At 09:55 AM 6/20/97 -0700, you wrote:
>On Fri, 20 Jun 1997, Robert G Goodby wrote:
>
>> Bill Bartlett wrote:
>>
>>
>> This would suggest that the main difference was merely one of tactics. The
>> tactics of the alienated working class youth of LA were to simply take
>> what they wanted and hit their enemies where it hurts most, their
>> property.
>> Organisation styles differ, but that is to be expected in view of the
>> comparatively stronger forces ranged against the youth of LA, particularly
>> when we take into account Chomsky's point that the Chiapas rebels have
>> massive public support that tempers the state's response.
>>
>> I have no way to judge who is right but it certainly appears that Chomsky
>> is wrong to say that the youth of LA don't have social bonds, goals or
>> hopes.
>
>> 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.
>
Worldman, While I can appreciate your class-conscious analysis of the
implications of the Reginald Denny attack, to many, including the "brothers"
involved, it appeared that Reggie, like Rodney, might be on crack, or some
other restricted and dangerous drug, those "types" are known to use; riding
through the middle of the gheeettoe, extending his middle finger in a lewd
and lascivious fashion. The vehicle, a potential deadly weapon, was in the
hands of a possible 3rd, or 4th-strike felon. The "brothers" were only
trying to restrain him, until other elements of community discipline could
be summoned. They naturally and obviously feared for their health, safety,
and their very lives, and had to use appropriate measures to restrain and
subdue him - for his own safety, of course. The one young man went through
Mr. Denny's pockets, seeking proper identification, so as to aid the
investigation of the constabulary, once they had arrived, and then
immediately went off in search of a phone. . . So said Mr. Khallid Abdul
Muhammad! Why would he lie, about such a thing?
   So, you see - they were only (unselfishly) trying to do their civic duty.
Why, this whole episode is only the product of a gross and unfortunate
cultural misunderstanding!! I simply can't understand what all the confusion
and anger is about.

>> 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 nare 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.
>>
Now, It could be just me, or another cultural misunderstanding, BUT, if that
doesn't sound like the purpose of the US International Armed Forces and the
domestic police forces, I don't know what does.

>  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.
>
>Don't believe the hype!
>

Yo, Mike - this is the hype.




The GOOD
Dr. Crow
http://www.angelfire.com/sc/doctorcrow/index.html
Iss a BLACK thang.