Kmflett's Blog

Braverman says Palestinian protest was an ‘intimidating mob’, also what Edmund Burke said about the French Revolution

Suella Braverman has been on X again parading her ignorant but always robustly made views.

On this occasion echoing what reactionary thinker Edmund Burke said about the French Revolution she has determined that those who marched in support of Palestine in London were an ‘intimidating mob’. She continues over several posts with some thoughts on the history of the Middle East. Suffice to say you will wish you were better informed if you read them.

Historically speaking, not a phrase likely to be found on Braverman’s lips, one person’s mob is another person’s crowd

For example protesting outside the house of someone who has transgressed many people’s understanding of what might be termed a ‘moral economy’ is a British tradition stretching back over many centuries. It was not however by any means always politically progressive, so controversy over it is also something not recent.

The use of the term mob to characterise popular protest dates back at least to Edmund Burke’s view of the French Revolution. As the great historian of nineteenth century protest George Rude underlined what reactionaries thought was a mob was in many cases simply a peaceful crowd making reasonable points. If one wants to look for a mob, the activities of the Bullingdon Club are a good place to start.

While George Rude saw in a protest up to a riot the work of the crowd, and broadly progressive intentions and outcomes, E.P. Thompson was less happy with this formulation. He suggested that riots could also contain reactionary elements and the crowd involved in the Gordon Riots would be an obvious example.

I would take Thompson’s side in that debate (if only just) but underline the point above that while we may accept that there may be reactionary elements in crowds which can get involved in riots this doesn’t alter the fact that they happen and need to be understood

E.P. Thompson’s work on food riots points to the reality that the threat of a riot was often more effective than an actual riot. It could cause a reduction in the price of bread or the distribution of hoarded food. When riots did occur very much the same impact was to be found. Hidden food was seized and distributed at low price.

There were other, more obviously political riots, often associated with the Chartists. The Chartists were an organised political force that most certainly did not support riots. It was rather the wider Chartist crowd that participated in such activities, often after provocation from the authorities.

There has been a lot more research and wider perspectives on the crowd since Thompson and Rude looked at the matter in the 1960s and 1970s. Crowds are looked at from the perspective of safety risk management and from psychology as well as history.

Historical research however can provide useful context by looking at who the individuals were involved in mob or crowd protests, what their intention was, how this turned out and what the reaction of authority was. Perhaps needless to say such research is limited because often the only people who can be identified are those who are arrested and any who make public statements about their activities.

Of course the democratic crowd will usually make it clear what it’s about so a lack of clarity may suggest a mob with less clear intent. The Palestinian protest in London made it perfectly clear what it was about even if Braverman didn’t like it. That’s democratic politics,  something else Braverman doesn’t like