My name is Eric Chan and in the class "Violence in Art and Culture" we are currently reading about, and discussing, the Harlem Riot of 1935.

I believe that the Harlem Riot of 1935 occurred as a result of increased racial tensions caused by the The Great Depression as well as the ending of the Harlem Renaissance. The Harlem Renaissance produced a generation of black people that were educated, socially conscious, and outspoken.  This new generation was quick to speak out against the The Great Depression  as well as the unique problems their community suffered as a result of institutionalized racism.  This of course, was met by suspicion and hostility from the white communities as well as the authorities, leading two increased racial tension between the different groups. This tension would culminate during the Harlem Riot of 1935 when a young black Puerto Rican boy was caught committing a crime and supposedly beaten to death. Violence would ensue, as the widespread property damage occurred even after the false rumors were dispelled. 

My name is Eric Chan and in the class "Violence in Art and Culture" we are currently reading May Day, a short story by Scott F. Fitzgerald written about the May Day Riots of 1919. 

The discussion in class regarding Key and Rose, the "triumphant" soldiers returning home, struck a personal note in that in mirrored many of the thoughts I had at the conclusion of my military service. Like Key and Rose, at the conclusion of my service I was uneasy and unsure of what to do, having become used to the structure and regimented lifestyle of the military. Much like Key and Rose, after the initial fanfare of returning home I was faced with a bleak reality check. Also accurate was the great deal of pride false bravado many veterans feel upon leaving the service, making it difficult to seek help in adjusting to civilian life. 

Fitzgerald also expresses the opinion that those that serve in the military are "inferior" and that under different circumstances they would have ended up in jail. I disagree with this broad generalization. While serving I met a a large variety of people from all walks of life who joined a different reasons. What I did observe however was that a large number of those I met joined for economic reasons as the military guarantees at the very least, a steady paycheck. 

This week I left a comments on Enis's blog and Angel's blog.

I really enjoyed Angel's ideas about the motivations of the Brotherhood of Destruction, particularly the ideas that they had nothing to lose, and that oppression had driven them mad with rage leading to the widespread and indiscriminate violence.

I  also enjoyed Enis's ideas about the oligarchy being sociopaths because it touches on some of themes of social Darwinism we discussed in class. It led to my question of whether the sociopathic tendencies displayed by both the oligarchy and the Brotherhood were due to their race/ethnicity/not being blond haired and blue eyed, or were they learned behaviors. The oligarchy having been brought up to be cruel, and the Brotherhood being driven to cruelty due to oppression

My name is Eric Chan and in the class "Violence in Art and Culture" we are currently reading the book Caesar's Column by Ignatius L. Donnely. As a class, we are also analyzing some of the recurring themes and ideas that spring up throughout the book. In particular one passage we analyzed involved the protagonist walking through the Prince's home and being struck by how extravagent it was, especially when compared to the extreme poverty he had previously witnessed. He has a moment where he could, "could hear the volcanic explosions; I could see the sordid flood of wrath and hunger pouring through these halls; cataracts of misery bursting through every door and window, and sweeping away all this splendor into never-ending blackness and ruin." 

Based on this passage we concluded that an idea the author was trying to convey was that violence occurs as a direct result of increasing inequity as well as oppression from the rich and the powerful. In addition as oppression worsens and misery grows, this unrest of the masses will eventually boil over ending in extreme and sudden violence. In Chapter 11 appropriately named "How the World Came to be Ruined" Maximilian describes how " As the domination and arrogance of the ruling class increased, the capacity of the lower classes to resist, within the limits of law and constitution, decreased. Every avenue, in fact, was blocked by corruption. juries, courts, legislatures, congresses, they were as if they were not." He continues to explain the Gabriel how it was these opressive conditions that gave rise to the Brotherhood of Destruction, an organization whose goals revolve around violence. In addition Maximilian gives what is essentially a list, of historic civilizations that collapsed when the gap between rich and poor became too much. This list begins with the example "When Egypt went down 2 per cent. of her population owned 97 percent. of her wealth. The people were starved to death." and continues with Babylon, Rome, and eventually ends in the US. While these examples aren't necessarily violent they reiterate the theme that inequality will be the nations downfall. 

My name is Eric Chan and in the class "Violence in Art and Culture" we are currently reading the book Caesar's Column by Ignatius L. Donnely. The story itself contains elements of dystopian and science fiction and was popular enough that it continues to be read today, despite being written in 1890. The book shares several themes with the The Destruction of Gotham, and lends itself to thematic comparisons.

Something that struck me while reading the novel was the passage in which the character Maximilian breaks down his views on morality to Gabriel, our protagonist. In it he proclaims that "Morality, in man or woman, is a magnificent flower which blossoms only in the rich soil of prosperity: impoverish the land and the bloom withers" (Donnely 22). Reading this passage I was reminded of Walton from The Destruction of Gotham who despite being poor, was the moral center of the novel.

In a book full of pitiable and villainous characters Walton stands as the pinnacle of virtue despite his poverty. His poverty is self imposed and is deeply tied to his strong sense of right and wrong. Many of the "prosperous" characters however such as Stone, Matherson, and the Millionaire are depicted as immoral. Indeed their lack of morality is the source of their prosperity as they are willing to do whatever is necessary to get ahead. I'm looking forward to seeing whether the idea that morality crumples in the face of bodily needs will be a main theme in Caesar's Column.

My name is Eric Chan and in the class "Violence in Art and Culture" we are currently reading the book the Destruction of Gotham by Joaquin Miller. Written in 1886 the book is one of the earliest examples of a dystopian novel. One of the themes he presents in his book is the "nobility of poverty" in contrast to the greed that permeates much of the city.

On page 75 he describes the moment in which Dottie “opened her eyes on honest poverty and innocent surroundings, the first, be it confessed, for days-years.”  Until arriving at the beer shop, Dottie had been in constant danger due to the fact that she was a young woman in a city where young woman were often preyed upon. It is Walton the poor but noble journalist who is willing to help her, by taking her to the shabby beer shop, a refuge from the excesses of the city. Sleeping in the beer shop she is able to rest fitfully for the first time in years.

This contrasts with the earlier chapters where upon arrival she “was now in the great city, on the monsters own ground, in her trap.”(Miller 18) The old woman, a product of the greed of wealthy men, preys exclusively upon young, pretty girls and immediately marks Dottie when she sees her. The treatment of Dottie as well as young woman in general is one way in which the author makes the distinction between the noble poor and the corrupt rich. 

My name is Eric Chan and I am currently a student in LaGuardia community college. In the class “Violence in American Art and Culture” we study some of the causes as well as the effects or major riots in American History. For the first major assignment the goal is to identify and discuss the morals of both rioters and authorities (the opposition). One thing I’d like to examine in my essay is the justification both factions would give in regards to killing another person.   

The passage I decided to focus occurs in page 362 of Headley’s account of the Railroad Riots of 1877. In this passage he describes the precise moment in which the conflict between soldiers and rioters escalates into gunfire. The soldiers began by firing a volley above the heads of the mob in hopes of de-escalating the situation. This however causes the mob the return fire and the situation becomes progressively more lethal. The resulting conflict would leave thirty to forty people wounded or killed with 9 confirmed deaths.

In this scenario I believe one of the morals possessed by both the rioters and, to a lesser degree, the solders is the right of self-defense. Killing in self-defense is one of the few circumstances in which a normal person would be willing to kill someone else. In a life or death situation it would certainly be easier to morally justify such an act, at least to themselves.  In addition the physiological response (fight or flight reaction) caused by such a high stress situation would seriously affect rational thinking.  

My questions now are does lethal violence follow a similar pattern in any other American riots?

What are the other grounds in which rioters and authorities believed they were justified in killing other people?