!967 Detroit Riots, 40th Anniversary (Dexter: houses, unemployment, neighborhood)

[reconmark]

The Detroit Free Press has revisited the question of what sparked the riot ans it's effect on Detroit and the surrounding area.
Many people claim that the Riot was the one or one of the most precipitating factor in our inabilities to get along as city/suburb, black/white, etc.
In my previous post I have listed mant factors Prior to 1967 that contributed to the state of affairs that we witness today.
At the time of the riots I lived on Boston just four houses west of Dexter ave, I still remember the tanks rolling down Dexter, they May have been APCs I was quite young and thet seemed like tanks to me.
I remember smelling the fires, my mother telling us to stay on the floor and not to go outside.
We lived in a four family flat and I recall the other families coming in with the stories of what was happening on the streets.
I remember Dexter before and after the riots, but I really didn't comprehend the effects of the event.
Anyway here's a link to the news article, please read it and let me hear your views.
To white and black posters who have lived here please take this article as a step to try to see the opposing side of the event and use this as a way to dialogue not bash, let's talk.

BILL MCGRAW: Today's Detroit has little to do with 1967

The sights and sounds were unforgettable

[elmoslg]

thanks for the link, we have taken on the task of being 'tourists' in our hometown this sumer since it is too expensive to drive around the corner. we have learned so much about the city and surrounding areas, how they were founded and such. the riots was a subject brought up my 12yo after she saw a special on PBS. this will be a great link to share with her.

as for the riots being the catalyst (or on of many) for racial disharmony - i can say that i think it played a part. i was not born until 8 yrs after the events but i have watched the decline and now rebirth of the city.

i think it is important to revisit history and remember what happened. how else can we learn from it? but most important is to actually see what is going on downtown now. whites and others are moving back, blacks and others are moving out. to say that the metro area is 100% integrated is inaccurate now, but it is getting better every day. people still have their comfort zones of who they want living next to them and that will always be there.

again, thank you for the link. it is very informational.

[and the]

Detroit "race riot" was in 1943. Detroit's "throw a brick through a window and take what you want riot" was in 1967. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

[reconmark]

Originally Posted by and the

Detroit "race riot" was in 1943. Detroit's "throw a brick through a window and take what you want riot" was in 1967. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

Don't quite get what you are saying, could you clear on what you are saying?

[RedWingsFan]

Originally Posted by and the

Detroit "race riot" was in 1943. Detroit's "throw a brick through a window and take what you want riot" was in 1967. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

I feel you!

Sometimes people are just looking for an excuse to loot. Sad, but true.

[elmoslg]

Originally Posted by and the

Detroit "race riot" was in 1943. Detroit's "throw a brick through a window and take what you want riot" was in 1967. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

The 1943 Detroit race riots

The American Experience | Eleanor Roosevelt | People & Events | Detroit Race Riots 1943

Faces of Detroit: Crisis: 1943 Riot

not being familiar with what you mentioned, i did some searching and came up with the following links. it was interesting to learn more about this. i was born in 75 so i was not around for either and the 43 riots don't get touched on in high school at all. thanks for bringing them up. it shows that there was strife in detroit long before 67 and the road to recovery is a long one with bumps.

[and the]

Don't quite get what you are saying, could you clear on what you are saying?

The 1967 riot was a riot. "Rebellion" is just revisionist history. Detroit's riot of 1967 would have happened in 1966 if it wasn't for thundershowers during the "Kercheval Incident". There was also a mini riot on Livernois around that time after a bar owner shot a car thief.

As usual the Detroit media is full of crap. Of all the people who were around during the riot, they were getting quotes from people who are 45 years old now. That would make them 5 years old at the time of the riot and they're pontificating like they remembered it as if it happened yesterday. Typical nonsense.

[reconmark]

Originally Posted by and the

The 1967 riot was a riot. "Rebellion" is just revisionist history. Detroit's riot of 1967 would have happened in 1966 if it wasn't for thundershowers during the "Kercheval Incident". There was also a mini riot on Livernois around that time after a bar owner shot a car thief.

As usual the Detroit media is full of crap. Of all the people who were around during the riot, they were getting quotes from people who are 45 years old now. That would make them 5 years old at the time of the riot and they're pontificating like they remembered it as if it happened yesterday. Typical nonsense.

Not to state your opinion for you, are you saying that the numbers, facts, and figures are incorrect, false, or revisionist because they dispute the notion of the "only because of black people" mantra.
Do you say that this area was a utopia for ALL citizens both black and white, and the blacks just went berserk for no reason.
I understand that the area may have been utopia for some, but I believe no society has real peace or harmony when one group makes the existence
of another group unbearable.
Do you dispute that black and white looted?
What do you believe lead to the incident and what of the areas of the city that were already is disrepair.
You seem to be pretty dismissive of any facts that dispute the story that has circulated foe decades, the one that simply says blacks moved in started a riot and destroyed everything. No other issues or trends contributed to their actions or the actions of whites.
Again, if all you can do is post derogative comments, please don't post them.
(Not to you personally, but to anyone that replies.)

[and the]

I don't know what you're talking about. Other than saying that the 1943 riot was a race riot, I didn't bring race into this at all, you did.

I merely stated that the 1967 riot was about taking the opportunity to STEAL things and not about race.

What do you believe lead to the incident and what of the areas of the city that were already is disrepair.

What lead to that incident was a hot summer night, lots of people on the street and a raid on a blind pig. After a few windows were smashed, it was every man for himself.

You seem to be pretty dismissive of any facts that dispute the story that has circulated foe decades, the one that simply says blacks moved in started a riot and destroyed everything. No other issues or trends contributed to their actions or the actions of whites.

What facts am I being dismissive of? You may be able to rationalize burning down your own neighborhood because you're upset about brutal police and unemployment. I can't.

[jumpygh]

Originally Posted by reconmark

Not to state your opinion for you, are you saying that the numbers, facts, and figures are incorrect, false, or revisionist because they dispute the notion of the "only because of black people" mantra.
Do you say that this area was a utopia for ALL citizens both black and white, and the blacks just went berserk for no reason.
I understand that the area may have been utopia for some, but I believe no society has real peace or harmony when one group makes the existence
of another group unbearable.
Do you dispute that black and white looted?

Are you saying that whites made "the existence of another group (blacks) unbearable"? If so, then by your logic only blacks should have been looting, but then you go on to imply that both blacks and whites looted. Isn't there a contradiction?

If whites were rioting, too, then it seems impossible to say this was a black response to white repression. It simply becomes incoherent at that point.