to authority, and says everything about rights but nothing about responsibilities.
Well gee, if it's not about poverty, why is it that riots always seem to happen in poor neighborhoods and never in middle-class or rich neighborhoods? (Whenever anyone uses the construction "this incident isn't about this, it's about that," they are baldly stating their intention to bamboozle you into ignoring something. "This story isn't about the man behind the curtain ….")
In too many cases, the parents of these children—if they are still around—don’t care where their children are or who they are with, let alone what they are doing.
Now you're accusing a whole class of people of not loving their children as much as your class of people. That ought to calm everything down.
The potential consequences of neglect and immorality on this scale have been clear for too long, without enough action being taken.
So there you have it. The whole story in England is simply a righteous battle of the moral against the immoral, the responsible against the feckless, the honorable against the dishonorable.
If that's Cameron's "deeper" analysis, what on earth would his shallow one be?
Steve C. says
Whew! Thank you David!
For a while there, I had been thinking that the people setting fire to stores and looting small businesses were a bunch of assholes.
I’m so glad to hear that they just come from “different worlds” where they “grow into adulthood with incompatible values and contempt for one another’s codes of behavior.”
Good luck over there in Merry Old England . .. if there’s any justice in the world, you’ll run into a bunch of these Oliver Twists who find your code of behavior contemptible, and they let you know about it.
Steve C.
Steve C. says
Whew! Thank you David!
For a while there, I had been thinking that the people setting fire to stores and looting small businesses were a bunch of assholes.
I’m so glad to hear that they just come from “different worlds” where they “grow into adulthood with incompatible values and contempt for one another’s codes of behavior.”
Good luck over there in Merry Old England . .. if there’s any justice in the world, you’ll run into a bunch of these Oliver Twists who find your code of behavior contemptible, and they let you know about it.
Steve C.
Steve C. says
Whew! Thank you David!
For a while there, I had been thinking that the people setting fire to stores and looting small businesses were a bunch of assholes.
I’m so glad to hear that they just come from “different worlds” where they “grow into adulthood with incompatible values and contempt for one another’s codes of behavior.”
Good luck over there in Merry Old England . .. if there’s any justice in the world, you’ll run into a bunch of these Oliver Twists who find your code of behavior contemptible, and they let you know about it.
Steve C.
David Murray says
Too predictable, Steve.
Let’s have your “deeper” analysis. (Not that your your “Bunch of Assholes Theory” isn’t compelling.)
If you were made responsible for preventing urban riots in the future, how exactly would you go about it?
Steve C. says
Where, exactly, is YOUR “deeper analysis,” my friend?
Talk about predictable. There are two ways of being predictable about this.
1. Call all the rioters assholes and jagoffs.
2. Defend the assholes and and jagoffs, and pretend that the REAL reason they are organizing themselves online to go steal big-screen TVs is because they are disadvantaged members of a failed society.
I’ll take the first option.
When Detroit went up in flames after the Pistons won the NBA title in 1990, it had nothing to do with “incompatible values.” The same is true for all the soccer riots that happen all the time in Europe.
Sometimes, it’s just about people behaving badly.
I may not have a “deeper” analysis . . .but how about a solution?
Give shotguns to the small business owners, and let it be known that if anyone tries to loot a store, it’s legal to shoot them in the fucking head.
England is squeamish about using rubber bullets? How about using REAL bullets?
You’d be surprised by how fast everyone’s values get lined up.
Steve C.
Steve C. says
Where, exactly, is YOUR “deeper analysis,” my friend?
Talk about predictable. There are two ways of being predictable about this.
1. Call all the rioters assholes and jagoffs.
2. Defend the assholes and and jagoffs, and pretend that the REAL reason they are organizing themselves online to go steal big-screen TVs is because they are disadvantaged members of a failed society.
I’ll take the first option.
When Detroit went up in flames after the Pistons won the NBA title in 1990, it had nothing to do with “incompatible values.” The same is true for all the soccer riots that happen all the time in Europe.
Sometimes, it’s just about people behaving badly.
I may not have a “deeper” analysis . . .but how about a solution?
Give shotguns to the small business owners, and let it be known that if anyone tries to loot a store, it’s legal to shoot them in the fucking head.
England is squeamish about using rubber bullets? How about using REAL bullets?
You’d be surprised by how fast everyone’s values get lined up.
Steve C.
Steve C. says
Where, exactly, is YOUR “deeper analysis,” my friend?
Talk about predictable. There are two ways of being predictable about this.
1. Call all the rioters assholes and jagoffs.
2. Defend the assholes and and jagoffs, and pretend that the REAL reason they are organizing themselves online to go steal big-screen TVs is because they are disadvantaged members of a failed society.
I’ll take the first option.
When Detroit went up in flames after the Pistons won the NBA title in 1990, it had nothing to do with “incompatible values.” The same is true for all the soccer riots that happen all the time in Europe.
Sometimes, it’s just about people behaving badly.
I may not have a “deeper” analysis . . .but how about a solution?
Give shotguns to the small business owners, and let it be known that if anyone tries to loot a store, it’s legal to shoot them in the fucking head.
England is squeamish about using rubber bullets? How about using REAL bullets?
You’d be surprised by how fast everyone’s values get lined up.
Steve C.
David Murray says
Steve, you’re a riot.
I’m going to leave it to others to see whether I’ve actually “defended” looters here.
I’ll also let them consider the wisdom of your solution.
I’ll just point out that there a big difference between a one-night hysterical drunken mob riot like what happened in Vancouver this summer, and sustained rioting and looting like what’s happened in England.
I’ll also acknowledge that I have no solution, or deep analysis of my own. I’m just calling out the prime minister of England for purporting to address the “deeper problems,” and doing nothing of the sort.
Such situations are huge opportunities to introduce big ideas–as the Reverend Nigel McCulloch did, with a speech I don’t think you’d actually disagree with.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14520074
Steve C. says
Dude, you try to act like you’re reasonable and I’m the crazy one . . . but you give yourself away with your headline.
Go back and read it again. Is that what Cameron said? Is it even close? Whatever he said about the reasons for social upheaval are about 10000000 times more “deep” than your post.
Steve C.
Steve C. says
Dude, you try to act like you’re reasonable and I’m the crazy one . . . but you give yourself away with your headline.
Go back and read it again. Is that what Cameron said? Is it even close? Whatever he said about the reasons for social upheaval are about 10000000 times more “deep” than your post.
Steve C.
Steve C. says
Dude, you try to act like you’re reasonable and I’m the crazy one . . . but you give yourself away with your headline.
Go back and read it again. Is that what Cameron said? Is it even close? Whatever he said about the reasons for social upheaval are about 10000000 times more “deep” than your post.
Steve C.
David Murray says
Steve, my headline is a provocative distillation of what Cameron (a rich fellow) implies with a statement like this (about poor people):
“the parents of these children—if they are still around—don’t care where their children are or who they are with, let alone what they are doing.”
As for you–and you really ought to think about this–for a guy who makes his living teaching people how to communicate with one another–you show a stunning lack of curiosity about other people, many hundreds and thousands of whom you effortlessly reduce to and dismiss as “assholes and jagoffs.”
No, my post is not deep. In fact, it’s a ridiculously simple statement of the obvious: Different people have different points of view based on their experience in life, and David Cameron’s view of things (which you share automatically) isn’t the only legitimate one.
Nope, nothing deep there.
Just a tired old slogan for anybody who’s going to call himself a COMMUNICATOR.
Mike Brice says
Even after the Utah Jazz were eliminated from the playoffs, there were no riots in Salt Lake City. Do you know why? Many, if not most, store owners are armed and are very accurate shots.
They didn’t grow up with guns on TV, but using them to shoot pests on the farm. A rioter doesn’t move as fast as a ground hog, and is a much bigger target.
Think I am joking? Have we ever had a riot in cowboy county? I didn’t think so.
David Murray says
Yes, Mike, I think you are joking.
Steve C. says
David:
Thank you for admitting that your post is shallow and built around a tired stereotype of “rich people” who don’t understand or care about “poor people,” and thank you for admitting that your tabloid-style headline is full of shit.
We can now move on to other things!
Steve C.
Steve C. says
David:
Thank you for admitting that your post is shallow and built around a tired stereotype of “rich people” who don’t understand or care about “poor people,” and thank you for admitting that your tabloid-style headline is full of shit.
We can now move on to other things!
Steve C.
Steve C. says
David:
Thank you for admitting that your post is shallow and built around a tired stereotype of “rich people” who don’t understand or care about “poor people,” and thank you for admitting that your tabloid-style headline is full of shit.
We can now move on to other things!
Steve C.