On Fri, 20 Jun 1997, Michael Anthony Cobb wrote:

> > Bill--I'm afraid I have to agree with Chomsky on this one. To say the LA
> > riots/uprising were the oppressed taking on their class enemies is really
> > dosen't square with what happened. Like many urban riots in the US, state
> > power effectively confined it to the poor sections of the city, so that's
> > where all the damage was. While a lot of burnings, beatings, lootings,
> > etc.were specifically directed, the targets tended to be small-scale Asian
> > businesses. The real class enemies were snug and secure in Brentwood &
> > Beverly Hills, and likely never heard a shot. And, of course, some of the
> > violence was purely random, such as the infamous beating of
> > working-class truck driver Reginald Denny, simply for the crime of being
> > white.
>
>   Maybe Mr. Denny wasn't beaten for a perceived crime of racial status,
> but was simply a victim of people unleashing frustration and rage as a
> result of their living in what is in effect a police state.  And if
> you've never lived in South Central LA or been harrassed and had hands or
> batons laid on you because of your racial or class position, please don't
> try to respond with some comparative analysis of how So Cen LA doesn't
> fit the technical definition of police state.  Mr. Denny wasn't being
> punished for a crime so much as at that moment he was a signified to the
> signifier of wealth distributed largely in racial terms.  That fact that
> he was a truck driver and was not part of the ruling class per se was of
> no consequence at that particular moment in time.  And if you saw or
> remember what his response was, it was something along the lines of
> forgiveness from an immense "human" capacity to place himself within the
> social context that this unfortunate event occurred in.

I never argued one way or another that South Central wasn't/isn't  a
police state--I don't doubt it has many such attributes. As far as what
Mr. Denny "signified" to his attackers, it sounds like pure speculation to
me. Denny's capacity for forgiveness and understanding is much more a
testament to him than a justification for his attackers. But let's not lose
sight of the main point--while the Denny beating became a media focus, the
larger issue here is the uprising/riot itself--it's causes and it's
nature. I still think Chomsky was right--these are not the actions of an
organized resistance movement, but of a disorganized and demoralized mob
of desperate and alienated people. It's not very inspirational, certainly.

> > While it may have been nicely hidden by the media, I really can't find
> > signs of real organization in what happened. For one thing, it didn't
> > sustain itself for more than a day or two. For another, despite their
> > romanticization by some on the left, the LA gangs really seem to be
> > criminal organizations before anything else. They are the primary means
> > through which crack and other drugs reaches the urban poor (how it gets to
> > the gangs is of course another matter). They are linked with countless
> > episodes of violence, directed not against any class enemy but against
> > other gangs, often with innocent bystanders killed as high-as-a-kite
> > hoodlums gun each other down with the most sophisticated of weapons. To
> > the extent they are orgnaized, it is as capitalist enterprises, working
> > through drug sales, gun sales, extortion, theft, etc. to wring as much
> > wealth out of the impoverished ghettos as they can.
> >
>   I think for a more sophisticated--as opposed to Hollywood and
> "mainstream" media constructed--look at the reality of youth gangs in
> Los Angeles, you might benefit from reading MONSTER, by Sanyika Shakur.
> Formerly known as Monster Cody, he had a very active part in the
> development of Los Angeles Crip gangs as they have come to be known by
> those living in the neighborhoods.  By no means is this meant to be
> offered as the definitive look at this issue, but it is a good starting
> point.  Because it is not as simple as the organization of distribution
> arms for entities with power to funnel drugs into the country.  Nor
> is the image of "high-as-a-kite hoodlums" helpful in understanding the
> often extremely misguided means of acquiring property in a society where it
> is so cherished, yet divvied up so unequally.

I'll admit to a lack of expertise on the history and nature of urban
gangs, and would doubtless benefit from the reading you suggest. I don't
see, though, that Chomsky's analysis (or my, and others defense of it) has
appeared anywhere in the mainstream media. Quite the opposite. Chomsky
clearly situates the causes of the LA riot in the larger system of class
and racial oppression, not exactly the argument you'll find in USA Today.

Not all the actions or organizations of oppressed people can be seen as
noble, or even defensible. Alienated and oppressed populations can provide
the base for all sorts of deplorable activities, politics,
and organizations--Hitler's SA being a prime example. At a minimum, you
need some decent ideals to base a movement on. I don't see (perhaps
because of ignorance) any developed, admirable political ideals espoused
by the Cripps or their ilk. And remember, all of this discussion arose
over whether the LA riots and the (admirable) revolution in Chiapas were
equivalent. Aside from the commonality of class and racial oppression, I
see little similarity between the two. Enlighten me if you can.