When is Violence Necessary?

Starting last night, there has been rioting in Tottenham and Enfield (depending on who you depend on for news). These places are in London, which isn't in America, a fact that I found only mildly disturbing. I'm not posting any links about this because the details are still sketchy at best all around, but also because my sources (believe it or not, I have friends that tell me things) tell me that the news might be skewing things toward the "not facts" category.

What I do know is this, a country not known for rioting and violence has experienced rioting and violence. Because I've been getting a steady trickle of facts, I've been able to ask, what would I riot for? And I think I know what would lead me to violence.

Two factors lead to violence:

1. Necessity of force at that moment
2. Necessity of force

The beginning of the American Revolution was a surprise to the British. Out attack was a surprise, our revolt was not expected. Was violence necessary? I don't know. Maybe we would have been able to use diplomacy to solve it. World War II? Maybe Britain would have held back the Nazis, and maybe we only had to right things in the Pacific. There are a lot of maybes with regards to force, and I'm not sure when it was necessary. I'm not sure when it will ever be necessary, but I'm hoping I'll know it when I see it. What is important is recognizing that sometimes force will be necessary and not seem such, if only because a surprise attack will give the advantage to the party of lesser strength.

At the start of the American Revolution, the American army was heavily outgunned. It can be argued that had it not been for the French forces eventually reinforcing our lines, we would have lost the war. Out initial strike needed to be by surprise because traditional methods of war were not preferential toward our style of fighting. Once the war had begun, we still relied on guerilla tactics, and the British said several times that we were not fighting honorably. What I do know, is that taking Britain by surprise lent a smaller force the opportunity to fight on a more level playing field.

The second factor, is violence necessary? A father and husband was allegedly gunned down by police for no reason. Three hundred arrects. Further allegations of police brutality that led to nothing. At what point is violence an option? In my mind, there is some sort of checklist where extreme measures go from extreme to necessary. I wish things were easy, but you can't determine where people will fight.

I'd fight for my freedom to speak. I'd fight for my freedom to assemble with who I like. I'd fight for the ability to get information on my government, it's actions, and it's expenditures. I'd fight to defend the rights of the downtrodden, stepped upon, and disenfranchised.

But the truth is, they don't take rights like that anymore. It's inches, not feet. I asked my brother what he would fight for and he said, "I don't know." I asked if "daily rapings," would get him to fight, "Maybe. I guess." It's not going to be your voice or your assembly. It's going to be "Youth after 10pm" then "Youth after 9pm" then "Youth." It's going to be net neutrality, then the internet, then computers. It's going to be one, then another, then another, until you have nothing left.

I don't know what would lead to my violence, but I know I'm mad, and I'm not going to let every single right swirl down the fucking drain. And fuck network and quotes, because I'm mad as hell and I don't need Hollywood to quote me.