The truth about the Detroit 1967 Riot

250px-detroitskyline.jpg 

 

Today’s Detroit has little to do with 1967

What if riot never happened? City was still headed for slide

Some year, July 23 will pass in metro Detroit without reexaminations of the 1967 riot/rebellion/insurrection/civil disturbance.

Some year, the scratchy images of Motown’s version of the Summer of Love — burning buildings, looted stores, sniper fire, “Soul Brother” graffiti, combat-hardened paratroopers and spread-eagled young black men in fedoras and skinny pants — will fade.

Forgetting won’t be easy, though. There are numerous books about the riot, at least one TV documentary and songs by Gordon Lightfoot, John Lee Hooker and the MC5.

The riot also looms large in the consciousness of white suburbanites; conventional wisdom is that July 1967 was the turning point in Detroit’s recent history, the cause of flight to the suburbs, the breeder of all things bad about their once-beloved city, the event that kicked off Detroit’s transformation from the world’s greatest factory town to the struggling, impoverished city of today.

There is one question, though, that the discussion panels rarely take up: What if the events of that July never happened?

What if the police raid on that blind pig at 12th and Clairmount had gone off peacefully and Detroit had escaped the 1960s without a week in which 43 died and 2,509 stores were looted or burned?

The passage of four decades allows some perspective. And there is ample evidence that however dramatic and dreadful, the riot was not the sole turning point for Detroit.

Even without a riot, there is much evidence that Detroit still would be pretty much the city it is today — still yoked to the troubled auto industry, still fighting economic decline, still shrinking, still struggling valiantly to remake itself, still achieving some successes amid the fires, shootings and poverty that are ubiquitous in 21st-Century American cities.

The roots of all those things were in place before the Motor City started burning.

“Many, many white Detroiters think of the riot as having caused the city’s problems. It’s exactly the opposite,” said Kevin Boyle, a history professor and author at Ohio State University who grew up in Detroit. “The riot was a consequence of — a manifestation of — its deep problems.”

Problems went back a long way

At one point in the 1960s, city officials were struggling to get a handle on factory closings, stem the flight of white residents to the burbs and deal with a crime wave. Time magazine reported back then that “blight is creeping like a fungus through many of Detroit’s proud old neighborhoods.”

The mayor blasted the story as slanted and biased.

The year was 1961. The mayor was Louis Miriani. The riot was still six years away.

Some white suburbanites like to poke fun at the way Detroit is run today. But they ignore the facts: Postwar Detroit, run by whites from top to bottom, clearly was foundering long before the first looter busted the first window on 12th Street. And the system that whites had created over the decades was discriminatory and at times brutal for the more than one-third of the city’s residents who were African American in 1967.

“The riot’s roots lay in unemployment, poverty and powerlessness — all caused by an urban system that couldn’t provide people with jobs, opportunity and hope,” Boyle said.

Consider:

• Suburban flight: U.S. census figures show the white population of Detroit dropped by 23% in the 1950s alone. The number of whites had plummeted by at least 500,000 between 1950 and July 1967. The suburbs were booming: Northland, Eastland, Wonderland, Summit Place, Macomb, Universal, Livonia and Westland malls had opened by 1967. And Warren, by some accounts, was the fastest-growing city in the nation.

• Factory closings: According to a 1961 planning study, Detroit lost about 840 manufacturing plants in the 1950s, chief among them the Packard and Hudson auto companies. During the 1950s, the number of manufacturing jobs in Detroit, Hamtramck and Highland Park dropped by 30%. Unemployment among black men ages 18 to 24 in 1967 was more than 25%.

• Retail loss: In 1961, the city’s Board of Assessors reported to concerned City Council members that about 12% of Detroit’s 40,460 store buildings were vacant.

• Abandoned houses: A 1961 University of Michigan study found that 22% of the dwelling units within 3 miles of downtown were empty.

• Race relations: A true race riot, in which black and white Detroiters engaged in vicious hand-to-hand combat, took place in 1943 — 34 people died in three days. The 1950s were filled with incidents of white mobs attacking black families who had the audacity to move into all-white neighborhoods. Brutality by the virtually all-white police force was one of the black community’s chief complaints in 1967.

All of these reasons are why some refer to the actions of that week in July as a rebellion instead of a riot.

If the riot had not happened, it seems fair to assume that business and resident flight would have continued, and poverty would have increased, just as in other beleaguered Rust Belt cities such as Pittsburgh, Cleveland, St. Louis and Buffalo that did not experience riots of the magnitude of Detroit’s.

The crisis in Detroit’s lifeblood — manufacturing — is a nationwide phenomenon that has nothing to do with the riot. The automakers’ U.S. market share has been declining for years. It stood at 47.8% from April to June. Would the city’s three automakers be better off in 2007 had 1967 been just another year in Detroit? Unlikely. There is no connection.

Detroit has a unique history. It experienced a sudden surge of growth starting in 1900 that ended with the Depression, picked up again in the 1940s and ended for good in the early 1950s. Then the city began shrinking rapidly.

J.L. Hudson Jr., the 35-year-old president of Detroit’s largest department store in 1967 and a leader in postriot efforts to rebuild the city, told interviewer Sidney Fine in 1984 that the city’s dizzying growth left it ill-prepared for long-term stability.

“The riots were certainly a negative, but not the sole cause of this,” Hudson said.

The death of a dream in Detroit

The riot certainly accelerated white flight and commercial abandonment. So, without a riot, the imbalance in almost everything from bowling alleys, to movie theaters, to shopping malls between city and suburbia in southeast Michigan likely would not be so extreme in 2007.

The violence of July 1967 certainly jacked up the local paranoia level, as well as rumors, handgun ownership and rhetoric.

Would the region’s troubled race relations be better today had the riot not happened? Perhaps. But the riot also led to the founding of New Detroit Inc., Detroit Renaissance and FOCUS: Hope, which all continue to work for racial harmony and development.

The riot clearly delivered a blow to Detroit’s reputation, from which it never has recovered. Detroit in 1967 bragged of itself as a model city when it came to race relations and fighting poverty — two hallmarks of Mayor Jerome Cavanagh’s administration.

Local author B.J. Widick, writing in the Nation magazine in 1967, said one of the greatest casualties of the riot was the “death of the dream that Detroit was different.”

Reynolds Farley, a University of Michigan sociologist, said this week: “For some decades, Detroit has been the most negatively stereotyped major city in the country. Part of that, I suspect, is attributable to the riot and its consequences.”

The riot led to a radicalization of many black activists. And eventually to the election in 1973 of Coleman Young as Detroit’s first black mayor, according to Heather Ann Thompson, a history professor at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, who also grew up in Detroit. She wrote a book about the era, “Whose Detroit?” published in 2001.

Thompson said this week that the riot served as the catalyst for black radicals to battle the white power structure in auto plants, the police department and courts from 1967 to ’73. They won many victories. And that set the stage for Young, a leftist Democrat with a radical background, who took extreme positions — in the minds of many whites — on such issues as race and reforming the police department.

Addressing white flight, Thompson said there is no question “the most precipitous group exodus was in the wake of the political battles that were waged in Detroit after — and because of — the riot, and in the wake of the finale of those battles, the election of Young.”

City-suburban divide continues

Forty years after the 1967 riot, Detroit has made great strides in rebuilding its downtown and riverfront, but many neighborhoods are poorer and shabbier than in 1967. Flight continues, but now many African-American families are moving to the suburbs.

As the region’s economic crisis lingers, many suburbs are experiencing the population loss and commercial abandonment that were the first signs in the 1950s that Detroit was in decline. Once fast-growing Warren lately has been losing a higher percentage of residents than Detroit, and the question of how to handle blight has become one of the city’s major political issues.

Race relations remain complex and problematic, and they pop up in everything from actual assaults, to regional debates about the zoo, to the water system and expanding Cobo Center.

There is no white or black public figure who can be considered an outspoken leader on improving race relations: If you are white and from the suburbs, appearing too sympathetic to Detroit can be career suicide. If you are a black Detroiter, appearing too sympathetic to suburbia can get you branded as an Uncle Tom.

The ongoing integration of suburbia eventually could change the racial dynamic across 8 Mile.

Some year, metro Detroiters might be able to debate issues, like rebuilding the region, without racial rancor. Some year, the riot might seem irrelevant.

Contact BILL McGRAW at 313-223-4781 or bmcgraw@freepress.com.

Copyright © 2007 Detroit Free Press Inc.

About these ads

~ by kaoblues on July 20, 2007.

12 Responses to “The truth about the Detroit 1967 Riot”

  1. this is a good story and a long time in coming. the free press is the more liberal of the two papers, but ten years ago i am not sure that they would’ve kept the through line. they’d have had someone questioning the data in order to be “objective.”

    it’ll be interesting to see what the news says.

    • Didn’t blaming the last white mayor (and not identifying him as a Democrat) fifty years ago for Detroit today seem like a bit of the stretch to you??

  2. Hey Lester.

    Yeah, I really liked this piece. I’m not surprised it was done well because I know trhe reporter from when I used to write for the Free Press years ago as a member of the editorial board there. That was before the strike. Anyway, Bill McGraw is one of the best reporters there by far.

    As for the News, which, as you say, has always hung out on the right side of things, they’ve actually been doing quite a bit of lead-up coverage that you can probably still access on their website. Some of it’s pretty good.

  3. Whats interesting is the media have failed and continue to fail the metro area.The divisive reporting that led up to and the aftermath of the rebellion, is criminal I dare to say if someone would research newspaper coverage of the peroid,they would find the style of blame when emp[irical data has shown other wise i.e. Detroit strating losing population in 1952 and it was government policy (g.i. bill) that led to the tenderbox condition.

  4. Tootsie,

    The media has played a less-than-admirable role quite frequently when it comes to the accurate reporting of our issues. The media has also gotten some things very right, and old-school journalists like the late Edward R. Murrow really helped to bring the truth to the forefront. But getting the media to get it right has never been easy.

  5. Detroit is just an example of what happans when black people are left on their own.

    faceit, you need white folks to feed you and protect you from each other.

  6. When you mention that white people were in charge of Detroit when it began it’s slide – make sure you mention that it was White Democrats…

  7. Entire story on the decline of Detroit and not one instance of the word: Democrat.

  8. Gotta laugh. So it was “whitey” that did in Detroit – fifty years ago no less.
    I guess same logic applies to Obama. Five years of his failed economic policies and he’s STILL blaming Bush.

  9. I remember a story back about that time of a white woman being mugged in broad daylight with many black people around just ignoring her plight. It made national news and sent a message all across the nation that there was no law protection in Detroit for white people. It only takes a few instances like that and rational people avoid the area. People do not like any color of predators.

  10. In 1960 My 75-year old father (white) was a door-to-door salesman with customers (black) in the 12th street area. One day he was beaten up on 12th Street in broad daylight. Nobody called the police, not even people who recognized him and who saw it from 2nd floor windows. He came home by bus, covered in blood. He blamed it on the fact that he was wearing a new straw hat and a bunch of punks thought he had money (he didn’t). We, his children, forced him to retire – since then all of us have left the Detroit area.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: