The Case for Reclamation Understanding Looting and Rioting as Tactics of Revolutionary Protest - Report

The Case for Reclamation: Understanding Looting and Rioting as Tactics of Revolutionary Protest A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for graduation with Honors in Politics. . ________________________ ii Table of Contents Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................ iv Abstract ............................................................................................................................... v Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1 Processes of Language Reclamation ............................................................................... 5 “Loot” and “Riot”: Analyzing Etymologies and Interpretations .................................... 8 “Loot” and “Riot”: Processes of Criminalization and Racialization ................................ 13 The Tulsa Riot of 1921 ................................................................................................. 15 The Watts Riots of 1965 ............................................................................................... 19 Implications for the terms “Loot” and “Riot” ............................................................... 24 The Revolutionary Potential of Looting and Rioting ....................................................... 26 The Tulsa Riot of 1921 ................................................................................................. 27 The Watts Riots of 1965 ............................................................................................... 29 Looting and Rioting as Agents for Revolutionary Change........................................... 34 Reclaiming and Redefining The Terms “Loot” and “Riot” .............................................. 35 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 38 Bibliography ..................................................................................................................... 41 iii iv Abstract Looting and rioting are two contentious elements of protest that have appeared throughout movements for racial justice in the United States. These two strategies have often been dismissed by both onlookers and movement organizers as unlawful, violent forms of protest that fail to accomplish the goals of the movements they occur in. Demystifying the processes of racialization and criminalization that have occurred to the terms “loot” and “riot” through an analysis of the Tulsa Riot of 1921 and the Watts Riots of 1965, I argue that looting and rioting are radical strategies with revolutionary potential when employed by Black bodies in movements for racial justice. In redefining the terms “loot” and “riot,” this thesis seeks to redefine such tactics as forms of revolutionary protest because they strike at the heart of the racist and oppressive economic and civil structures that make up the legal formation of the United States. v Introduction On the night of May 25, 2020, Minneapolis Police were summoned to Cup Foods, a South Minneapolis convenience store, over claims that a man had attempted to use a counterfeit $20 bill to purchase cigarettes. The man in question was 46-year-old George Floyd, who, just seventeen minutes after the first police car arrived, was unconscious, his neck pinned under the knee of a white police officer.1 Derek Chauvin, the police officer most visibly kneeling on the neck of George Floyd, remained there for nine minutes and twenty-nine seconds, a full minute and twenty-three seconds after Floyd had already become unconscious.2 The death of George Floyd and the actions of the four Minneapolis police officers, as well as the recent fatal shootings of Breonna Taylor, Elijah McClain, and Ahmaud Arbery, sent shockwaves throughout the United States, triggering widespread and often violent protests in all 50 states. Governors of 23 states and Washington, D.C. activated the National Guard in response to these demonstrations. Many of these protests began peacefully and later became violent, often after encounters between protestors and police.3 As unrest spread across cities, news media outlets, elected officials, and organizers described the turn to violence as unfortunate, unlawful, and counter to the goals of the Black Lives Matter movement. On May 29th, in reference to the demonstrators, President Trump tweeted, ...These THUGS are dishonoring the memory of George Floyd, and I won’t let that happen. Just spoke to Governor Tim Walz and told him the Military is with 1 Hill et al., “How George Floyd Was Killed in Police Custody.” Bogel-Burroughs, “Prosecutors Say Derek Chauvin Knelt on George Floyd for 9 Minutes 29 Seconds, Longer than Initially Reported.” 3 CNN, “There Are as Many National Guard Members Activated in the US as There Are Active Duty Troops in Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan.” 2 him all the way. Any difficulty and we will assume control, but, when the looting starts, the shooting starts. Thank you!4 President Trump’s chilling threat that “when the looting starts, the shooting starts,” echoes the tone of the United States government and police apparatus throughout history when responding to instances of looting and rioting in social protest. His use of the word “thugs” to classify demonstrators, many of whom were Black, has specific racial overtones.5 Just as the term “thug'' becomes racialized, so too do the perceived actions that “thugs” take part in: precipitating unrest across cities, destroying neighborhoods and stores, and engaging in acts of violence with police. 6 Whether or not “thugs” engage in these actions is not the point - the word serves to create connotations of violence, destruction, and disregard for what is known as law and order. Similar to the term “thug,” the terms “loot” and “riot” carry specific racial and criminal associations. Protests in response to racial injustice have been occurring since before the United States was a fully-fledged country, as enslaved people fled from plantations and revolted against enslavers. Vicky Osterweil, author of In Defense of Looting, argues that often, enslaved people running away in order to find freedom was an act of “looting themselves” out of slavery: as enslaved people were property, their flight from plantations was an act of looting.7 From the very beginning, looting has held racial 4 Donald Trump, Twitter post, May 29, 2020, 12:53am. Columbia University Professor of English John McWorter argues that today, the word thug “is a nominally polite way of using the N-word.” Although the word historically had a meaning similar to “ruffian,” its bifurcated nature gives it two different meanings, depending on the cultural context. When used by Black people, the rise of thug imagery in rap and hip-hop music has combined to create an individual who is “part ruffian and part hero,” or one who “displays a kind of resilience in the face of racism”. However, when white people use it, they are specifically talking about violent troublemakers who are raced as Black. Thus, “thug” becomes an overtly racialized term, especially when used to describe protestors engaged in struggles for racial justice. 6 Block, “The Racially Charged Meaning Behind The Word ‘Thug.’” 7 Osterweil, In Defense of Looting, 2020, 47. 5 2 overtones, linking the looting of property – an action perceived as criminal – to Black bodies. The word “riot,” too, is often linked to unlawful protest and violent Blackness.8 Often, protests that turn into “riots” include acts of property theft and destruction characterized as “looting,” pointing to the intertwined nature of these two terms. “Riot” implies active, violent disturbance: when used to describe contemporary protest, it often marks protest as both Black and unlawful. These terms represent actions and characteristics of violent protest that are often denigrated by onlookers and even organizers of movements for racial justice as being too violent, unlawful, and morally wrong.9 Under the surface, connotations of looting and rioting as actions undertaken by Black individuals color the legitimacy of such strategies. Looting and rioting appear dangerous and criminal, further giving pause to onlookers and organizers when riotous actions or instances of looting crop up in protest. However, there is factual basis for the argument that riots work: whether in garnering nation-wide media attention to injustice, kickstarting policy processes, or increasing community organizing, widespread violent protest classified as “riot” has often created tangible change.10 Despite the historically constructed racialization and criminalization of looting and rioting, I argue that looting and rioting precipitated by historically marginalized, Black individuals against a white supremacist state are radical, strategic responses to 8 Although myriad historical examples point to Black violent protest marked as “riots,” I acknowledge that instances of violent protest involving white bodies have also been historically labeled as riots, including protests by Communist and Anarchist groups, student movements, and labor movements. As I lay out in the following section, the definition of the term “riot” is race-neutral on its face, and can therefore be applied to many instances of violent protest enacted against the state or the state’s power systems. In this thesis, I seek not to delegitimize or discount the riotous protest of multiracial or white protesters against the state, but rather to provide a perspective on the unique and radical power of riotous protest enacted by Black bodies during movements for racial justice. 9 Wood, “The Pinnacle of Looting Apologia.” 10 George, “Riots Work.” 3 ongoing and historic oppression, rather than evidence of lawlessness and disorganization in movements for racial justice. In demystifying the racial and criminal connotations of the terms “loot” and “riot” through an examination of historical examples of social protest, the revolutionary potential of looting and rioting as tactics for profound change are unveiled. Twin practices of racializing the terms “loot” and “riot” prompt the following questions: Is there value in reclaiming the terms “loot” and “riot” as legitimate, radical forms of protest by those who have historically been marginalized and subordinated by such racialized, pejorative connotations? Who - if anybody - has the ability or power to begin the process of reclamation for the terms “loot” and “riot”? Are the terms “loot” and “riot” able to be reclaimed, and what would be the principal aim of reclaiming them? Further, would reclamation include an acceptance and reshaping of these words as deracialized and still legitimate forms of protest, or should reclamation claim these actions as inherently Black - and therefore powerful - forms of resistance against racism and the state?11 Through a process of evaluating the potential for reclamation of the words “loot” and “riot,” I argue that their racialized nature and coding as actions undertaken by Black bodies is key to giving them revolutionary power in the fight against systemic racial injustice perpetuated by the state. In order to do this, I engage with two specific historical events of protest known for instances of looting and rioting, the Tulsa Riot of 1921 and 11 Additionally, I question: How does my position of political and social privilege as a white woman qualify or disqualify me to participate in this discourse? To this, I would answer: white people everywhere have an obligation to support and amplify the voices and demands of movements for Black liberation. This thesis, which is but a small contribution to an already existing body of literature on social protest, is one such way in which I argue for the reassessment of how public memory defines and chooses to legitimize – or dismiss – elements of the Black liberatory struggle. 4 the Watts Riots of 1965. Although Tulsa and Watts are only two examples of many in a rich, complicated history of the Black freedom struggle, these two protests offer a unique view into the historical racialization and criminalization of looting and rioting. Through the examples of Tulsa and Watts, I argue that looting and rioting have historically been dismissed as violent, unlawful forms of protest. Violence is often classified as either falling within the jurisdiction of the law (lawful) or subverting the law (lawless).12 While this classification of violence as either lawful or lawless can be helpful in understanding the various reactions to instances of looting and rioting, this frame creates a false dichotomy that penalizes the protest of Black bodies against the state. Therefore, it is in the rejection of this frame that I return to the examples of Tulsa and Watts, arguing that, when enacted in movements for racial justice, looting and rioting are tactics with great revolutionary potential. Following that section, I offer an expanded - and reclaimed definition of the terms “loot” and “riot,” and consider impacts of their reclamation. Processes of Language Reclamation Language reclamation is the act of redefining a pejorative word, usually by a particular group of individuals who have previously been oppressed by its use, so that it may be brought back into acceptable use.13 Generally, this act of reclamation is viewed as a form of resistance by the marginalized group, as they reframe the word in order to give positive power to what was once derogatory. Many common words today have since been 12 Golub, “Remembering Massive Resistance to School Desegregation”; Race, Riot, Rebellion: Rethinking “Rule of Law” in Times of Mass Protest.; Jackson, “Introduction: Politicization, Lawlessness, and AntiConstitutional Times.” 13 Coles, “The Exorcism of Language.” 5 reclaimed by marginalized groups, including identifiers of different religious groups (Quaker, Pagan, and Protestant); of cultural or ethnic groups (Black, Indian); and words used to mark sexual orientation (dyke, queer, and gay).14 While not all of these words have been fully reclaimed or are considered acceptable for individuals who do not fit within those groups to use, the act of reclamation is an assertion of political and social power within historically marginalized groups. Historically oppressed groups often use reclamation to “claim the right of selfdefinition” - in other words, reassuming the ability to write their own stories from colonizers.15 For this reason, this thesis is limited in understanding and reclaiming looting and rioting as they follow and inform social movements for racial justice. While I acknowledge that instances of violence often marked as looting and rioting do occur outside of the realm of social protest - by sports fans after their team has won a championship, for example - I argue that the revolutionary potential of such actions is realized when looting and rioting are a direct response by historically marginalized bodies to a colonial, oppressive, white-supremacist state. In this sense, it is possible to argue that instances of protest classified as “looting” and “rioting” when enacted by bodies who are marginalized but not Black are similarly revolutionary. Moments of protest in movements for gay liberation or labor rights, among others, which also utilized tactics of rioting and looting, can and should be considered revolutionary under this framework. However, due to the historical racialization of looting and rioting as criminal actions undertaken by primarily Black individuals, looting 14 15 Coles, 425. Coles, 426. 6 and rioting take on an explicitly revolutionary quality when enacted by Black people. The fact that the verbs “loot” and “riot” have been deployed as derogatory names for tactics associated with Black protesters, historically working to tarnish movements which have included them, only makes their revolutionary potential stronger when employed by Black protesters against an oppressive, white supremacist state. Further, the collapsing of riotous actions and property theft or destruction outside of the context of social protest into the same definitions of “loot” and “riot” – such as the example of “rioting” by sports fans – actually serves to further delegitimize the radical nature of these actions. In failing to separate looting and rioting used in a revolutionary manner from actions attributed to looting and rioting that do not have a political end, it is easier for media sources, the government, and others to argue that looting and rioting in instances of protest for racial justice are enacted by individuals who are self-interested opportunists. These two categories must be separated. For this reason, I will only be focusing on the radicalness of tactics of looting and rioting enacted during moments of revolutionary struggle. Therefore, my project in reclaiming the terms “loot” and “riot” is also a strategy that seeks to give power back to the bodies engaged in a struggle for liberation. I also acknowledge that my project of reclaiming looting and rioting as legitimate, revolutionary strategies enters an existing literature of social protest, most notably that focusing on the merits and drawbacks of nonviolence, militarism, and violent protest. Authors and agitators from before and during the Civil Rights Movement, including W.E.B. Du Bois, the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Malcolm X, members of the Black Panther Party, and more are at the forefront of a rich debate around what forms of 7 protest are most appropriate, radical, and effective in the struggle for Black liberation and civil rights. This thesis seeks to contribute to the broader literature on social protest, advocating for the reclamation of looting and rioting as legitimate forms of social protest. “Loot” and “Riot”: Analyzing Etymologies and Interpretations In order to fully understand the processes of racialization and criminalization that have occurred to the terms “loot” and “riot,” the history of these words must be explored. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the verb “to loot” is defined thus: “to plunder, to sack (a city, building), to carry off as loot or booty, to rob (a person); to steal (a thing).” 16 While this definition is facially race-neutral, a deeper look into the history of the word and its connotations reveals racial undertones. Tracing the history of “loot,” it can be found that the word is taken from the Hindi word “lút”, which is akin to “plunder” or “booty.”17 Historically, the usage of the verb “to loot” was often used to describe British officers’ organization of new recruits in order to subdue Indian resistance against the British colonial government. Osterweil argues, “Looting is a word taken from colonized people and used to denigrate and racialize riotous subalterns resisting English empire. It would from the very beginning refer to a non-white and lawless relationship to property.”18 The racialization of looting is incomplete without a history of the propertization 16 “Loot, v.” Osterweil, In Defense of Looting, 2020, 3. 18 Osterweil, 3. 17 8 of whiteness. In her article “Whiteness as Property,” Cheryl Harris traces the origins of property rights to the physical, political, and social domination of Black and Indigenous individuals in the United States. According to Harris, oppression of Black and Indigenous people in the United States formed out of the interaction between property and race notably, through the exploitation of Black slave labor as objects of propertied wealth.19 As Blackness became a justification for enslavement, the codification of Black enslavement in the 1660’s continually unified the social and legal status of Black individuals as property. Further, because “the presumption of freedom arose from the color white and the black color of the race raised the presumption of slavery, whiteness became a shield from slavery, a highly volatile and unstable form of property.”20 Slavery’s basis on the color of one’s skin valorized the possession of whiteness as “the characteristic, the attribute, [and] the property of free human beings.” 21 Therefore, property includes rights and protections held only by white bodies.22 Osterweil argues, “Property law emerges to codify, formalize, and affirm white enslavement of Africans and conquest of the Americas, to protect, project and strengthen whiteness.”23 Looting further becomes racialized through the enslaved individual’s looting of themselves, as the refusal of the enslaved to become or continue to be property is one of the most radical acts of anti-capitalist resistance.24 Once enslaved peoples had freed themselves by becoming fugitives, they often joined up with bands of escapees and members of the Seminole and Creek Indian tribes, “looting” other enslaved peoples from 19 Harris, “Whiteness as Property,” 1716. Harris, 1720. 21 Harris, 1721. 22 Harris, 1716. 23 Osterweil, In Defense of Looting, 2020, 43. 24 Osterweil, 36. 20 9 neighboring plantations.25 The looting of white property by Black fugitives formed a crucial part of the racialized history of the term “loot,” pointing to the revolutionary potential of the action. Similar processes of racialization have been applied to the term “riot,” which the Oxford English Dictionary defines as “senses relating to wild or uncontrolled behavior … A violent disturbance of the peace by a crowd; an outbreak of violent civil disorder or lawlessness.”26 Although the definition is race-neutral on its face, it is helpful to look to the theories of Frantz Fanon and Raven Rakia around the racialization of rioting and violence. Frantz Fanon’s book, The Wretched of the Earth, includes analysis of actions of violence from both the state and colonized peoples. In the chapter entitled “On Violence,” Fanon lays out a psychology of colonized peoples, arguing that the process of colonization is necessarily violent and requires violent response by the colonized in order to gain liberation.27 Despite its violent nature, the colonial process is often characterized as peaceful, natural, and civilizing. Therefore, when enforced “peace” is shattered by uprising, the violence that erupts will be marked as unlawful by the colonizers. The Oxford English Dictionary’s definition of “riot” fits into Fanon’s framework of anticolonial rebellion: “riot” contains violence, disturbs the peace, disrupts the laws laid by the colonizer, and fundamentally challenges the so-called natural, civilized framework of law and order. 25 Osterweil, “In Defense of Looting,” August 21, 2014, 47. “Riot, n.” 27 Fanon, The Wretched of the Earth. 26 10 Violent uprisings of the oppressed are often categorized today as a “riot,” and the people who participate, “rioters”. However, not all violent protesters are considered “rioters.” In her article Black Riot, Raven Rakia argues that darker-skinned bodies who do violence are more likely to be marked as “rioters”: I’ve been to protests in Istanbul and Greece. I’ve seen windows smashed down, graffiti drawn, Molotovs prepared, and things set alight. Still, the situations where lighter skinned people were filling the photographs: protests. When darker skinned people are involved? Riots. The decision to call one riots and the other protests has nothing to do with the amount of violence in the demonstrations … Resisting is never peaceful. If the State fears you, it will crack down on you violently.28 The state desperately fears uprisings from those who have been colonized, especially when their oppression is key to maintaining order. Although the United States is well past the institution of formal enslavement of Black people, the continued institutionalization of racism has created a society in which property has become encoded as white. Violence against the body and property of the white colonizer through looting and rioting is viewed as a direct assault upon the state and its hierarchical system of whiteness and becomes categorized as an unacceptable form of protest. Additionally, the term “riot” encompasses a moralizing judgement upon the action as well as the actor. Rakia argues, “The term “riot” implies disorganization, running amok with no end means, goals or demands outside of individual gain. … It reproduces the racist claims about black subjects: that they are violent, ignorant, selfish, and depoliticized.”29 The reproduction of racist ideas, centered in the idea that Black individuals are less than whites, centers heavily in the connotations surrounding the term 28 29 Rakia, “Black Riot.” Rakia. 11 “riot.” Black bodies are more likely to be marked as transgressing against the state, seen as possessing a disregard for its laws, and blamed for acts of violence against its institutions and property.30 Therefore, those who engage in “riots” are often marked as Black. Because the state is framed as the natural authority of law and order, that which strikes against the state is deemed “unnatural” and criminal. These processes of racialization and criminalization occur frequently, informing the way that individuals observe and interpret outbreaks of violence during social protest movements. Through the historical conflation of criminality and Blackness with “riot,” those who employ the term delegitimize these actions as strategies of revolutionary change. However, it is precisely this delegitimization which reveals the radicalism in these forms of protest. Through refusing to appropriately protest in the eyes of the colonizer and instead commit acts of theft and violence, racialized and colonized bodies push back against lasting legacies of racial and colonial oppression. 30 Rakia. 12 “Loot” and “Riot”: Processes of Criminalization and Racialization The historical racialization and criminalization of the terms “loot” and “riot” across space and time in American history is present nowhere more than during social movements that fought against racial injustice in the United States. However, the delegitimization of rioting and looting has roots in the comparison of violent protest to nonviolent protest. Rioting and looting have been criminalized and racialized in a twofold manner: one, because such actions are seen as transgressing the laws governing appropriate behavior, and two, because violent protest is always compared to strategies of nonviolence. The Civil Rights Movement of the 1960’s is one of the most famously “nonviolent” movements. White people and mass media, in particular, do an excellent job at obscuring the more unsavory aspects of the Civil Rights Movement in order to herald the legacies of nonviolence and leaders like Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Allusions to Martin Luther King, Jr. often speak of love or peace out of context, looking to denigrate looting and rioting.31 King had a more nuanced perspective on rioting and looting than he is often given credit for: while he did argue that riots were “socially destructive and selfdefeating,” he also recognized the very real conditions of oppression which serve as precursors to riot and the material gains that riots have often presented the movement.32 “Riots are the language of the unheard,” King famously states in his speech “The Other America.”33 In fact, King has a different position on even looting than contemporary 31 Meena, “What Martin Luther King Jr Really Thought About Riots.” King, “The Other America.” 33 King. 32 13 moderates who champion him would believe. For King, looting was “a kind of physical critique of capitalism ... [and] the white power system that was oppressing” economically and socially disenfranchised Black people.34 Despite King’s more complex position on rioting and looting, the ideology of nonviolence is used as an all too simple foil against the more violent, militant protest movements that utilize looting and rioting. Vicky Osterweil argues that the juxtaposition of the nonviolent movement against more militant organizations helps to delegitimize, criminalize, and divide the broader Black freedom movement.35 Nonviolence is often only mentioned as a strategy in order to criminalize and castigate Black violence, argues poet Hanif Abdurraqib: “For those of certain skin colors, no protest can be peaceful enough.” 36 Looting and rioting become doubly discounted: they do not fall within the boundaries of the “moral, normative, and widely supported” nonviolence movement, and are subjected to additional processes of criminalization and racialization that lead to their delegitimization.37 Turning towards the examples of the Tulsa Riot of 1921 and the Watts Riots of 1965, I will explore such processes of racialization and criminalization, illustrating the historical delegitimization of looting and rioting as tactics of revolutionary social protest. 34 Meena, “What Martin Luther King Jr Really Thought About Riots.” Osterweil, In Defense of Looting, 2020, 149. 36 Abdurraqib, “By the End of His Life, Martin Luther King Realized the Validity of Violence.” 37 Osterweil, In Defense of Looting, 2020, 149. 35 14 The Tulsa Riot of 1921 The Tulsa Riot of 1921, also known as the Tulsa Massacre, is believed to be the bloodiest racially motivated violent event seen in the United States. Precipitated by elevated tensions surrounding the trope of white men protecting white women from Southern Black men after a misunderstanding between nineteen-year-old Black shoe shiner Dick Rowland and white elevator operator Sarah Page, the Tulsa Tribune reported that Rowland had attempted to rape Page under the headline “To Lynch Negro Tonight.”38 A group of angry white people, gathered outside the jail, demanded that the police chief release the imprisoned Rowland to them. However, tensions became riotous when the members of the African Black Brotherhood (ABB), a Southern insurrectionary secret society, arrived on scene to help protect Rowland.39 Members of the ABB spread throughout the Greenwood neighborhood, a prosperous Black community within Tulsa, and urged their neighbors to gather arms and protect Rowland. By 10:00pm that night, a lynch mob of more than 2,000 white individuals had formed, facing off against about 100 men from the ABB. Both sides began to shoot into the crowd, and when the groups dispersed, twelve were dead: two members of the ABB and ten white mob members. Although Rowland was safe in jail, the violence in Tulsa had only just begun. As the night went on, white members of the mob attempted to infiltrate the Greenwood neighborhood but were repelled by Black snipers stationed outside. Fires were set on the outskirts of Greenwood, and by morning, whites gathered and “deployed military machine guns,” and a few “even flew decommissioned WWI biplanes over Greenwood, 38 39 Osterweil, 115. Osterweil, 117. 15 sniping and dropping firebombs.”40 Sensing success in pushing Black people out of Greenwood, the white mob began to set fire to the neighborhood, destroying Black businesses, buildings, and targeting the commercial main street known to Black Tulsans as Black Wall Street. Despite being a relatively short period of violence, the death toll is estimated to be between 75 and 300 individuals, and more than fourteen hundred buildings were burned or destroyed.41 Following the events of May 31, 1921, fierce debates about Tulsa’s violent legacy remain. The events of Tulsa are often remembered in two different manners: one, where innocent black residents of the Greenwood neighborhood were victims of white supremacist fueled hatred; and two, as a race riot, where Black individuals were construed as the perpetrators.42 Although the second construction of Tulsa is no longer considered historical fact, its power is evidenced through the fact that the riot was not studied by a formal commission for almost 75 years.43 Additionally, recent reports on Tulsa argue that “virtually nothing had been done for the survivors” in the months that followed, indicating that a shift in perception took place only later.44 The manner in which riots are preserved in public memory is important in determining the way they have been historically criminalized and racialized due to the racial identity of the participants. While evidence shows that Black members of the ABB were outnumbered by the white mob, the fact that the dominant public memory of Tulsa 40 Osterweil, 117. Osterweil, 117. 42 Messer and Bell, “Mass Media and Governmental Framing of Riots,” 854. 43 Messer and Bell, 854. 44 Messer and Bell, 854. 41 16 until the late 1990’s was one of violence precipitated by Black rioters points to the racialization of the term “riot.” Tulsa Mayor T.D. Evans, speaking after the Riot, said, Let the blame for this negro uprising lie right where it belongs – on those armed negros and their followers who started this trouble and who instigated it … any persons who seek to put half the blame on the white people are wrong and should be told so in no uncertain language.45 The mayor’s defense of the white mob and criminalization of the Black population of Greenwood for “instigating” the violence that overtook Tulsa indicates that the whiteness of the mob shielded them from blame, despite the fact that they gathered first in an attempt to lynch Rowland. Although the criminal investigation resulted in no formal charges, “Many prominent Black men were indicted for ‘inciting a riot,’ charges that would not be dismissed until decades later.”46 The jury, who were tasked with ascertaining the triggers to the riot, claimed that the riot was instigated by Black men gathering to protect Dick Rowland.47 Attempts to lynch Rowland, then, were not considered an act of violence that would have initiated riot – instead, when the ABB organized to stop that lynching, they – and the Black community, by extension – are blamed with starting the fight. The willingness of the riot commission, the mayor, and those who, for the next 75 years, believed that the riots were initiated by Black Tulsans demonstrates the connotative power of “riot” with Black violence. Riot triggered by white individuals was a foreign concept. In an analysis of the perceptions and framings of the Tulsa Riot of 1921, Messer and Bell point out, [Nowhere] is a diagnostic assessment that establishes blame with White rioting present… law enforcement was also perceived as a contributor, but it was seemingly perceived as ‘natural’ that Whites would respond to armed Blacks in such a manner. Thus, a frame was immediately constructed claiming ‘white 45 Messer and Bell, 858. World, “Tulsa Race Massacre.” 47 Messer and Bell, “Mass Media and Governmental Framing of Riots,” 858. 46 17 innocence’ because Black individuals were seen as more likely to fall into violence.48 Because armed Black individuals were pointed to as the primary instigators of the riot, they were criminalized for doing so. As seen in the description of the riot, the police and the white mob responded forcefully to Black militant organization, fearing a revolution by Blacks would massacre Tulsa’s white population.49 The subtle systematic racialization and criminalization of Black people who participated in defending Greenwood was made so invisible to public perception that it took roughly 75 years for this frame to begin to lose traction. When the 1997 Tulsa Race Riot Commission began to uncover the “truth” of who initiated the riot, it is telling that the frame shifted to categorize Tulsa not as a “riot” but as a “massacre.” The framing of Tulsa as a “massacre” sought to absolve all Black Tulsans of blame for the events of May 31, 1921, instead portraying them as innocent victims of white supremacist violence. This frame of “massacre,” too, is problematic: it fails to understand the power demonstrated by the Black community when faced with white violence, and it similarly forgets the contributions of Black Tulsans who, armed and ready to defend their communities, carried out acts of violence as well. The term “massacre” presupposes a lack of resistance by the targeted group: in this case, it writes a history where powerful white supremacists gunned down Black innocents. Additionally, the division between “riot” and “massacre” has implications for which agents become marked as lawful or lawless. In early views of Tulsa, Black rioters were marked as lawless proponents of violence. In later conceptions however, white members of the mob 48 49 Messer and Bell, 859. Osterweil, In Defense of Looting, 2020, 118. 18 and police are marked as lawless participants in a racially motivated massacre, during which “innocent” Blacks are marked as lawful. The lawless/lawful binary continues to illuminate that circumstances defined as “riot” cannot be lawful. Therefore, framing Tulsa as a massacre rather than a riot was an attempt to garner support and change perceptions around Tulsa, framing Black Tulsans in a sympathetic light so that the public would no longer characterize Black individuals inciting riot. Despite positive intent, the connotations around the term “massacre” swing too far in the opposite direction, as they delegitimize and erase the actual events of Tulsa, the organization of the Greenwood community, and the ABB. However, the racialized nature of the term “riot” is continually evidenced by the fact that the categorization of Tulsa’s violence is crucial to its public perception. The Watts Riots of 1965 On Wednesday, August 11, 1965, just outside the neighborhood of Watts, California, a Black twenty-one-year-old named Marquette Frye was pulled over by the California Highway Patrol (CHP) for driving under the influence of alcohol. Frye was returning home from picking up his brother, Ronald, after his discharge from the U.S. Air Force. According to Marquette, the two had been pulled over by the CHP and were about to be let go when another squad car, whose officers were decidedly less easy-going, pulled up. Ronald ran home to get their mother, by which time a crowd of local residents had gathered around the cars. While reports about the events of the arrest from Marquette and the CHP differ, it can be pieced together that as the Frye brothers’ mother, Rena, arrived, 19 she began to berate her son for driving while intoxicated.50 After her arrival, Marquette and the officers began to tangle after he refused to enter the police car, and Rena and another officer were also involved in an altercation. While the nature of each of these altercations differ depending on the teller, the crowd, spurred on by the events, began to agitate and were ordered to disperse. However, a rumor that two women were assaulted by the police began to spread amongst the crowd. The two women in question were Rena Frye and Joyce Gaines, a twenty-one-year-old Black woman who was not pregnant but appeared so due to her clothing. According to Gerald Horne’s history of Watts in his book Fire This Time, the violent arrest of Marquette Frye and the assault of the two women, especially that of a seemingly pregnant woman for no apparent lawbreaking, stirred the crowd to action. The crowd began to throw things at police, resisted orders to disperse, and eventually started to defend themselves as the police called backup to the scene in an attempt to stop the fighting. In accounts from Watts, CHP motorcycle officers were riding on the sidewalks in an effort to disperse onlookers, which “inflamed [the crowd], since it was seen as jeopardizing the safety of children.”51 Describing the onset of the event, a journalist for the LA Times wrote, “Rocks began flying, then wine and whisky bottles, chunks of concrete, pieces of wood … The targets were anyone or anything strange to the neighborhood … The police department dispatched 80 helmeted men into the area.”52 By piecing together documentary and photographic evidence, one can see that in the span of twenty-three minutes, what might have otherwise been an 50 Horne, Fire This Time, 55. Horne, 56. 52 Horne, 56. 51 20 orderly traffic stop had turned into an unruly and violent uprising of over 1500 people, spurred on by the misconduct of police officers and the gathering crowd. Over the course of the next six days, violence ruled Watts. The unrest resulted in the deaths of 34 people, injured more than 1,000 individuals, and damaged over $40 million of property.53 Looking to cast blame, many conservatives and government officials “claimed that the violence had resulted from wanton lawlessness, and they pointed to the large numbers of minority men living in the inner city who had criminal records and to the influx of ‘outsiders’ from the South.”54 Many residents of Watts including the Frye family - were actually transplants from Southern states, including Oklahoma, Texas, and Louisiana, and “a significant percentage of those killed” during the Watts riots hailed from those states.55 Locating the epicenter of a violent uprising in outside agitators is a common tactic amongst both those opposed and those more sympathetic to the movement. Placing the blame for the extremist actions upon outside agitators works to “discredit militancy wherever it appears,” absolving the local community of blame and centering those who engage in tactics of rioting or looting as apolitical or ignorant bodies who are not part of the movement.56 The initial reaction of onlookers to Watts was to place blame for the violence and destruction on Black individuals from the South who had come to stir up trouble in California. However, there is no real evidence that outside agitators played a role in the violence and destruction that came to define the Watts Riots. Instead, Watts is an example of a primarily Black community, historically overpoliced, underfunded, racially segregated, and reeling from 53 Osterweil, In Defense of Looting, 2020, 197. Edy, “Watts Riots of 1965 | American History.” 55 Horne, Fire This Time, 24. 56 Osterweil, In Defense of Looting, 2020, 5. 54 21 years of police violence and oppression, that rose up against the structures of racism which had tormented them.57 The response of the white population of Los Angeles, embodied through government officials, white news media, and other sources, skews largely to “a mixture of shock, fear, and belief that the riots were organized and led by some radical and disaffected groups in league with gangs and hoodlums.” 58 The terms “gang” and “hoodlum” are terms that already contain racial, as well as criminal, connotations. By positioning the rioters as working together with “gangs and hoodlums,” the participants in the Watts Riot are similarly marked as criminals - much aided by the darkness of their skin. The majority of Watts rioters were Black, and the news media and general public reacted fearfully, convinced that the riot was actually “an armed uprising by Negros against the police, political authorities, and the white man in general.”59 Linking Blackness with participation in Watts illustrates the manner in which Los Angeles whites were genuinely afraid of the effects the uprising could have. In order to keep Watts from being a tale of a reign of white dominance, disguised as law and order, coming to an end, white power structures attempted to delegitimize the rioters through characterizing them as criminals, thugs, and delinquents. To dim Watts’ revolutionary glow, the riots and rioters had to be discredited. Further delegitimization of Watts can be seen through Governor of California Pat Brown’s report on the character of the riots. The report, headed by former CIA director John McCone, investigated the riots and continued to hint at the criminalization of rioting through claims that neighborhoods like Watts contain 57 Horne, Fire This Time, 11. Oberschall, “The Los Angeles Riot of August 1965,” 324. 59 Oberschall, 324. 58 22 high numbers of individuals who are criminals, delinquents, school dropouts, are otherwise unemployed, or display antisocial behavior.60 However, actual arrest records from the Watts riots show that most individuals who were convicted during the riots had no prior criminal history, or had records that were not as serious as the McCone Commission’s report would have them seem.61 Despite this overwhelming evidence against the criminal theory of rioting, a narrative of Black protesters as criminals contributes to the conflation of skin tone with criminality in the context of social unrest. This phenomenon further locates Black participants in the Watts riots as engaging in violent, unlawful behavior. Because the participation and protest of Black individuals in the Watts riots was marked as lawless, it was therefore seen as illegal and illegitimate in the eyes of white Los Angelenos. Black individuals responded to what they perceived to be unjust violence: the brutal and forceful arrest of Marquette Frye and the ensuing crackdown by law enforcement on the innocent female bystanders, while the police and other institutions of whiteness responded to their own perceptions of unlawfulness: actions of looting, rioting, destruction, and violence in the streets of Los Angeles. In the eyes of the state, the legitimacy of a violent action is derived from the question of whether the violent act was committed within or outside of the law. To mass media, government, and the police, the protesters’ looting and rioting were clearly outside of the law. Therefore, these were criminal actions, undertaken by Black individuals, that showed no real coherency with the goals of the Civil Rights Movement or other movements for the advancement of Black peoples. Their apparent 60 61 Oberschall, 325. Oberschall, 327–28. 23 disorganization and illegality were enough to dismiss the participants of the Watts riots as delinquent Black criminals responding with self-interested passion to an instance of unrest in Los Angeles, and nothing more. Implications for the terms “Loot” and “Riot” While both of these instances of widespread looting, rioting, and social unrest stemmed from different causes, the events of and public reactions of each mirror each other. Racializing protest, as illustrated through the Tulsa and Watts Riots, is an age-old phenomenon in the United States that penalizes and marks the response to institutional, state-sanctioned violence as excessively violent, illegal, and immoral. It therefore becomes clear that the racial identity of protestors who engage in acts of looting and rioting is crucial to their characterization as lawless aggressors. In this vein, Because viewers and readers are encouraged to see riots as largely racial events, and because for many readers the term "race" is synonymous with their conceptualization of "Blackness" (Warren & Twine, 1997), riots become for these readers events that are by, for and about African Americans. Coupled with the associated framing of riots as illogical acts in response to necessary societal controls, this cognitive linkage of rioting with a specific racial group can have a staggering impact on the way readers process the "facts" about violent urban uprisings.62 The Blackness of rioters is just as key as the whiteness of police officers and the United States’ legal institutions in the construction of looters and rioters as criminal Black individuals and groups who engage in lawless behavior. The framing of police actions and legal decisions as lawful solutions that bring about justice is paired with the 62 Monroy, Myers, and Meyers, “Fanning the Flames?,” 167. 24 unlawfulness of Black rioters who are engaged in a self-defeating task, helping to further delegitimize such movements. However, despite these connections, the actions of a primarily Black populace rising up against an oppressive, white supremacist state is a wholly radical action. In the next section, I will explore the revolutionary potential of looting and rioting through examining the ways in which a coalition of Black individuals rising up against the whitesupremacist state is necessarily radical and revolutionary. 25 The Revolutionary Potential of Looting and Rioting Strategies of looting and rioting used in movements of social unrest are often marked as unlawful actions undertaken by a group of criminal Black individuals in an effort to make invisible the radical nature of such actions. Despite the fact that these negative connotations have become widespread with the help of news media coverage, the revolutionary nature of such actions can be explored through rejecting the dichotomy of lawful versus lawless violence. Vicky Osterweil, author of In Defense of Looting, marks looting as a revolutionary action precisely because it rejects the law: Looting is so unpopular not because it is an error or bad for the movement but because it is often a movement’s most radical tactic. Looting attacks some of the core beliefs and structures of the cisheteropatriarchal racial capitalist society, and so frightens and disturbs everyone, even some of its participants. … Looting rejects the legitimacy of ownership rights and property, the moral injunction to work for a living, and the “justice” of law and order. Looting reveals all these for what they are: not natural facts, but social constructs benefiting a few at the expense of the many.63 Frequently, both sides of the traditional American political spectrum locate acts of violence within or outside of the law. However, the laws of the United States are designed for a few wealthy whites to benefit: they suppress the tendency towards freedom of all others and maintain a white supremacist, color blind state that appears to be race neutral in policy and action but actually only privileges those who are white.64 Actions that are perceived to be lawless, then, turn the white supremacist law on its head: through looting and rioting, Black individuals participate in an insurrection against the system which has oppressed them since their enslavement and forced migration to the 63 64 Osterweil, In Defense of Looting, 2020, 3. Osterweil, 2. 26 United States. In order to understand the revolutionary potential of looting and rioting, I turn again to historical examples of the Tulsa Riot of 1921 and the Watts Riots of 1965. The Tulsa Riot of 1921 The nuanced legacy of Tulsa, evidenced through the historical contention around its name, is a perfect example of how rioting can be viewed as a necessarily radical and revolutionary form of social protest. Despite being classified as one of the worst events of racial violence in the United States, the night of May 31, 1921 represented a massive reckoning by Black Tulsans as they organized and used their collective, militarized power in order to defend themselves and their community from white violence. Vicky Osterweil reports, All accounts suggest that some significant number - a third to half of those killed, in the case of the lower total estimates - were white rioters. Although the numbers and proportions will never be accurately known, many in Tulsa believed the true casualty numbers were covered up because they would have been a source of shame for the white community.65 It was crucial to the white power structure to cover up the numbers of white individuals killed during the rioting, generally at the hands of Black Tulsans, because truthful death toll reports would have revealed the power of the Black community during the Tulsa Riot. Despite the destruction of Black Wall Street, much of Greenwood, and an overwhelming death toll, Tulsa is an excellent example of the radical, revolutionary power that looting, rioting, and armed resistance to white supremacist oppression have. 65 Osterweil, 118. 27 Actions that were later described by news media and police officers as precipitated by aggressive Blacks instead serve to remind the Black Greenwood community of the bodily power they possess. While the white Tulsan community “lived in fear of another riot,” Greenwood was rebuilt and became successful again.66 The two versions of the Tulsa Riot demonstrate the power of self-definition in responding to oppression.67 Reclaiming the term “riot” as a form of revolutionary protest by naming Tulsa a “riot” rather than a “massacre” points to the power of the Black community in the face of white supremacist violence. The organizational aspects of Tulsa, such as coordinated Black snipers set to defend Greenwood, create a narrative that legitimates rioting as an act of community oriented, thoughtful self-defense. Even though the actions of Black individuals strayed far from innocence as legally understood, today, Tulsa can be remembered as an example of a self-organized, cohesive, and successful defense from white oppressors. It is precisely through the rejection of a binary of lawfulness and lawlessness that the revolutionary potential of the Black community’s organization and fight against the white Tulsan mob can be seen here. Black members of the ABB who organized in the name of self-defense and community protection were crucial to the success of the movement and the defense of Greenwood. Through refusing to become bogged down in a triangulation of lawful violence versus unlawful violence, the Black community of Greenwood was able to organize and carry out riotous, insurrectionary tactics. In fact, much of the damage caused by the Tulsa Riot, including the destruction of Black Wall Street, actually economically hurt whites. According to Osterweil, “some two-thirds of 66 67 Osterweil, 118. Osterweil, 118. 28 the real value destroyed in the riot belonged to white folks.”68 Fighting back against white Tulsans, in order to protect both Dick Rowland and Greenwood, Black Tulsans rejected the characterization of themselves as “eternally suffering peaceful victims of white supremacist violence,” and instead embraced a narrative that centers around their agency.69 Disregarding the lawful/lawless binary especially matters here: oftentimes, Black victims of white supremacist violence are painted as innocents - as good, lawabiding, citizens who had no hand in violence - in order to stir up sympathy for the cause of anti-racism. Through refusing to allow the narrative of Black Tulsans to be so controlled, and in highlighting the degree of agency and power that was mobilized by Black Tulsans during the Tulsa Riot of 1921, the truly revolutionary tactics of looting and rioting are revealed to go even farther than just striking back at an oppressive, physically violent body. Instead, they work to change the way Black individuals across America see themselves - not as long-standing, peacefully suffering victims, but as an autonomous group who can mobilize tactics of revolution against the oppression of whites and a white-supremacist state. The Watts Riots of 1965 Situated within the timeline of the broader Civil Rights Movement, the Watts Riots represent an important instance of rioting and looting as insurrectionary actions rather than a disorganized, criminal, and antisocial response to white police officers. As described by the local CBS news in the aftermath of Watts, one reporter said, “This was 68 69 Osterweil, 61. Osterweil, 118. 29 not a riot. It was an insurrection against authority. … If it had gone much further, it would have become civil war.”70 Additionally, political scientists David Sears and John McConahay “substantiated this view when they noted that the ‘legally constituted authority … was overthrown.’”71 Watts, then, had the makings of a revolution against the white systems of authority - namely, the police force and the local government. Although Watts has been characterized as an event of violence stemming from both a singular event and a history of oppression and violence against the Black community of Watts, California, it is important to note that the “straw that broke the camel’s back” narrative fosters a sense of immediate, unplanned, and emotional violence against the state. Instead, Osterweil argues, “[The] destruction was hardly wanton or senseless. Almost no homes, schools, libraries, churches, or public buildings were even partially damaged. The majority of Black owned businesses were not looted, nor were those businesses seen as dealing fairly with the community.”72 Destruction and violence during Watts were carefully organized and set in motion with intention. Instead of the emotional frenzy by which many riots are characterized, Watts represented a moment where the Black individuals involved were wholly aware of their actions and sought to make a deliberate impact with them. This level of organization reflects its revolutionary nature: Watts was a political act, designed to communicate the community’s anger towards the manifestation of white supremacy in the state, policing systems, and local government. 70 Horne, Fire This Time, 36. Horne, 37. 72 Osterweil, In Defense of Looting, 2020, 197. 71 30 Further, the strategies of Black looters and rioters followed organized tactics of guerilla warfare: Los Angeles Police Chief William Parker compared the tactics of Watts rioters to the Viet Cong. John Buggs, leader of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights after the Watts Riots, remembered how police cars were taken down by groups of youths who had stashed rocks in alleyways and were throwing them in order to prevent arrests from taking place. Buggs details how the first items destroyed in larger department stores were credit records, pointing to the idea that an organized, middle class of Black individuals with “middle class goals” were rioting across the city.73 Horne describes the looting tactics undertaken by rioters during Watts, saying, “Often a number of persons would ride by a store in a car, get out, break windows, return to the car, and drive to another area. In their wake other cars would come by and begin to seize and load the merchandise.”74 Through the destruction of credit records and the expropriation of property through looting, Black protestors sought to undermine economic systems that had continued to oppress them. Looting was not a passionate or opportunistic response to chaos, but rather a coordinated attack against the white economic systems designed to block the upward mobility of Black communities. Although it can be argued that the actual property looted wasn’t enough to change the socioeconomic class of the looters, the revolutionary potential and radical goals of looting must be acknowledged. Further, it is important to note that while the participants of the Watts Riot were often marked as criminals, the revolutionary potential of Watts can only be fully assessed by looking outside of the lawful/lawless binary. Locating strategies of looting and rioting as insurrectionary tactics, rather than tactics criminalized or defended by law is important 73 74 Horne, Fire This Time, 65. Horne, 66. 31 to understanding Watts as revolutionary. While racial tensions were heightened around the Los Angeles area, Horne argues that racial solidarity rose, too. In Fire This Time, Horne says, “One official said that he was frightened by the ‘sense of power’ the revolt had given blacks. For their part, many in the LAPD were upset by this turn of events and the fact that what had happened was being called a revolt, not a riot.”75 As in the aftermath of the Tulsa Riot of 1921, the language used to refer to the violence of August 1965 mattered in terms of the perceptions of control - or lack thereof - afforded to the police and government. The Watts Riots showed the community its combined strength and revolutionary potential, just as those who upheld the white supremacist systems of the state attempted to hide that power. Because “riot” implied disorganization and “revolt” implied an insurrection against the state, police were hesitant to use “revolt” in reference to Watts, as to not reveal the true power that the Black participants in Watts showed. Despite the rhetoric employed by the police and media, Watts was both an instance of a “riot” and a “revolt.” While “riot” has long standing connotations of disorganization, it is in redefining the term that its radical, revolutionary qualities can be recognized and negative connotations can be shed. In the aftermath of Watts, multiple reports of the conditions leading to the riot were conducted. These reports led to a variety of both positive and negative outcomes, as they attempted to understand the impetus for the violent riots of Watts. While the Watts Riots did result in bolstering the police force, specifically through the creation of a Special Weapons and Tactics unit (SWAT), it also resulted in larger, community wide projects to ensure Black voices were being heard. Black nationalism grew in popularity in 75 Horne, 341. 32 California and Los Angeles, and the Black Congress was created, which would house much of the revolutionary organization and activism in South LA after Watts. Additionally, Watts represented a growth in the racial consciousness of Black Los Angelenos: “Since the riot we feel more together. We look at each other and say hello ‘brother’ to other Negros we don’t even know.”76 The growth of community consciousness would prove important as time went on and Black militancy and community organization in Los Angeles continued to grow stronger. Many point to the formation of the Black Panther Party (BPP) as one of the most important contributions of Watts. Huey Newton, co-founder of the BPP, locates the Watts Riots as an important genesis for the BPP: “[We] had seen Watts rise up the previous year. We had seen how the police attacked the Watts community after causing trouble in the first place. We had seen Martin Luther King come to Watts in an effort to calm the people, and we had seen his philosophy of nonviolence rejected.”77 The BPP came to serve the Black community across California through both militant actions and their community programs, continuing a revolution “aimed at total social transformation.”78 The birth of the BPP, deeply connected to the Watts Riots, is a helpful illustration of the manner in which riots directly oppose the racist and oppressive structures of the state, but also create pathways for continued opposition and militancy. 76 Horne, 341. Newton, Revolutionary Suicide, 110. 78 Osterweil, In Defense of Looting, 2020, 203. 77 33 Looting and Rioting as Agents for Revolutionary Change In the two movements examined above, it is possible to trace the revolutionary origins of each back to looting and rioting. Despite being marked as unlawful actions conducted by Black criminals, when analyzing these instances of riot for their capacity for social change, it becomes apparent that rioting and looting seek to address not just the triggering problem, but also deep-rooted racism written into American law. By dissolving the dichotomy between law-abiding and law-breaking violence, it is possible to see these events of violence as countering a system designed to uphold and venerate whiteness while penalizing Blackness. Therefore, the true nature of looting and rioting as radical, revolutionary, events for the liberation of Black individuals across the United States emerges. 34 Reclaiming and Redefining The Terms “Loot” and “Riot” The subversive organizational tactics of looting and rioting are radical precisely because they explode the lawful/lawless binary, seeking to both protest the political, social, economic, and civil exploitation and oppression of Black Americans in a public manner, but also to declare and showcase the strength of Black bodies as agents of social change. The construction of the terms “loot” and “riot” have historically been both criminalized and racialized in their use in the English language, but I argue that it is precisely in these twin processes of racialization and criminalization that reclamation of the terms becomes the most radical. Looting and rioting, which have historically been terms used by mass media and popular culture to describe unlawful actions taken against the state or private property by Black bodies, are radical because they involve bodies who have been most marginalized by the state. In reclaiming these terms, it must be emphasized that it is Blackness itself and the role of Blackness in looting and rioting that allows such actions to hold their revolutionary nature. Therefore, I propose new definitions for the terms “loot” and “riot,” as follows: LOOT (verb): Undertaken by historically economically disenfranchised bodies during movements for racial liberation, the appropriation of private property without payment as a revolutionary tactic that subverts capitalist systems of economic racism by giving economic power back to the appropriator. RIOT (noun): a revolutionary tactic aiming to disrupt the rule of law and order, characterized by an outbreak of violence within a crowd against an oppressive, whitesupremacist state precipitated by historically marginalized bodies during movements for racial liberation. 35 Too often, Black movements that have included instances of looting and rioting have faced criticism from their own organizers as being too violent or using tactics that are counter to the movement’s goals. Instead of continuing to penalize Black individuals and groups for tactics of looting and rioting, proponents of Black liberation must too reject the categorization of certain types of violence as lawful or unlawful. When this dichotomy is disregarded, more moderate movement organizers must instead recognize that it is only in directly confronting the state and its racist, capitalist agenda that continues to harm and oppress Black people that the basis for revolutionary change can be realized. However, doing away with the binary of lawful/lawless violence is not an easy task: it is so ingrained into the American consciousness that it is all too easy to simply reject violence against the state as bad because the very makeup of our world seems to depend upon the preservation of law and order. Despite such claims, systems of law and order perpetuated by the state only continue to preserve systems of white supremacy that oppress Black individuals. When one stops considering the violence of the state and the state’s agents including the police - as existing within a spectrum of lawful violence, they are able to consider the revolutionary nature of actions previously considered unlawful. These actions include protestors throwing rocks at or fighting with police, looting property from department stores, or engaging in movement organizing using tactics of guerrilla warfare to defend their neighborhoods. Even the organizers of movements for racial justice must come to acknowledge the insurrectionary potential of tactics like looting and rioting, instead of dismissing them as counter to the movement’s goals. The dismissal of tactics of looting and rioting as too violent or unlawful drives a wedge between movement 36 participants, working to categorize peaceful protesters as “good” while violent protesters are seen as “bad” rioters, looters, and criminals. Why, then, should movements retain the terms “loot” and “riot” instead of replacing them with terms like “revolution,” “revolt,” or “insurrection”? I argue that the terms “loot” and “riot” should come to hold the same connotations of virtuosity as “revolution” or “insurrection,” where themes of agency, organization, and a broader goal of liberation against an oppressive state regime play out and are recognized by onlookers. However, my principle claim here is that looting and rioting are tactics of revolutionary movements. When used in situations of urban social unrest, during movements for racial justice, looting and rioting make up just two strategies of revolutionary movement against the state. Continuing to use the terms “loot” and “riot” would then honor the history of the words, recognizing and reshaping the racialization of the terms. Instead of continuing their negative racialization, wherein participants are cast as criminals, those who engage in looting and rioting should be seen as reclaiming Black power and agency, working alongside each other in a coordinated effort to combat a state which has oppressed them. 37 Conclusion Through reclaiming the terms “loot” and “riot” as radical tactics in movements for Black liberation, the revolutionary potential of these strategies is realized. Looting and rioting are tactics that seek to subvert the very laws of a white-supremacist state that has continually oppressed Black individuals for over 200 years and will continue to do so until real change is made. I have argued that the racialization of the language “loot” and “riot” has contributed to the historical delegitimization of these tactics of social protest, and because these terms are reserved for actions undertaken by Black bodies, Black protest as a whole becomes delegitimized, categorized as unlawful and needlessly violent. Contemporary politics of respectability feature heavily, where bifurcations are made between “good” peaceful protesters and “bad” violent protesters, which further penalizes movements that use tactics of looting and rioting. Through painting looting and rioting as unlawful tactics of social movements, those who employ such radical strategies are primed to fight a losing battle against the state and public opinion. Widely, violence in social protest is viewed as unlawful and disorganized, as even movement organizers urge participants to avoid destruction of property or physical altercations with authority or counter protesters. However, in failing to recognize the radical and revolutionary potential of looting and rioting as movement strategies, movements for racial justice continually fail to create lasting, concrete change. Despite the importance of recognizing and upholding looting and rioting as legitimate, radical tactics of Black liberation, the question must be asked: should reclaiming the terms “loot” and “riot” be a main goal of the movement for Black 38 liberation? To this, I answer: many movement leaders single out and hold apart those who engage in violent actions during protests, either against people or property, which only strengthens the divide in the eyes of the public between “good” and “bad” protesters. This dichotomy is counterproductive to the movement’s goals, as it divides protesters who would be on the same side through an ideological debate about which protest strategies are more ethical, often getting caught up in a debate about the legality of the actions themselves. Looting and rioting are tactics that make every moderate - and many progressives - freeze in their tracks. However, protests for racial justice are often already positioning themselves counter to the law, whether it be through civil disobedience or more violent tactics, and therefore considerations about whether the strategies of protest are legal should not be the question. Movements must instead seek to avoid ideological divides between participants. I hold that the pathway to liberation is not through appeasement of the white supremacist state, but rather through the subversion of that state. Through the dissolution of lawful versus lawless violence, looting and rioting can be considered radical tactics in movements for racial justice. It is in rejecting the laws, norms, and constructs of the American state that Black individuals realize their liberation. Looting and rioting should be considered key tactics to ensuring that liberation. As Audre Lorde famously said, “[The] master's tools will never dismantle the master's house. They may allow us temporarily to beat him at his own game, but they will never enable us to bring about genuine change.”79 Looting and rioting are movement strategies which seek to dismantle and call attention to the very oppressive laws and economic regimes that have continually oppressed Black people in 79 Lorde, “The Master’s Tools Will Never Dismantle the Master’s House,” 113. 39 this country. Engaging in such tactics is radical in their ability to point to the systems of oppression and racism that have existed in the United States since the time of enslavement. Looting and rioting are two key tactics in the strategy of revolution, and only by holding them as legitimate strategies to subvert an oppressive, white-supremacist state will movements for racial justice begin the process of recreating the world. 40 41 42