My take on this - she makes an attempt to educate people (many/most of whom are willfully ignorant imho) on history, current affairs, economics and politics from the slave and slave descendent perspective. I agree with her that this perspective has been ignored and minimalized, resulting in (what I consider to be righteous) anger.
Considering the 3 behaviors resulting from that anger:
Peaceful demonstration. I think most of us would agree that this is a socially acceptable means of expressing that anger. However, time and again, demonstrations have not resulted in meaningful, long-term change.
One thing that is different this time though is that these demonstrations have been taking place over weeks, and we are already starting to see some changes in that at least the conversation about everyday, systemic racism and police brutality, especially when aimed against people of color is starting to take place.
I have some hope that positive change will result from this, but at the same time I'm not wearing rose-colored glasses. This conversation does not serve the current power structure, which we are already seeing using many of the resources in its arsenal to squash the bug.
Rioting. She did not spend too much time on the rioters, and in my opinion they are a marginal collection of individuals who do not contribute much to the cause of ending racism.
Looting. She explained a motivation for looting that, while completely believable, does not in my opinion explain each looter's motivation. I would class some of them as 'rioter' spillover.
In any case, I think the looters do a disservice to the cause of anti-racism, because I doubt that most people would consider that a valid expression of anger. I think it's a short term gratification rather than sending the message that people want meaningful, positive change.
What store is going to want to open in a looted neighborhood? You can't complain about lack of merchants while at the same time looting merchandise from the stores that are there. You can't have it both ways.
So although I agree that looting is an expression of anger as well as a way to acquire things that might otherwise be unaffordable, I think that it is one that works against the overall interests of the people doing it and also that it gives the very people whom they need on their side reason to say 'see, look at this unacceptable behavior, they are out of control thugs who need to be arrested, put under control'.
If people want to get a message across, they need to do it in a way that the larger public will both understand AND accept.
And one other thing: her tone. She can lower the volume (a bit) and quit pointing her finger. Since when has getting a finger pointed at you caused you to listen more carefully to what the other person is saying? I can understand that she is at her limit and wanting to express her anger, but if it is to change anything it needs to be expressed in a more strategic way.
All of the above is imho, of course!! 
[This message edited by ZenMumWalking at 9:08 AM, June 17th (Wednesday)]
