The Historical Importance of the King Riots
First off, I want to thank Rick, Tom, Peniel, and Todd for joining me in this discussion. Throughout the course of writing my book I looked to all four of them as inspirations, and I am lucky enough to have worked with each of them as managing editor at Democracy (well, Tom will be in our next issue). So it is a distinct honor to be joined by them this week.
The bulk of A Nation on Fire is a detailed account of the week following Martin Luther King, Jr.'s assassination on April 4, 1968. There are a lot of moving parts to the story-the first days of the manhunt for James Earl Ray, the reaction among the civil rights movement-but I decided to focus on two elements. First, I wanted to give a chronology of the riots that broke out in more than 100 cities nationwide and led to 39 deaths and over $650 million in damage (in 2009 dollars), and second, I wanted to tell the story of what was going on inside the White House, as President Lyndon Johnson, who had just withdrawn from the 1968 campaign, dealt with the latest in a long list of national crises to beset his presidency. I found the force of these twinned narratives compelling, particularly as elements of a story that has too often been overlooked in accounts of the 1960s.
But beyond their narrative power, these two elements allowed me to show why the King riots were so important in American history: Namely, they were a signal moment for so many white Americans that postwar liberalism had failed to ensure domestic order, even as it had pushed further on racial integration than many whites-in and outside the South-were comfortable with. This is not to say that all was smooth sailing before April 1968. Obviously, there had been extensive rioting every summer since 1964. More importantly, as many scholars, following in Tom's footsteps, have argued, racial integration had been putting pressure on the fragile liberal coalition for decades.
Nevertheless, the events surrounding the riots show precisely how this coalition finally, tragically imploded. White fear of black violence, already stoked by black radical rhetoric and hyperventilating media like Garry Wills' Arming for Armageddon, ensured that millions of Americans saw the riots of 1968 as the beginning of a racial cataclysm. Inner-ring suburbs like Prince George's County, just outside Washington, put heavily armed police along the city limits. White urban neighborhoods in Baltimore took up arms and blockaded their streets. And who can forget Richard Daley's infamous "shoot to kill" order, which drew a denouncement from Attorney General Ramsey Clark-who in turn drew hundreds of angry letters from around the country; as one Texan wrote, "I am a borned [sic] Demo but I'm most heartily agreeing with our Republican senator [John Tower, a Clark critic] and, no doubt, will vote Republican this year."
The fear of black urban disorder became a powerful tool in the hands of the GOP, who used it to draw a rhetorical Maginot Line between the city and suburbs and cement their control of the burgeoning white, suburban middle class. As Princeton historian Kevin Kruse and others have shown, it was this new base, first secured through Nixon's Southern Strategy, that became the story of subsequent American politics. What followed is well-known: Decades of bipartisan retreat from the high point of American liberal policymaking and a slow dismantlement of, first, elements of Johnson's Great Society and, later, the New Deal state itself. Black urban violence wasn't the entire story, but any history of the GOP realignment is incomplete without an understanding of the role urban disorder played.
As a way of starting the discussion, I thought I'd throw out some questions for the other respondents.
First, if the 1968 election represented a significant turning away from American domestic liberalism, and racial liberalism to a large extent as well, to what extent can the 2008 election be seen as a closing of an era? And to what extent can we say that the racial divisions that defined that era have been resolved? Have we, as some argue, reached the goal of the civil rights movement?
Second, for all the attention paid to the 1960s as a decade, there has been relatively little discussion among historians, journalists, and memoirists of the "urban crisis" and the riots it birthed (Tom's work being an obvious exception). Why?
Third, a difficult part of any exploration of 1960s urban violence is its intersection with political radicalism, among both blacks and whites. Even today, many people believe that Stokely Carmichael started the riots in Washington, and it is casually assumed that black radicalism played a role in fomenting violence during the 1960s. What was the real relationship between violence and radicalism, and what is the real legacy of radicalism?
And fourth, I would simply ask, what do you think is the significance of the April, 1968 riots?
Again, thanks to all four of you for participating, and I look forward to our conversation.
As horrible as it may seem to read this, by 1968, black, urban rioting had become commonplace; as you note, riots had beset black neighborhoods for four straight summers. Whites were also cognizant that - regardless of how they felt about it - urban rioting was contained inside these black neighborhoods. Middle-class whites, for the most part, watched the violence on television - and the upheaval remained as remote as did the war in Vietnam, half a world away. Nixon's successful drive to turn working-class and middle-class whites away from the Democratic Party had less to do with Leftist fantasies of "white fear" than with white disenchantment of costly social programs - and an unwinnable war - that had drained away their own indulgence with the idea of applying public funds to social needs. White America was two decades removed from helping win World War II; they were active, vital participants in building a monumentally rich society, one that was about to put men on the moon and return them alive to earth. It took a lot to make them quake in fear, and, as it turned out, the rioting of 1968 was the high-water mark of '60s upheaval.
March 30, 2009 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think to suggest that race riots brought about the "end of liberalism" is a bit of an overreach. We must remember that by election day in 1968, not only had Johnson dropped out the election, Dr. King had been assassinated, Robert F. Kennedy assassinated, anti-Vietnam sentiment was reaching its peak (with white students fomenting that violence) and the Chicago Democratic convention/riot (white students at the forefront there, too, facing Mayor Daley.)
In 1968, the Democratic Party was in disarray. And although Republicans had the "law-and-order" platform, their targets were not just the civil rights movement, but the "anti-American, anti-war, pro-Commie" groups too. The Dixie-crat to Republican conversion reached its peak in '68. And you see the beginning of the end of moderate and liberal Republicans.
I can't speak for all black Americans, but liberalism didn't come to an "end" with us. Instead, it started a wave of black politicians entering government.
2008 is not the end of an era. Electing Barack Obama does not make us "post-racial," nor does it signal any end of racial divisions. The disparity between black and white America -- poverty, income, housing, crime, healthcare, education, and so on -- are just as stark today as they were then. The critical difference is that the so-called "color-blind" society, where not acknowledging the differences will make them go away, has become the normative approach. Obama got elected? We must be "transcending race." Hooray! Not so fast.
Have we reached the goals of the civil rights movement? No. Only a fool (or a racist) would suggest that the continuing underemployment and over-imprisonment of black men is a worthy goal. Likewise, schools in predominantly minority neighborhoods continuing to be underfunded, a drop-out rate higher for black and Latino/a students (and the ridiculous conclusion that school vouchers are the sole remedy to improve public education as has been suggested by countless conservatives). We continue to see "reverse discrimination" cases brought the Supreme Court, where, clearly there was no discrimination, reverse or otherwise. Instead of neighborhoods restricted by racial convenants and codes, we see redlining by mortgage companies. Politically, districts are still gerrymandered to marginalize minority voters. Although Halle Berry and Denzel Washington have won Academy awards, television -- in both entertainment and news divisions -- continues to be "segregated." In politics, we witnessed not just the coded racespeak of some politicians during the election, but outright racist language and behavior by people formerly considered "mainstream." No, it's the same old sh*t, different day.
March 30, 2009 4:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
"And although Republicans had the "law-and-order" platform, their targets were not just the civil rights movement, but the "anti-American, anti-war, pro-Commie" groups too. The Dixie-crat to Republican conversion reached its peak in '68. And you see the beginning of the end of moderate and liberal Republicans."
And hippies too - they hated "hippies."
March 30, 2009 7:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
And zoned out bikers.
March 30, 2009 9:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
"they were a signal moment for so many white Americans that postwar liberalism had failed to ensure domestic order, even as it had pushed further on racial integration than many whites-in and outside the South-were comfortable with."
Respectuflly, I think the terms you've written about in the quote above is vastly overstating the case in terms of signaling much of anything like what you're referring to among more than a handful of white intellectuals. The assassination of Martin Luther King that April and then only weeks later the murder of RFK for all intents and purposes decapitated the heart and soul of liberal leadership in the United States. Both of those men were young, vital highly skilled and gifted really in articulating a vision for the nation and both were very charismatic. The shock of King's murder was profound in many, many ways and I think it was a surprise to no one that widespread rioting was sparked by the murder. The death of RFK in June was the knockout punch that put the nation reeling and into the ropes. Liberalism was in a combination state of stunned paralysis and deeply grieving rage.
The Republicans particularly but also racist conservative Democrats quickly seized the opportunity to exploit white fear of and anger toward blacks. Both groups have been shamelessly riding that wave ever since in subtle and not so subtle ways.
1968 overall was an extraordinarily traumatic year for America and probably the most traumatic single year in modern times given the massive amount of upheaval, conflict, chaos, violence and pent up energy both positive and negative that exploded onto the scene. In many ways, the deaths of King and Kennedy that year signaled retreat for social and economic progress in America. But that was not clear at all at that time. Nixon barely defeated Humprhey. Democrats and liberals still held a great deal of power in the Congress and in the state houses around the nation.
So, in answer to your points:
In many respects 1968 represented a halt in the kind of social, economic, and racial progress we had seen and which I believe most people hoped would continue albeit without violence. America did not at all turn away from racial liberalism in the wake of that year, but the rising bellicosity and agressiveness of the thinly veiled racism of Republicans and conservative Democrats began to drown out more liberal voices. This was easier for the reactionaries to accomplish because our two most authoritative voices who had the strongest and widest audience were dead. The election of 68 allowed nixon to nudge the country in a less racially liberal direction as a tactic that served to increase Republican congressional power.
2008 was a very different kind of election where the electorate consciously turned away from the Republican Party's program of lies and deception and racist fear mongering, but only because the economy had collapsed and in spite of Obama's race. The Democrats won, but mostly as a result of the disasters Republicans had brought upon the nation and not because Democrats articulated a clear alternative vision. They did not. Democrats by and large simply were the "not the Republicans" party. Democrats talked about change, but didn't get terribly specific and all the major Democratic presidential candidates had very, very similar positions on most important issues.
By no means have we achieved the goals of the civil rights movement. Much remains to be done, but I think 2008 represents a significant turning point that gives us great confidence that we will, one day, achieve all the goals of the civil rights movement. But it won't happen without continued and very significant effort.
I think the reason urban riots and concerns generally haven't gotten the same attention as other aspects of the sixties is because if you focus on that, you necessarily focus on America's greatest failure and that is the eradication of poverty. Who lives in the urban areas? I hate to say it, but the narcissism of the class of people who read books and pay attention to such things has made it far more popular and interesting to examine things like campus radicalism, specific civil rights struggles and campaigns, the development of the drug culture, etc... I genuinely think that plays a role.
As for radicalism I think it played a role, but a minor one in reality. Radicalism, such as it was, played (and plays) a far greater role in the rhetoric and mythology of the right and in the corporate media than it ever did in the real world. There may indeed be people who think Stokely Carmichael started the riot in Washington, but most people don't have any idea who he is and never did. His moment in the spotlight, like that of most "radicals" was extraordinarily brief.
So, the riots in 68 were in some sense a culmination and an end. they were also a beginning of a post King America that became a little less humane, a little less civilized, a little less tolerant and so on. The riots were a very bold and noticeable punctuation mark in a year of great drama and strife. Personally, I recall that time very vividly. It was as though the lights went out all over the world and I wondered if they would ever come back on. Of course, they did come back on, but slowly, dimly and never in the same way again because someone everyone recognized as a towering and inspiring figure had been brutally murdered and stripped from us.
March 30, 2009 5:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
"1968 overall was an extraordinarily traumatic year for America and probably the most traumatic single year in modern times given the massive amount of upheaval, conflict, chaos, violence and pent up energy both positive and negative that exploded onto the scene."
And if George W. Bush hadn't been so busy partying at Yale he could have paid attention and learned something. Then he wouldn't have been such a dumb-ass President.
March 30, 2009 7:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
No doubt!
March 30, 2009 7:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
We were very stressed all through the 60s, having not really had a break since the Depression, the immense struggle of WWII, Korea, Soviet communism, Iron Curtain, Cuba twice, and top it off with general nuclear fears. We had yet to reach the moon.
The promise of civil rights was far from being realized, and yes, summers were tense, as in Watts. But losing King was not merely a worsening of the situation, it was a breathtakingly brutal tragedy. The wonder is that we did not see much worse rioting.
March 30, 2009 7:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Riots; schmiots!
Now, on the one hand you've got your regular "Race Riot" -- bad scene.
On the other hand you've got you're everyday "Urban Riot" -- breaking glass and stealing booze -- great fun till the party poopers arrive.
Riot doesn't equal Rebellion -- and most Americans can tell the difference.
March 30, 2009 10:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
The knockout of American liberalism was, in some sense, three punches, not two. First, the assassination of King. Second, the assassination of Robert Kennedy. And third, the steamrolling of Hubert Humphrey's nomination as president (although he hadn't won a single primary) and the brutality of Mayor Daley's police at the Chicago convention.
But it's complicated. For example, in one of the other commentaries on this article, somebody mentioned affirmative action. Well, that was a program that started under the Nixon administration -- yes, the Nixon whose campaign exploited race-baiting and the "southern strategy".
Did Stokely Carmichael and his successor H. Rap Brown have an important impact on the 1968 violence in the black community? As one who lived through that era, I'd say no. They may have marginally influenced the riots in 1966-1967, by providing rhetoric that supported "rebellions" as a constructive action that would lead to revolution (yes, that really was what the rhetoric said). But in 1968 the violence began without a word from the militants, within minutes of King's murder. It was an expression of inchoate and spontaneous rage.
Interesting topic; more talk is very much in order.
Peace,
Paul
March 31, 2009 3:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
"First, if the 1968 election represented a significant turning away from American domestic liberalism, and racial liberalism to a large extent as well, to what extent can the 2008 election be seen as a closing of an era? And to what extent can we say that the racial divisions that defined that era have been resolved? Have we, as some argue, reached the goal of the civil rights movement?"
Yes, we are at the end of an era.
Not because the "divisions that defined that era have been resolved" or because we've "reached the goal of the civil rights movement" but because our domestic problems have been deepening for a considerable while, and are now bubbling to the surface where it will be much more difficult to continue denying them.
Nor are we yet on a better trajectory, which means our problems--political and economic--will likely deepen further as will become apparent in the months and years ahead.
After all, just this past weekend it became crystal clear that anyone not automatically kneeling down in total obeisance before the ruling faction's economic plans would be deemed "hysterical" and (of course) "jealous" by a mindless mass media and not a few people in the so-called "liberal blogosphere."
Given the way they threw Chris Dodd under the bus, it's hard not to suspect that this sort of media messaging doesn't come straight from the Administration itself.
A one party state certainly suggests to me a different political dynamic than the one fostered by the social divisions of the 1960s.
March 31, 2009 9:03 AM | Reply | Permalink