Tonisha Spratte Blog #3 Riot v. Rebellion

In class on Tuesday January 29^th the same event was called two different things; a riot and a rebellion.  This made me think of what the difference between the two words is.  This, in turn, made me think of a funny, yet slightly thought provoking, clip from Its Always Sunny in Philadelphia, where Danny Devito inquires of Dee her thoughts on looting versus survival (In case the hyperlink doesn't work http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Y2BSbVpMTw), but I digress.

Riot vs. rebellion:  Are they synonyms, similar perhaps?  Or maybe on completely different ends of the spectrum.  Merriam-Webster defines it as unrestrained revelry (noisy partying or merrymaking); noise, uproar or disturbance made by revelers; public violence, tumult, or disorder; and profligate, which is self-indulging and restraint-less, behavior.  Rebellion is defined as opposition to one in authority or dominance; open, armed, and usually unsuccessful defiance of or resistance to an established government.  So, these words have some similarities and it seems to depend on the individual’s view of the reason for/goals of the uprising/calamity.  Going by the definition, a riot has no real underlying foundation, or if it does it is not political or for the benefit of the people as a whole.

Therefore, what benefit could the people of the LA “Riots” obtain or have been seeking to obtain?  One may say they just wanted to make trouble, act recklessly, and steal.  During the movie, there was a clip played where Bush said something about the LA Riots having no political bearings and is an act of profligacy.  Those aren't his exact words, but I could not for the life of me find this clip.  In response to this I ask the question, why did these riots start?  Did a bunch of black people just wake up one day and say, “Hey, I want to burn down some stores and cause a lot of ruckus for no reason.”?  I don’t think so.  The people were outraged by the ‘justice’ that was rendered when, on April 29^th 1992, the four policemen associated with the Rodney King beatings were found innocent of using ‘excessive force’ in order to subdue him.  The people felt that the judicial system let them down.  The police officers, while blatantly guilty to the public at large, were found innocent by an all white jury, or more precisely, a jury of their peers.  Even president Bush openly refuted the verdict, which, in one article I was reading the author believed that this equates to some of the blame belonging on his shoulders because the president openly criticized the verdict, weakening the belief in the system to render justice.  Read the article here (again, just in case the hyperlink didn't work http://capitalismmagazine.com/2012/04/remembering-the-1992-los-angeles-riots/.)

Don’t get me wrong, I am not trying to excuse their actions, I am merely trying to bring to the forefront the thoughts and feelings of the people at that time.  Whether it is labeled as a riot or rebellion the facts are not changed.  There was racial tension, probably bubbling up for quite some time between many different races, and a highly publicized trial that didn’t go the way the general public thought it should.  But one can ask oneself what are the reasons and underlying forces driving the LA Riots?  What were the goals and what was trying to be expressed through their actions?  Why was this the immediate reaction of the people?