Riots have caused mass bloodshed and casualties in the world we live in. However, in spite of its sheer brutality, riots have motivated people to make some sort of beneficial progress. We see this throughout the centuries of history in our readings this week. Anbinder, in his tome Five Points, discusses the prominent conflicts between gangs competing politically for power and over territory, more so than they did for racial reasons (specifically Irish boundaries). After the Metropolitan Police Act of 1856 was established and replaced city-appointed officers with state-appointed ones, people translated the move as a nativist plot against the Irish, and the Democrats initiated retaliation. During the Bowery Boy Riot, the outraged Five Pointers attacked any policeman they could find, resulting in carnage more violent that the Astor Place Riot of 1849. It was an event so involved, that “observing the conflict was almost as dangerous as participating in it” (Anbinder 288). Soon, however, the area once again began to prosper politically, and leaders once rivals reached truces.
This motivation for development through rioting is also seen during the late 1960’s, as Pritchett notes in his work Brownsville, Brooklyn. Racial tensions were running high at the time, and so were poverty levels. In fact, conditions in Brownsville in the late 20th century were much like the ones in Five Points during the mid 1800’s; there was rampant crime and poor sanitation. More and more riots sparked due to racial confrontations rather than political differences. President Lyndon Johnson hoped to battle such riots with an antipoverty bill during his “War on Poverty”. Groups such as the Brownsville Community Center (BCC) flourished with success in bringing better education, job training/opportunity, and businesses to the area.
However, because they still did not feel entirely included in the reformation, blacks generated “Black Power”; this move was to motivate fellow minorities to put local people in charge of public services. Thus, the BCC featured resident empowerment, and this social and political maturation led to the creation of Ocean Hill-Brownsville School Demonstration Project. As part of resident empowerment, the neighborhood wished to better the unfavorable conditions of public schools by increasing community control. They wanted to rid of racial segregation, but many times, others would retaliate against integration with violence. Brownsville soon changed its approach to the situation: “In 1960, they had argued that integration would bring about better schools; by 1965, they advocated better schools as a means to integration” (Pritchett 228). The Ocean Hill-Brownsville district community implemented a community-oriented school program, which involved more parents in education. However, riots soon burst when teachers felt that the governing board was ignoring their community-focused goals. Teachers went on strike, and were soon publically humiliated and attacked for doing so. Overtime, better compromises were made.
To answer Susan’s question, I do not think the blacks should have been separated from the others in order to provide them with a “better” education. Although intended to fight racism and poverty this way, singling out students by the color of their skin IS RACIST ITSELF! If they wanted to improve educational opportunities for all the students, I believe that they should have had classes on tolerance of other cultures, including introductions to diverse backgrounds in order to promote better awareness and understanding.
I agree with Jessica about the Sciorra and Reider articles supplementing personal information where Pritchett left absent. They show that with passing time, riots have more to do with race than anything else. But, again, these restless times brought about change later on. Sciorra writes that such instances “engendered an examination of conscience and values… in ways that simply did not exist before” (209). This could be applied to both articles, which deal with extreme racism and violence against African Americans in the late 20th century (which, may I remind you, was not too long ago). Hopefully, with time, people will learn how to express their sentiments and compromises with peaceful words more than they do with violent actions, in order to achieve what they wish to see in the world.
