5 ms·

Its possible to push the majority of people so hard that you reach a social breaking point, suddenly things can go from seeming to be normal to a sudden social

Its possible to push the majority of people so hard that you reach a social breaking point, suddenly things can go from seeming to be normal to a sudden social collapse. I lived through this during the LA Riots. The LA Riots were about a lot more than just Rodney King. The video of the King beating was the one incident that was like the straw breaking the camel's back, after suffering through massive social upheaval and loss of income for the majority of working people in LA through the 80s, the CIA using their assets to dump crack cocaine into poor neighborhoods, after 12 years of Reagan and Bush life had gotten so bad in LA for the majority of people that one video was all it wound up taking to instigate a sudden social collapse where every block in LA was going up in flames where guns were going off everywhere and the police fled the city in fear and let it nearly burn to the ground for 2 weeks before the national guard showed up. That's sudden social collapse nobody saw the 92 riots coming but in the aggregate it wasn't hard to predict if you were paying attention to statistics on the impact of Reagomics and crack on LA.

e40 9y ago
This. 100%. And that build up is happening again. This time, it's happening to white people (gasp!) [disclosure: I'm one of them]. What will happen in 10+ years when all those people with College debt are still working at Starbucks (or worse) and have 1) no hope of paying back their loans, and 2) have no prospects for saving for retirement? I would expect that a significant number of Americans will start mobilizing in some way. You can only push people so far.
- ianai 9y ago
  In the US people can change the government peacefully with a vote. But that process only gives them two choices that largely represent no one but corporate interests. I hope at some point the US adopts a better voting system.
  - cannonedhamster 9y ago
    No real change has ever happened in America without blood being spilled. * Labor unions had state militias called on them and thousands were massacred at the hands of private security agencies during the Mine Wars * Women had to die in the Triangle massacre before safety became a concern. * Martin Luther King along with tons of other black people needed to die just to be considered humans. * Vietnam required the Kent State Massacre. * How many children and civilians have we had die needlessly at the hands of the police? You can't get a jury to convict them. The American government has never represented the people. It will take nothing less than large amounts violence to change the country if history is any indicator of the future.
    - dvtv75 9y ago
      What was the Triangle massacre? I can't find much about it.
      - Avshalom 9y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangle_Shirtwaist_Factory_fire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangle_Shirtwaist_Factory_fi...
      - harimau777 9y ago
        I'm guessing he's referring to the Traigle Shirtwaist Factory fire. Basically the management locked the women working at the factory in because they thought they would sneak out instead of working. So when a fire broke out the women couldn't escape. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangle_Shirtwaist_Factory_fire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangle_Shirtwaist_Factory_fi...
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
  - azemetre 9y ago
    Well when it comes to corporate interests you literally have the GOP party shut down Net Neutrality while the DNC has made preserving NN a party platform and plan on acting legislation when they gain back control. Claiming that both sides favor corporations is to deny reality when it comes to voting records. Republicans have consistently passed legislation that hurt consumers and benefit corporations, another recent example was banning consumers ability to start class action lawsuits against banks. You have the DNC legislature that was enabled to create the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a bureau that the GOP voted whole-hardheartedly against and continue to weaken now that they control Congress and the Senate. You have the GOP that put a pro-corporate Justice on SCOTUS that thinks employees should be punished when they aren't willing to risk their life in literal life and death circumstances in ransAm Trucking v. Administrative Review Board. I'm sorry but there is clearly one party that cares about people and it ain't the fucking GOP.
    - Asooka 9y ago
      Whichever party won the election would be the one bought by corporations and championing repeal of net neutrality, while their opposition would be for net neutrality.
      - NotSammyHagar 9y ago
        But that is not what happened when obama was pres. When is party, the dems were the majority, they did things against corps. He wasn't perfect, but a lot of his behavior was organized around pushing things through that plenty of corps hated, like the consumer financial protection bureau.
  - siruncledrew 9y ago
    I think many Americans (especially younger ones) are at the point where they are jaded by the act of voting. Sure, I can cast a vote for someone, but what difference does it make in changing the government? The government isn't like some small-town legislature where single people can stand up and closely represent their fellow citizens. Everyone is taking money from someone at the end of the day to get elected, and that someone is rich people. Us "normal people" are worthless to political representatives at the end of day - it doesn't matter what the party is. Honestly, getting votes from people is just a formality for elected officials at this point, and once elected, all the attention goes to the rich people that financed the campaign in order to "pay them back".
    - Asooka 9y ago
      You should keep voting, so you keep the hope for a good candidate to come along, so you don't get out of the habit of keeping up with politics, and so you send a clear signal that you still believe in the democratic process for whenever it becomes relevant again.
    - ianai 9y ago
      The small participation rate in voting empowers the actual voters. If only 50% show up then each of those voters effectively voices preferences for 2 people (his/herself and another person who didn’t vote). It’s all about perception. Votes are also more valued (by a lot) in swing states.
  - jsoc815 9y ago
    Serious question here: Have you ever worked in any form of US gov't? If not, I'd suggest that you block out some time to do so. You might find the experience to be illuminating. Whether it be local, state, or federal government, it all works pretty much the same way. And none of it, despite peoples' cries, is functioning outside of how it was designed to.
    - ianai 9y ago
      I’ve volunteered for a campaign and worked for a large federal project. I do agree that they’re functioning within acceptable parameters. But the voting system itself is why we only have 2 viable parties that essentially define one another.
      - jsoc815 9y ago
        Thanks for replying. Though I've never worked on a campaign, I imagine that it's a slightly different animal. And without knowing which project you worked on I'd guess similarly. That said, experience in either would probably expose you to the pervasive paternalism and disdain for the "general public" permeating through (most forms of) American gov't. Ironically, my observation is that gov't employment is often less about knowledge/expertise and more about friendsies, patronage/quotas and malleability/docility. @ this point, I'm not convinced that the current state of affairs doesn't reflect the complicity of "the people" (who are constantly reminded to aim for "middle-class" (mediocrity)). Since we'd be working with the same public, changing the # of parties would still likely yield the same result. And I say that as someone who regularly votes on positions not parties or candidates (and is often criticized for doing so).
- emmelaich 9y ago
  Someone really needs to stand up and say college is not worth it for many people. But it's a hard sell. Usually people get advised to 'follow their dreams' -- which can mean a couple of years of boredom and stress followed by huge debt.
  - jsoc815 9y ago
    Where will those who while in college don't factor into employment stats go if not there? Also, think of all of the active voters (professors, administrators, etc...) who will be mighty upset if the paychecks and pensions go unfunded because the young stopped going.
- jsoc815 9y ago
  "This time it's happening to white people (gasp!)" (lol) Yes, that is correct, but it was always happening to them, simply not in a forceful enough manner for them to counteract the counter-messaging that told/tells them how exceptional they are. Anyone who is actually interested in understanding American class dynamics should look at the history of the social CONSTRUCT of race and "whiteness." Who was and wasn't "white" has always changed based on the needs of the uber-affluent to create a protective buffer between themselves and everyone else. (And this isn't exclusive to America. Similar dynamics have played out pretty much non-European area that Europeans 'civilized'.) Digging into immigration policy implementation and development a little can teach one much. Unfortunately, after having had so many years of being able to tell themselves that no matter their respective situations, at least they weren't N-----s, it is incredibly difficult to convince certain people to conduct an objective review of facts. At its 'settling' what was to be America broke down between those who owned stuff and those who would work for them, period. As I said above, once the numbers got a little hairy for the owners, the workers were broken into groups. Workforce and union membership expands to excluded groups as market needs change, i.e. as one group of workers becomes too expansive for employers and/or union membership flags among the initiated... As automation progresses there is less need for any of the people and as such, I believe we end up where we are today. Anyway, I only logged in to ask you (and other sharing your sentiment) how you'd feel about working for $15k a year? I'm in D.C. and recently attended an event at which an 'educated' person working for a big name think tank floated such jobs as a solution to all this angst (particularly among the downtrodden "white" people, since, after Trump's election and all, they are the focus group du jour).
tomcam 9y ago
I was there too. Ask Korean store owners what the riot was about.
- Simon_says 9y ago
  There are a few Hacker News readers who don't know any Korean shopkeepers in LA. Could you just tell us what they think they riot was about?
  - tomcam 9y ago
    Nope. The affected people speak very well for themselves. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OCYT9Hew9ZU https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OCYT9Hew9ZU
    - Simon_says 9y ago
      Interesting video. Thanks for sharing. I was cringing at how the gentleman was standing in the open. Find cover! However, nobody in the video answered the question of what the riots were about, except one person said that it was mostly Hispanics looting, rather than African Americans. But that's demographics, not "why".
  - jsoc815 9y ago
    Here's another video about the situation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=An8LJ_fv0mo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=An8LJ_fv0mo I think it was Atty. Kim's project. And while I think the piece has some valid points, I think the 'conservative' political bent does the work some disservice. I watched it with a Korean friend, who actually tapped out early. Anyway, and this is key to my longer post above, Koreatown was viewed by 'politicians/the affluent' as buffer zone. As is shown in the video, the police didn't respond to the looting here-- because the hope was that the rioters would effectively tire themselves out and avoid the 'important' areas. No one really cared that rioters pillaged their own areas... There was moderate concern about Koreatown, but as it was in close proximity to the heart of the riots AND the concern of a group of political insignificance, they too were expendable. 'Divide and (keep) Conquer(ed)' is part of what social and urban planning is all about.
stephengillie 9y ago
Musical group Sublime has a song titled "April 29, 1992"[0] that describes this in great detail, from a first-person perspective. They lyrically describe the theft/riot angle being catharsis for years of police oppression. "Everybody in the hood has had it into here. It's getting harder and harder and harder every year... They said it was for the black man, they said it was for the Mexican[s], and not for the white man - but if you look at the streets, It wasn't about Rodney King. It's this [expletive] situation and [expletive] police. It's about coming up, and staying on top, and [showing dominance over] an [expletive] cop." [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1dPKfxRhk0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1dPKfxRhk0

e40 9y ago

This. 100%. And that build up is happening again. This time, it's happening to white people (gasp!) [disclosure: I'm one of them]. What will happen in 10+ years when all those people with College debt are still working at Starbucks (or worse) and have 1) no hope of paying back their loans, and 2) have no prospects for saving for retirement? I would expect that a significant number of Americans will start mobilizing in some way. You can only push people so far.

ianai 9y ago
In the US people can change the government peacefully with a vote. But that process only gives them two choices that largely represent no one but corporate interests. I hope at some point the US adopts a better voting system.
- cannonedhamster 9y ago
  No real change has ever happened in America without blood being spilled. * Labor unions had state militias called on them and thousands were massacred at the hands of private security agencies during the Mine Wars * Women had to die in the Triangle massacre before safety became a concern. * Martin Luther King along with tons of other black people needed to die just to be considered humans. * Vietnam required the Kent State Massacre. * How many children and civilians have we had die needlessly at the hands of the police? You can't get a jury to convict them. The American government has never represented the people. It will take nothing less than large amounts violence to change the country if history is any indicator of the future.
  - dvtv75 9y ago
    What was the Triangle massacre? I can't find much about it.
    - Avshalom 9y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangle_Shirtwaist_Factory_fire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangle_Shirtwaist_Factory_fi...
    - harimau777 9y ago
      I'm guessing he's referring to the Traigle Shirtwaist Factory fire. Basically the management locked the women working at the factory in because they thought they would sneak out instead of working. So when a fire broke out the women couldn't escape. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangle_Shirtwaist_Factory_fire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangle_Shirtwaist_Factory_fi...
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- azemetre 9y ago
  Well when it comes to corporate interests you literally have the GOP party shut down Net Neutrality while the DNC has made preserving NN a party platform and plan on acting legislation when they gain back control. Claiming that both sides favor corporations is to deny reality when it comes to voting records. Republicans have consistently passed legislation that hurt consumers and benefit corporations, another recent example was banning consumers ability to start class action lawsuits against banks. You have the DNC legislature that was enabled to create the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a bureau that the GOP voted whole-hardheartedly against and continue to weaken now that they control Congress and the Senate. You have the GOP that put a pro-corporate Justice on SCOTUS that thinks employees should be punished when they aren't willing to risk their life in literal life and death circumstances in ransAm Trucking v. Administrative Review Board. I'm sorry but there is clearly one party that cares about people and it ain't the fucking GOP.
  - Asooka 9y ago
    Whichever party won the election would be the one bought by corporations and championing repeal of net neutrality, while their opposition would be for net neutrality.
    - NotSammyHagar 9y ago
      But that is not what happened when obama was pres. When is party, the dems were the majority, they did things against corps. He wasn't perfect, but a lot of his behavior was organized around pushing things through that plenty of corps hated, like the consumer financial protection bureau.
- siruncledrew 9y ago
  I think many Americans (especially younger ones) are at the point where they are jaded by the act of voting. Sure, I can cast a vote for someone, but what difference does it make in changing the government? The government isn't like some small-town legislature where single people can stand up and closely represent their fellow citizens. Everyone is taking money from someone at the end of the day to get elected, and that someone is rich people. Us "normal people" are worthless to political representatives at the end of day - it doesn't matter what the party is. Honestly, getting votes from people is just a formality for elected officials at this point, and once elected, all the attention goes to the rich people that financed the campaign in order to "pay them back".
  - Asooka 9y ago
    You should keep voting, so you keep the hope for a good candidate to come along, so you don't get out of the habit of keeping up with politics, and so you send a clear signal that you still believe in the democratic process for whenever it becomes relevant again.
  - ianai 9y ago
    The small participation rate in voting empowers the actual voters. If only 50% show up then each of those voters effectively voices preferences for 2 people (his/herself and another person who didn’t vote). It’s all about perception. Votes are also more valued (by a lot) in swing states.
- jsoc815 9y ago
  Serious question here: Have you ever worked in any form of US gov't? If not, I'd suggest that you block out some time to do so. You might find the experience to be illuminating. Whether it be local, state, or federal government, it all works pretty much the same way. And none of it, despite peoples' cries, is functioning outside of how it was designed to.
  - ianai 9y ago
    I’ve volunteered for a campaign and worked for a large federal project. I do agree that they’re functioning within acceptable parameters. But the voting system itself is why we only have 2 viable parties that essentially define one another.
    - jsoc815 9y ago
      Thanks for replying. Though I've never worked on a campaign, I imagine that it's a slightly different animal. And without knowing which project you worked on I'd guess similarly. That said, experience in either would probably expose you to the pervasive paternalism and disdain for the "general public" permeating through (most forms of) American gov't. Ironically, my observation is that gov't employment is often less about knowledge/expertise and more about friendsies, patronage/quotas and malleability/docility. @ this point, I'm not convinced that the current state of affairs doesn't reflect the complicity of "the people" (who are constantly reminded to aim for "middle-class" (mediocrity)). Since we'd be working with the same public, changing the # of parties would still likely yield the same result. And I say that as someone who regularly votes on positions not parties or candidates (and is often criticized for doing so).
emmelaich 9y ago
Someone really needs to stand up and say college is not worth it for many people. But it's a hard sell. Usually people get advised to 'follow their dreams' -- which can mean a couple of years of boredom and stress followed by huge debt.
- jsoc815 9y ago
  Where will those who while in college don't factor into employment stats go if not there? Also, think of all of the active voters (professors, administrators, etc...) who will be mighty upset if the paychecks and pensions go unfunded because the young stopped going.
jsoc815 9y ago
"This time it's happening to white people (gasp!)" (lol) Yes, that is correct, but it was always happening to them, simply not in a forceful enough manner for them to counteract the counter-messaging that told/tells them how exceptional they are. Anyone who is actually interested in understanding American class dynamics should look at the history of the social CONSTRUCT of race and "whiteness." Who was and wasn't "white" has always changed based on the needs of the uber-affluent to create a protective buffer between themselves and everyone else. (And this isn't exclusive to America. Similar dynamics have played out pretty much non-European area that Europeans 'civilized'.) Digging into immigration policy implementation and development a little can teach one much. Unfortunately, after having had so many years of being able to tell themselves that no matter their respective situations, at least they weren't N-----s, it is incredibly difficult to convince certain people to conduct an objective review of facts. At its 'settling' what was to be America broke down between those who owned stuff and those who would work for them, period. As I said above, once the numbers got a little hairy for the owners, the workers were broken into groups. Workforce and union membership expands to excluded groups as market needs change, i.e. as one group of workers becomes too expansive for employers and/or union membership flags among the initiated... As automation progresses there is less need for any of the people and as such, I believe we end up where we are today. Anyway, I only logged in to ask you (and other sharing your sentiment) how you'd feel about working for $15k a year? I'm in D.C. and recently attended an event at which an 'educated' person working for a big name think tank floated such jobs as a solution to all this angst (particularly among the downtrodden "white" people, since, after Trump's election and all, they are the focus group du jour).

tomcam 9y ago

I was there too. Ask Korean store owners what the riot was about.

Simon_says 9y ago
There are a few Hacker News readers who don't know any Korean shopkeepers in LA. Could you just tell us what they think they riot was about?
- tomcam 9y ago
  Nope. The affected people speak very well for themselves. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OCYT9Hew9ZU https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OCYT9Hew9ZU
  - Simon_says 9y ago
    Interesting video. Thanks for sharing. I was cringing at how the gentleman was standing in the open. Find cover! However, nobody in the video answered the question of what the riots were about, except one person said that it was mostly Hispanics looting, rather than African Americans. But that's demographics, not "why".
- jsoc815 9y ago
  Here's another video about the situation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=An8LJ_fv0mo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=An8LJ_fv0mo I think it was Atty. Kim's project. And while I think the piece has some valid points, I think the 'conservative' political bent does the work some disservice. I watched it with a Korean friend, who actually tapped out early. Anyway, and this is key to my longer post above, Koreatown was viewed by 'politicians/the affluent' as buffer zone. As is shown in the video, the police didn't respond to the looting here-- because the hope was that the rioters would effectively tire themselves out and avoid the 'important' areas. No one really cared that rioters pillaged their own areas... There was moderate concern about Koreatown, but as it was in close proximity to the heart of the riots AND the concern of a group of political insignificance, they too were expendable. 'Divide and (keep) Conquer(ed)' is part of what social and urban planning is all about.

stephengillie 9y ago

Musical group Sublime has a song titled "April 29, 1992"[0] that describes this in great detail, from a first-person perspective. They lyrically describe the theft/riot angle being catharsis for years of police oppression. "Everybody in the hood has had it into here. It's getting harder and harder and harder every year... They said it was for the black man, they said it was for the Mexican[s], and not for the white man - but if you look at the streets, It wasn't about Rodney King. It's this [expletive] situation and [expletive] police. It's about coming up, and staying on top, and [showing dominance over] an [expletive] cop." [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1dPKfxRhk0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1dPKfxRhk0