Replies

Read a bit of history and you will see that race an rioting have nothing to do with each other, but class and education (the lack of it) is a common denominator.

What a load of rot.
When Bolsheviks rioted, they were led by educated Marxists sponsored by European bankers. This was politically driven.
When the Hutus rioted and slaughtered the Tutsis, one ethnic group slaughtered another ethnic group.
When Muslims rioted slaughtered 800 Hindus on trains, the Hindus returned the favor and slaughtered thousands of Muslims. This was religion against religion.

Poverty, class, lack of education are not the causes of riots. It is moral decadence that is the cause. Moral decadence is rampant among blacks after 40 years of the Great Society. Socialism and collectivism which create mobs are the root causes.

Moral decadence is rampant among blacks after 40 years of the Great Society.

I presume you mean "because of" instead of "still"?

Socialism and collectivism which create mobs are the root causes.

Again, I presume you're equating the "Great Society" with socialism/collectivism? And what is the mechanism that yields the mob, group, me-against-thee culture since socialism generally gives rise to only two classes/groups?

You may be on to something but I can't stretch far enough to make the connection.

FGS

You have a rather loose definition of rioting. Granted in some cases agents provocateurs will instigate a situation. However, the cases you cite are not riots but virtual civil wars brought about by a variety of factors.

I don't think that anyone would describe the insurrection in 1917 which the Bolsheviks took advantage of, a riot.

Similarly the Hutus in Rwanda were actually in charge of the government at the time the genocide occurred. It was a calculated campaign that lasted well over three months and was systematically directed by the Hutu government. I would hardly call it a riot.

Your last case in India was indeed a riot as it was spontaneous and without direction. The fact that religion played a part still does not in any way dispute my argument since most of the people who rioted were poor.

I did not claim that poverty or class is a cause of riots, rather that rioting is usually associated with the lowest class. The middle class rarely if ever riots, rather they engage in calculated revolutionary activities rather than wanton destruction and pillaging.

I suppose that the cause of the draft riots in New York during the civil war carried out by Irish immigrants in which the primary victims were black was due to socialism and collectivism. Sorry, I don't buy it.