Talk:Mass racial violence in the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Secret Societies This article is within the scope of WikiProject Secret Societies,
a WikiProject which aims to improve all articles related to Secret Societies.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
Low This article is on a subject of low-importance within Secret Societies articles.

This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

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===
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)

Contents

[edit] 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."

Shortly after posting these comments, I changed the definition to one which is more on-point. However, the lumping of true "race riots" with what have come to be called "civil disturbances" (black rioting) continues to mar the article and confuse the matter. Moving race riot to "Black American rioting" does not solve this problem. There needs to be a clear distinction made between the two, as their history, motivation, anatomy and consequences are markedly different. deeceevoice 14:38, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

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)

This is already such a long list of riots and lynchings that I don't think it's useful to add rioting in other countries. As bad as the history is, it's not useful to have a long list of atrocities and little effort to discuss causes, especially who was involved at different times and places. It's not just one thing - the NY draft riots during the Civil War were chiefly by Irish immigrants against blacks; the Irish used them as a scapegoat because they feared competing with them for jobs, and didn't want to fight for their freedom in the war, and were too poor to get out of the war. Blaming all whites for every action isn't any more useful than blaming all blacks for others. Rioting or civil unrest after Dr. King's assassination arose out of other reasons, as Deeceevoice notes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Parkwells (talk • contribs) 21:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moving

Might as well move it to what it alledges to, since there are no riots in here that talk about white rioting. Project2501a 11:46, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. The article does, in fact, mention white riots (true "race riots"). The problem with the article is as I have stated [above].... (See "This article sucks -- big time".) Simply moving/renaming the article does not address the central problem. deeceevoice 14:45, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
Hmmmm. oy. right. foot in mouth, again. *sigh* I'll get it right, i promise. sometime. even if it's only once. Can i remove the move, now? Project2501a 20:30, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Your intent is appreciated; but, yes, by all means do so. Perhaps your energies would be better utilized in correcting the considerable problems with this article -- or elsewhere. Peace. deeceevoice 20:49, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] still sucks, but....

I put in my two cents. I think the way to handle this is not to reserve t "race riot" for its original meaning, but rather to discuss both of its meanings. Ideally, a really good article would talk about how the shift came about as well (I don't know myself; I suspect its unsavory, though.) NoahB 04:01, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Just saw deeceevoice's note about Chinese race riots..... Have you seen those referred to as race riots? I've never seen the term used except in an American context myself, which doesn't mean it hasn't ever been. My kingdom for a free online OED....NoahB 04:04, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree with deeceevoice that there are two different phenomena here. The 1887 massacre in Thibodaux, Louisiana was basically just a lynching on a larger scale; calling it a "race riot" is about as accurate as calling a pogrom a race riot. On the other hand, the 1968 riots were basically violent political protests. I do think there are cases that lie in a gray area in between, though. For example, the 1919 Chicago riots started with white kids killing a black kid who crossed the color line, and most of the violence was done by Irish gangs against random black victims, but blacks also fought back, so I think it's valid to call it a mass lynching that escalated into racial warfare. One thing that's really clear IMO is that this article is completely about the U.S., so its title is inappropriate because of that as well. I think it should be renamed to "Mass racial violence in the United States," and, as NoahB suggests, the article should make the appropriate distinctions. Any objections? --Bcrowell 17:15, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I've gone ahead with the renaming.--Bcrowell 15:47, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

And what about race riots that occur outside the United States? Why does Race riot redirect here? The article was country-neutral before the rename. --kudz75 07:40, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
I prefer the narrower focus of this article as represented by the name change. Inter-group conflicts that lead to such extreme reactions as rioting and mass murder deserve a fuller examination than can be had by lumping them all together -- particularly when there are disparate societal and historical forces at work. If people want to mention race riots in other nations, let them start different articles. The articles can include references to one another in their "Related topics" or "See also" sections, if deemed appropriate. deeceevoice 07:12, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Catholics?

Obviously, Catholics are not a separate race. Let's keep this piece on subject and get rid of the info regarding religion-based conflict/riots. That belongs in an entirely separate article. If such conflicts are referred to as "race riots," then those referencs are in error. No one today would consider, say, the Protestant-Catholic conflict in Northern Ireland a racial one -- and that doesn't change with regard to similar interreligious violence here in the States. The notion is incongruous/absurd. deeceevoice 07:12, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

  • While I'd rather not get into the debate between "ethnicity" vs. "race", the Nativist-Immigrant riots was more then about religion, there is a huge difference between the Catholic-Protestant conflict of Northern Ireland, which from a modern viewpoint I'm sure might seem to be the case. However, the anti-immigrant riots were triggered primarily by a clash of cultures and, in the era of nineteenth century New York Irish immigrants (as were most ethnic groups) considered a different "race". It is from this view which the first section attempts to explain the origin between conflicts between two groups, no different from black and white violence today, and how the perception of "race riots" have evolved into the present day. However, if the majority of contributors wish to focus only black/white race riots, I would certainly like to hear their arguments although I personally believe to omit the first section is excluding an important historical aspect from the topic. 64.12.117.10 04:43, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
  • The Nativist-Irish conflicts certainly went far beyond religious differences (although it played a major factor) however, I do agree that there should be more emphasis on the cultural conflicts between the American-born Nativists and Irish immigrants rather then on religion. The paragraph does tend to imply it was the sole reason for the conflict. MadMax 19:21, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

[edit] NPOV

This has swung waaaayy too far in the direction suggested by the above comments. The lone black riot in the introduction is an "uprising". White riots are called "massacres", etc. Unsigned Comment by: 71.112.11.220

  • I'm not sure what you mean. Each of the indroductory comments follow the main points of each of the article's section. The first refering to violence against Irish Catholic immigrants, and the second and third dealing with violence against blacks during reconstruction and riots during the past several decades. With the exception of the first section, the article focuses almost entirely on "black vs. white" violence. However, if you're refering to the duscussion above regarding the dispute of the causes of the Irish-Nativist conflicts (regarding the conflict as a racial rather then religious one) you should probably reply to the above subjects. 64.12.117.10 08:28, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
  • If I understand correctly you seem to have problem with the wording of the introduction ? The introduction, as seen in the second and third statements, notes "massacres of black people" and "uprisings in African-American communities". I fail to see any mention of "white riots" (with exception of the first section). Could you be a bit more specific regarding your complaint ?

Mass racial violence in the United States, often described using the term "race riots," includes such disparate events as:

  • attacks on Irish Catholic immigrants in the 19th century
  • massacres of black people in the period after Reconstruction
  • uprisings in African-American communities such as the 1968 riots following the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr.

MadMax 20:34, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Given the User who placed the NPOV template is a currently banned vandal, I'm removing the template unless the User can back up his statement. 205.188.116.72 00:27, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Hmm..seems this user has had issues with NPOV in other articles. I suspect this may an attempt by a common troll. MadMax 20:49, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] I agree with the NPOV

This article is now 90% about white-on-black violence, written from a biased point of view (come on, it's written "white people" versus "Black People?" that's asinine). I realize that the modern riots have their own pages but summaries wouldn't be out of order.

71.98.101.59 02:43, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

  • I would certainly agree with you on that point, as the above discussion relates to that issue, however violence between blacks involving other ethnic groups is certainly a large part of the subjects history. I agree it shouldn't be the main focus but should have at least a major part of the article. If you have helpful information regarding oth ethnic violence please feel free to add to the article. MadMax 22:08, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Other riots during "Modern" era

Modern Riots in black communities include:

Watts (1965) Detroit (1967) Newark (1967) nationwide riots following the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. in 1968 Los Angeles (1992)


.... what about the high school riots betweet blacks and hispanics? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.134.111.194 (talk • contribs)

[edit] Toledo and Cincinnati Riots not race riots

Toledo and Cincinnati Riots removed from list of racial riots. Neither of these events were race riots rather they were anti-police in nature. Further more I know for a fact that various white people fought side by side with black people during both riots. Yes a few whites had property damaged but black people did also. These simply weren't race riots. The last race riot I have heard of was the five thousand white Aussies on a beach attacking any immigrants... that is truely a race riot! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonytunes88 (talk • contribs)

Cincy riots readded and more race-based riots that occurred in Cincy were added. The riots in Cincy at 2001 were largely anti-police, but the rioters were overwhelmingly & predominently Black as well as those non-rioters who were targetted were overwhelmingly non-Black. Non-Black targets of the rioters were businesses as well as non-law enforcement individuals in the area. As a further detail, the riots, although targettted at the police, were protesting the apparent racially motivated pattern of the police. All-in-all: The riots began as a response to racism. The riots, even though started against police, spilled over to racially motivated targets. The demographic of the rioters was racially polarized. Race riot. --Duemellon 11:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jim Crow category

I don't think that's the appropriate title for that section. Jim Crow, the establishment of laws intended to limit Black freedoms, did not come into official being until after the Civil War. I think, for better accuracy of history, you should split them into Antebellum & post Civil War sections. Any comments? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Duemellon (talk • contribs)

  • Perhaps "Reconstruction & Jim Crow" might be a more accurate title ? MadMax 20:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Native Americans

if your going to have a page dedicated to the racial violence of US history it seems strange to not include the mass genocide and violence that the US government committed against the Native Americans, mainly during the manifest destiny era, but also all throughout the first two centuries of this nations history. I personally would consider that to be mass racial violence and I think it should be added to this page. (Impaler2g19 21:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC))

The difference here is the comparison between spontaneous rioting & a sustained delibertate campaign. There are/were probably many incidents of spontaneous violence against them, but what are some specific instances. I will note, however, the title of this article does not limit it to "riots" although that is what it became about. --Duemellon 10:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lack of presentation of issues

The article is mostly a listing of violent outbreaks, with little effort to discuss what else was going on - population changes, changing neighborhoods and people fighting over "territory", economic pressures, competition for housing, jobs, etc. To note there has been a lot of violence is just not very useful. I'm not sure what the point of the article is, if there isn't some attempt to discuss what was happening where, and when. Some historians have linked such violence to regular attempts (in other forms) within communities to exert power and keep control.

Why is so much rioting led by young adolescent males? Are they the ones anyone should trust - they're the most volatile and quick to anger. Scientists have now concluded their brains are immature and quick to erupt at perceived slights. A few people have noted reasons for why African American communities erupted after Dr. King's assassination, but overall, there is very little about reasons (or emotions). Researchers have studied how emotion travels in crowds, why crowds are dangerous and likely to get out of control.--Parkwells 21:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)