The Los Angeles Riots of 1992 resulted in $775 million in damage, or $1.42 billion in today’s money, according to the Insurance Information Institute. The Los Angeles Riots that took place in 1965 resulted in $44 million in damages, or $357 million in current dollar value. These damages not only destroyed the lives of small business owners, who now had to find a way to cover all of the damage and stolen items, but also did not implement any change in society towards the cause of the rioting and looting.  In “In Defense of Looting; w/ Vicky Osterweil,” journalist Nomiki Konst sits down to talk with author Vicky Osterweil about her latest book “In Defence of Looting: A Riotous History of Civil Action.” In the video, Osterweil backs up and defends her opinion that overall, looting is a legitimate form of civil protest with improper statistics and false claims.

About Vicky Osterweil

Vicky Osterweil is an author, editor, and controversial agitator, as well as a frequent contributor to online news and magazine companies, such as the New Inquiry, The Baffler, and The Nation. Her most famous book, “In Defence of Looting: A Riotous History of Uncivil Action” has sparked drama and debate across the globe with its controversial takes and topics.  The release of this book has triggered reactions from authors, as well as many citizens, around the world. One author, Ben Sixsmith of Spectator describes Osterweil as “the classic sort of leftist who attempts to wrap enough pretty language around violence and destruction as to ennoble it.” Not only has Osterweil’s take sparked reactions from bystanders and people of slight powers, but it has also caused a reaction by politicians with credentials to their name. After NPR published an interview with Osterweil, politicians from both parties condemned her defense of looting. President Joe Biden also gave his reaction to Osterweil’s stance, stating, “Looting is not protesting[…]It’s lawlessness, plain and simple. And those who do it should be prosecuted.” Overall, Vicky Osterweil and her book “In Defence of Looting” has been backed up by little to no voices supporting her claim, and has been opposed by numerous civilians, professionals, and experts. 

“Looting is a Form of Social Justice”(2:20).

The first major claim that we see Osterweil make is that looting is a form of social justice, which by definition is “justice in terms of the distribution of wealth, opportunities, and privileges within a society.” Justice is described as “ethnically fair behavior or treatment,” meaning morally okay or acceptable. This counteracts Osterweil’s statement that “looting is a form of social justice” due to the fact that looting is illegal with harsh punishments to the “looter” as well as the “looted.” In “What Are the Laws Against Looting?” posted by Legal Resources, it is stated that looters “may be arrested for petty theft, larceny, grand theft, burglary, or another, similar crime.” Some states in the United States also have specific laws that deal with looting, which often have much harsher penalties.

One of the reasons that looting is unjust is the fact that it ruins citizens’ lives who were not involved with the reason for looting in any way. When a store or business is looted that company loses products and would be products to people who came in and stole from that store. Not only does this impact the company owner, but the employees too. When a company loses enough financially, this requires them to cut back in other areas. These cutbacks are often employees who are trying to make their living from this means of work.  In an interview with Aaron Thomas of WRAL News, Nikaya Swain, an employee at the Dollar General in downtown, Raleigh, shared her shock after hearing her place of employment was looted: “This impacts my job, the money I need to feed my family, and the money I need to pay my bills.” As proven by the people impacted by looting, looting is in fact not a form of social justice contrary to what Osterweil says. 

“The idea that rioting and looting would damage the economy is erroneous”(8:57).

A second claim that we see Osterweil make is that looting would not and does not damage the economy. She does this by saying “The idea that rioting and looting would damage the economy is erroneous,” erroneous meaning wrong or incorrect.  Looting does in fact damage the economy in more ways than one. When looking back at the impacts of the LA riots in 1992 where looting was a common occurrence, Marketplace reported that “normal economic activity in the areas affected didn’t return for at least 10 years.” This was due in part to the fact that $5 billion in sales were lost in the area due to looting, a number that accounts for 10 years worth of sales lost in just a number of days. 

Another way that the economy is impacted by looting is the number of businesses that open in areas where looting has taken place. In another quote from Marketplace, it is said that “If people don’t feel safe where their businesses are, then they don’t feel a need to rebuild.” In a study done by CNBC, it was found that in Minneapolis, Minnesota, only 82% of businesses returned and reopened within 6 month of being looted. When businesses don’t open, the number of people in the area employed decreases, which means there is less money in circulation in the area. When the amount of money in circulation decreases, the economy of the area tends to do the same.

The effects that looting have on an economy can be compared to forms of natural disaster, and often even worse. In an interview with reporter Sabri Ben-Achour of Marketplace, Rob Baumann, a college economics professor at the college of Holy Cross compared the “economic recovery from the looting in L.A with the recovery from Hurricane Andrew in Miami, which happened the same year. Miami, Baumann said, ‘recovered a heck of a lot faster.’” With struggles to reopen businesses, hire employees, and make up for lost revenue, it is easily determined that looting does in fact have a significant impact on the economy.

“Small, locally owned businesses are avoided when looting”(5:10).

Another major claim that we see Osterweil make is that “small, locally owned businesses are avoided when looting,” meaning that businesses classified as small businesses are not directly looted or impacted by looters. This is just completely false. With results from a poll taken by CBS58, the statistics state that 21 small businesses were damaged during looting in Milwaukee, Wisconsin over a span of 6 days.

Another example of a small business owner whose life has been forever changed by looters is Mothana, who has been the owner of Express Food Market on the in Chicago for over two decades. She is just one of small-business owners across the country who are now trying to recover after looters ransacked her store. Montana’s store was left with “hundreds of thousands of dollars in damage” after peaceful protests ended in violence, with groups of looters breaking into stores and small businesses around her area. The effects of looting are not limited to direct impacts, as it has many indirect impacts too. In an interview constructed by NBC with Ruth Domber, a small business owner in Manhattan, she states that “There is no insurance for loss of sales because of justice uprisings because people are afraid to drive and come to our neighborhood.” When Looting takes place, it draves away the public from this area, deemed dangerous. When the public is driven away, it is driving away the customers that small business owners like Ruth depend on to make a living. Ruth was so desperate and out of hope that she described her only hope as “some magic unicorn with a big bag of money on its back.”

Even in the instances where small businesses are avoided in an area, the effects of looting takes its toll on the economy and other businesses in its area. A 2016 study by the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research determined that “startups of businesses in areas that had been looted in the past, on average, experienced substantially higher levels of loan denials than their unlooted counterparts.” This means that even when large corporations that are less harshly impacted by looters are looted, small businesses that need their company to succeed have much harder times even getting off their feet and securing a loan because of the fact that looting has occurred in the area in the past. With countless examples that show otherwise, small businesses are not avoided by looters contrary to what Osterweil states.

“Rioters who loot are not committing violence against people”(8:54).

A final claim that we see Osterweil make is that “Rioters who loot are not committing violence against people.” While violence can come in many forms and severities, the context she used it in was physical harm. Over a two-week span of looting demonstrations in the summer of 2020, reporter Jemima McEvoy of Forbes reported 19 individuals killed by looters during that time frame. That was just over a two-week span, the exact, total number is unknown but is estimated to be over 14,000 shop-owners, employees, and looters injured or killed by looters in the United States alone.

Some may argue that “real, lasting change” cannot be achieved without the threat of violence; however, this is simply not true. The nonviolent protests that were a trademark of the civil rights movement in the United States were not aggressive. Organizers conducted actions that were directly linked to their goals, including those that required breaking unjust laws, like sitting at segregated lunch tables and in prohibited seats on buses. Those actions initiated the passage of the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act, achieving the change that they wanted to see, without the use of violence. With statistics and effective methods to prove otherwise, violence to people does occur when and where looting occurs. 

Conclusion

Overall, Vicky Osterweil’s take in “In Defence of Looting,” that looting is a legitimate and useful form of protest, is an irrational, unjust, and incorrect take. In reality, looting is a crime that can ruin the lives of innocent and uninvolved humans. Looting causes millions of dollars in damages and immense pain and suffering to those impacted, and defending that and stating that it is an okay thing to do is wrong. Finally, if a few looted goods and merchandise was the price to pay to solve all problems in the world, then that would be a small price to pay. Sadly, the reality is not that, and looting only worsens the situation and the current state of the problem. 

Featured Image is a screenshot from the video “In Defence of Looting w/ Vicky Osterweil”