“If one throws a stone, it’s a crime. If a thousand stones are thrown, that’s political. If you set fire to a car it’s a crime, if a hundred cars are set on fire that’s political”
– Ulrike Meinhof from the Red Army Faction 1968
We find ourselves in another conflict between residents and police. The Milwaukee Uprising occurred on August 13th, 2016 when a young black man was shot by a police officer. The town quickly shot back. Stores and cars were torched, shots were fired, and hundreds came out to protest. Some condemn the actions of these resisters and protestors while others praise their action as a necessity. Here is where we must ask ourselves; can we ever justify violent protest or revolution? Or, does it demonize already oppressed marginalized groups? Ulrike Meinhof would agree that these arguable acts of terror were, in fact, political in their very nature, that although the public may be taken aback that it is necessary to resist rather than protest.
We must assess what it means to be a resistor rather than protestor to understand this assemblage of violence. Protest in itself is simply disagreement with something you dislike, resistance is fighting back to ensure it stops. To better illustrate violent protest, we shall evaluate the Red Army Faction as this was their specialty in West Germany while under U.S. imperialistic control. The Red Army Faction (RAF), also known as the Baader-Meinhof gang, was an assemblage of left wing extremists. Often labeled by many as terrorists, they carried out acts of violence against the repressive police state in West Germany and U.S. imperialism in Vietnam. They create such a perfect parallel to Milwaukee for the simple fact many deem these resistors as terrorists for their actions against anti-blackness. Both violent for ideological reasons and do what they feel is necessary to do to resist and fight back for what they believe in, taking action to end their oppression.
Many will disagree with the concept of using violence to achieve a political end, but they forget that this was the only solution left for these people, protest itself failed. Violence should only be used in the circumstance of the last resort, never the first, nor the second. To use violence without exhausting every other resource is fascist in nature. In fact not attempting to come to peaceful results is reactionary. When diplomacy can be used it should be for it can avoid bloodshed. To be quite frank to use violence when the peaceful resolution is possible only reflects poorly on those resisting, demonizing an already oppressed group. Resistance can be peaceful; there is nothing inherently violent in resistance. Resistance is simply fighting against what you disagree with, and our rhetoric can be the munitions in which we use. Protest does not go far enough for it disagrees; resistance finds resolution whether violent or peaceful. In West Germany protest failed and led to a brutal beating by the police in 1967, thus resistance formed. As many attempts were made to change the violence and totalizing control by the police the governing body shut these dissenting attempts at negotiating down. This marked the beginning of the violent resistance in West Germany.
Protest itself cannot be anything but peaceful for it is only a disagreement with what one dislikes, in this sense, it is a liberal notion. Protest fails to end oppression for the oppressor will rarely give in to the demands of those who disagree. In the U.S. we generally assume dissenting opinion is heard and taken into account, however, this is not the case. In the Milwaukee area, there has been a multitude of pleas for change with not a thing happening. Their protest ended as just that, protest of oppression. The dissenting opinion was simply ignored and swept under a rug as if their livelihoods and very agency were not at stake. Protest can only go so far and is reactionary in the most positive circumstances. Protest may only work so long as the state or higher order has some sort of agreement or finds benefit in this dissenting opinion. This is the function of the state when controlled by the elite, this power over life functions to serve the state rather than the people of the state. In the end, protest as it did in Milwaukee will fail us.
Resistance is neither as clean nor easy as protest yet it remains a revolutionary act and is the task for only those ready to end their oppression and exploitation. The violent struggle of the Milwaukee Uprising has already struck fear into the hearts of the state who finally will investigate the Milwaukee police department. This comes as a victory for those resistors in Milwaukee, for those who were tired of being the other, for those who felt the effects of the oppression in the area. This parallels the RAF who struck a revolutionary fear into the hearts of the oppressive West German regime forcing them to shift their policies more towards the left as time went on. This is so evident when the at the time new chancellor of Germany in 1968 attempted liberal reforms of policing to calm the masses and resistors. Resistance in itself is one of the highest acts of liberation. Even when the resistance to tyranny may fail, we gain liberation ideologically, a sense of agency, a sense of self-emancipation. This is why we must resist, even in failure it succeeds.
We must also view this singular act of resistance from Milwaukee as a positive for although there were those who were injured, none died in the Uprising. These few injuries are outweighed in every sense by the investigation of the police department by the Federal Government; it may just end up saving lives. The cost is far smaller than the benefit. When analyzing in which ways to resist oppression we must view our options on a net scale, I.E. will the benefits outweigh the harms. In this instance, the loss of property was a just act and in fact a benefit for a couple reasons. The first being that these businesses that were targeted were targeted for being anti-black in some fashion, thus their demise was a justifiable one in the context of a highly unequal society for people of color. The second is that it sent a clear message without the loss of life that the current violence and oppression that people face will be tolerated no longer. These shops that went up in flames were for the most part chains or insured meaning that while an inconvenience no one’s livelihood was destroyed. In this sense, the violent resistance was executed perfectly. The benefits outweigh the harms even in the most violent resistance by the populous in the Milwaukee Uprising.
In the end, we must realize that violence should only be used as a last resort when diplomacy fails, but that the people should never idly stand by and accept oppression. The people will always have the power, and in Milwaukee they surely proved they do. These resistors are not only courageous but also revolutionary in every sense. Although many will condemn those resistors in Milwaukee, I commend them in fighting to be free from their bonds of oppression, for fighting for what they think is right despite the ever-looming potential of punishment.
