History

Birth of the Victory Riot

December 05, 2012

Multiple Pages
Birth of the Victory Riot

The great mystery of my lifetime has been the 1960s. It’s worth returning to this vast subject periodically as new perspectives unveil themselves.

The closest thing to a successful prophecy of that era was made by science-fiction writer Robert A. Heinlein in his 1941 Future History chart, in which he foresaw the coming “Crazy Years” when there would be a “gradual deterioration of mores, orientation and social institutions, terminating in mass psychoses….” (By the late 60s, hippies were so drug-addled that they made Heinlein’s self-indulgent 1961 book Stranger in a Strange Land into a cult novel.)

I’ve argued that the hippie movement had much to do with the collision between traditional Northern European (especially German) counterculture (nudism, hiking, health food, folk music, and so forth) and California sunshine. Europeans had always had their Rites of Spring, but in California they encountered perpetual spring, with discombobulating effects.

Indeed, back when he prophesied the Crazy Years in 1941, Heinlein, a representative German-American officer/engineer/nudist, was living in Hollywood near Laurel Canyon, the epicenter of the Nature Boy proto-hippies.

Another potential cause of the 60s is lead poisoning from gasoline or paint. Kevin Drum has an upcoming article in Mother Jones arguing that the rise of crime and illegitimacy in that era resulted from increasing levels of lead in the environment, which lowers IQ and impulse control. (He previews some of his evidence here.)

Back in 2007, I explored the question in a long blog post entitled Lead Poisoning and the Great 1960s Freakout but didn’t come to much of a conclusion. My evidence was stronger than for the popular Freakonomics theory that abortion reduced crime, but it was still kind of a mess at that point. Perhaps better data has emerged since then.

“Victory Riots are similar to the orgies of pillage and rape that conquering armies notoriously engaged in after a long siege of a city.”

Still, it’s going to be difficult to make the lead-poisoning idea fit the American consensus that the 60s didn’t start until JFK was assassinated on 11/22/63 and that the country changed rapidly in 1964-65.

One counterintuitive reason for the tumult of the mid-to-late 60s was the evaporation of the long-simmering Protestant-Catholic divide which had provided a stable multigenerational anchor for social tensions.

The instant enshrinement of the martyred Catholic president in the pantheon of American heroes did much to mollify Catholic resentments over being considered fringe Americans. (Back then, being thought a normal American was praise, not denigration.) Meanwhile, the enthusiastic adoption by Catholic women of oral contraceptives (which the FDA approved in 1960) reassured Protestants that they weren’t going to lose the War of the Cradle to the Vatican.

In turn, this closure of the biggest fissure in the white majority opened a space for the Generation Gap. People need divisions around which to organize themselves, and in that mostly racially homogeneous era, age differences briefly became central. (In more diverse cultures, such as 21st-century America, people cleave more to their kin.)

Of course, one racial gap was crucial to the story of the 60s. The assassination of the domestically cautious JFK put the ambitious LBJ into power with a mandate to push through civil rights and welfare programs to punish the right-wing racists who had murdered Kennedy. Chief Justice Earl Warren expressed the hopes and dreams of the Establishment when he declaimed on 11/22/63, “A great and good President has suffered martyrdom as a result of the hatred and bitterness that has [sic] been injected into the life of our nation by bigots….”

It turned out that JFK had been murdered by a communist whose father-in-law was a KGB officer. When Jackie Kennedy learned the unwelcome truth, she lamented, “He didn’t even have the satisfaction of being killed for civil rights. It had to be some silly little communist. It robs his death of any meaning.”

But that wasn’t a popular realization, so everybody who was anybody mostly ignored Lee Harvey Oswald and went on acting as if it had been Strom Thurmond up in the Texas Book Depository with the mail-order rifle.

President Johnson announced his Great Society in May 1964 and signed the Civil Rights Act in July. The era’s first black riot followed a couple of weeks later. LBJ won by a landslide in November, and vast riots ensued in Watts in 1965 and Detroit in 1967. Rates of homicide and illegitimacy turned upward, too.

What caused African Americans in the 1960s to respond to their historic triumphs with looting and mugging?

The usual explanations don’t seem to work. The economy was booming throughout these years. The Vietnam War was becoming a disaster in 1965, but it’s not clear that Americans yet much noticed. For example, the first major battle, in the Ia Drang Valley (depicted in the Mel Gibson movie We Were Soldiers), was not fought until months after the Watts Riot.

The more I’ve dwelled on the timeline, the more it seems that the black liberation of the first half of the 60s was greeted in the decade’s second half by something like the Victory Riots that follow sports championships. Since roughly the Detroit Pistons’ NBA championship in 1990, we’ve become familiar with the phenomenon of a Victory Riot, in which a team’s fans run amok.

There has been an occasional Defeat Riot, such as in Vancouver last year after the Canucks lost the Stanley Cup, but it is usually a product of high expectations.

Similarly, black riots protesting police abuse don’t happen when the cops have the upper hand. They tend to occur in liberal times and places: not George Wallace’s Montgomery, but Pat Brown’s Watts or George Romney’s Detroit. There were three lethal riots in 1980s Miami during the Cuban takeover, all triggered by incidents involving Hispanic policemen. The Rodney King conflagration in Los Angeles followed a year of the media vilifying the LAPD.

Victory Riots are similar to the orgies of pillage and rape that conquering armies notoriously engaged in after a long siege of a city.

Much the same applies to street crime. As the feminists have argued, rape is a peculiarly political offense.

Note the role that black-on-white rape played in the rise of white feminism. Susan Brownmiller, author of the influential book Against Our Will, sensibly explained to People in 1975 that she had started out with the misconceptions

of anyone growing up in the liberal New York City milieu. To me, rape was a screaming vindictive white woman and a framed black man.…But there is a definite rise in the percentage of interracial rape.…I think writers like Eldridge Cleaver and Franz Fanon, who tried to give rape an ideological justification, didn’t help. They tried to justify interracial rape as some sort of political act. It’s typical of the left to make a convicted rapist a hero.

There were similar outbreaks of rape following black liberations in South Africa in the 1990s and in the American South during Reconstruction. See Gone With the Wind and The Birth of a Nation for what Americans remembered of life in the defeated South. The events aren’t all that different from Nobel Laureate J. M. Coetzee’s 1999 novel Disgrace about the gang rape of an Afrikaner professor’s lesbian daughter. In war, the victors rape the losers’ women.

Image of JFK courtesy of Shutterstock

SUBSCRIBE
For Email Updates


Comments


The opinions of our commenters do not necessarily represent the opinions of Taki's Magazine or its contributors.