Dateline Sacramento – State Assemblymember Mike A. Gipson (D-Carson) today has successfully defended a resolution commemorating the 50th anniversary of the Watts Revolt despite criticism by several members of the Assembly Judiciary committee.
The document technically known as Assembly Concurrent Resolution 92, which passed by an 8-2 bipartisan vote, is part of a series of statewide and local events this summer to acknowledge the historical significance of the Watts civil unrest of 1965.
Mr. Gipson explained that his resolution “shares the narrative on civil unrest in Watts from the community’s perspective. It addresses the foundations of injustice that led to the revolt, and it celebrates celebrating the peaceful triumphs that came in response.”
During testimony, a Republican member of the committee criticized the Gipson resolution as a celebration of riots. He said the resolution should instead celebrate families “that didn’t succumb to the savagery.”
Mr. Gipson denied that it was the intent of his document to celebrate or condone riots,
“I find it regrettable,” he said, “that a member of the Assembly chose words that dehumanized a group of people.
“It is that precise attitude towards others that this measure seeks to draw attention towards. Our future will crumble if not built on a foundation of lessons learned from past events.”
Mr. Gipson represents the 64th Assembly District, spanning Carson, Compton, Gardena, Harbor Gateway, Lynwood, North Long Beach, Rancho Dominguez, South Los Angeles, Torrance, Watts/Willowbrook and Wilmington.
I have decided to comment on this somewhat, still touchy subject, knowing full well that one wrong word, one missed-placed punctuation on my part or a misinterpretation by an angry reader could mislabel me as something I am not.
I just recently reviewed some of the news coverage of the 1965 Watts riots on YouTube and of some the later news analyses when nationally renowned reporters went to Watts in the months after the riots to ask the people who lived it, what they thought happened and what they hoped would come about because of it. Most of these people caught up in it, actually called it a riot. Only one person interviewed called it a revolution.
Now, more than a generation later, some Democratic state assembly members want to re-write History under the guise of commemorating these six days of local violence and destruction by referring to it as “the Watts Revolt”—I also have heard the term: “The Watts Rebellion.”
It seems these members are trying to eradicate the negative stigmas associated with the riots. They understand that if it is called a riot, then those associated with the burning and looting will be remembered as rioters. But, if they can re-labeled as a revolt, then, the rioters, later on, could be turned into “revolutionaries.”
As a young teenager growing up in our own “little white island” called Culver City in the 1950’s and early 60’s, I remember seeing on the nightly news coverage of a man who was preaching a non-violent approach to achieving Civil Rights across America. But, then, I also saw news reports of rioters across America, who chose burning, looting and violence to express themselves.
Today, remembering back, I still wonder which approach brought about more significant changes in our own country’s race relations: The violent outburst and destruction caused by a small group of rioters or the more civilized, non-violent, approach preached by Dr King.
@ George Laase
America was birthed from violence. Cultivated it’s wealth from violence.
Violence forced chains onto innocent men, women and children and placed them into a sadistic hell of bondage and sufferage. It took violence, to set them free.
The American Shangri la was created exclusively for the “divide and conquer” invaders, and their descendants. While it is violence that denied melinated races, even the most basic provisions and opportunities that were left to be inherited as the “American Dream”.
Issue’s of justice and equality for the melinated races in America, have historically and sytemically been discounted as unworthy of consideration, regardless of peaceful appeals.
It’s understandable that those who wish to peacefully enjoy the spoils of their forefather’s wrong-doing’s, would surely encourage civilized non-violent protest, as the issue’s voiced by quiet protest’s do not warrant any attention, as long as personal peace can still be enjoyed.
Violence killed Dr. King, for his civilized non-violent efforts.
The victims of injustice understand well that…
Violence is the language that founded America, and it’s the only language that is mutually understood here.