‘America on Fire’: How police oppression fuels protests by Black citizens

Historian Elizabeth Hinton analyzes the cycle of police aggression and Black community protests since the 1960s in "America on Fire."

W. W. Norton
“America on Fire: The Untold History of Police Violence and Black Rebellion Since the 1960s” by Elizabeth Hinton, Liveright, 408 pp.

A painful pattern repeats itself throughout America: A Black person is killed by police officers, protests ensue, and police are brought in to stifle the demonstrations. Most of the time, the protests against racial injustice are peaceful, but occasionally violence breaks out. Meanwhile, politicians do little to prevent the cycle from continuing. 

The language surrounding that cycle is highly politicized. Elizabeth Hinton, a professor of history, African American studies, and law at Yale, drills down on the term “riot,” which she argues is a misnomer. In her book, “America on Fire: The Untold History of Police Violence and Black Rebellion Since the 1960s,” she suggests instead that violent protests are political acts best described as rebellions – “a sustained insurgency” against “an unjust and repressive society.”

This is a sequel of sorts to Hinton’s 2016 book, “From the War on Poverty to the War on Crime: The Making of Mass Incarceration in America.” There, Hinton showed how fears of violence prompted federal policymakers to build punitive, militarized urban police forces that filled prisons with Black inmates. In this equally impressive followup, Hinton chronicles how attempts to quell protests in American cities actually spawned more unrest.

Hinton begins the narrative in the late 1960s, a time when young Black Americans had grown frustrated with the failure of the civil rights movement to deliver on many of its promises. Disenchanted youths were confronted by police over minor infractions such as noisy parties or street football games, which officers let slide in white neighborhoods. Public housing projects and newly integrated public schools became particular flashpoints.

In the loop that followed, Black teens who were angry at being singled out often hurled rocks at officers. Police responded with riot gear, tear gas, and armored vehicles. At times, some Black protesters escalated further by throwing Molotov cocktails or shooting at officers from rooftops. (The prevalence of Black snipers was exaggerated, Hinton writes, a “bogeyman” that tapped into white fears of Black veterans trained to wage war in Vietnam and the specter of a nationwide Black conspiracy to kill police officers.)

Hinton doesn’t excuse such violence, but explains why it happens. “Black people might not believe it necessary to take the law into their own hands if the law worked for instead of against them,” she writes. Any form of self-defense by Black residents was deemed illegitimate, she explains, while violence perpetrated by white people was often overlooked.

The same pattern unfolded in big cities as well as smaller communities like York, Pennsylvania, and Cairo, Illinois, which are Hinton’s focus here.

In Cairo, the scene of a harrowing, years-long cycle of violence, white vigilantes donned white helmets and patrolled the streets with shotguns and dogs. Police gave bullets to white gangs, and at one point, Cairo’s mayor said, “If we have to kill them [Blacks] we’ll have to kill them.” 

Riots have come to be seen as a fundamentally Black phenomenon. But Hinton points out that most instances of mass criminality were historically perpetrated by whites.

“White vigilante violence was a means to police the activities of Black people and to limit their access to jobs, leisure, the franchise, and to the political sphere,” Hinton writes. Only when white people “no longer appeared to be the driving force behind riots” were those riots labeled as “purely criminal, and completely senseless, acts.”

In the last 40 years, major rebellions have tended to break out only “after exceptional incidents of police brutality or miscarried justice,” Hinton writes.

She points to the occasional sign of hope. In Cincinnati, “vigorous” intervention by the U.S. Department of Justice helped overhaul the police department. Trust increased as the police use-of-force incidents fell by more than half, although these reforms brought only “limited change” for most Black people in the city, according to Hinton.  

The author touches briefly on the new Black Lives Matter era of rebellion – fueled in part by ubiquitous videos of police brutality – and how it differs from earlier ones. She notes that much of the violence following George Floyd’s death in Minneapolis in 2020 was directed at monuments rather than police officers or businesses. Some police and public officials have begun to participate in nationwide demonstrations to express support, and they’ve worked to defuse tensions.

At the height of the protests, Hinton notes that Sen. Tom Cotton, a Republican from Arkansas, wrote in The New York Times that the right way to “subdue” the “rioters” was with “an overwhelming show of force to disperse, detain, and ultimately deter lawbreakers.” 

Hinton, who began work on this book long before the summer of 2020, serves up a timely repudiation of that approach. Lawmakers would surely benefit from reading what she’s produced. 

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.