In\u00a0The Culture of Riot and War,\u00a0<\/em>Wayne Lee attempts to illustrate the people of North Carolina, and on a much larger platform, the US, tended to riot. He also tries to explain the roots of these riots often stemming from previous traditions in England or politics. Lee begins his argument arguing that the culture and social norms of a society dictate how a riot will be conducted. \u00a0The more common people intending to riot often enlisted the aid of political elites so as to decrease the likelihood of being prosecuted by the law. People’s reputation within the, usually small, communities at the time was important alas people made efforts to enact riots with a sense of politeness and decorum so they appeal “to a broader range of society.” The key prerequisite for a successful riot would be whether it indicated legitimacy or not. The inherent nature of a riot suggests violence however citizens to use violence if there riot was not legitimate or did not meet the standards of society.<\/p>\n Lee also makes a point of saying that rioters often followed a prescribed order of affairs so that they could be predictable and similar to movements enacted before. First, the rioters would make their grievances known, perhaps in the form of a petition, in the hope that some kind of authority figure would recognize their predicament and grant them some solution. The ideal authority figure would exercise “paternal tendencies” and empathize with the aggrieved citizens. As was sometimes the case, no authority figure or government would recognize the injustices that had been perpetrated so the rioters felt they had no productive option other than to force action. If enough people felt that their rights had been infringed upon people would unite against the authority figure to anger each other and in turn foster an even greater desire to upend the order of things.<\/p>\n As shown in the Enfield Riots, the common folk had been manipulated by Corbin and surveyors who had deigned to overcharge the colonists for land which eventually affected the more affluent citizens of town, strengthening their cause. As Max pointed out, “once new segments of the population begin to gain political power at an increasing rate, more of the population comes to desire their share as well.” This indicates how the divide between the social classes played a large part in the common folk’s motivation to establish themselves in a case consisting of land appropriation. Lee makes the point that in contrast to the normal riot in England, the American version rarely featured injuring or killing anybody. This habit of peaceful, “careful” rioting gave credence to the legitimate nature of a riot.<\/p>\n In the Sugar Creek war, a similar tale of colonials being taken advantage of by Brits revealed a peculiar link to the British. In order to get their message across, the Colonials chose to whip some of the surveyors which hearkened back to military procedures the Americans were clearly mirroring, perhaps in an effort to prove legitimacy. A similarly peculiar process was that of taking the word of a magistrate of the colony in order so that he would enforce the Stamp Acts, for example. Sometimes, however, they required these magistrates to sign a contract in the pursuit of legitimacy. In this way, Lee demonstrated how the cultural norms of North Carolina dictated how they would riot.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" In\u00a0The Culture of Riot and War,\u00a0Wayne Lee attempts to illustrate the people of North Carolina, and on a much larger platform, the US, tended to riot. He also tries to explain the roots of these riots often stemming from previous traditions in England or politics. Lee begins his argument arguing that the culture and social … <\/p>\n