What do you think?
Rate this book
In Defense of Looting: A Riotous History of Uncivil Action
A fresh argument for rioting and looting as our most powerful tools for dismantling white supremacy.
Looting -- a crowd of people publicly, openly, and directly seizing goods -- is one of the more extreme actions that can take place in the midst of social unrest. Even self-identified radicals distance themselves from looters, fearing that violent tactics reflect badly on the broader movement.
But Vicky Osterweil argues that stealing goods and destroying property are direct, pragmatic strategies of wealth redistribution and improving life for the working class -- not to mention the brazen messages these methods send to the police and the state. All our beliefs about the innate righteousness of property and ownership, Osterweil explains, are built on the history of anti-Black, anti-Indigenous oppression.
From slave revolts to labor strikes to the modern-day movements for climate change, Black lives, and police abolition, Osterweil makes a convincing case for rioting and looting as weapons that bludgeon the status quo while uplifting the poor and marginalized. In Defense of Looting is a history of violent protest sparking social change, a compelling reframing of revolutionary activism, and a practical vision for a dramatically restructured society.
Looting -- a crowd of people publicly, openly, and directly seizing goods -- is one of the more extreme actions that can take place in the midst of social unrest. Even self-identified radicals distance themselves from looters, fearing that violent tactics reflect badly on the broader movement.
But Vicky Osterweil argues that stealing goods and destroying property are direct, pragmatic strategies of wealth redistribution and improving life for the working class -- not to mention the brazen messages these methods send to the police and the state. All our beliefs about the innate righteousness of property and ownership, Osterweil explains, are built on the history of anti-Black, anti-Indigenous oppression.
From slave revolts to labor strikes to the modern-day movements for climate change, Black lives, and police abolition, Osterweil makes a convincing case for rioting and looting as weapons that bludgeon the status quo while uplifting the poor and marginalized. In Defense of Looting is a history of violent protest sparking social change, a compelling reframing of revolutionary activism, and a practical vision for a dramatically restructured society.
Audible Audio
First published August 25, 2020
132 people are currently reading
4719 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 184 reviews
1-tbr-owned-but-not-yet-read
September 28, 2021The author, whose Twitter handle is Vicky_ACAB ' (all cops are bastards) approves of looting by Blacks from White businesses and Jewish ones. White ones, because it's a way of knocking down White supremacy, Jews because (her words) "they have all the money". Judaism is excluded from the magic circle that all other minorities are protected by.
She says that looting is a “method of direct redistribution of wealth, from the store owners and capitalists to the poor.” and that for Blacks to riot, smash businesses, large and small, and go in for "mass shoplifting during a moment of upheaval or riot. That’s the thing I’m defending." And, “Everything in the store goes from being a commodity to becoming a gift,” when a looter throws everying into the street they don't want for other Blacks to help themselves and thereby temporarily "relieve their poverty".
So it is ok for Black looters to smash and grab in an electronics store and make off with all the big-screen tvs and fancy Apple computers and then set fire to the premises, because it is a political act, and even ok if they are looting small shopkeepers who depend on that business for their and their family's living so long as they are White or Jewish.
This is obviously rooted in Marxism but I doubt that many of the Marxists in the BLM movement would actually endorse this, or maybe they would,
I wonder if the author advocates marking out all the Black-owned businesses of which there are many with something so that the looters would know not to smash, loot and burn them? Or does she think that Black business owners are kind of Uncle Tom's, a fifth column, and deserve smashing too? She doesn't seem to have addressed this point.
I live in the Caribbean, I married into a political family It is a rich island, made rich by the Blacks who are educated, clever and no matter what they do - politicians, professionals, property developers, they all like to have a little retail business on the side. The highest achievement here is to have a Masters from an American or British university, build your own house, apartments to rent out and have a business on the side . Very capitalist. (And we have a crap police force, but not a violent one). Well, this isn't the US, but I do wonder what the author would make of all this.
A thought: would the author approve of Blacks looting bookstores and stealing this book and her not earning any money from it? Not that looters actually target bookstores....
She says that looting is a “method of direct redistribution of wealth, from the store owners and capitalists to the poor.” and that for Blacks to riot, smash businesses, large and small, and go in for "mass shoplifting during a moment of upheaval or riot. That’s the thing I’m defending." And, “Everything in the store goes from being a commodity to becoming a gift,” when a looter throws everying into the street they don't want for other Blacks to help themselves and thereby temporarily "relieve their poverty".
So it is ok for Black looters to smash and grab in an electronics store and make off with all the big-screen tvs and fancy Apple computers and then set fire to the premises, because it is a political act, and even ok if they are looting small shopkeepers who depend on that business for their and their family's living so long as they are White or Jewish.
The way that a riot empowers you is, first of all, it makes it easier to live your life because you get lots of stuff for free, and it makes it much easier to reproduce your life. But they also are experienced as joyous, communal, empowering, community-reinforcing events.Very strangely and possibly because she is a transwoman, she said in the Huffington Post, “Riots are violent, extreme, and femme as fuck: they rip, tear, burn, and destroy to give birth to a new world," very femme she emphasised and not in the least bit macho.
This is obviously rooted in Marxism but I doubt that many of the Marxists in the BLM movement would actually endorse this, or maybe they would,
From BlackLivesMatterUK TwitterIn other words, they like the founders of BLM are Marxists. This seems to me to be pretty far from Black Lives mattering, stopping the police from their extraordinary targetting and violence towards Blacks and the number of Blacks incarcerated for crimes that get Whites a minor telling-off and no record and their difficulty in getting jobs and recognition in some media, business and professional spheres at least in the US. This is what I supported, having a personal stake my sons being Black and having nieces and in-laws in the US, but it's moved far, far from that.
Is UKBLM a Marxist organisation?
A: No, we are not a Marxist organisation. While some of the members of UKBLM are Marxists, not all members are. We are however, all anti-capitalists, and are committed to dismantle class as well as gender and racial domination.
I wonder if the author advocates marking out all the Black-owned businesses of which there are many with something so that the looters would know not to smash, loot and burn them? Or does she think that Black business owners are kind of Uncle Tom's, a fifth column, and deserve smashing too? She doesn't seem to have addressed this point.
I live in the Caribbean, I married into a political family It is a rich island, made rich by the Blacks who are educated, clever and no matter what they do - politicians, professionals, property developers, they all like to have a little retail business on the side. The highest achievement here is to have a Masters from an American or British university, build your own house, apartments to rent out and have a business on the side . Very capitalist. (And we have a crap police force, but not a violent one). Well, this isn't the US, but I do wonder what the author would make of all this.
A thought: would the author approve of Blacks looting bookstores and stealing this book and her not earning any money from it? Not that looters actually target bookstores....
August 30, 2020
I stole this book - turns out it was justified.
August 30, 2020
Absolutely brilliant, a devastating history of property and policing and how direct action acts as an attack on the real mechanisms of power. Essential reading for understanding the current uprising, and all those that are coming.
August 29, 2020
Pure garbage
September 27, 2023
Radical Leftist (TM) Imbroglio! MARXISM (TM) or MONOPOLY CAPITALISM (TM)?! "Well, it appears the author has attempted to RELABEL (TM) 'Looting,' into LOOTING (TM) without realising that using the technique of REBRANDING (TM) from MONOPOLY CAPITALISM (TM) is an endorsement of the methods of OPPRESSION AND DISEMPOWERMENT (TM)." - The Monopoly Capitalism Review
Given this quote from the book,
To paraphrase, "The act of taking something that has not been voluntarily given transforms the thing into a gift."
Interesting, I always thought that the essence of a gift was that it was freely and voluntarily given, without any expectation of a future return. I.e. A gift brings joy to the giver in the moment it occurs, and that joy is sufficient recompense for the giver. Anyone who has freely given something to another knows this is true.
DEFINITION: GIFT The voluntary act of giving something from one person to the another without expectation of transactional reward.
Osterweil certaintly appears to be asserting (relabel) that the act of 'looting,' i.e. the appropriation of a thing is sufficient to transform it into a gift.
Given that we all own our own life and our own body. (Is anyone willing to claim that another human being owns their life, or owns their body - to do with what they will?) It follows ...
If Osterweil is correct, then the following must also be true.
[1] When a rapist rapes their victim, they transform (through the act of appropriation, through looting) the victim's body into a gift.
[2] When a murderer kills their victim they transform (by taking) the victim's life into a gift.
[3] When a slaver enslaves another human being, they transform (by appropriating) their victim's body/labor into a gift.
If those things are false, then Osterweil is incorrect, and the act of looting, appropriation, thievery, rape, murder, and enslavement, do not transform stolen goods into gifts.
I suspect the author is deeply morally confused and fails to understand that their ideology is simply a license for the strong to take from the weak. This is not a new idea or an illuminating insight, it is an old idea that has plagued humanity forever.
On further reflection, here is the killer rebuttal for this author's central idea. Imagine this scenario.
I challenge the author to find one sex-worker and tell them that being raped transforms the service they would normally provide for a fee into a gift - and see how they respond.
DNF'ed. Rated one star for being egregiously bad.
Interestingly enough, the COMMUNISTS(TM) at https://cominsitu.wordpress.com/ have looted this book and made it freely available to read... make of that what you will.
[EDIT: 04Sept2023] A final word. In what I read, I never saw the author point out what thievery costs the thief. They don't point out that thievery (and acts of looting are a proper subset of the set of acts of thievery. I.e. Every act of looting is an act of theft.) is a fundamentally disempowered approach to life that entrenches zero-sum-game habits within the thief's life blocking their opportunity to enter into voluntary positive-sum-games with other people to meet their mutual needs where everyone (including people who are shop owners...) are able to find positive value.
Every act of theft is a lost opportunity to create a better life.
Sad, isn't it.
Given this quote from the book,
"When something is looted, that thing’s nature as a commodity is destroyed by its being taken for free… Everything in the store goes from being a commodity to becoming a gift."
To paraphrase, "The act of taking something that has not been voluntarily given transforms the thing into a gift."
Interesting, I always thought that the essence of a gift was that it was freely and voluntarily given, without any expectation of a future return. I.e. A gift brings joy to the giver in the moment it occurs, and that joy is sufficient recompense for the giver. Anyone who has freely given something to another knows this is true.
DEFINITION: GIFT The voluntary act of giving something from one person to the another without expectation of transactional reward.
Osterweil certaintly appears to be asserting (relabel) that the act of 'looting,' i.e. the appropriation of a thing is sufficient to transform it into a gift.
Given that we all own our own life and our own body. (Is anyone willing to claim that another human being owns their life, or owns their body - to do with what they will?) It follows ...
If Osterweil is correct, then the following must also be true.
[1] When a rapist rapes their victim, they transform (through the act of appropriation, through looting) the victim's body into a gift.
[2] When a murderer kills their victim they transform (by taking) the victim's life into a gift.
[3] When a slaver enslaves another human being, they transform (by appropriating) their victim's body/labor into a gift.
If those things are false, then Osterweil is incorrect, and the act of looting, appropriation, thievery, rape, murder, and enslavement, do not transform stolen goods into gifts.
I suspect the author is deeply morally confused and fails to understand that their ideology is simply a license for the strong to take from the weak. This is not a new idea or an illuminating insight, it is an old idea that has plagued humanity forever.
On further reflection, here is the killer rebuttal for this author's central idea. Imagine this scenario.
A gang of looters invade a brothel, round up all the sex workers and repeatedly rape them. The sex workers make their living by renting out their bodies for a fee. The looters/rapists don't pay, instead they just take (loot) what they want and then leave.
I challenge the author to find one sex-worker and tell them that being raped transforms the service they would normally provide for a fee into a gift - and see how they respond.
DNF'ed. Rated one star for being egregiously bad.
Interestingly enough, the COMMUNISTS(TM) at https://cominsitu.wordpress.com/ have looted this book and made it freely available to read... make of that what you will.
[EDIT: 04Sept2023] A final word. In what I read, I never saw the author point out what thievery costs the thief. They don't point out that thievery (and acts of looting are a proper subset of the set of acts of thievery. I.e. Every act of looting is an act of theft.) is a fundamentally disempowered approach to life that entrenches zero-sum-game habits within the thief's life blocking their opportunity to enter into voluntary positive-sum-games with other people to meet their mutual needs where everyone (including people who are shop owners...) are able to find positive value.
Every act of theft is a lost opportunity to create a better life.
Sad, isn't it.
June 2, 2020
“The history of the police in America is the history of black people being violently prevented from threatening white peoples’s property rights.”
did-not-read
August 30, 2020Is it defensible to loot "proletarian shop" this book? Serious question.
July 7, 2020
This book was an outstanding look at the historic importance of riots, and one of the most controversial aspects of civil unrest, looting. The author skillfully explores the concept of our riotous history, within which these measures have often been necessary agents of change. This book was a wild, and timely read- filled with factual, but never dry content. I would highly recommend this book, and plan to purchase copies to give to others, because I think it addresses many of the questions people have about recent occurrences... also it’s just generally a great read.
Thank you NetGalley & Perseus Books, PublicAffairs for this e-ARC!
Thank you NetGalley & Perseus Books, PublicAffairs for this e-ARC!
August 30, 2020
Just another clueless, privileged pseudo-intellectual snob pumping out a sensationalist tome to make money off other people's suffering. No one will remember this book or its author years from now when the riots are no longer trending as clickbait on social media.
January 15, 2021
This book is beyond dumb. I'm guessing it was written as a joke.
September 14, 2020
Unlike a lot of reviewers here, I read the book. Ultimately, I found some portions more compelling than others (typical of any nonfiction work meant to persuade), some sections necessary (footnotes are good, but I wanted more of them frankly), and some not (as Kirkus notes and I agree, "The author’s long disquisitions on the history of slavery and lynching are accurate but not entirely necessary to her argument that nonviolence plays into the hands of the powerful.").
All that said, there's also a question that nags at me: at a time of the BLM movement rising in prominence and power, how useful to the end goal is a book by a white woman that is counter to the image and paired narratives most BLM activists and others desire for the protests? Is it useful, not useful, neutral? I think it's worth considering that in theory, something can be valid, while in practice, it can still be detrimental.
There are certainly times during the book where, and the author makes it clear from the beginning, looters are being given a great deal of theoretical grace regarding the reasons for their actions. On one hand, this is useful, considering such grace is rarely given outside the pages of a book. On the other hand, it can also mean that the reader is left feeling a little overly-persuaded, left with no gray area to consider. It is possible, I think (even likely!) that some looters go to it with a mind to the power structures being upturned, to the idea of it being a political action rooted in history, while others may....not. And I think that's part of ANY large movement; all actors aren't going to be acting from the same mindset, and that's very human. It doesn't change the landscape of the past, nor does it mean that people without one mindset are not guilty (thinking of cops who, regardless of personal intent, DO act within a larger framework of a violent system set on a racist foundation set to succeed regardless of individuals). But it does mean there is more gray. And gray is not as easy to cast in a powerful protest light! The author's viewpoint is that we should assume political intent behind looting.
There are some sigh-ugh moments, like the use of "pig-in-chief" for Trump, which again I don't disagree with in theory, but I do think it hurts the overall persuasive element of an argument to use it. Shruggy pragmatic guy here!
Anyway. Interesting theories, I wish more research could have backed it (there are footnotes, but often I found myself looking up some things on my own, out of curiosity for more context, to verify a fact, etc. -- for example, Osterweil says slaves used the term "steal away" as a property-looting way of saying they would literally steal themselves as property away from their owners. I was aware songs such as the Spiritual "Steal Away to Jesus" were used to communicate running away, but I was curious if the phrase originated there as Osterweil seemed to imply, or if it was used as code but originated prior without that context to mean sneaking off rather than literally looting themselves (as I thought) -- it could be either really! It's fine! But sometimes things felt like a stretch, unless we agree with Osterweil's main tenant of absolute agency of all actors regarding their motives being anti-property at all times, which DOES seem fair for someone in bondage to feel!
Overall, I also felt that the term "rioting" also stood for "looting" a lot of the time -- they seemed more interchangeable for the author here, whereas to me they are two different things.
Finally, I just want to stress that whatever my personal feelings are about the theories presented here, I think it's important to take into consideration when activists say it hurts their movement, and to listen on that front. Osterweil argues at one point late in the book that caving to social norms and disavowing looting, violence, etc hurt the movements of activists, but, not being an author with a point of view to persuade any readers on, I think that, too, is more gray an area than the book argues. Yes, we should consider the power politics at play with who disavows and who benefits when something is disavowed, but most people are not powerful; many people form opinions based on very few facts they know about a movement, any movement, and so if the predominant thing they know is, say, a movement encourages looting, I don't see how that helps on the grand scale.
Anyway. Interesting theories, 3.5 stars, rounding up because I don't think it's fair for folks who aren't reading the whole book to mass pile on the 1 stars. ;)
All that said, there's also a question that nags at me: at a time of the BLM movement rising in prominence and power, how useful to the end goal is a book by a white woman that is counter to the image and paired narratives most BLM activists and others desire for the protests? Is it useful, not useful, neutral? I think it's worth considering that in theory, something can be valid, while in practice, it can still be detrimental.
There are certainly times during the book where, and the author makes it clear from the beginning, looters are being given a great deal of theoretical grace regarding the reasons for their actions. On one hand, this is useful, considering such grace is rarely given outside the pages of a book. On the other hand, it can also mean that the reader is left feeling a little overly-persuaded, left with no gray area to consider. It is possible, I think (even likely!) that some looters go to it with a mind to the power structures being upturned, to the idea of it being a political action rooted in history, while others may....not. And I think that's part of ANY large movement; all actors aren't going to be acting from the same mindset, and that's very human. It doesn't change the landscape of the past, nor does it mean that people without one mindset are not guilty (thinking of cops who, regardless of personal intent, DO act within a larger framework of a violent system set on a racist foundation set to succeed regardless of individuals). But it does mean there is more gray. And gray is not as easy to cast in a powerful protest light! The author's viewpoint is that we should assume political intent behind looting.
There are some sigh-ugh moments, like the use of "pig-in-chief" for Trump, which again I don't disagree with in theory, but I do think it hurts the overall persuasive element of an argument to use it. Shruggy pragmatic guy here!
Anyway. Interesting theories, I wish more research could have backed it (there are footnotes, but often I found myself looking up some things on my own, out of curiosity for more context, to verify a fact, etc. -- for example, Osterweil says slaves used the term "steal away" as a property-looting way of saying they would literally steal themselves as property away from their owners. I was aware songs such as the Spiritual "Steal Away to Jesus" were used to communicate running away, but I was curious if the phrase originated there as Osterweil seemed to imply, or if it was used as code but originated prior without that context to mean sneaking off rather than literally looting themselves (as I thought) -- it could be either really! It's fine! But sometimes things felt like a stretch, unless we agree with Osterweil's main tenant of absolute agency of all actors regarding their motives being anti-property at all times, which DOES seem fair for someone in bondage to feel!
Overall, I also felt that the term "rioting" also stood for "looting" a lot of the time -- they seemed more interchangeable for the author here, whereas to me they are two different things.
Finally, I just want to stress that whatever my personal feelings are about the theories presented here, I think it's important to take into consideration when activists say it hurts their movement, and to listen on that front. Osterweil argues at one point late in the book that caving to social norms and disavowing looting, violence, etc hurt the movements of activists, but, not being an author with a point of view to persuade any readers on, I think that, too, is more gray an area than the book argues. Yes, we should consider the power politics at play with who disavows and who benefits when something is disavowed, but most people are not powerful; many people form opinions based on very few facts they know about a movement, any movement, and so if the predominant thing they know is, say, a movement encourages looting, I don't see how that helps on the grand scale.
Anyway. Interesting theories, 3.5 stars, rounding up because I don't think it's fair for folks who aren't reading the whole book to mass pile on the 1 stars. ;)
July 4, 2020
"In Defense of Looting: A Riotous History of Uncivil Action" by Vicky Osterweil is a nonfiction work that is accurately described by its title. Osterweil takes the reader from the etymology of the word "looting" and how it's meaning developing in relation to slavery through the events that have been taking place in America most recently. This book put into perspective the importance of the protests and looting that occurred in my home city of Philadelphia in reaction to George Floyd's death, which were an extension of the oppression that marginalized communities have been facing for hundreds of years. Also, something that stood out to me, without giving away too much, is what was for me the untold story of NON non-violence among the leaders of the civil rights era. Osterweil also pays homage to the many overshadowed black women who have been at the forefront of all major social movements throughout history. The extensive research that Osterweil put in this book had an outstanding payout. I definitely recommend this book to expand your knowledge of the role of "Uncivil Action" in social movements.
August 30, 2020
An actual excerpt from an interview with the author on the topic of the book:
”What would you say to people who are concerned about essential places like grocery stores or pharmacies being attacked in those communities? When it comes to small business, family-owned business or locally owned business, they are no more likely to provide worker protections. They are no more likely to have to provide good stuff for the community than big businesses. It's actually a Republican myth that has, over the last 20 years, really crawled into even leftist discourse: that the small business owner must be respected, that the small business owner creates jobs and is part of the community. But that's actually a right-wing myth.”
The revolution attacks everyone except for the elite. Another push towards making the corporations richer, and normalizing wage slavery. The author knows nothing of human decency and would rather see people suffer for some communistic ideal.
”What would you say to people who are concerned about essential places like grocery stores or pharmacies being attacked in those communities? When it comes to small business, family-owned business or locally owned business, they are no more likely to provide worker protections. They are no more likely to have to provide good stuff for the community than big businesses. It's actually a Republican myth that has, over the last 20 years, really crawled into even leftist discourse: that the small business owner must be respected, that the small business owner creates jobs and is part of the community. But that's actually a right-wing myth.”
The revolution attacks everyone except for the elite. Another push towards making the corporations richer, and normalizing wage slavery. The author knows nothing of human decency and would rather see people suffer for some communistic ideal.
August 25, 2020
This book just dropped today, and it’s definitely one to pick up. This book is not just a defense of looting, but a history of capitalism, property rights, and the police in America. Most importantly, Osterweil explains how the history of looting is tied to the history of lynching—indeed they are inseparable—and traces this relationship through various riots in American history. If you’re curious about or looking for an erudite explanation of what “abolish the police” actually entails and why it’s necessary, this is an excellent place to start.
Osterweil is not a trained historian—something she is immediately forthcoming about—and while there are moments where her writing highlights this, her presentation is mostly well researched and hones in on an important and persuasive argument. While I don’t think you need any “prerequisite reading” to follow her arguments, she does cover a lot of ground in under 300 pages which necessarily asks the reader to fill in a few blanks. Some familiarity with the basic trajectory of settler colonies and the history of the civil war and the 13th amendment would definitely make for a richer reading experience. We all made (and hopefully read!) extensive anti-racist reading lists back in June. This is just a continuation and a very timely one. Below I’ve chosen a few notable quotes, but, y’all, this one had me highlighting the whole damn book.
“But capitalism is a system ideologically committed to free labor—though the freedom in “free labor” is the freedom to starve.”
“If standard American history forgets, domesticates, decontextualizes, or de-radicalizes revolutionaries, the police are so embedded within the ideological reproduction of the present that they are hardly imagined to have a history at all.”
“Police forces in the colonial center always took tactical, organizational, and methodological cues from colonizing and enslaving police forces in the outposts. The slave catcher is thus embedded in the DNA of all modern police forces.”
If you’re interested in this topic specifically (abolish the police), another book that should be on your radar is Stakes Is High by Michael Denzel Smith. I’ve yet to read it (out 9.15) but it’s for sure on my list.
Osterweil is not a trained historian—something she is immediately forthcoming about—and while there are moments where her writing highlights this, her presentation is mostly well researched and hones in on an important and persuasive argument. While I don’t think you need any “prerequisite reading” to follow her arguments, she does cover a lot of ground in under 300 pages which necessarily asks the reader to fill in a few blanks. Some familiarity with the basic trajectory of settler colonies and the history of the civil war and the 13th amendment would definitely make for a richer reading experience. We all made (and hopefully read!) extensive anti-racist reading lists back in June. This is just a continuation and a very timely one. Below I’ve chosen a few notable quotes, but, y’all, this one had me highlighting the whole damn book.
“But capitalism is a system ideologically committed to free labor—though the freedom in “free labor” is the freedom to starve.”
“If standard American history forgets, domesticates, decontextualizes, or de-radicalizes revolutionaries, the police are so embedded within the ideological reproduction of the present that they are hardly imagined to have a history at all.”
“Police forces in the colonial center always took tactical, organizational, and methodological cues from colonizing and enslaving police forces in the outposts. The slave catcher is thus embedded in the DNA of all modern police forces.”
If you’re interested in this topic specifically (abolish the police), another book that should be on your radar is Stakes Is High by Michael Denzel Smith. I’ve yet to read it (out 9.15) but it’s for sure on my list.
August 27, 2020
For such a short book, it has a wealth of historical details that I had never heard about before in my life. For example, the decades between the Civil War and WWI were by and large empty stretches of time. Unsurprisingly, a lot happened in these years. That's just one example. If you want a historically grounded study of the role of looting and the riot in the context of struggles against white supremacy and economic exploitation in the United States, this is a fantastic place to start. I say the United States because the book is focused there, but the contents are probably relevant wherever capitalism's racist settler colonial nation-states are found.
Given that this includes pretty much all of the states between the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans, plus South Africa, Australia, New Zealand and who knows how many more, you might want to pick this one up. Vicky centers the Black liberation movement in the US throughout the book, but the various slaver colonies who thrived on the Transatlantic Slave Trade were not hermetically sealed, so I suspect that anyone looking at struggles against other slaver states will find this book particularly interesting.
And last but not least, the bibliography looks yummy as hell!
Given that this includes pretty much all of the states between the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans, plus South Africa, Australia, New Zealand and who knows how many more, you might want to pick this one up. Vicky centers the Black liberation movement in the US throughout the book, but the various slaver colonies who thrived on the Transatlantic Slave Trade were not hermetically sealed, so I suspect that anyone looking at struggles against other slaver states will find this book particularly interesting.
And last but not least, the bibliography looks yummy as hell!
August 30, 2020
Funny story: I rated this book a 1-star without any review.
But, someone liked my "review".
I figure maybe that's appropriate: my review is that I'm speechless :)
I hope this is not the end of the enlightenment. I hope there are enough sensible people who understand the lesson that calling for violence ends up with rules by thugs. Often, the first victims are the professors and intellectuals who were cheering the thugs from the sidelines.
But, someone liked my "review".
I figure maybe that's appropriate: my review is that I'm speechless :)
I hope this is not the end of the enlightenment. I hope there are enough sensible people who understand the lesson that calling for violence ends up with rules by thugs. Often, the first victims are the professors and intellectuals who were cheering the thugs from the sidelines.
August 31, 2020
How fitting that a book which promotes stealing also literally steals from whatever fool is gullible enough to waste OVER 20 DOLLARS on a 288 page book. If you bought this book to learn how to rob others, don't be surprised to find that YOU were the one who got robbed!
August 23, 2020
"There is, in my opinion, no legitimate moral, ethical, or political equivalence that can be made between the police murdering Freddie Gray and protestors breaking a cop car's windows in response, and yet both can be called 'violence.'"
Inspired by the 2014 Ferguson protests, Osterweil makes a compelling, passionate, and thoroughly researched case for how and why looting is an important and necessary tool for dismantling white supremacy. The book focuses mostly on looting against white supremacy in the United States, but it mentions movements and events across the globe.
This is TIMELY and SO GOOD and busts many of the myths surrounding the history and practice of looting. With the recent #BlackLivesMatter and police brutality protests of Summer 2020 still fresh in our collective consciousness, this book couldn't be more relevant. It should be required reading for white folks.
I think most folks will get a lot out of this book without having to read any prerequisites, but if you've done reading on the history of Black social movements in the US, capitalism, slavery, policing, labor movements, civil rights, etc -- I think you'll have a more rich and impactful reading experience. I hesitate to call this book "introductory" for most white Americans, but it is easy to read, educational, passionate, and extremely moving. While reading, I stopped often to look up individuals, events, and places Osterweil mentions because I was so fascinated and excited to learn more. I feel like I highlighted this entire book! I learned A LOT that I'm ashamed I didn't know before, and I have a huge list of books referenced by Osterweil that I've added to my "to be read" list.
The book ties settler colonialism to property, property to white supremacy. The police as an institution serves to protect white property (not to protect people), and ultimately maintain white supremacy. This makes sense, Osterweil argues, as modern day police originated from slave patrols.
"The police exist to prevent Black people and poor people from threatening rich white people's property rights: abolishing property is a direct attack on their power."
If you're interested in US civil rights, Black American history, labor movements, the history of policing... or anything mentioned above, this book is well worth your time and attention.
Thank you to #NetGalley and Bold Type Books for providing me a copy of this book in exchange for an honest review.
September 3, 2020
The quote equating looting to runaway slaves evading capture was enough to convince me that this book may be very useful. If you use one page to line a birdcage, this means that 288 birds will poop on the book. Their reaction is a signiicant commentary on the value of the book.
Escaping slavery as the equivalent of smashing storefronts to steal jewelry, Air Jordans, and Gucci bags? What utter nonsense!
At a time when Black Lives Matter and the families of African-American vicitms of racist policing strive to distance themselves from the nihilist mayhem aflicting American cities, this author not only links them with vandalism but asserts that they should applaud it.
Escaping slavery as the equivalent of smashing storefronts to steal jewelry, Air Jordans, and Gucci bags? What utter nonsense!
At a time when Black Lives Matter and the families of African-American vicitms of racist policing strive to distance themselves from the nihilist mayhem aflicting American cities, this author not only links them with vandalism but asserts that they should applaud it.
September 1, 2020
DNF. Imagine a writer exploiting and misusing the BLM movement and police brutality to advance her own outdated, batshit Marxist philosophies, again at the expense of black, indigenous, and people of color.
TA-DA! THIS IS HER BOOK!
Jesus H. Christ, I can't believe I made it through 146 pages of revisionist history and utter nonsense. Yet here I am to tell the tale.
I do not disagree with the premise of looting serving a purpose and being a necessary part of true revolution. I just disagree with the Marxist sludge she covered such a timely, worthwhile topic in.
Advice to readers: get your black history from black authors and black scholars. They have an understanding that no other group will have. I would recommend "From Here to Equality" by Darity and Mullen for a more authentic education, along with "We Were Eight Years in Power" by Coates.
Overall, the writing is incredibly dry and academic without actually enlightening or educating the reader. Sounds smart, uses big words, but does not convey meaning. I cannot stress enough how unpleasant this book (and author) is, especially in these times. Fuck.
And also, shame on this author for using black trauma and black deaths to enrich herself and advance her own agenda.
FUCKING SHAME!!!
TA-DA! THIS IS HER BOOK!
Jesus H. Christ, I can't believe I made it through 146 pages of revisionist history and utter nonsense. Yet here I am to tell the tale.
I do not disagree with the premise of looting serving a purpose and being a necessary part of true revolution. I just disagree with the Marxist sludge she covered such a timely, worthwhile topic in.
Advice to readers: get your black history from black authors and black scholars. They have an understanding that no other group will have. I would recommend "From Here to Equality" by Darity and Mullen for a more authentic education, along with "We Were Eight Years in Power" by Coates.
Overall, the writing is incredibly dry and academic without actually enlightening or educating the reader. Sounds smart, uses big words, but does not convey meaning. I cannot stress enough how unpleasant this book (and author) is, especially in these times. Fuck.
And also, shame on this author for using black trauma and black deaths to enrich herself and advance her own agenda.
FUCKING SHAME!!!
September 6, 2020
This is a deeply naïve and sophomoric work. Reading like a funhouse mirror leftist version of a Tucker Carlson or Ben Shapiro book, Osterweil has created a work with twisted historical revisionist analysis and meaning and ham fistedly tried to approach it through a politics du jour lens. It’s hard to reconcile having just finished this week Hannah Arendt’s “On Revolution”, a proper work of political philosophy with tripe like this – it’s akin to watching a Tarkovsky film followed by a cartoon. Of course one doesn’t need to go back to Arendt to find modern works that address societal ills and redress, but it seems somewhat dangerous that those who don’t know any better would pick this up and could consider this a well thought out and historically accurate picture of tackling real issues that need to be dealt with in an adult fashion and not by someone writing a D- senior high school thesis.
Decent review by Matt Taibi:
https://taibbi.substack.com/p/dont-st...
Decent review by Matt Taibi:
https://taibbi.substack.com/p/dont-st...
August 30, 2020
This was a really well-researched, approachable exploration of the history of looting and its place in revolutionary movements. Osterweil starts with the origin of the term and moves all the way into the present moment and movements like Black Lives Matter whose protests have included looting and all of the arguments that have sprung up around them. I very much appreciated the clarity and nuance of Osterweil's work and I will definitely be coming back to it for further insight and a greater exploration of the sources she uses throughout.
August 31, 2020
An apparently barely literate person with poor reasoning and less writing ability trying to write a half cogent argument for an indefensible position.... It would be hard to be more poorly written than this heap of nonsense.
January 30, 2025
And important and insightful book on the history of non-nonviolence and how black liberation has always been linked to confiscating stolen property, and how white racism has also been linked to violence and looting. The author points out the hypocrisy in condemning modern looting while ignoring the history of slavery constituting black people as “property” and then stealing them as well as white supremacist race riots. The history that she shares is in depth and centered on the writing and narratives of black participants, theorists, and scholars.
I will say, however, that I am not without critiques of the book. My biggest critique is the lightness with which citation is used. There is enough citation that I never thought that information was inaccurate, but as a stickler for citation there were multiple times when information was shared that I wanted to be able to go to the original source to learn more about, but none was listed. I also noticed that there was no discussion about modern white sports riots, and how those are differently policed than black looting over actual murders. I think a discussion of that topic could have made the book even more effective.
Ultimately, I probably would have given this text 4 stars if not for the fact that fascists have been brigading it with 1 star reviews which I hope my review will help counteract. An important history that taught me a lot, but also left me wanting to know more.
I will say, however, that I am not without critiques of the book. My biggest critique is the lightness with which citation is used. There is enough citation that I never thought that information was inaccurate, but as a stickler for citation there were multiple times when information was shared that I wanted to be able to go to the original source to learn more about, but none was listed. I also noticed that there was no discussion about modern white sports riots, and how those are differently policed than black looting over actual murders. I think a discussion of that topic could have made the book even more effective.
Ultimately, I probably would have given this text 4 stars if not for the fact that fascists have been brigading it with 1 star reviews which I hope my review will help counteract. An important history that taught me a lot, but also left me wanting to know more.
September 5, 2020
Some very interesting historical tidbits, and it’s very good to have a book we can point to making these arguments right now. Occasionally falls into activist-speak when it isn’t strictly necessary, but honestly that’s a quibble; people who are looking to dislike a book will always attack the diction. It is great to have a document addressing the inescapable way that white supremacy is bound up with property rights in the settler colonies of North America, and making an unashamed case for what every viewer of Hollywood action movies secretly endorses anyway (property destruction and theft in pursuit of greater goals).
Being explicit about this stuff leaves liberals and fascists alike frothing with rage, which is honestly reason enough to do it. What a great contribution!
Being explicit about this stuff leaves liberals and fascists alike frothing with rage, which is honestly reason enough to do it. What a great contribution!
October 1, 2020
May you hate me may you not but I can not defend this type of social misbehavior. A city I once loved (Chicago) and where I live IN the city not a suburb has seen decimation and deep hurt. I am seriously thinking of leaving. Even NPR has issued an apology on behalf of this pile of hate and justification. Just no. Peaceful protests in the deep honor of Dr. King are effective. Hate is taught, not born of children!
August 31, 2020
Utter crap. Delusional. Intellectually dishonest. Contrived and ridiculous. Need I say more? Do not buy, borrow, loot or steal this garbage.
October 6, 2020
This book seems... divided. Between edgy comments by the author, glowing reviews by her supporters, and hateful comments by her detractors.
I found the book falsely advertised (it was more a history of looting and oppression of black people than an argument for looting), poorly written (with unrelated asides, meaningless chapter headings, and repititon), and factually ambiguous (leading or questionable statements). The author made some interesting points but they were buried under confusing and barely related stories.
The core arguments: Looting has a history of being used by black and white people to affect social change. Modern conceptions of looting stem from racism/classism and social pressure sustains these forces. And that black people are disenfranchised in pretty much every conceivable way, making looting a powerful tool in a deck of limited tactics. These are all understandable and interesting arguments. I just wish they had been more clearly made -- and with less of an intention to shock as I think that does more harm (racism) than helps (anti-racism).
I found the book falsely advertised (it was more a history of looting and oppression of black people than an argument for looting), poorly written (with unrelated asides, meaningless chapter headings, and repititon), and factually ambiguous (leading or questionable statements). The author made some interesting points but they were buried under confusing and barely related stories.
The core arguments: Looting has a history of being used by black and white people to affect social change. Modern conceptions of looting stem from racism/classism and social pressure sustains these forces. And that black people are disenfranchised in pretty much every conceivable way, making looting a powerful tool in a deck of limited tactics. These are all understandable and interesting arguments. I just wish they had been more clearly made -- and with less of an intention to shock as I think that does more harm (racism) than helps (anti-racism).
September 3, 2020
Would have made Stalin and Mao proud, if it hadn’t been written in such abysmal style.
This lady is actually insane. She’s a horrible writer, a fascist, and a lunatic openly calling for liquidating political opponents.
It’s clear this person has no life — she does not exist outside of the emotion of hatred
This lady is actually insane. She’s a horrible writer, a fascist, and a lunatic openly calling for liquidating political opponents.
It’s clear this person has no life — she does not exist outside of the emotion of hatred
September 3, 2020
This might possibly be the most ridiculous and hypocritical piece of garbage I've ever had the displeasure of reading. I read it for free, thank God, otherwise I'd insist on a refund.
Also, take note of the paragraph that states using quotes from the book without permission is theft. Let that sink in.... if you're a lefty, I'll give you some extra time to think.
Also, take note of the paragraph that states using quotes from the book without permission is theft. Let that sink in.... if you're a lefty, I'll give you some extra time to think.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 184 reviews