U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Michigan > Detroit
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 08-07-2017, 12:43 PM
 
1,332 posts, read 2,102,729 times
Reputation: 1138

Advertisements

While it may suit some people's political narratives to characerise the 1967 riot as a rebellion or an uprising, it seems very strange to me to refer to it as anything other than a riot. I know that race relations and racial tensions are ever present in some American cities and that relations between whites and blacks have hardly been the picture of peace for some lengthy periods of time in the US, but a riot is a riot.

What, exactly, does stealing merchandise from shopkeepers have to do with rebellion? The same question could be asked of rioters who burn businesses owned by those shopkeepers to the ground. Those shopkeepers aren't agents of the state. Looting and/or torching their stores and doesn't do much, if anything, to challenge the all-powerful state. All that such actions serve to do is gut viable neighbourhoods and to deprive them the lifeblood of (legitimate) commerce, making it less likely that those businesses will return after such riots or that other legal businesses will open to take their places. It also creates ideal conditions for dysfunction to take root, with normal, law-abiding folks who have the means to do so seeking to move to places where chaos is less likely to rear its ugly head, leaving people who don't much care for peace and civility to set up shop in these now screwed-up neighbourhoods, thus ensuring that rot begins to deepen and to persist.

I liked Detroit well enough, but seeing the 1967 riot and other similar riots styled as rebellions at the beginning of the movie didn't impress me very much, and the scenes where businesses were looted and/or torched bothered me a great deal. "Burn it down" is a very curious way to sort out long-festering problems in one's own city.

 
Old 08-07-2017, 04:42 PM
 
Location: Grosse Ile Michigan
27,759 posts, read 65,567,547 times
Reputation: 32918
I did not go see it for exactly that reason. It is now the PC popular crowd thing to call it "the Uprising," or "the Detroit resistance" or even the "vehement protests." I hear it on the radio almost every day, especially NPR. It was not some noble cause, it was a bunch of thieves stealing from their neighbors and burning their local businesses down. Many or most of the victims were black themselves. Then they had the snipers randomly shooting into the crowds (apparently Black and white people both were sniping, although it is not clear to me whom the white snipers were shooting - the first several people the police shot were white snipers), or shooting at firemen trying to save people's lives. That is not uprising or protest, that is murder. While the police were apparently horrible human beings as well, trying to glorify theft, arson, and murder is sick and wrong IMO. Something certainly needed to be done, but the riots and still are. The people who accomplished something were the people who worked on convincing other there was a problem that needed correcting (MLK for example or Conyers to a much lesser extend and others). The rioters were not trying to accomplish anything and didn't accomplish anything positive, they just stole stuff and hurt people.

Not in the least bit interested in watching any kind of propaganda. A well done straight factual movie explaining the riots, what happened, who claimed what, without passing judgement, or trying to make theft arson and murder into some sort of glorious uprising, I would really like to see. I may watch it when it is on Netflix and glean whatever unbiased information might be in there, but I am not going to pay to see it.
 
Old 08-07-2017, 04:51 PM
 
Location: Michigan
4,571 posts, read 7,263,228 times
Reputation: 3605
Quote:
Originally Posted by maclock View Post
I know that race relations and racial tensions are ever present in some American cities and that relations between whites and blacks have hardly been the picture of peace for some lengthy periods of time in the US, but a riot is a riot.
So racism is tolerable but a riot isn't? Is it really that much harder to rebuild a business than it is to give minorities equal opportunities and fairness?
 
Old 08-07-2017, 04:57 PM
 
2,994 posts, read 3,145,785 times
Reputation: 2583
I saw "Detroit" and I think you guys' understanding, both of the riot and what the movie was about, are totally misguided. Instead, I think your white overactive sensitivities are showing.

First the film did not take sides on whether it was a riot, uprising, justified rebellion or whatever. Btw a number African American intellectuals and leaders from the other side, grumbled at the fact that director Kathryn Bigelow and screenwriter Mark Boal are white. However what makes Bigelow's work superior is that, while she posits to make sense of the events leading to the unfortunate situation at hand, in this case the '67 riots, her historical lens doesn't tilt one way or another in terms of righteousness or perpetrator. She made both sides look bad -- from out-of-control cops to overly violent and opportunistic rioters and looters. Aside from a few very minor missteps, primarily dealing with the use of language and terminology of the times, her history was spot on, and at the end of the moving she posted a written statement admitting that the film was based on anecdotal eye-witness accounts as well as a review of the vast newspaper and television accounts from those on the ground at the time.

But the riots were simply the backdrop. The story was really about the actions of a few rogue cops whose actions were covered up by national guardsmen during the heat of the riots. And even here, she didn't depict all Detroit cops as bad -- because a number of good-guy cops and prosecutors sought to do the right thing given the horrible situation.

I seriously suggest you go watch the film and leave your prejudices at home before you take potshots at the movie.
 
Old 08-07-2017, 09:27 PM
 
Location: Grosse Ile Michigan
27,759 posts, read 65,567,547 times
Reputation: 32918
Make you a deal. You leave your prejudice at home before you go taking pot shots at other posters you know nothing about, and I will talk to a few more people who have seen the movie before I decide not to pay to go see it. But honestly, I will probably not pay to go see it. I pay for only a very few movies each year and this one does not seem to be likely to be one of the best three or four movies of the year based on the reviews from people I respect. It may be interesting, but it is movie.

Also if you are going to use the moniker "the Prof" you probably should read more carefully so it does not look like you failed to comprehend what is written. Maclock said he or she did go see the movie. All I said was I would wait to watch it on netflix. The people I know who saw the movie and the people discussing the movie on NPR apparently saw a different message in the movie than you did. However you missed the entire point of the thread which was not so much about the movie, but about the practice of trying glorify the riots by renaming the riots uprising, or rebellion etc. The only actual connection to the movie is that Maclock said it designated the riots as "uprisings" in the beginning of the movie which you apparently did not see.

You also fail to understand that we are not discussing what the riot was "about" as a riot is not about anything. It is a bunch of people stealing, burning, and killing. You do not steal a TV set to make a point. At least other than I want a TV set but do not want to pay for one. You do not kill random strangers to make a point. Many of the rioters were just as bad, just as evil as some of the rotten policemen. That does not have an "about" to it. There certainly was a civil rights movement at the time, and the movement was "about" something. But riots are just crime. Not about anything. There is no connection between the civil rights movement and rioting. There is no justification for rioting. Rioting did not further the civil rights movement, it set it back. There is nothing good or noble or justified about stealing, burning the businesses you shop in, or beating or killing random people. Nothing. if he were still alive, Martin Luther King would be happy to explain that to you.
 
Old 08-07-2017, 10:41 PM
 
1,332 posts, read 2,102,729 times
Reputation: 1138
Quote:
Originally Posted by animatedmartian View Post
So racism is tolerable but a riot isn't? Is it really that much harder to rebuild a business than it is to give minorities equal opportunities and fairness?
Thank you very much for trying to infer something which is completely absent from my post, animatedmartian. That's very kind of you. All I had intended to suggest is that looting and/or torching businesses did nothing to improve things for Detroit and for Detroiters. If anything, the lawlessness that prevailed during those days and nights served only to accelerate the decline of the city and to ensure some of the many troubles that its residents have faced over the last 50 years or so.

If you own a business and it's looted and/or burned to the ground, would you be more likely to:

(1) rebuild and reopen it in an obviously troubled neighbourhood; or

(2) start again anew somewhere where that kind of thing is less likely to happen?

(This assumes that you don't walk away from running your own business in the end.)

And if you are a shopkeeper or other legitimate businessman who didn't own a shop or a business that suffered such a fate in that kind of riot, would you rush to set up shop in a neighbourhood where previous shops and businesses had so suffered? I know that threads perceived to be racially motivated tend to derail pretty quickly on this forum, but these are legitimate questions to ask. Looting businesses is bad enough, but burning down one's own neighbourhood -- particularly the premises of non-state actors -- strikes me as being more than a bit odd.

Last edited by maclock; 08-07-2017 at 11:00 PM.. Reason: Clarification.
 
Old 08-08-2017, 01:17 AM
 
Location: No Coordinates Found
1,235 posts, read 521,364 times
Reputation: 783
https://legaldictionary.net/anarchy/

This may help put this movie in its proper context.
 
Old 08-08-2017, 10:09 AM
 
2,994 posts, read 3,145,785 times
Reputation: 2583
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coldjensens View Post
Make you a deal. You leave your prejudice at home before you go taking pot shots at other posters you know nothing about, and I will talk to a few more people who have seen the movie before I decide not to pay to go see it. But honestly, I will probably not pay to go see it. I pay for only a very few movies each year and this one does not seem to be likely to be one of the best three or four movies of the year based on the reviews from people I respect. It may be interesting, but it is movie.

Also if you are going to use the moniker "the Prof" you probably should read more carefully so it does not look like you failed to comprehend what is written. Maclock said he or she did go see the movie. All I said was I would wait to watch it on netflix. The people I know who saw the movie and the people discussing the movie on NPR apparently saw a different message in the movie than you did. However you missed the entire point of the thread which was not so much about the movie, but about the practice of trying glorify the riots by renaming the riots uprising, or rebellion etc. The only actual connection to the movie is that Maclock said it designated the riots as "uprisings" in the beginning of the movie which you apparently did not see.

You also fail to understand that we are not discussing what the riot was "about" as a riot is not about anything. It is a bunch of people stealing, burning, and killing. You do not steal a TV set to make a point. At least other than I want a TV set but do not want to pay for one. You do not kill random strangers to make a point. Many of the rioters were just as bad, just as evil as some of the rotten policemen. That does not have an "about" to it. There certainly was a civil rights movement at the time, and the movement was "about" something. But riots are just crime. Not about anything. There is no connection between the civil rights movement and rioting. There is no justification for rioting. Rioting did not further the civil rights movement, it set it back. There is nothing good or noble or justified about stealing, burning the businesses you shop in, or beating or killing random people. Nothing. if he were still alive, Martin Luther King would be happy to explain that to you.
I wasn't talking about Maclock, I was talking about you, who proudly stated you weren't going to see the movie by professing it was to know what its allegedly trying to say -- or something like that; it wasn't really clear what you were saying. The movie said nothing positive about rioting, which isn't positive in itself. However to ignore the forces that led to the rioting, like red-lining, slum lords collecting rent for rat-infested tenements and, of course, the ubiquitous race-based police brutality (which is still happening today, even on cellphone/video, and still getting away with it with no jail time and even, in many cases, backpay), one can understand why some human beings living under those terrible conditions, just might explode...

...also thanks for the personal shots. Must of struck a nerve too close to home.... very Trumpian of you.
 
Old 08-08-2017, 10:12 AM
 
2,369 posts, read 1,448,328 times
Reputation: 4653
the further perpetuation of white guilt...not for me nah thanks
 
Old 08-08-2017, 12:34 PM
 
Location: Grosse Ile Michigan
27,759 posts, read 65,567,547 times
Reputation: 32918
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheProf View Post
I wasn't talking about Maclock, I was talking about you, who proudly stated you weren't going to see the movie by professing it was to know what its allegedly trying to say -- or something like that; it wasn't really clear what you were saying. The movie said nothing positive about rioting, which isn't positive in itself. However to ignore the forces that led to the rioting, like red-lining, slum lords collecting rent for rat-infested tenements and, of course, the ubiquitous race-based police brutality (which is still happening today, even on cellphone/video, and still getting away with it with no jail time and even, in many cases, backpay), one can understand why some human beings living under those terrible conditions, just might explode...

...also thanks for the personal shots. Must of struck a nerve too close to home.... very Trumpian of you.
Nope, not what I said. I think your prejudices are blinding you to the words that are there. You are seeing what you expect to see due to preconceived notions of how evil all white people are, not what is there. Try reading five more times. You will eventually get it.

Professor of what? Please tell me it is not some area of LS& A
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Michigan > Detroit
View detailed profiles of:
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2020, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top