New York City has a rich, storied history of riots and unrest; just friggin' look if yuz don't believe me. Why have I chosen to focus on the Crown Heights Riots? Well, first off, they actually occurred during my lifetime, and the round-the-clock apocalyptic-seeming news coverage devoted to the riots as they were happening definitely contributed to my childhood belief that New York City was nothing but a lawless, cess-ridden jungle of filth and misery (half truths, all!). Also, last month while talking to a friend who had recently moved to Bedford Stuyvesant I was struggling to come up with actual historical reasons that Bed-Stuy has such a terribly dangerous reputation, other than Billy Joel's boast that he "walked through Bedford Stuy alone" from his song "You May Be Right." [Billy Joel = BADASS, obv.] As can be expected, time has conflated my memories of similar events that occurred when I was growing up. Long story short, I somehow managed to confuse the murder of Yusef Hawkins with the events that led up to the riots in Crown Heights, erroneously attributing both of those events to Bed Stuy. (It's what I do.) Here's what actually happened:
Why did the riot start?
In August, 1991, a police motorcade was escorting a prominent Hasidic rabbi/Holocaust survivor through the streets of Brooklyn. A station wagon in the motorcade (not the vehicle carrying said prominent rabbi), fell behind the rest of the other cars, and, in an attempt to catch up, the driver wound up shooting through an intersection in Crown Heights with a traffic light which, depending upon varying eyewitness accounts, was either yellow or red at the time. The station wagon collided with another car that was coming through the intersection, ricocheting onto the sidewalk and pinning a 7 year old boy of Guyanese descent and his 7 year old cousin beneath. (The boy would be pronounced dead shortly after being taken from the scene; his cousin survived with serious injuries.) The Hasidic driver of the station wagon, unharmed in the accident, was dragged from his car and beaten. At the request of the police, the first ambulance on the scene removed the van driver from the scene while the children still lay pinned beneath the car. This didn't sit well with black community members, who were outraged and felt that the Jewish man was receiving preferential treatment. Over the next few hours, an angry mob formed, spurred on by misinformation about the accident itself, and fortified by preexisting tensions between the Blacks and Jews within the Crown Heights community.
The riot itself
Soon, the mob had mobilized (mob-ilized?) and began mobbin' it over towards a predominantly Hasidic area of Crown Heights, ostensibly for revenge, destroying property and chanting anti-Semitic slogans along their merry way. There, they surrounded a 29 year old Hasidic man who was in the US studying for his doctorate, stabbing him to death and crushing his skull.
The next three days were characterized by violence, looting, and property damage. In fact, even non-residents of Crown Heights were getting in on the act, taking the 2/3/4/5 trains into town for some good ol' fashioned car flippin' and mayhem. By the time the carnival ground to a halt, "152 police officers and 38 civilians were injured, 27 vehicles were destroyed, seven stores were looted or burned, and 225 cases of robbery and burglary were committed. At least 129 arrests were made during the riots, including 122 blacks and seven whites. Property damage was estimated at one million dollars." (Wiki)
The Aftermath
Fortunately, some good came of all of this idiocy. Jewish and Black leaders banded together to attempt to break down stereotypes and to start an open dialogue between the two cultures and provide education.
NYC Mayor David Dinkins was heavily criticized for not deploying sufficient police forces to Crown Heights after the riot was underway, and this failure was one of the principal reasons for his defeat in the 1993 election. Dinkins' opponent harped on his reluctance to use police force in Crown Heights repeatedly on the campaign trail, and, after defeating Dinkins, proceeded to allow the police unprecedented leeway in an attempt to decrease crime in NYC. Dinkins' opponent? Yup, this guy.
Friday, March 12, 2010
Friday, March 5, 2010
Fat Cats! Boss Tweed and the Tamany Hall Machine, whatever the fuck that means
Not a good way to start out something you hope other people might read, but this so wasn't as interesting as I thought it would be. I guess the political cartoons in my middle school history books gave El Tweedo an undeserved veneer of interestingness and underworld sleaze. So...what DID he do then...(if you are still reading...)
Defrauded taxpayers out of millions (which was way more in then-time/1870 dollahs---probs billionish). He and his cronies just kind of controlled NYC. He paid people he liked way more than they deserved out of public coffers and people he didn't like nothing. I guess I don't know what I was expecting, but something a little more shysty and macabre?
Wait! But he DID improve NYC--widened streets on the Upper West Side, tried to make people donate to ALL denominations, general charity support, money towards Met.
I guess it's one of those times when the middle school books were right--he is most importantly regarded as a victim of perjorative political cartoons at the poison inked fingahs of Thomas Nast.
Live on, ye Ole Boss Tweed, as an example of historical names whose stories weren't as interesting as the cache/glamor of your hard-earned scuzz name.
Defrauded taxpayers out of millions (which was way more in then-time/1870 dollahs---probs billionish). He and his cronies just kind of controlled NYC. He paid people he liked way more than they deserved out of public coffers and people he didn't like nothing. I guess I don't know what I was expecting, but something a little more shysty and macabre?
Wait! But he DID improve NYC--widened streets on the Upper West Side, tried to make people donate to ALL denominations, general charity support, money towards Met.
I guess it's one of those times when the middle school books were right--he is most importantly regarded as a victim of perjorative political cartoons at the poison inked fingahs of Thomas Nast.
Live on, ye Ole Boss Tweed, as an example of historical names whose stories weren't as interesting as the cache/glamor of your hard-earned scuzz name.
Monday, February 1, 2010
Ujamaaaaaaaa!
I am embarrassed to say that, until recently, I did not realize that Ujamaa was anything other than a residence hall at Cornell...I was corrected by a book I am reading called 'The Fate of Africa,' which is basically a (terrifically depressing) account of every country in Africa's transition from colonial rule to independence.
Ujamaa was the philosophy of communal living and economy developed and adhered to by Julius Nyerere, the first President of independent Tanzania. Under this governing philosophy, the economy was nationalized and the government administered through a centralized unit similar to those in communist governments. Ujamaa was supposedly different, however, because it dovetailed with the African tendency towards communal/village living. At first, Nyerere made collective living optional, incentivizing the practice through government subsidies, but soon realized that he would need more people to join into collective living in order for his precarious system to work. Unsurprisingly, Nyerere was 'forced' to mandate collective membership and resorted to violent measures in order to carry out his vision.
While not as abhorrent as the policies and practice of many of his neighbors, Nyerere's originally idyllic notions ended in the same way that most communist experiences seem to: 'reeducation'/indoctrination, sending to work camps, economic collapse. The World Bank and many western powers were embarrassed by their initial optimism and correspondingly generous investment in the program.
It seemed initially that, because Tanzanians had a historic tendency towards some form of communal living, Ujamaa would fare better there than in other places where more materialistic, modern impulses had already taken hold. The philosophy was also rooted in the desire to free Africans from their Western colonial overlords who, even during ostensible 'independence', still exerted an inordinate amount of control over the economic fate of their former colonies. Although the experiment was ill-fated, the notion of 'ujamaa' has persisted as an ideal, a symbol of African pride.
Ujamaa was the philosophy of communal living and economy developed and adhered to by Julius Nyerere, the first President of independent Tanzania. Under this governing philosophy, the economy was nationalized and the government administered through a centralized unit similar to those in communist governments. Ujamaa was supposedly different, however, because it dovetailed with the African tendency towards communal/village living. At first, Nyerere made collective living optional, incentivizing the practice through government subsidies, but soon realized that he would need more people to join into collective living in order for his precarious system to work. Unsurprisingly, Nyerere was 'forced' to mandate collective membership and resorted to violent measures in order to carry out his vision.
While not as abhorrent as the policies and practice of many of his neighbors, Nyerere's originally idyllic notions ended in the same way that most communist experiences seem to: 'reeducation'/indoctrination, sending to work camps, economic collapse. The World Bank and many western powers were embarrassed by their initial optimism and correspondingly generous investment in the program.
It seemed initially that, because Tanzanians had a historic tendency towards some form of communal living, Ujamaa would fare better there than in other places where more materialistic, modern impulses had already taken hold. The philosophy was also rooted in the desire to free Africans from their Western colonial overlords who, even during ostensible 'independence', still exerted an inordinate amount of control over the economic fate of their former colonies. Although the experiment was ill-fated, the notion of 'ujamaa' has persisted as an ideal, a symbol of African pride.
Sunday, January 17, 2010
Veni Vidi Vichy
Why Vichy?
After recently watching the movie Inglourious Basterds (and, yes, fellow wegetlearned-blogger, I know this wasn't your favorite), I was reminded of a topic I have been meaning to learn more about for a while: the Vichy. As with the post on the Balkans in WWII (and I know I need to get back to the Balkans mess, but it really did crush my soul a little bit, the difficulty of finding any real narrative), researching the Vichy presents the opportunity to explore the interplay between Nazi ruthlessness, reaction by the pillaged, and the ever-difficult quandary of opting to stand up to your captors--and face certain punishment and/or death--or pragmatic surrender. We all obviously hope that we would do the former, heroically housing enemies of the Nazi Party, but definitely an uncomfortable question...
Invasion and Surrender
Many in France were confronted with this very dilemma when the Germans invaded in 1940, with France officially surrendering on June 22, 1940. France had declared war on Germany after the Nazi invasion of Poland. The Nazis military might overwhelmed France and their imminent defeat inspired infighting in the military and governmental command, with some factions promoting a move to Northern Africa. An armistice was eventually agreed to between Hitler and the French command.
Formation of the Vichy
The vice-premier at the time of surrender, Petain, was named president and, in July 1940, a new capital was established in Vichy, France. So was born the infamous Vichy regime--a name that would become synonymous with lack of principles, cowardice and 'sleeping with the enemy.' A vote took place at that first meeting in Vichy, the results of which granted Petain full powers to do basically whatever he wanted--including writing a new constitution. Many argue that the vote--and, accordingly, the actions that followed--were not legitimate. Petain executed a full-on collaborationist effort with the Nazi regime, including registration and, eventually, internment of all undesirables (Jews, homosexuals, gypsies) at places such as Camp Gurs--an internment camp set up in Southwestern France.
US reaction to Vichy
The US originally recognized the Vichy government, but, after their offical support of the Nazi Barbarossa campaign against Russia, denounced recognition. All the while, the Free French regime, headed by Charles deGaulle, was stationed in the UK. Roosevelt apparently preferred the Vichy regime to de Gaulle--not sure WHY.
Post-Liberation
Following the Allies invasion of France in 1944, and subsequent Liberation of France/Paris, the Vichy were taken to Germany. The provisional government declared the Vichy unconstitutional, so any actions taken by them were nullified. The laws sanctioning the discrimination against undesirables were loudly denounced. A wave of executions of collaborationists swept France in the immediate aftermath of the Liberation. After the provisional govt took power, random convictions were replaced by commissions and, eventually, amnesty for many former Vichies. Petain was found guilty of treason and sentence to death, but his sentence was commuted to life imprisonment by de Gaulle.
Afterthoughts
There is still much debate regarding whether or not France should take collective responsibility for the horrors perpetrated by the Vichy govt. Some maintain that the actions taken by Petain were in France's best interests and intended to preserve the state during wartime, to stave off complete annihilation. Difficult to say what would have been the best thing to do, but it certainly is a dark and shameful part of France's history...supposedly, 75,000 Jews were deported to internment camps and countless more suffered at the hands of the Vichy.
After recently watching the movie Inglourious Basterds (and, yes, fellow wegetlearned-blogger, I know this wasn't your favorite), I was reminded of a topic I have been meaning to learn more about for a while: the Vichy. As with the post on the Balkans in WWII (and I know I need to get back to the Balkans mess, but it really did crush my soul a little bit, the difficulty of finding any real narrative), researching the Vichy presents the opportunity to explore the interplay between Nazi ruthlessness, reaction by the pillaged, and the ever-difficult quandary of opting to stand up to your captors--and face certain punishment and/or death--or pragmatic surrender. We all obviously hope that we would do the former, heroically housing enemies of the Nazi Party, but definitely an uncomfortable question...
Invasion and Surrender
Many in France were confronted with this very dilemma when the Germans invaded in 1940, with France officially surrendering on June 22, 1940. France had declared war on Germany after the Nazi invasion of Poland. The Nazis military might overwhelmed France and their imminent defeat inspired infighting in the military and governmental command, with some factions promoting a move to Northern Africa. An armistice was eventually agreed to between Hitler and the French command.
Formation of the Vichy
The vice-premier at the time of surrender, Petain, was named president and, in July 1940, a new capital was established in Vichy, France. So was born the infamous Vichy regime--a name that would become synonymous with lack of principles, cowardice and 'sleeping with the enemy.' A vote took place at that first meeting in Vichy, the results of which granted Petain full powers to do basically whatever he wanted--including writing a new constitution. Many argue that the vote--and, accordingly, the actions that followed--were not legitimate. Petain executed a full-on collaborationist effort with the Nazi regime, including registration and, eventually, internment of all undesirables (Jews, homosexuals, gypsies) at places such as Camp Gurs--an internment camp set up in Southwestern France.
US reaction to Vichy
The US originally recognized the Vichy government, but, after their offical support of the Nazi Barbarossa campaign against Russia, denounced recognition. All the while, the Free French regime, headed by Charles deGaulle, was stationed in the UK. Roosevelt apparently preferred the Vichy regime to de Gaulle--not sure WHY.
Post-Liberation
Following the Allies invasion of France in 1944, and subsequent Liberation of France/Paris, the Vichy were taken to Germany. The provisional government declared the Vichy unconstitutional, so any actions taken by them were nullified. The laws sanctioning the discrimination against undesirables were loudly denounced. A wave of executions of collaborationists swept France in the immediate aftermath of the Liberation. After the provisional govt took power, random convictions were replaced by commissions and, eventually, amnesty for many former Vichies. Petain was found guilty of treason and sentence to death, but his sentence was commuted to life imprisonment by de Gaulle.
Afterthoughts
There is still much debate regarding whether or not France should take collective responsibility for the horrors perpetrated by the Vichy govt. Some maintain that the actions taken by Petain were in France's best interests and intended to preserve the state during wartime, to stave off complete annihilation. Difficult to say what would have been the best thing to do, but it certainly is a dark and shameful part of France's history...supposedly, 75,000 Jews were deported to internment camps and countless more suffered at the hands of the Vichy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)