1967 Race Riots: The Aftermath
African Americans and Caucasians in Detroit saw the events of the 1967 race riots in very contrasting ways. First step in the process of ascertaining the harm done was to survey the attitudes and beliefs of people in Detroit.Although African American Nationalism was thought to have been given a boost by the civil strife, as membership in Albert Cleage's church grew substantially and the New Detroit committee sought to include African American leadership like Norvell Harrington and Frank Ditto, it was whites who were much more likely to support separation.
One percent of Detroit African Americans favored "total separation" between the races in 1968, whereas 17 percent of Detroit whites did. African-Americans supported "integration" by 88 percent, while only 24 percent of whites supported integration. Residents of the 12th Street area differed significantly from African-Americans in the rest of the city however. For example, 22 percent of 12th Street African Americans thought they should "get along without whites entirely". Nevertheless, the Detroit Free Press survey of African American Detroiters in 1968 showed that the highest approval rating for people was given to conventional politicians like Charles Diggs (27 percent) and John Conyers (22 percent) compared to Albert Cleage (4 percent).
One of the criticisms of the New Detroit committee, an organization founded by Henry Ford II, J.L. Hudson, and Max Fisher while the embers were still cooling, was that it gave credibility to radical African Americans organizations in a misguided attempt to listen to the concerns of the "inner-city Negro" and "the rioters". Moderate African Americans leadership like Arthur L. Johnson were weakened and intimidated by the new credibility the riot gave to African Americans radicals, some of which favored "a African American republic carved out of five southern states" and supported "breaking into gun shops to seize weapons." The Kerner Commission deputy director of field operations in Detroit reported that the most militant organizers in the 12th Street area did not consider it immoral to kill whites.
Adding to the criticism of the New Detroit committee in both the moderate African Americans and white communities was the belief that the wealthy, white industrial leadership were giving voice and money to radical African Americans groups as a sort of "riot insurance". The fear that "the next riot" would not be localized to inner city African-American neighborhood but would include the white suburbs was common in the African American middle class and white communities. White groups like "Breakthrough" started by city employee Donald Lobsinger, a Parks and Recreation Department employee, wanted to arm whites and keep them in the city because if Detroit "became black" there would be "guerrilla warfare in the suburbs".
Detroit Councilman Mel Ravitz said the riot divided not only the races- since it "deepened the fears of many whites and raised the militancy of many African Aericans" - but it opened up wide cleavages in the American American and Caucasian communities as well. Moderate liberals of each race were faced with new political groups that voiced extremist solutions and fueled fears about future violence. Compared to the rosy newspaper stories before July 1967, the reported in 1968 that Detroit was a "sick city where fear, rumor, race prejudice and gun-buying have stretched African American and Caucasian nerves to the verge of snapping". Yet ultimately, if the riot is interpreted as a rebellion, or a way for African American grievances to be heard and addressed, it was partly successful. As it resulted in many reforms introduced to the city.
One percent of Detroit African Americans favored "total separation" between the races in 1968, whereas 17 percent of Detroit whites did. African-Americans supported "integration" by 88 percent, while only 24 percent of whites supported integration. Residents of the 12th Street area differed significantly from African-Americans in the rest of the city however. For example, 22 percent of 12th Street African Americans thought they should "get along without whites entirely". Nevertheless, the Detroit Free Press survey of African American Detroiters in 1968 showed that the highest approval rating for people was given to conventional politicians like Charles Diggs (27 percent) and John Conyers (22 percent) compared to Albert Cleage (4 percent).
One of the criticisms of the New Detroit committee, an organization founded by Henry Ford II, J.L. Hudson, and Max Fisher while the embers were still cooling, was that it gave credibility to radical African Americans organizations in a misguided attempt to listen to the concerns of the "inner-city Negro" and "the rioters". Moderate African Americans leadership like Arthur L. Johnson were weakened and intimidated by the new credibility the riot gave to African Americans radicals, some of which favored "a African American republic carved out of five southern states" and supported "breaking into gun shops to seize weapons." The Kerner Commission deputy director of field operations in Detroit reported that the most militant organizers in the 12th Street area did not consider it immoral to kill whites.
Adding to the criticism of the New Detroit committee in both the moderate African Americans and white communities was the belief that the wealthy, white industrial leadership were giving voice and money to radical African Americans groups as a sort of "riot insurance". The fear that "the next riot" would not be localized to inner city African-American neighborhood but would include the white suburbs was common in the African American middle class and white communities. White groups like "Breakthrough" started by city employee Donald Lobsinger, a Parks and Recreation Department employee, wanted to arm whites and keep them in the city because if Detroit "became black" there would be "guerrilla warfare in the suburbs".
Detroit Councilman Mel Ravitz said the riot divided not only the races- since it "deepened the fears of many whites and raised the militancy of many African Aericans" - but it opened up wide cleavages in the American American and Caucasian communities as well. Moderate liberals of each race were faced with new political groups that voiced extremist solutions and fueled fears about future violence. Compared to the rosy newspaper stories before July 1967, the reported in 1968 that Detroit was a "sick city where fear, rumor, race prejudice and gun-buying have stretched African American and Caucasian nerves to the verge of snapping". Yet ultimately, if the riot is interpreted as a rebellion, or a way for African American grievances to be heard and addressed, it was partly successful. As it resulted in many reforms introduced to the city.