[On April 29th, 1992,
civil unrest erupted
in Los Angeles after the four officers who had beaten Rodney King on video
were acquitted on all charges. So this week I’ve AmericanStudied King himself
and other contexts for and representations of the LA riots, leading up to this
special weekend post on the narrative of “race riots”
itself.]
On remembering
riots specifically while still pushing back on the whole concept.
In one of my
earliest pieces of online public scholarship (at least outside of the space of
this blog), I wrote for
Talking Points Memo in the fall of 2014 about the complex, contested, and
highly constructed history of the phrase “race riots.” As I noted there, the
phrase was developed (at least in an American context) in response to a series
of 19th century riots that did indeed tend to feature rioters of a particular
race; it just so happened that the rioting race in virtually every case was not
African Americans (as the phrase’s always implied and often quite explicit
narrative went) but white supremacists. Moreover, these white supremacist mobs
were generally rioting in purposeful and planned attempts to attack and destroy
African American communities (or other communities of color, such as the
Mexican and Filipino American zoot suiters of the Los Angeles Zoot Suit Riots
about which I wrote in Tuesday’s post), which means that these were race riots
in terms of their goals just as much as their demographics. So “race riot”
would be on multiple levels an accurate phrase to use, if it weren’t, y’know,
an entirely inaccurate phrase in the ways it has been used.
Beginning in particular
with riots like those in Los Angeles, Detroit,
and many
other cities in the mid- to late-1960s, however, it is important to note
that the demographics did change. The majority of the rioters in these cases
were generally African Americans (and/or other Americans of color, but
principally African Americans), a trend that certainly remained the case in the
Rodney King riots of 1992 among other late 20th century histories. As
the King riots illustrate quite potently, each of these situations had
specific, nuanced, and multi-layered causes and contexts, and it is only by
engaging with the distinct riots individually and specifically—including the
realities of their demographics, among many other elements—that we can start to
recognize, analyze, and hopefully learn from those details. Which is to say, to
pretend that the 1992 riots were the same in any substantive way as (for
example) the 1898
Wilmington (North Carolina) one wouldn’t just comprise a blatant
misrepresentation of the details of each; it would also make it nearly
impossible to analyze the 1992 riots (or 1898, or any other, but this week’s series
has focused on 1992) successfully and productively. So my first paragraph’s
(and prior post’s) main point might feel less relevant to these late 20th
century histories.
I would say the
opposite, though. For one thing, the fact that the specifics of these late 20th
century riots differed in many ways from earlier ones makes the precise point
that using a sweeping phrase like “race riots” to describe them all (or any one
of them) is at best woefully oversimplified and in many ways entirely
inaccurate. And for another, much more complex but even more important thing,
the earlier white supremacist riots had a great deal to do with creating the
conditions and contexts that contributed to the late 20th century
riots. To cite two interconnected examples: Southern white supremacist riots
like Wilmington forced many African Americans to migrate to the North, Midwest,
and West; and then white supremacist riots in those cities pushed the expanding
African American communities into highly segregated and disadvantaged areas
within those cities. Miscategorizing the earlier riots as “race riots”
perpetrates further historical injustices and violences that not only echo and
extend the foundational ones, but make it that much more difficult to
understand and analyze 20th (and unfolding 21st) century
histories and stories. So let’s just stop using the phrase “race riots,” shall
we?
Next series
starts Monday,
Ben
PS. What do you
think?
No comments:
Post a Comment