What do you think?
Rate this book
The Los Angeles Riots: Lessons For The Urban Future
The Los Angeles riots in spring 1992 were among the most violent and destructive events in twentieth-century urban America. This book addresses three questions: What were the causes of the riots, what actually took place, and what are the consequences and meaning of the riots for U.S. cities? The findings presented here provide strong evidence that the existence of an inner-city "underclass," the persistence of black-white tensions in U.S. society, and the emergence of inter-ethnic hostilities in urban neighborhoods are critical to understanding the Los Angeles riots and their implications. The book is crucial to everyone's understanding of the contemporary urban environment and will be ideal as a supplementary text in urban politics, sociology, urban planning and policy courses as well as in current affairs.
255 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1994
1 person is currently reading
16 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
June 25, 2024
A SCHOLARLY LOOK AT THE 1992 RODNEY KING UPRISING
Editor Mark Baldassare wrote in his Introduction to this 1994 book, “This book represents the first, comprehensive study of the Los Angeles riots. It is an edited volume of original works by urban scholars seeking to answer these basic questions: what were the causes of the Los Angeles riots, what actually took place, and what are the consequences of the riots for Los Angeles and other U.S. cities? The authors also offer suggestions for avoiding future unrest similar in size and scope to what took place in Los Angeles, and solutions for the problems which plague U.S. cities and race relations.”
He continues, “There are three factors noted often in this book which I believe are the defining characteristics of the Los Angeles riots. First, the conditions of poor, urban blacks or the ‘underclass’ have not improved and remain a critical source for urban uprisings. Next, black-white tensions remain high, as race relations are in a troubled state due to personal and institutional racism, and can easily explode into violent episodes. Third, the combined effects of foreign immigration and economic restructuring, present in many U.S. cities in the 1990s, are leading to inter-ethnic hostilities.” (Pg. 3)
Peter A. Morrison and Ira S. Lowry note, “A first noteworthy feature of South Central Los Angeles is the abundance of young men at liberty to participate in civil disturbances… what distinguishes the young men in South Central is the large proportion who are neither in school nor employed… Demographically, South Central Los Angeles was ripe for civil disturbance: IT contained a critical mass of young males who had no regular occupation, little reason to feel bound by social rules, and the physical energy needed to stone, loot, burn, and run from the police. The jury’s exoneration of the police who beat Rodney King triggered the action.” (Pg. 35-36)
Fukurai, Krooth & Butler suggest, “In January 1990… the Supreme Court reiterated the idea that no single jury need to be an accurate representation of the community. However, for a racially sensitive trial like the King beating case in Los Angeles, racially balanced juries could have provided much stronger legitimacy in representing collective community sentiments, especially in the eyes of racial and ethnic minorities.” (Pg. 97)
Bobo, Zubrinsky, Johnson & Oliver observe, “The absolute levels of alienation among blacks are very high, especially in the Los Angeles context… It is nonetheless striking that in an area with a high level of black political empowerment locally that we find such high fractions of the black population expressing feelings of unfair treatment. Such patterns speak to the severe limitations of local black political empowerment when situated in a larger social context of racial inequality and ongoing discrimination… This rising and uniform rise in black alienation from American social institutions is the single clearest and most consistent change observed for any of the items we have examined… this rising discontent occurred among black men and women, as well as across educational and income levels.” (Pg. 116)
Petersilia and Abrahamse point out, “The main difference we observe between the two riot arrest populations is the different race-ethnic mix. A far higher fraction of those arrested in the 1992 riots were Latino than in the 1965 Watts riots. In 1965 blacks comprised nearly 94% of the arrested population; Latinos only 2%... in 1992 blacks made up a little over a third, while Latinos more than half, of the arrested population.” (Pg. 144)
Regina Freer comments, “the African American and Korean American communities… are both constrained by a lack of economic opportunities. This constraint ensures that the economically-depressed inner-city is the meeting place for these two marginal groups. The language and cultural barriers facing newly arrived Korean immigrants keeps them from pursuing economic advancement through professional careers that many of them trained for in Korea. One outlet that has proved available for Korean immigrant professionals has been to invest in small businesses in economically depressed and blighted areas such as South Central Los Angeles. Unlike those in more affluent, predominantly white areas, these businesses require a relatively moderate capital investment and very minimal expertise to run.” (Pg. 176)
She adds, “the lumping of all Asians and comparing them to all African Americans ignores different intra-group historical social and economic experiences. The insistence on making such unfair comparisons places yet another strain on relations between African Americans and Korean Americans, as both are exposed to these confining stereotypes. For blacks in particular, the comparison to a ‘model minority’ feeds animosity towards Korean Americans.” (Pg. 184-185) She also observes, “there was a heavy emphasis on the role of cultural differences and misunderstanding in the tensions. Echoing the concerns about ‘disrespectful’ merchants, individuals on both sides of the conflict pointed to ignorance of ‘American customs’ on the part of first generation Korean Americans as being a crucial piece of the conflict puzzle.” (Pg. 190)
David O. Sears notes, “blacks and Latinos were struggling for the same piece of the small, and shrinking, economic pie in South Central Los Angeles---the flight of jobs, the influx of immigrants willing to work for less, and increasing demand for shrinking public services. In this struggle, Latinos seemed to have some advantages. Absent the legacy of slavery and a century of subsequent discrimination, they were less angry and violent, and whites often tended to trust them more. And they were often willing to work for lower wages and to forego unionization.” (Pg. 243)
This book will be of great interest for those seriously studying conditions affecting the 1992 uprising.
Editor Mark Baldassare wrote in his Introduction to this 1994 book, “This book represents the first, comprehensive study of the Los Angeles riots. It is an edited volume of original works by urban scholars seeking to answer these basic questions: what were the causes of the Los Angeles riots, what actually took place, and what are the consequences of the riots for Los Angeles and other U.S. cities? The authors also offer suggestions for avoiding future unrest similar in size and scope to what took place in Los Angeles, and solutions for the problems which plague U.S. cities and race relations.”
He continues, “There are three factors noted often in this book which I believe are the defining characteristics of the Los Angeles riots. First, the conditions of poor, urban blacks or the ‘underclass’ have not improved and remain a critical source for urban uprisings. Next, black-white tensions remain high, as race relations are in a troubled state due to personal and institutional racism, and can easily explode into violent episodes. Third, the combined effects of foreign immigration and economic restructuring, present in many U.S. cities in the 1990s, are leading to inter-ethnic hostilities.” (Pg. 3)
Peter A. Morrison and Ira S. Lowry note, “A first noteworthy feature of South Central Los Angeles is the abundance of young men at liberty to participate in civil disturbances… what distinguishes the young men in South Central is the large proportion who are neither in school nor employed… Demographically, South Central Los Angeles was ripe for civil disturbance: IT contained a critical mass of young males who had no regular occupation, little reason to feel bound by social rules, and the physical energy needed to stone, loot, burn, and run from the police. The jury’s exoneration of the police who beat Rodney King triggered the action.” (Pg. 35-36)
Fukurai, Krooth & Butler suggest, “In January 1990… the Supreme Court reiterated the idea that no single jury need to be an accurate representation of the community. However, for a racially sensitive trial like the King beating case in Los Angeles, racially balanced juries could have provided much stronger legitimacy in representing collective community sentiments, especially in the eyes of racial and ethnic minorities.” (Pg. 97)
Bobo, Zubrinsky, Johnson & Oliver observe, “The absolute levels of alienation among blacks are very high, especially in the Los Angeles context… It is nonetheless striking that in an area with a high level of black political empowerment locally that we find such high fractions of the black population expressing feelings of unfair treatment. Such patterns speak to the severe limitations of local black political empowerment when situated in a larger social context of racial inequality and ongoing discrimination… This rising and uniform rise in black alienation from American social institutions is the single clearest and most consistent change observed for any of the items we have examined… this rising discontent occurred among black men and women, as well as across educational and income levels.” (Pg. 116)
Petersilia and Abrahamse point out, “The main difference we observe between the two riot arrest populations is the different race-ethnic mix. A far higher fraction of those arrested in the 1992 riots were Latino than in the 1965 Watts riots. In 1965 blacks comprised nearly 94% of the arrested population; Latinos only 2%... in 1992 blacks made up a little over a third, while Latinos more than half, of the arrested population.” (Pg. 144)
Regina Freer comments, “the African American and Korean American communities… are both constrained by a lack of economic opportunities. This constraint ensures that the economically-depressed inner-city is the meeting place for these two marginal groups. The language and cultural barriers facing newly arrived Korean immigrants keeps them from pursuing economic advancement through professional careers that many of them trained for in Korea. One outlet that has proved available for Korean immigrant professionals has been to invest in small businesses in economically depressed and blighted areas such as South Central Los Angeles. Unlike those in more affluent, predominantly white areas, these businesses require a relatively moderate capital investment and very minimal expertise to run.” (Pg. 176)
She adds, “the lumping of all Asians and comparing them to all African Americans ignores different intra-group historical social and economic experiences. The insistence on making such unfair comparisons places yet another strain on relations between African Americans and Korean Americans, as both are exposed to these confining stereotypes. For blacks in particular, the comparison to a ‘model minority’ feeds animosity towards Korean Americans.” (Pg. 184-185) She also observes, “there was a heavy emphasis on the role of cultural differences and misunderstanding in the tensions. Echoing the concerns about ‘disrespectful’ merchants, individuals on both sides of the conflict pointed to ignorance of ‘American customs’ on the part of first generation Korean Americans as being a crucial piece of the conflict puzzle.” (Pg. 190)
David O. Sears notes, “blacks and Latinos were struggling for the same piece of the small, and shrinking, economic pie in South Central Los Angeles---the flight of jobs, the influx of immigrants willing to work for less, and increasing demand for shrinking public services. In this struggle, Latinos seemed to have some advantages. Absent the legacy of slavery and a century of subsequent discrimination, they were less angry and violent, and whites often tended to trust them more. And they were often willing to work for lower wages and to forego unionization.” (Pg. 243)
This book will be of great interest for those seriously studying conditions affecting the 1992 uprising.
Displaying 1 of 1 review