They are young and naive Zulu, with a wish to engage in political intercourse over their grievances, who will always have an element, either within their ranks, or outside them that is attracted to causing destruction and mayhem. This can sometimes be classed as direct action by the Anarchists who have been functioning for a very long time. In summary the students are striving for what they see as their right, some of them have grown up on the promise by Tony Blair that a priority was "Education, Education, Education", only to find their 'elders, betters and wiser' men have reneged on 'a contract' with promises being cruelly broken. That is no role model type action to display to the young and naive!!
But yes Zulu Great Britain has benefited from the actions of brave sections of society who have challenged the establishment since the French Revolution of 1789. Britain has witnessed events from the Royal Navy mutinies of 1797, the United Irishmen, The London Correspondence Society of the late 1790s, Luddism of 1811-12, to Chartism of 1838 - 48. All these events attracted much violence, on the side of both the protesters and the government of the day. Hangings, shootings, riots, transpired, with the Peterloo Massacre of 16th August 1819 and Newport uprising, 4th November1839 claiming many lives. The Chartists even managed to (allegedly) attack the Royal Coach in London (echos of yesterday!!) during their last mass protest for their third National Petition in 1848.
These actions over many years were organised by the common man, and women, against the ruling powers to gain various rights, conditions, and guarantees of legal justice for all. In the late nineteenth century unions were fighting for political power to gain rights for the common worker, which after the 1914-18 war produced the Labour Party with its Constitution of 1918. The Suffragettes rioted and caused civil disobedience to gain women's right to vote.
Throughout the 20th century there were protests against Mosley's Brown Shirts, nuclear weapons, The Vietnam War, Mine Closures, and The Poll Tax, to name but a few, which all featured violence in varying degrees.
Yes Zulu man has historically fought for their self interests, and linked together with others of the same sympathies. It has never been easy, never very pleasant, but to change the political path of the resident government takes sacrifice sometimes, which with the natural state of man, happens.
And when we talk of violence by youngsters in 2010, what have they been brought up on? Government sponsored massacre of human life in millions during the 1914-18 war, the 1939-45 war, the Korean War, The Iraqi Invasion, the Afghan War to name the key ones.
Yes sometimes "political progress" is not cheap, and comes at a price. But the day our governments and people's cease to be violent, will be the day our young will start to be pacifist, but we know that natural state will never happen any day soon. 
So before everyone condemns the students, think of the past. Think of say the rioting miners during 1984/5 fighting the police. Also remember the Anarchists will always be amoung us. Overall remember that one persons justified cause is anothers unnecessary action.
Thank you as always Lizzie for a considered reply.
Overall remember that one persons justified cause is anothers unnecessary action.
That very telling fact is the one that negates the validity for change wheresoever it originates. It furthermore lays bare the notion that violence can always be a justifiable route to that change.
History teaches us much about circumstances relevant to their time and if we consider how violence was used during the course of many of those great events we can see that it seldom solves a grievance once and for all.
Violence and the human condition are both familiar bedfellows: That fact is unavoidable and our dalliance with it is done at our own peril.
In these current disturbances such a mass movement of people - many of whom have little experience of life and, by extension, the consequences of their actions done on that scale - are bound to misbehave in what really is a situation where anything can be done without sanction due to the very weight of those numbers.
What did the young man swinging from the Union Flag flying from one side of the Cenotaph hope to gain from his actions? Could that act be described as being legitimate and relevant to his grievance over the fees issue?
Such acts are generally carried out in the midst of these protests as many people dispense with caution because so many others are doing the same. That's one reason why I consider these demonstrations to be dangerous gatherings where the message for their existence is lost in the melee of a great number of people doing whatever they feel inclined to do.
In the end, and history shows us this, there have been many instances where violence has changed a situation - I would suggest on a temporary basis, in the overall sense - but the reality of the situation is that for the most part the status quo remains (even if under a different guise).
In my view these demonstrations will not shape government thinking to any great degree. What they are doing is destabilising public order and opening the door to individuals who have a more sinister agenda to practice.
Sensible discourse about justifiable grievance is one thing, but wanton destruction and completely irresponsible behaviour from people who should know better – as a result of sound modern education - is another thing entirely.
Author
Topic: rioting students (Read 6857 times)