Were the 1992 Los Angeles Riots Effective?

In last week's blog post, I discussed the case that incited the Los Angeles Riots in 1992 and the riots themselves. These riots caused a lot of damage to the city and gained a lot of traction throughout the states. It was a well-known case both in the United States and outside of it. However, there was no real change within the country, state, or city following this demonstration. Throughout this situation, multiple cases of racism within the Los Angeles Police Department came to light, but even with all of that evidence, no changes were made even within the LAPD.


It did come as a surprise that no changes happened immediately after this situation. These demonstrations fit into the category of what makes an effective protest. Some key points that make for a protest that will have a lasting impact include a salient demonstration and uniting several causes under one main concern, which this protest did (Resnick). Additionally, the demonstrations lasted five days, which definitely would've caught the attention of many news outlets and government officials.


So why didn't it lead to any immediate change? According to an article published in The Harvard Gazette, research has shown that nonviolent demonstrations are more effective in bringing about change (Nicholasen). The Los Angeles Riots were far from nonviolent with protestors smashing and burning buildings and beating other civilians. 
The L.A. Riots 25 Years Later: A Return to the Epicenter - The New York  Times
Due to the mass destruction that the riots brought, it is likely that authorities were not inclined to take protestors seriously as they may have been presumed to be acting out of anger. Furthermore, South Central’s population is predominantly Hispanic and Black, and so were the people participating in these demonstrations. With racism spread throughout the government, the media, and the United State’s population, it is likely that these demonstrations were discredited under those same racist ideals.


Comments

  1. I agree with the fact that violent protests can be less effective as it diminishes their credibility (don't take them serious, think they are overly emotional). What non-aggressive tactics do you think would have worked? Perhaps having rallies where they give speeches and address those in power? - Irene

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think the fact that it didn't work because it was nonviolent is an interesting take. Once again, if this is the essay you're choosing to revise, I would maybe add further evidence and analysis on why violent protests are less effective than non violent protests. - Safira

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A Retrospective

The 1992 Los Angeles Riots