I wish I had mentioned the riots in Ferguson. First of all, I'm offended by your suggestion it's a black mindset. The largest race riot in US history was the Tulsa Race Riot in which a group of white people attacked the richest black community in the US and burned it to the ground. It's no more black, than lynching is a white mindset. I support the rioters in the sense that I know that they suffered injustice and those riots weren't born in a vacuum. The Department of Justice Ferguson report found that there was unconstitutional policing which included discriminatory intent against African Americans. The pressure in both Ferguson and Baltimore was building for a long time before riots ever happened and nothing was done. The people rioted out of frustration and anger and desperation, and to reduce it to 'a mindset' really trivializes the issues involved. Please, take the time to look at the resources that are out there. There are some ridiculous cases. For instance peaceful protestors taking milk from a McDonalds after they were tear gassed was reported by the media as looting. Fox news took a chant against police violence and distorted the sound so the protestors appeared to be saying "kill all cops". CNN Photoshopped people's signs. I'm not saying we should get our tinfoil hats, just that the media has made distortions for clicks before, and its worth it to try to look for more than one perspective. In particular I'd urge you to look at some of the things locals in these areas, and other black people in the US have written about what's going on now. They express things with more clarity and insight than I can certainly. Ultimately 266 years just isn't as long of a time as Americans think. The effects of the actions of the very first colonists are still being felt today in other areas, its almost farcical to think that wouldn't apply to racism.
I apologize. I don't mean to offend with my words or implications thereof. I don't mean to say that the riots themselves were a mindset, only that the seemingly wanton destruction of their own neighborhoods was. I can't understand the logic of destroying your own businesses, homes, or any other property. I do understand that police were extremely discriminatory in both situations and I do understand that the deaths of Michael Brown and Freddie Gray served as catalysts for the riots. However, I don't think that the behavior displayed by the people in either situation should be condoned, regardless of why it happened. What more did they gain by violently rioting instead of peacefully protesting? (Legitimate question, not trying to bait you into an argument.) I agree on the distortion of events by the mainstream media. Reading through a few different sources cited the riots as mostly peaceful with pockets of violence that were magnified by media attention specifically focused on violence. Since I read it after typing the above paragraph, I'll leave it there and say that I learned something new, thanks to you. I appreciate your insight.
A riot is the voice of the unheard. You're looking for rationality among the oppressed in the face of the irrationality of the oppressor. Why do the oppressed have the obligation to be somehow more rational? Why is it any less logical to destroy an area in which you live (and to be honest, a CVS in Baltimore and a convenience store in Ferguson aren't really the high water mark of community pillars) but why is it less logical to destroy those places than to allow cops to kill black people and get away with it? You're asking the wrong questions I think. More importantly, and this is a bit more daring, but the uprisings should be condoned because violent uprising is the only route to actual changes. The feds came into Ferguson and Baltimore for oversight of police actions after the uprisings. The Civil Rights Act didn't get signed because of people sitting in neat little rows making clever arguments and begging for power to be given to them. It may be an uncomfortable truth, but power isn't given willingly to the oppressed.
I try to approach situations through the path of logic and reason. That's just how my brain works and it's hard for me to see a different view. All of this is an attempt at doing that. In my mind, I would see the oppressed taking a more rational approach than the oppressor as an extra mark in favor of the oppressed. They're having to live through unreasonable conditions born out of hate and yet they rise above it in spectacular fashion, refusing to bend to the call of violence. However, I do understand that this approach wouldn't garner as much media attention. Unfortunately, the media only cares about how much stuff got blown up because ratings, so I can understand how resorting to violence may the the only option to get your cause onto the national stage. Not everyone who fought for civil rights in the 50s and 60s used violence to achieve their goals. I can't imagine that the violent protesters would have succeeded without those refusing to take part in violent acts. Maybe nonviolence wouldn't have been a success either. I don't truly know enough about all of it to make a solid statement. What are the right questions?