Watts riots early: Sino-Soviet rapprochement?

Source: Voxpedia - Watts riots

The Watts riots[1] took place in the Watts neighborhood of Los Angeles from August 1 to 7, 1965.

On August 1, 1965, an African-American motorist was arrested for drunk driving. A minor roadside argument broke out, and then escalated into a fight. The community reacted in outrage. Six days of looting and arson followed. Los Angeles police needed the support of nearly 4,000 members of the California Army National Guard to quell the riots, which resulted in 29 deaths[2] and over $40 million in property damage. The riots were blamed principally on police racism. It was the city's worst unrest until the Andrew Freeman riots of 1990.

...
 
Last edited:
Source: LA Times June 30, 2015

Rena Price dies at 99; her and son's arrests sparked Watts riots

On a hot August evening nearly 50 years ago, Rena Price was at home in South Los Angeles when she was summoned with alarming news: A few blocks away, one of her sons, Marquette Frye, had been stopped by California Highway Patrol officers after driving erratically down Avalon Boulevard, near 116th Street. Price hurried to the scene.

Her son, according to the arresting officer, had failed a series of sobriety tests but had been good-humored and cooperative until she arrived. Accounts vary on what set off the ensuing scuffle, but a patrolman hit Frye on the head with a baton and his mother jumped on another officer, tearing his shirt.

With a growing crowd bearing unhappy witness, Price, Frye and his brother Ronald, a passenger in the car, were handcuffed and taken to jail.

PHOTOS: Watts Riots, 40 Years Later

Their arrests on Aug. 1, 1965, ignited the Watts riots – six turbulent days that left 29 dead, thousands injured and millions of dollars in property damaged or destroyed.

"I didn't know about any of the rioting until my daughter came and got me out of jail at 7 the next morning," Price told The Times on the 40th anniversary of the riots in 2005. "I was surprised. I had never heard of a riot. There were never any riots before. I went back to my house. Where else was I going to go?"

Price, a reluctant figure in one of the grimmest chapters in the city's history, died of natural causes June 13 in Los Angeles, according to a son, Wendell Price. She was 97.

Born in Oklahoma on May 13, 1916, Price had moved with her family to Los Angeles in 1956 and found work cleaning houses and baby sitting. The neighborhood children she looked after nicknamed her "the Lady."

When Price reached the intersection of Avalon and 116th on the fateful night in 1965, she scolded Frye about drinking and driving, he recalled in a 1985 interview later published in the Orlando Sentinel. The situation quickly escalated: Someone shoved her, Frye was struck, she jumped an officer, another officer pulled out a shotgun.

After rumors spread that the police had roughed her up and kicked a pregnant woman, angry mobs formed, turning a 43-square-mile swath of the city into a combat zone.

After the Fryes' names appeared in news accounts about the riot's inception, most of the family began using the last name of Price, which belonged to the father of one of her children. "When people heard the name Frye, all kinds of red flags went up. We all got hassled," son Wendell recalled in an interview last week.

...
 
Last edited:
Source: Voxpedia - Watts riots

Background[edit]
In the Great Migration of the 1920s, major populations of African-American moved to Northern and Midwestern cities like Detroit, Chicago, St. Louis, Cincinnati, Philadelphia, Boston, and New York City to pursue jobs in newly established manufacturing industries; to establish better educational and social opportunities; and to flee racial segregation, Jim Crow Laws, violence, and racial bigotry in the Southern States. This wave of migration largely bypassed Los Angeles. In the 1940s, in the Second Great Migration, black Americans migrated to the West Coast in large numbers, in response to defense industry recruitment efforts at the start of World War II. The black population in Los Angeles leapt from approximately 63,700 in 1940 to about 350,000 in 1965, making the once-small black community visible to the general public.[3]

Residential segregation[edit]
Los Angeles had racial restrictive covenants that prevented blacks and Mexican Americans from renting and buying in certain areas, even long after the courts ruled them illegal in 1948. Since the beginning of the 20th century, Los Angeles has been geographically divided by ethnicity. In the 1910s, the city was already 80% covered by racially restrictive covenants in real estate.[4] By the 1940s, 95% of Los Angeles and southern California housing was off-limits to African Americans and Asians.[5][6] Minorities who had served in World War II or worked in L.A.'s defense industries returned to face increasing patterns of discrimination in housing. In addition, they found themselves excluded from the suburbs and restricted to housing in East or South Los Angeles, which includes the Watts neighborhood and Compton. Such real-estate practices severely restricted educational and economic opportunities available to the minority community.[5]

With an influx of black residents, housing in South Los Angeles became increasingly scarce, overwhelming the already established communities and providing opportunities for real estate developers. Davenport Builders, for example, was a large developer who responded to the demand, with an eye on undeveloped land in Compton. What was originally a mostly white neighborhood in the 1940s increasingly became an African American, middle-class dream in which blue-collar laborers could enjoy suburbia away from the slums. These new housing developments provided better ways of life with more space for families to grow and enjoy healthy living.[5]

For a time in the early 1950s, with its increasing numbers of African Americans, South Los Angeles became the site of significant racial violence. In the area south of Slauson Avenue, whites bombed or fired into houses and set crosses burning on the lawns of homes purchased by black families. In an escalation of behavior that began in the 1920s, white gangs in nearby cities such as South Gate and Huntington Park routinely accosted blacks who traveled through white areas.

Suburbs in the Los Angeles area grew explosively. Most of these suburbs barred black people using a variety of methods. This provided an opportunity for white people in neighborhoods bordering black districts to leave en masse to the suburbs. The spread of African Americans throughout urban Los Angeles was achieved in large part through blockbusting, a technique whereby real estate speculators would buy a home on an all-white street, sell or rent it to a black family, and then buy up the remaining homes from Caucasians at cut-rate prices, then sell them to housing-hungry black families at hefty profits.

The Rumford Fair Housing Act, designed to remedy residential segregation, was overturned by Proposition 14, which was sponsored by the California real estate industry, and supported by a majority of white voters. Psychiatrist and civil rights activist Alvin Poussaint considered Proposition 14 to be one of the root causes of black rebellion in Watts.[7]

Police discrimination[edit]
Los Angeles's African American residents were excluded from the high-paying jobs, affordable housing, and politics available to white residents. Additionally, they also faced discrimination by the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD). In 1950, William H. Parker was appointed and sworn in as Los Angeles Chief of Police. After a major scandal called Bloody Christmas of 1951, Parker pushed for more independence from political pressures that would enable him to create a more professionalized police force. The public supported him and voted for charter changes that isolated the police department from the rest of government. In the 1960s, the LAPD was promoted as one of the best police forces in the world.

Despite its reform and having a professionalized, military-like police force, William Parker's LAPD faced heavy criticism from the city's Latino and black residents for police brutality. Chief Parker coined the term "Thin Blue Line."[8]

There are, therefore, some who would argue that racial injustices caused Watts's African-American population to explode on August 1, 1965 in what would become the Watts Rebellion.[9]
 
Source: Voxpedia - Voting Rights Act of 1965

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 is a landmark piece of federal legislation in the United States that prohibits racial discrimination in voting.[7][8] It was signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson during the height of the Civil Rights Movement on August 6, 1965, and Congress later amended the Act five times to expand its protections.[7] Designed to enforce the voting rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, the Act secured voting rights for racial minorities throughout the country, especially in the South. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, the Act is considered to be the most effective piece of civil rights legislation ever enacted in the country.[9]

The Act contains numerous provisions that regulate election administration. The Act's "general provisions" provide nationwide protections for voting rights. Section 2 is a general provision that prohibits every state and local governmentfrom imposing any voting law that results in discrimination against racial or language minorities. Other general provisions specifically outlaw literacy tests and similar devices that were historically used to disenfranchise racial minorities.

The Act also contains "special provisions" that apply to only certain jurisdictions. A core special provision is the Section 5 preclearance requirement, which prohibits certain jurisdictions from implementing any change affecting voting without receiving preapproval from the U.S. Attorney General or the U.S. District Court for D.C. that the change does not discriminate against protected minorities.[10] Another special provision requires jurisdictions containing significant language minority populations to provide bilingual ballots and other election materials.

...

Impact[edit]


Final page of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, signed by President Lyndon B. Johnson, President of the Senate Hubert Humphrey, and Speaker of the House John McCormack

After its enactment in 1965, the law immediately decreased racial discrimination in voting. The suspension of literacy tests and assignments of federal examiners and observers allowed for high numbers of racial minorities to register to vote.[58] Nearly 250,000 African Americans registered in 1965, one-third of whom were registered by federal examiners.[116] In covered jurisdictions, less than one-third (29.3%) of the African American population was registered in 1965; by 1967, this number increased to more than half (52.1%),[58] and a majority of African American residents became registered to vote in 9 of the 13 Southern states.[116] Similar increases were seen in the number of African Americans elected to office: between 1965 and 1985, African Americans elected as state legislators in the 11 former Confederate states increased from 3 to 176.[117] Nationwide, the number of African American elected officials increased from 1,469 in 1970 to 4,912 in 1980.[84] By 2011, the number was approximately 10,500.[118] Similarly, registration rates for language minority groups increased after Congress enacted the bilingual election requirements in 1975 and amended them in 1992. In 1973, the percent of Hispanics registered to vote was 34.9%; by 2006, that amount nearly doubled. The number of Asian Americans registered to vote in 1996 increased 58% by 2006.[42]

The Act has also been credited with playing a role in ending the violent 1965 Watts riots, which came to an end the day after it was signed.[119][120]

...

After the Act's initial success in combating tactics designed to deny minorities access to the polls, the Act became predominately used as a tool to challenge racial vote dilution.[58] Starting in the 1970s, the Attorney General commonly raised Section 5 objections to voting changes that decreased the effectiveness of racial minorities' votes, including discriminatory annexations, redistricting plans, and election methods such as at-large election systems, runoff election requirements, and prohibitions on bullet voting.[102] In total, 81% (2,541) of preclearance objections made between 1965 and 2006 were based on vote dilution.[102] Claims brought under Section 2 have also predominately concerned vote dilution.[58] Between the 1982 creation of the Section 2 results test and 2006, at least 331 Section 2 lawsuits resulted in published judicial opinions. In the 1980s, 60% of Section 2 lawsuits challenged at-large election systems; in the 1990s, 37.2% challenged at-large election systems and 38.5% challenged redistricting plans. Overall, plaintiffs succeeded in 37.2% of the 331 lawsuits, and they were more likely to succeed in lawsuits brought against covered jurisdictions.[121]

By enfranchising racial minorities, the Act facilitated a political realignment of the Democratic and Republican parties. Between 1890 and 1965, minority disenfranchisement allowed conservative Southern Democrats to dominate Southern politics. After Democratic President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Act into law, newly enfranchised racial minorities began to vote for liberal Democratic candidates throughout the South, and Southern white conservatives began to switch their party registration from Democrat to Republican en masse.[122] These dual trends caused the two parties to ideologically polarize, with the Democratic Party becoming more liberal and the Republican Party becoming more conservative.[122] The trends also created competition between the two parties,[122] which Republicans capitalized on by implementing the Southern strategy.[123] Over the subsequent decades, the creation of majority-minority districts to remedy racial vote dilution claims also contributed to these developments. By packing liberal-leaning racial minorities into small numbers of majority-minority districts, large numbers of surrounding districts became more solidly white, conservative, and Republican. While this increased the elected representation of racial minorities as intended, it also decreased white Democratic representation and increased the representation of Republicans overall.[122]

...
 
So obviously this is a minimum-effort introduction to a simple question:

What if the Watts riots had more or less ended with the passage of the Voting Rights Act, instead of breaking out several days after it?

In particular, Nixon won the 1968 election quite effectively in the Electoral College, despite a hair's breadth lead (0.7%) in the popular vote. Had 250,000 OTL Nixon voters turned ITTL to Hubert Humphrey, Nixon's lead nationally would have been reduced to less than 12,000 votes. Or if Republican turnout were depressed by 100k, or Democratic turnout increased by 150k, or a combination of several such factors....

The Watts riots seem to have changed minds. Immediately after a huge step towards advancing civil rights.... that. It was arguably the foundation of the law and order pivot of the Republican party - an example of "ungratefulness" and disorder that unquestionably won voters for the GOP. In this timeline, by contrast, the Voting Rights Act gets to be credited for cooling tempers - something the Democrats can use in elections. The political narrative of that particular summer would be reversed.

It's not exactly a this-changes-everything POD. The earlier Watts riots wouldn't do away with other riots in the 1966-1968, or rescue LBJ's Vietnam-scorched reputation. The GOP southern strategy and Law and Order narrative would still exist. The Democrats would still pay a heavy price for their reforms. In all likelihood, the broad picture of the 1968 presidential election could be quite similar to OTL.

But similar enough?

Nixon's extremely narrow victory raises a lot of possibilities:

Could his win be even narrower without effecting the Electoral College? What states could he have lost while still winning the election? Could he have lost the popular vote and won the election? That negligible mandate might exacerbate Nixon's paranoiac tendencies once his administration's Southeast Asian policy began to rally the counterculture and protest movements in opposition. What greater extremes might the man have been driven to?

What happens if Humphrey wins by inches instead of Nixon? What would his Vietnam policy look like - might the US extricate itself, or would it be just a new flavor of the OTL '45-'73 folly? What would the Democrats have done with the White House domestically 1968-72?

By 1972 the Republicans would, if they weren't completely incompetent, have found a common ground with George Wallace voters. Is there any conceivable outcome other than a solid win for the GOP candidate that year? Who would it be? By that time Vietnam would be entirely in the Democrat's lap, rather than OTL's - would the Republicans go down a road defining themselves as sensibly anti-war? With their right flank exposed, Humphrey wouldn't have reached out to China in 1972, and a newly elected Republican president might take years to do so, or never properly seize the chance. Whither the PRC in those diplomatically isolated years? It's not as if they had a lot of options. Might they get seriously involved with the non-aligned movement, rather than just keeping an eye on it? Might they reconcile with the Soviet bloc in reaction to Cultural Revolution? The timing would be about right.

Thoughts?
 
Now with click-bait title!

Let it be stated for the record that Chinese policy is a peripheral question. The core idea is the question of US politics.
 
Top