I think this is a good answer (+1). I do think it misses a little in the translation to a child, though, because we would always teach our children never to lash out - that it's always wrong to do so. In the case here, I'm not sure that's entirely true - sometimes change seems to necessitate some sort of violent act first to get the attention of the community at large - and that's really where I'm struggling to explain the difference (why it's at least sort of okay here, in some ways, while it's never okay to hit another child because they won't listen to you).

I suspect some of it simply is in the difference in importance - it's never okay to hit someone because they won't pay attention to the rules of a game, or because you want Daddy's attention, but when we're talking about people's lives being lost due to entrenched racism, it's different - but understanding differences in scale of importance is something that's very, very hard for a young child.

This does effectively explain why they're doing it, though, which is definitely a very important element in explaining it to a child.

Even though you teach your children that lashing out is wrong, they can certainly appreciate being frustrated and angry. And they should be able to understand that other people don't always do what you've taught them (either because they weren't taught that way or because they are being "naughty"). It can be hard to explain why frustrated, angry people aren't doing rational things. But maybe the explanation is that frustration and anger don't always lead to rational actions. Sometimes people's desire to be heard stops them from doing logical, moral things.

@Joe Explaining this to your children doesn't tell them it's right to lash out, it helps them empathize and understand why it came to that. Continue to teach them that it's never okay to lash out, but then also with equal (or perhaps more) importance, teach them that it's never okay to ignore others that they hold power over.

MLK's "The Other America" ("a riot is the language of the unheard") might be helpful reading for developing an explanation along these lines. It would need some adaptation for the target audience, but it's a good starting point.

In my opinion, this cannot be satisfyingly explained, even to a child, without a hard look the ugly side of US history--systemic racial violence that runs deep. Images of looting (which the kids are seeing) must be juxtaposed against images of knees on necks, firehoses and dogs, and scars on backs. Many will not feel that this is age-appropriate for elementary schoolers. I believe that attitude expresses the very proclivity for sanitizing and whitewashing that has landed us in this moment in the first place. If you want your kids to understand, they need to understand.

While this explanation covers the general case, there's quite a bit of circumstantial evidence that a number of these recent riots have been incited by third parties that don't actually have a vested interest in what's being protested but simply wish to spread chaos and civil unrest. In the area I live in for example, almost everybody who's actually been arrested for rioting is not from this area (which is actually a rather common theme when protests turn violent in many parts of the US).

Downvoted due to no attempt to identify a general (not complete, but majority) truth that protesters and rioters are 2 separate groups of people. I think it is lazy and inciteful to group the two into a single entity. I believe a major issue with our country handling these issues are most cops dont kill and most protesters dont riot, but that reality is being ignored due to emotions and social pupeteering.

@GeoffreyBrent “Let me say as I've always said, and I will always continue to say, that riots are socially destructive and self-defeating. I'm still convinced that nonviolence is the most potent weapon available to oppressed people in their struggle for freedom and justice. I feel that violence will only create more social problems than they will solve... So I will continue to condemn riots, and continue to say to my brothers and sisters that this is not the way. And continue to affirm that there is another way.”

@RoryAlsop my comment was directed at the answer provided following the guidelines and expectations of comments on Stack. I was not in a discussion with anyone else. My comment should be left under the answer.

@RoryAlsop As with Adam, my comment was directed at the answer, a suggestion on how it might be expanded, and not a general discussion. I am not clear on why it has been moved to chat.