Los Angeles Riots of 1965

¶ … Los Angeles Riots of 1965

The riots of Los Angeles that occurred in 1965 are some of the most memorable and significant riots because they represent generations of turmoil coupled with decades of efforts to reach peace, which seemed to no avail. One could argue that the final result of the riots was destruction and, on the surface, this might be true. However, the riots were positive in that they brought attention to one of the most difficult problems in America - the problems of the poverty-stricken their plight to rise above their circumstances. Many critics consider the riots as the result of the black power movement, an attempt for African-Americans to rediscover their "cultural roots" (Davidson 1172). Davidson observes that it is ironic how "just as the civil rights movement broke down the legal barriers to integration, the black nationalistic movement pressed for new forms of segregation, thought now based on lack pride rather than racial inferiority" (1172). Regardless of the basis, the Los Angeles riots of 1965 were the result of a "reservoir of frustration and despair" (1173) that was alive and well in the ghettos. Often, riots of this nature would stem from what was considered to b a "seemingly minor incident like an arrest or an argument" (1173). Such is the case with the Los Angeles riots, which stemmed from an arrest of a young man who failed to pass a sobriety test. The riots were the underlying symptom of something else that was going on in the community. When Martin Luther King witnessed the destruction, he had to ask the African-American community how they thought they had won when "Negroes are dead, your community is destroyed, and whites are using the riots as an excuse for inaction" (1174). While destruction was everywhere, at least now the truth was out in the open.

According to Thomas Bailey, the L.A. riots marked the "end of an era in the troubled history of the black movement - the era of civil rights campaigns, focused on the south and led by peaceable moderates like Martin Luther King" (Bailey 943). The riots in Watts marked the beginning of something different as "enraged blacks burned and looted their own neighborhoods for nearly a week" (943). Suddenly, the black movement raised "violent voice" (943), with its leadership "divided dangerously between advocates of peaceful or militant tactics" (943). In addition, "rising bitterness was highlighted by the career of Malcolm X.. who favored black separatism and condemned the 'blue-eyed white devils'" (943). There seemed to be to camps of campaigning going on - one favored peace and togetherness while the other seemed to ask for more separation from the races.

Clarence Page contends, "It is important to remember that, contrary to some of the Watts retrospectives I have seen published and broadcast, the riot that erupted from Aug. 11 to 16 in Los Angeles 40 years ago was not an isolated eruption" (Page). There can be no doubt that the riots were some of "the earliest and most spectacular of dozens of riots that erupted on urban America's streets in the mid- to late 1960s" and they brought to the forefront of America's mind the "long-overdue attention to the nation's urban racial divide, but also opened up new divides along lines of race and class from which cities are only beginning to recover" (Page). Page echoes Thomas' thought that while one problem was being tackled, another was simply taking its place. Page maintains, "A later presidential riot commission headed by former Illinois Governor Otto Kerner agreed, blaming the existence of 'two nations,' one black, one white, separate and unequal" (Page). From this perspective, we can see how differing points-of-view can become altered by experience. In addition, we can also see how individuals can become so involved with their own lives that they do not pay attention to what is going on around them. In this case, Watts was a neighborhood that was breaking under the force of a nation that was ignoring it while the urban areas of Los Angeles seemed to flourish. Two worlds that seemed to exist side by side became polarized by a single arrest and that arrest forced the country to open its eyes.

The riots brought to light all that was wrong with Watts and similar communities. What had been hidden was now revealed and, more importantly, forced the nation to deal with it. For example, Laura Wides reports, "For Ayuko Babu, founder of the Los Angeles-based Pan African Film and Arts Festival, the riots were a call to activism" (Wides). In other words, the riots were a symptom of something larger that needed to be addressed. Wides adds that President Lyndon Johnson did sign his "War on Poverty program a month later" (Wides) and a festival founded by activists, drew "politicians and stars such as James Brown and Stevie Wonder. But the violence also destroyed community ties, expediting the flight of businesses and the black middle class" (Wides). In other words, while the riots were expressing one point-of-view, they were destroying any chance for success because the riots represented a population that could not be taken too seriously because it could not temper its outbursts. In many ways, the people of the community felt as though they had no other type of recourse; they were exhausted and the riots were a last chance to be heard. On the other hand, the riots did not, on the surface, express this sentiment. Outsiders saw the riots as totally uncontrolled behavior by a group of mobsters.

In Wides' opinion, the Watts riots were seen as a "tinderbox in 1965, one of the few Los Angeles neighborhoods where blacks were allowed to live. It had high unemployment, no local hospital and the heavy presence of a mostly white police force" (Wides). Here we can see how the tension could have easily gotten out of control but it is unfair to say that it was all a mistake. Richard Carter observes:

If Watts had not happened, chances are that Blacks would have continued being misused by the overbearing white power structure in general and individual whites in particular. The sound and fury of Watts served notice to the nation that Blacks no longer were willing to turn the other cheek to race-based indignities and harassment. (Carter)

Carter sees the incident as a time that marked a time for African-Americans to "stand up and be counted" (Carter). One implication of the riots was the fact that one aspect of the community was speaking out to one that was "not accustomed to listening" (Carter). The initial outbreak of violence might have its origins in that single arrest but everyone in Watts knew that the riots were the culmination of so much more. "There's no question that Watts was a social revolution - a clear manifestation of an oppressed people tired of being called 'nigger' by white police while being brutalized. Tired of downtrodden living conditions. Tired of being last hired and first fired. Tired. After Watts, our country never would be the same" (Carter). In Carter's estimation, it was the dehumanizing aspects of society prior to the arrest that brought the anger to the surface and the arrest simply became a catalyst for the events that ensued. Charles Lowery agrees with this estimation, adding that the significance of the riots extends beyond the riots themselves. He writes, "the sudden explosion that took place in Los Angeles... remains the significant episode precisely because it was not supposed to have happened in America's paradise city" (Lowery). Lowery puts is succinctly when he states:

The oppressive quality of black life, visible in many eastern and midwestern cities by thickly compacted housing projects in deteriorating neighborhoods with poor quality schools, high unemployment, low-paying jobs and law enforcement bias, was obscured in Los Angeles by an urban horizontal spread, stuccoed houses with grass lawns, a freeway system that bypassed the section, and the state's self-image of fulfilling the American Dream. (Lowery)