The scenes of unrest that swept London and other English cities were met by widespread condemnation. However, in seeking the cause of the riots, opinion was certainly polarized. Politicians, the public, communities and commentators all offered views on what had led to the destruction and violence that occurred yet none could agree on a single cause of the riots.
The events that preceded the initial riots in Tottenham were the death of Mark Duggan and a subsequent peaceful protest on the Saturday afternoon before the rioting commenced. Several commentators attempted to make hurried and tenuous links between the peaceful protest and the rioting. However, there was no correlation between the aims of the initial protestors who sought answers over the death of Mark Duggan and the rioters who sought opportunistic destruction.
The media and other commentators also attempted to draw parallels with the Broadwater Farm riots that occurred in Tottenham in 1985. Again, this was a flawed and uninformed conclusion.
Akin to other race riots of the era, the Broadwater Farm riots were against a backdrop of great tensions between the police and the black community. Such tensions were fuelled by institutionalized racism within the police, well-documented brutality and deaths of black people held in custody and an apathetic approach of British governments towards non-white Britons, many of whom were born in the UK following post-war emigration of their parents.
The Broadwater Farm riots were sparked by the death of Cynthia Jarrett, a black woman who died having collapsed and experienced a stroke during a police search of her home. However, the indignation of the black community had been burgeoning long before this. While many condemned the rioting, most notably the death of PC Keith Blakelock who was killed during the riots, there were genuine frustrations that led to the unrest.
In contrast, any indignation of the rioters in Tottenham, and the locations of subsequent rioting, was not apparent. Nonetheless, a number of rioters and commentators claimed the death of Mark Duggan served as a tipping point for frustrations of disaffected youth, particularly within the black community, and anger over racial profiling.
Given the history of tension between the black community and the police, many may have considered this to underpin the cause of events that lead to Mark Duggan’s death and indeed the subsequent riots. Furthermore, the statistics of black people being 26 more times likely than white people to be stopped and searched by police in England and Wales, certainly gives credence to any accusations of racial profiling by the police. However, albeit far from perfect, the relationship between the black community and the police has undoubtedly improved from that of yesteryear.
As the unrest spread beyond Tottenham to other areas of London and a number of English cities, the link between Mark Duggan’s death and the riots became increasingly tenuous. Indeed, it’s doubtful Mark Duggan’s death was even remotely in the consciousness of very few, if any, of the rioters.
In the aftermath of the unrest, socio-economic, racial and generational tensions have all been opined as the cause of the riots along with wider community tensions with the police. Finding a neat social group by which the rioters can be identified appears to be much desired.
Many politicians, acutely aware that making the respective group into a pariah will appeal to a public angered by the scenes of rioting, have bandied about tough-talking rhetoric of firm justice for the perpetrators. Conversely, a number of politicians from the opposition have used the unrest to argue that the coalition government’s austerity measures have caused cuts so deep in public spending, that they have exacerbated an already disaffected youth.
I beg to differ that the loss of EMA and closure of youth services would prompt otherwise law-abiding citizens to adopt such lawlessness and opportunistic violence as was witnessed during the unrest. Similarly, while a tough stance on the perpetrators is undoubtedly required, a short-sighted approach will merely lead to the cause of these events being suppressed rather than addressed.
The extent of British multiculturalism has been apparent in the varied ethnic groups of the rioters. To suggest a link between race relations and the unrest is therefore a flawed assumption. Nonetheless, some commentators, both within and outside of the black community, have attempted to argue this case. However, historian David Starkey, in what were career-ending utterances on the BBC’s Newsnight, went one step further.
Referencing Enoch Powell’s ‘Rivers of Blood’ speech that criticized commonwealth immigration to Britain, David Starkey asserted “black culture” had been assumed by non-black rioters, effectively equating black culture with the nihilistic behavior that was witnessed in several English cities. Conversely, claiming black Labour MP David Lammy’s well-educated diction as that of a white person, he intimated white culture was the antithesis of all that had occurred with the unrest.
Needless to say, David Starkey’s comments were unfounded and utterly racist, totally rejecting the many positive contributions the black Diaspora, and those of other ethnic minority communities, has made to British society.
There was not a ‘black’ issue behind the riots. The issue of race relations, let alone one exclusive to the black community, was very much secondary, if at all applicable, to the cause of the riots.
Indeed, there is a measure of apathy and disaffection within some sections of the black community, particularly amongst the youth, that has consequently diminished the aspirations and voice of the black community. The aforementioned social failures are therefore likely to have underpinned the attitudes of many that took part in the riots – and happened to be black. However, while the apathy, lack of values and nihilism that was witnessed is far from representative of the black community, let alone any ethnic group, it is a common theme to the rioters.
The role of class has been suggested as another cause of the unrest. Perhaps as a product of British multiculturalism, class has seemingly overtaken race as the prevalent theme in drawing divisions within British society. Arguably, there has been a growing apathetic and disaffected class within British society. Initially, and unfairly, considered an extension of the working class, this social group has commonly been labeled by the media as ‘chavs’ or the underclass.
The demographic of this group has been characterized as having little aspiration and low levels of educational attainment, while having little work ethic and no perceptible stake in society. Certainly, these traits are common to those that took part in the rioting. However, of the many rioters already arrested and charged, some have been discovered to be professional middle-class individuals. This refutes the notion that this destructive behavior is exclusive to the socially marginalized in Britain.
While most were in awe of the scenes of rioting, looting and burning buildings, this awe was increased for many politicians and public that remained ignorant or nonchalant towards this burgeoning apathetic section of British society. While I found the destruction both shocking and surreal, the capacity for the nihilistic attitudes of the rioters was not as surprising. British society has long shown glimpses of these attitudes and the consequent shift in the social equilibrium.
Despite most of the rioters being identified as youths, it is presumptuous and unfair to attribute these attitudes exclusively to youth culture. Indeed, those youths that exhibit such attitudes have done so by mirroring the attitudes of so-called authority figures around them. However, these attitudes represent what is an aberration in contrast to a ‘normal’ set of values. Scenes of youths nonchalantly looting businesses and attacking the police, visibly with glee rather than the indignation that usually accompanies such unrest, represents a significant problem in such sections of British society.
The boundaries, expectations and hierarchy of authority figures for youths have become increasingly blurred. The status quo has diminished the role of discipline and ethics within a generation. Many parents perceive teachers, youth leaders and wider society to be responsible for the parenting of their children, effectively opting to relinquish the nurturing role of being a parent. However, relatively speaking, it is important to acknowledge that such individuals, parents and youths alike, are in a minority.
While such failed parenting is inexcusable and undoubtedly an underlying cause of much of the unrest, there are questions to be asked of how this attitude came to exist in British society without opposition.
How did rampant materialism (without an accompanying work ethic), a lack of value for education and nonchalance for authority creep into British society? It is a far cry from the Thatcherite rhetoric of ‘Victorian values’ that until recently was the utopian, yet flawed, perception of Britain for many abroad. Surely even David Cameron would agree that the problem is beyond his ‘hug a hoodie’ sentiments as a viable solution.
In the aftermath of the riots, there will undoubtedly be much debate by Parliament, communities and beyond in attempting to ascertain what caused this and how it can be avoided. There are certainly social issues of apathy and disengagement, particularly amongst the youth, in sections of British society. However, unlike previous social unrest, there is no tangible frustration that governments and communities can work to address. Instead, the challenge will be addressing a set of attitudes which have long existed but to date have failed to manifest themselves so perceptibly.