Talk:Race riot

From Academic Kids

Much information on race riots is available in old versions of street fighting. It was deleted there for being POV and not apropos, but for some reason it was not edited and put in here. --Andrew 06:45, Apr 19, 2004 (UTC)

Here it is:

===1960-1970 Race Riots===

• University of Mississippi - 1962 - 2 dead. (Starting riot)
• Watts Riot (Los Angeles) - 1965 - 4 dead.
• Bloody Sunday Walk (Alabama) - 1965 - 1 dead.
• Democrat Convetion (Chicago) - 1968 - 46 dead.

During this time the south was segregated, or restricting the riots of certain portions of the population based on their ethnicity, or race. What made this riot particually unique is that from New York City, all the way to Montgomery, Alabama. Virtually every major city in the United States rioted. In effect because racism, and other factors including poverty, and inequal oppertunity, the segregated people protested against the state. Leading up to the murder of a Martin Luther King 1968 with a rifle by a white person. After this, a cascade effect touched off huge protests that lead to nationwide riots.

The Democratic party had some of the worst racists our nation has ever seen. In the deep south Democrats held several governors seats, and were ruthless then, and even now. As the Democrats Convetion in Chicago had the famous line from then late Democratic party supporter Mayor Daley "shoot to kill". These orders given to the police of the time allow the police to kill anyone in Chicago. In effect the Chicago police were turned into something like the Japanese Samurai class, killing anyone who was out of line.

The use of water hoses, as well as passive resistance was used by people to resist police, and people. Tactics such as the sit in, and the boycott were used to level damage to businesses by cutting off the supply of people to them.

The most damaing effect

Which basically proves the same mentality that exists in the New York State Draft riots has and is still carried on for a few hundred years. In a riot police, do not protect and serve, they like any military force will kill any rioters when given the order to do so.

This is very POV but maybe something of value can be extracted. --Andrew 08:18, Apr 19, 2004 (UTC)

This article sucks -- big-time

I did an extensive rewrite -- which was lost, because someone blocked me when they blocked a vandal. So, I'll write my objections here. I don't know when I'll get around to returning to this piece.

First the definition is wrong, wrong wrong. And then the instances of white-on-black violence are lumped in with black riots. White race riots were the usual craKKKa violence directed at black folks, often resulting in the burning of black homes, black schools, black business -- and black people. Lynchings. Black riots mostly result in property damage and normally do not, as their primary activity, focus on victimizing whites or people of other ethnicities. As a matter of fact, nonblacks have participated in the civil disorders of recent times that began in black communities. (All of us remember seeing Latinos participating in the looting and jeering of police.) For this reason, many argue that the term "race riot" doesn't even accurately characterize black civil disturbances. In fact, they are not nowadays commonly known by that term; they are called "civil disturbances," or simply "riots" -- and, by some blacks, "insurrections" or "uprisings."

There has been an understanding that whites banding together to lynch and burn blacks at random, or out of their homes, schools and businesses, is a different phenomenon from what usually occurs in instances of black rioting, which is primarily about property damage -- and often black property, at that. An example: when, say, white college students go on a rampage, burning cars and lighting fires; or, when white soccer or hockey fans do it, no one calls these instances "race riots." That term is properly reserved for instances of the usual white-on-black savagery of the past, or when blacks and whites actually have ended up battling one another toe to toe because of racial animus, or because a situation of self-defense has simply escalated to all-out warfare in the streets.

White-on-black mob violence has been far, far more prevalent than the black-on-white mob violence -- but the article suggests the reverse. The Tulsa race riot (and others mentioned) had absolutely nothing to do with "inequality," and they were instances of this type of white mob violence -- but the article leads the reader to believe they were somehow connected with black anger at white injustice. WHAT?!!!

Recorded accounts of white-on-black riots go wa-aay back -- at least as far back as the New York draft riots during the Civil War. There is no mention of the Springfield riot, which was horrible, or of the rash of riots that followed Jack Johnson's victories over white opponents in the ring. There is no mention of the Kerner Commission or its landmark report. No mention of the fact that the 1968 riots hit approximately 100 U.S. cities and were sparked by the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King. Further, riots didn't stop with the Rodney King verdict (again, there is no mention of that -- just the L.A. riots) -- Cincinnati's Over-the-Rhine community, for starters.

A major rewrite is order. Too bad I didn't write my stuff elsewhere and save it before attempting to edit the article. Dammit. deeceevoice 23:23, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Additionally, this article is written from a strictly U.S. standpoint. There are instances of race riots elsewhere -- in China, for example, in the 1970s (or was it '80s?), when groups of (unfortunately) typically afrophobic Chinese, angry that some African students were dating Chinese women, rioted -- murdering a bunch of Africans for no cause. I'm sure there are other instances, but none comes immediately to mind. deeceevoice 09:22, 13 May 2005 (UTC)