When property is destroyed it ceases being a protest and thus becomes a riot.
Is episode "Past Tense" an omen of a Donald Trump presidency?
- Thread starter marsh8472
- Start date
And there's that lazy, black and white thinking I was talking about. For better or worse, those terms aren't actually mutually exclusive.
The Constitution gives the right to peacefully assemble and to petition the government.
Arson, assault and property damage are criminal acts.
Last edited:
Obviously. Also, irrelevant.
My point is that creating a false dichotomy with riot on one side and protest on the other is lazy, black and white thinking. Though often condemnable, riot can be a form of protest, and when studying history we see that it is often an effective one (e.g. Stonewall). "Past Tense" explored the subject of riot thoughtfully and accurately. It presented a scenario in which riot was not only a possibility, but a likely inescapable eventuality, and...effective. It didn't present morally black and white characters in a morally black and white world, but realistic and complex characters in a realistic and complex context. The main players all have moments when they are sympathetic and when they are not, including Sisko.
But above all, the writers asked the most important question (and the one that is most often overlooked in real life): why? Why did the people riot? In fact, they made this a major plot point: the sanctuary residents had to get online to share their stories so that people on the outside could understand. After all, it is a lot harder to dismiss all rioters as criminals and vandals when one has listened to their perspective.
As I said before, it took a MLK Jr approach. One could plausibly see the a good chunk of the story being inspired by this quote: "But it is not enough for me to stand before you tonight and condemn riots. It would be morally irresponsible for me to do that without, at the same time, condemning the contingent, intolerable conditions that exist in our society. These conditions are the things that cause individuals to feel that they have no other alternative than to engage in violent rebellions to get attention. And I must say tonight that a riot is the language of the unheard. And what is it America has failed to hear?...It has failed to hear that the promises of freedom and justice have not been met. And it has failed to hear that large segments of white society are more concerned about tranquility and the status quo than about justice and humanity."
This is the sort of complexity "Past Tense" explored so well, and the kind of insight lost on anyone who thinks riot and protest are mutually exclusive terms.
Last edited:
The Boston Tea Party was a criminal act.
Oh, no, sorry.... I've been informed that it was patriotic. Oh hai, Tea Party!
Oh, no, sorry.... I've been informed that it was patriotic. Oh hai, Tea Party!
Or apartments. Also, give them a guaranteed annual income to get them on their feet until they can find a job or study for a career.
Because we value property more than people...
In the UK a lot of MPs and those folks that run the way things are done are property owners. It is in their interest that there is a housing shortage cos it pushes the value of their rents and increases the value of their property. No matter that the UK governement is sitting on a housing benefits ticking timebomb when Generation Private Rent becomes Generation Retiree who cannot afford their expensive private rent and so 1. Claim housing benefit from the state and 2. Will need the state to look after them in a care home. (Culturally English folks don't want to look after elderly parents, someone else must do it.)
(Mrs Thatcher abolished rent controls; another Tory policy that has come to bite us in the economic butt. The rightwing worship of 'The Market' has come back to haunt us)
The presentation of Bell and the riot in general seemed at least a little overly idealized (Bell being a leader of armed riots but firmly insisting that the hostages not be harmed) but at least it was thought-provoking (although I'm not sure if it was suggesting that most violent protests aren't that violent or are only violent reluctantly or that Bell was unusual and that's why the riots came to be named after him? Edit: And also why the riots were particularly effective?).
The episode does suggest a big part of the solution to deprivation is more extensive or mass federal employment, that the private sector is just insufficient to generating enough employment (and I guess it implicitly argues that the upper class needs to be heavily taxed to fund the expanded employment which would be needed if the government is already heavily in debt). Generating more private sector employment, as Trump has argued we can and must do, isn't really considered but the episode implicitly suggests that can't work well enough and the people who say it probably don't really mean it.
A disturbing but I guess realistic element was that even in the 24th century Bashir considered the era too unpleasant to want to do much research about it to understand it.
Last edited:
I am surprised they did not go down the 'population explosion' route unless the situation in that episode only related to the USA which is NOT one of the most densely population nations on Earth, no matter what the anti migrant lobby tells you.
.....whom cause damage to property of people who did them no harm.
You're damn right
I don't think that it was arguing any "usual" or normal level of violence for violent protest -- and perhaps you're forgetting details of the episode, but the Bell Riots were shown to be very violent, with hundreds of people dying, just not the hostages. Sisko explains that hundreds died prior to the events unfolding and one of the last shots is Bashir and Sisko walking amongst a bunch of bodies (whether or not we ascribe to a self-consistency theory of time travel, meaning that Sisko was always Bell, the fact that hundreds died wasn't changed). I'd say that your second supposition is more likely, that Bell (whether or not he was always Sisko) was meant to be unusual.
A very United Federation of Planets and Starfleet philosophy.
Well, they had to keep consistent with the Trek universe, so they couldn't really go the route of unfettered capitalism.
Given the speed of industrialisation, loss of jobs and decrease in education, I should rather think that there wouldn't be a ghetto (aka sanctuary) for the jobless but rather that the jobless would be in the majority and start to kill everyone who has a job, out of despair and jealousy. It wouldn't be unheard of either - in the middle ages, christians were forbidden certain well-paying professions like e.g. moneylending. These jobs were executed by Jews who promptly - pardon the pun - got executed by their Christian neighbours who then stole their wealth. Later, during the inquisition, many victims were well-to-do protestant craftsmen, then, in the 17 and 18hundreds anyone who was wealthy and/or disliked was burned at the stakes and their money confiscated by the magistrate (until these in turn got killed).
Maybe Trump should be a bit more careful, particularly in regions where wildfires are common...
Maybe Trump should be a bit more careful, particularly in regions where wildfires are common...
The Star Trek universe solution seems to be move to another planet, however in the real world with the population showing no signs of declining, limited resources and limited jobs we need a cull of humans so either leave the planet, have millions die from some plague, secretly sterilise millions of folks at birth or start a world war.....(Or force the 1% to give up the goodies)
If we are talking specifically about the Berkley riots, there was more than just property damage. There were attacks on people as well.
http://www.mmaweekly.com/jake-shiel...rom-masked-attackers-during-uc-berkeley-riots
If some are likening this behavior to a revolution, I don't think it is a revolution the far left can win. Extremism also drives the middle away from voting for that side of the isle's candidates. These people are not doing themselves any favors.
Over here in SA there are tons of vacant houses that the Housing Trust own that just sit vacant for years, and years. Those could be given to those kind of people but the will to do that is lacking.
London has the same issue, old empty properties that no one seems to own. Why doesn't the state buy these or fine the landlords millions for leaving them empty? We also have the ridiculous situation where brand new apartments are purchased off plan by mainly foreign investors who leave them empty.
That last one happens here a lot with Chinese investors.... You'd think the housing market is being artificially propped up by lazy government here in Australia because they don't want to look into things like Negative Gearing which is a way to dodge tax
Similar threads
