If something does get done about the awful racial situation in Cincinnati, it’s probably due to the riots.
When the cops who beat Rodney King got retried in L.A., it was probably due to the riots.
It seems violence does “work” in the attainment of political goals, even in a so-called democratic society. It’s a last resort for people who feel oppressed, and it gets results.
I’m against violence. This is just an unfortunate observation.
Hagbard Celine on Violence:
“Their Imagination will become your REality in a second.”
[sub]Source: The Illuminatus! Trilogy by Robert Shea and Robert Anton Wilson[/sub]
Yes, violence is a motivational force, no arguement here.
Part 1: argument
Part 2: only the first line should have been bolded
Part 3: forgot to mention, what exactly is the debate here?
Yes, the LA riots may have led to the re-trial of the 4 LA cops, but did that help the residents of Watts? I think not. Their neighborhoods were damaged in ways that were not repaired for a along time. Outside business has been discouraged from coming into their neighborhoods. I don’t believe that residents of Watts are better off than they had been because of those riots.
There are many groups who faced discrimination in the past, but who succeed so well that their earnings now exceed the national average, e.g., Irish, Italians, Jews, Gays, Asian-Americans. All of them succeeded by methods other than rioting. Their success formulas included education, building political power, hard work, entrepreneurism, and mutual group support.
Not sure about Asian-Americans, but all of the other groups you mention have had significant riots during the course of American history. Gah, have people so quickly forgotten Stonewall?
Sua
When riots result in serious social change, history has a way of recasting it. Riots are upgraded to uprisings or rebellions or downsized into protests.
Has anyone else noticed the use of the term The Stonewall Uprising showing up more and more. I remember them as The Stonewall Riots. This can only mean good things for gay rights in this country.
(Completely off topic)
One of the first threads I ever started was a GD titled something like: We Need More Riots!
Thanks for bringing back memories of my newbiehood and the point when I realized you can have an intelligent conversation on the internet, even with people who have opposing viewpoints
tclouie:
Riots occasionally, but rarely, work. Even the one you mentioned, the Rodney King riots, really didn’t work. Sure, perhaps they were the reason the cops were re-tried, but they had no real impact on the larger issue, i.e., the conduct of the LAPD. Most of the recommendations of the Christopher Report were not implemented, and the ongoing Rampart scandals demonstrate that the LAPD still too often tramples the rights of minorities.
Similarly, the Liberty City riots in Miami, the Crown Heights disturbances in NYC, the Watts riots, and so on, had little long-term effect.
Political and social conditions have to be just right for riots to resonate. The primary thing has to be an obvious “rightness” to the riots - an obviously intolerable situation exists that is being completely ignored by the authorities. This is extremely hard to find.
Sua
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by SuaSponte *
**
[QUOTE Gah, have people so quickly forgotten Stonewall?
Sua **[/QUOTE]
Thanks Sua, for expanding my knowledge. Having checked Stonewall on a search engine, I have indeed forgotten it or never even noticed it. (I was busy with new job and new family in 1969.)
A quick search shows that this uprising is now being used as a ralliying point for gay liberaion, but I didn’t find out what actually happened. The rioting in Cincinnati and in Watts included massive destruction of property and violent attacks on Caucasions unlucky enough to be in the area. I would guess that the Stonewall uprising was something milder. Does anyone know the details?
Riots don’t work that well–a better idea for the incensed citizens would be to direct their violence at institutions, rather than their neighbors.
Angry mob burning their own homes and stores=change unlikely.
Angry mob storming City Hall and police headquarters=change more likely.
What was that thing Jefferson said about watering the tree of Liberty with blood…?
december,
I had a really long and detailed discussion of Stonewall, and then my computer crashed. Now I’m pissed off and in a hurry, so you only get the short version. Sorry.
The NYPD habitually raided and harrassed gay bars in Greenwich Village, closing them down and arresting patrons over pissant or non-existent L&T violations, misdemeanors, etc. The police raided the Stonewall Inn, which was largely a drag-queen bar. This time, the patrons fought back. The disturbances spread through the Village. It was a property-destruction riot, IIRC; the anger and violence was almost exclusively directed at the police.
I’m told the real significance of Stonewall wasn’t that it resulted in changes in laws or police tactics. Instead, it was a self-empowering event for gays - they could stand up for their rights and fight back effectively.
Sua
And let’s not forget why this one time was special - Judy Garland had just died. Do not piss off queens in mourning!
Esprix
Make that
“it was not a property-destruction riot, IIRC”
Sorry,
Sua
It sounds like Stonewall involved people attacking police who had been oppressing them. It’s broadly similar to the American Revolution, where the colonists attacked their British oppressors. This makes sense. I don’t think American colonists would have won their freedom by simply destroying their own property.
I agree with Sua and Toadspittle. In order for rioting to help, there have to be very special conditions. There should be a glaring grievance and a power-group whose morality requires fixing that grievance if it’s brought to their attention.
In the case of Cincinnati, I’m not sure whether the grievance is glaring enough. I don’t doubt that the police target Blacks disproportionatey, but I also don’t doubt that Blacks commit crimes disproportionately. I think heard figure something like: Cincinnati police have killed 5 unarmed Blacks since 1995, but Blacks have killed 15 policemen during that period.
Unfortunately, Cincinnati, like many Ohio towns, is very racially segregated. I can give first-hand accounts of my experiences while there. Any changes that come about from these riots will probably be very short lived.
On the other hand, I think wide spread rioting, demonstrations and protesting can lead to social change… if not, I’d be a British citizen and not a citizen of the US.
I think you’re wrong. The figure constantly being quoted in the newsmedia these days is: 15 blacks killed by police since 1995, with 5 of those just in the last few months. Nothing whatsoever about blacks killing cops (although one did get shot, non-fatally, on Wednesday night).
Biggest effect of the LA riots? Why, OJ getting away with murder, of course. Now, the wrongful death suit didn’t fall prey to that mindset.
Riots are a very political reaction of tensions by a group that has no other, more constructive, way of dealing with injustice.
Whenever there is a riot, people make a lot of conjectures about African-Americans “naturaly” being prone to violent and stupid acts. People wonder why they can simply hold a peaceful protest like the white people do when they are trying to save the whales.
The truth is that these are literally matters of life and death. When white people protest to save the whales, they are not dealing with a direct risk. Yet, the things that spark predominately black riots are things that endanger the very lives of people’s sons and brothers and fathers.
And frankly the inner city does not have the same political resourses as us. We are all very well trained to “write your local congressman” when something makes us mad, but how do you write to your congressmen “Please tell the police to stop killing my people”? Politics works if you are inside the system already, but when you watch your people being killed and no one listens to you, no one trys to stop it, you are going to build up a lot of pressure.
Destroying property is a very stupid thing to do. But, when you have that much pressure and no political recourse, something is going to blow.
And frankly, I think “the establishment” likes it better that way. It is better for us to shake our heads as people destroy their neighborhoods, than for us to make the commitment to long term social change that a more politically availible group would cry out for.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by tclouie *
**
tc – we’re both right. There’s a chart in today’s NY Times (credited to the AP) showing 15 black men killed by police since 1995; 5 were unarmed. One of them (a 12 year old boy driving a car!) dragged to death the policeman who shot and killed him. Another had just wounded a policeman. Several of the others had just committed murder or were shooting at policemen when they were shot.
IMHO the media has chosen not to focus on criminals having harmed or killed police (especially black criminals.) It stands to reason that there must have been many such incidents. In just these 15 cases, 8 of the criminals were killed while in the process of attacking police with a weapon. There must have been a substantial number of other criminals who wounded or killed policemen, but who weren’t killed in the confrontation.
Another useful statistic would be the number of shootings of unarmed men in other cities of comparable size.
I don’t think that anything justifies police killing an unarmed man. However, I do think that in order to fairly evaluate the performance of the entire Cincinnati police department, one must look at the whole story.
I believe Washington, DC is paramount in the “ventilation” school of law enforcement. I think the number of unarmed people shot in their cars, shot while trying to run away, and shot while making threatening gestures far exceeds the national average and may be unique.
I’ll take a look at the City Paper breakdown and see what I can give you as hard information, but I can tell you this now: in the early '90s, when DC police were horribly underfunded and outgunned, the training program took a radical tack. Basically, it went like this: If you feel threatened in the line of duty, empty your gun into the bastard, and make sure he’s dead.
Hey, man, crack dealers were spraying neighborhoods with TEC-9s at the time, and a person who survived being shot by the police was practically guaranteed an out-of-court settlement, so they had to have some sort of response. The result of such training, unfortunately, has been both repetitive and tragic. And it is ongoing, to the point where it has become a morbid joke.
Don’t take my word for it until I can cite the articles I remember reading.
Until then, let me say that if injustice prevails, and riots must occur, it is best to stage them in your enemies’ neighborhoods, not your own. Just an observation.
Yes. I remember that well. We were all still reeling from the Riots, and I remember feeling definite tension during the OJ thing. It was so high profile, it involved accusations that the LAPD had singled out a black man. It seemed like the belief of his innocence or guilt feel sharply along racial lines, and it was something that I was very careful about discussing among people I did not know.
I really feared that if OJ were found guilty, we would have more riots. It seemed to me that many people would have believed that “The LAPD framed another black man” and they would be VERY upset if he were found guilty. I was probably wrong about my fear (the L.A. media pundits did not predict this) but this is how I felt. I was afraid. The emotional scars from the riots had not healed, and I felt gun-shy. I’m sure many other Angelenos felt the same way. I think the OJ jury just wanted it to be over with.