Is Property Destruction Violence?

bamf

bamf

Is Watching You
Retired Staff
MBTI
Meh
Enneagram
Meh
I've been thinking quite a bit over the past few weeks (what's that, bamf thinks about things?), and about direct non-violent action and civil disobedience in particular. On topic that I cannot entirely nail my thoughts down on is the idea that destruction of property (for this discussion specifically done to convey a political non-hateful message) is a form of violence.

Personally, I am not entirely sold on it being a violent action because it does not directly cause physical harm to another person. For example; is spray painting pro-life slogans on a Planned Parenthood clinic violence? To some people, yes it is. My question isn't is it illegal (because it obviously is), but is it actually a violent action? Extend that thought a little bit further; is breaking the storefront window of a franchised Starbucks violence? It's a political statement (in my scenario) against capitalism and greed, but is it violence? It causes the private owner economic harm, but does monetary harm equate to violence? What if the storefront is own by the multi-million dollar corporation? What if it was a recruiting center for a military fighting a violent war? Is smashing an office violence in relation to actual physical violence being carried out elsewhere? Was the 1971 bombing of the US capital (that injured no individuals) an act of violence, or an act of non-violent direct action?

I'm not entirely sure, and I'm curious as to what you think!
 
I think that distruction of property is not at all in the same league as violence against another human being, and should never be treated as such. While I think there are better ways to get your message across, I also think that violent acts that injur people should be punished far more harsly than distruction of property.
 
Galileo said:
I think that distruction of property is not at all in the same league as violence against another human being, and should never be treated as such. While I think there are better ways to get your message across, I also think that violent acts that injur people should be punished far more harsly than distruction of property.
Click to expand...
@Galileo Do you think that destruction of property could ever be a justifiably good way to get ones message across, such as politically charged graffiti/street art?
 
hmmm,
I'm half and half on that one [MENTION=1009]bamf[/MENTION]

On the one hand I do think that it can be a more interesting and noticeable way to get your point across, but on the other hand I also think that it has the potential to be emotionally harmful to people as well, for example people of other cultures, or pro-choice people.
 
It is intended to inflict psychological violence.. so I see it as a violent act.
But that applies to destruction of property in relationships...

I don't think graffiti is violent. The 1971 bombing was violent though, because it seems something intended to make people afraid.
 
Certain property is a persons means of making money. To destroy their property is to destroy their next meal/shelter.
 
I think it depends entirely upon the motivations.
 
I think it depends on the intent to some extent, some people damage property for the aluminum or brass to recycle and get money for which they then buy more meth with. I wouldn't really say that necessarily comes from a place of violence. Some of it comes from kids just trying to stir up trouble also not necessarily violence. However, taking a tire iron to your ex-lovers windshield defiantly comes from a place of violence.
 
I thought that every destruction is violence. And in any case, any destruction of another's property.

Maybe do you ask if violence is justified when done for a good (as one defines it) cause?
 
Intentionally breaking or destroying property is a violent act.
I don't see graffiti as necessarily violent, although it is a crime.
Spray-painting some one's property is vandalism;
chucking a brick through their window expresses violence.
 
dream echo said:
Intentionally breaking or destroying property is a violent act.
I don't see graffiti as necessarily violent, although it is a crime.
Spray-painting some one's property is vandalism;
chucking a brick through their window expresses violence.
Click to expand...

Destroying the way something or someone looks is violence.
 
Destruction is violence. :(

I tried to tell my dad my plans for my future and he didn't agree with me, so he picked up a couch and started throwing it around the house and tore it apart and he also was yelling at me. I cried. He didn't hurt me physically, but it scarred me emotionally.

I think altering something, like with graffiti isn't violence though. It's writing. It's an expression of thoughts, not an act of violence.
 
It hurts your wallet, so yes it is definitely violent. Depending on the degree of damage done, it could hinder or destroy a persons ability to gain a livelihood, and it causes much stress and the physiological repercussions of stress to that person, which is indirectly violent. It could also be indirectly violent, like if I were to slash someone's car tires, and then they needed that car to go to the hospital.

Also, the mindset for property destruction is very violent.

And as for graffiti, the effect is usually to create fear, which leads to violence. Read up on primary, secondary, and tertiary territories to understand better why.
 
I agree that graffiti is indicative of violence, if it involves death threats or racial slurs, for example. In any case, it is a criminal act and is wrong. But not all graffiti is intended to promote fear or contains a violent message. Violence as destruction implies that something is damaged as to be irreparable. Graffiti of this nature is defacement, but not necessarily violent.
 
Okay, so destruction of an individual's private property is generally seen as a violent act. I can agree with that because I can see where emotional/psychological damage comes from, and maybe even monetary damage depending on what destruction is taken.

What about destruction/defacing public property for a political/moral cause? How about Banksy's pictures on the wall in the West Bank?
071208-banksy.jpg

Graffiti maybe, but is this a violent or destructive act when it is done in relation to a physical barrier that keeps a group of people out? How about defacing a US military base with similar art/graffiti/symbols? Cutting the fence in the American Southwest? Are destructive acts (that have moral/political reasoning behind them) to public property (and I consider government buildings public on the basis that they are paid for and funded by taxes, not one or two individuals) violent in nature?
 
bamf said:
Okay, so destruction of an individual's private property is generally seen as a violent act. I can agree with that because I can see where emotional/psychological damage comes from, and maybe even monetary damage depending on what destruction is taken.

What about destruction/defacing public property for a political/moral cause? How about Banksy's pictures on the wall in the West Bank?
071208-banksy.jpg

Graffiti maybe, but is this a violent or destructive act when it is done in relation to a physical barrier that keeps a group of people out? How about defacing a US military base with similar art/graffiti/symbols? Cutting the fence in the American Southwest? Are destructive acts (that have moral/political reasoning behind them) to public property (and I consider government buildings public on the basis that they are paid for and funded by taxes, not one or two individuals) violent in nature?
Click to expand...

I immediately thought about Bansky when I read this. There's quite a few of these floating around the city. I have a fascination with graffiti, and especially something of this sort. You ever heard of the Heidelberg Project and Tyree Guyton???

Property destruction as in breaking sh*t....I don't know. There's so many facets. I'm not a full-out anarchist, but I do see where people are coming from. I do wonder about the motivation of those who riot and tear up sh*t as celebration for their team winning a sports event. This has confounded me for forever.
 
It's all behind the motivation, I think. Like breaking a store window to rob it: well, they had to get in somehow. Breaking a store window to feel like a bad ass by stickin' it to the cops: violent.

If you are hurting someone or someone's wallet (via hurting their property) because you hate them, that, to me, is violence. If you are vandalizing something that you intend for the public to see and is a type of publicity stunt, then no, I think its just a way to bring in the media.

I think a lot of that can be seen with the American Indian Movement (AIM) Wounded Knee incident in 1973. The AIM members plus a few Lakota seized the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation to protest the tribal chairman getting away with being a total abusive asshole. They held 'hostages' and the reservation for 71 days, had guns, vandalized, etc. However, after all is said and done, and the evil chairman was still in power abusing them, and he was alive. They could have so easily shot the bastard, but they weren't trying to cause pain. To me, that is an example of how you can tell non-violence from violence. The purpose seems to be causing pain and suffering. Other times, people are just trying to get enough attention to get something done, and sometimes the only way to do that is to fake violence.
 
I think it depends on the individual in question whether the act is violent or not. Specific political actions are always seen in various ways by the general public. Everyone has the right to express their political beliefs to a point but it will generally be the less logical "public opinion" that determines if the message justified the means. Would you consider it "right" if say the Westboro Church (famous for their protests at military funerals) spray painted their message on the Vietnam Memorial? Would you consider it "right" if a anti torture group spray painted Quantamo Bay buildings? There is an element of uncertainty about whether something is considered acceptable.
 
I think of damage/destruction as being on a different level than defacement.

Some graffiti is artistic in nature, and I think that the message that is expressed should be taken into account. As bird opined earlier, it is dependent on motivation.

Damage or destruction of public or private property is violent, regardless of circumstance. This then calls into question whether such violence is warranted, which is an entirely different topic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top