Megan McArdle wonders when rioting works. In the process she states:

But what’s really striking about the riots is how little they changed. They made things much worse in the neighborhoods they devastated, of course. And they did produce some moderate change at the municipal political level, particularly in DC, where the operations of the city had often been controlled by old-school southern senators whose priorities, to put it mildly, were not the liberty and economic advancement of the city’s black residents. But despite what some of the black and white radical leaders of the era thought, there was never even a modest chance that the widespread rioting that followed King’s assassination was going to trigger a change in the overall government of the country.

I’ve written before about the areas in DC that were destroyed by rioting following the assassination of MLK. In short, they’ve sat as burned out monuments to self-destruction, until recently when they’ve been re-civilized by an influx of white people.

Ms McArdles states that the pre-rioting DC government was not focused on the advancement of the city’s black residents.

Presumably, this means that the post-rioting DC government was focused on the advancement of the city’s black residents. Certainly, the post-rioting government was controlled by blacks as monolithically (if not more so) than the pre-rioting government was controlled by "old-school southern senators."

I would not like to defend either system of government, but it’s worth pointing out that in the old days, blacks in DC were much less likely to be murdered and they could obtain a decent education. They could also safely walk through most, if not all, areas of the city. They also advanced at a faster rate under the old government.

The new government, on the other hand, is perhaps perfectly embodied by Marion Barry. Has there ever been a politician so perfectly matched with a political climate? When control of the DC government was turned over to locally-elected officials, opponents of the transfer of power said that the mayor would end up being someone . . . less than spectacularly competent. Was any group ever proved more correct? When you think of Marion Barry do you think of someone "focused on the advancement of the city’s black residents?" I do not.

3 Responses to Rioting

  1. tschafer says:

    Once again, we encounter the bizzare belief that cracking down on crime is somehow “anti-black” and that lax law enforcement is “pro-black”, when most victims of crime are – you guessed it – black. McArdle should know better. When polled, most blacks favor stricter law enforcement – but of course, that’s just ordinary blacks, not black “leaders”, so white liberals don’t care.

  2. Obsidian says:

    Hi Foseti,
    Following your logic above, Blacks had it better under de facto and de jure segregation. Am I right? If so, why not simply come right out and say so – this is what Thomas Sowell said in his Black Rednecks and White Liberals, when he discussed DC public schools and how Black kids performed in them back in the day, most notably the famed Paul Lawrence Dunbar school.



    • Foseti says:

      I don’t think it’s that clear cut. There were obviously problems with the old system. I think the goal of a DC that was run by local officials was the correct goal. I would have preferred a gradual path to the transfer of power away from Congress.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: