Rebellion Versus Riot

 Elizabeth Hinton (who was on BBC news yesterday) argues for "rebellions" instead of "riots" to describe the events in the inner cities in the mid to late 1960's. Having lived during that period, although I haven't read her book, I think she's wrong.

To me "rebellion" means a degree of central planning and organization, elements which I think were shared through many of the slave "revolts" discussed here. A "riot" usually has an instigating event, a central focus which draws in participants, but there's no central figure like Nat Turner or John Brown. 

Hinton has a point that the events from 1964 through 1968 have a continuity and similarity which makes "riots" seem an inadequate terminology.

Unbelievable But Not Unprecedented?

 I haven't thought the events at the Capitol today would happen.  So I'm very surprised.

But, I happen to be reading American Maelstorm,by Michael Cohen, on the 1968 election.  It's a reminder that we've had tough times before. We easily forget how much unrest we've had in our past.

The Police: Now and 1968

Lots of comparisons between the protests/riots of today and those of 1968. Lots of concerns about police.

IIRC in 1968 white liberals thought that integrating the police and establishing civilian review boards would solve the problems with the police.  With hindsight, civilian review boards, where established, have not done well.  The problem is likely the entrenched political power of police unions. Not only do police generally have a positive aura,but, like the NRA, they've the power of fierce unity.

And the police have been integrated, perhaps not as thoroughly and at all ranks in some places as they should be, but we know  now that police who are minorities themselves can be authoritarian and abusive.

There have been gains in 52 years.  The number of people killed now as opposed to 1968 is witness to that.  I suspect, but don't know, that the property damage has been of an order of magnitude less.  Part of that is learning from experience (though it seems we've forgotten a lot of the lessons of 1968) but much of it IMHO results from social trends.

Again, in IMHO, I think the problems we see with police today reflect continuing forces in society and economy.  It's inevitable when you ask people to risk their lives, whether military, firefighters, police, or Doctors without Borders they're likely to develop esprit de  corps, and an us versus them mentality.  It's inevitable in crisis situations police get lots of attention, much unfavorable, which further aggravates the us versus them.  When you add minorities to the mix, they'll often feel forced to do better, to go one step further in order to "prove" themselves.   It's inevitable that public attention will fade as memories fade, meaning that police unions, based on the esprit de corps, will gain leverage over the political process.  If you're willing to increase pay, you can chip away at union-enforced procedural rights.  If you aren't willing, as most publics won't be most of the time, you'll allow polices to gain job security in lieu of more money.

1968 and Now--a Subtle Difference

I remember 1968 well, so well I've tried to avoid most coverage of the riots over the past few days.

There is one subtle difference I notice between then and now: the rioters are integrated.  In 1968 the rioters were all black.  Now they seem to be the majority but there's some whites (and perhaps Latinos and Asians, but I don't know that) shown as well.

I think that's a significant detail showing the distance between then and now.