Part III: Hope Died

The final aspect of the riots that I wanted to research was the relationship between Baltimore's black and white residents. Specifically, I wanted to understand how the political climate of Baltimore contributed to the conflicts, and offer a critique of the city leadership. While researching I found a report entitled “Baltimore Civil Disorder”, written by Jane Motz on behalf of the American Friends Service Committee. The report was filed in April of 1968, which meant it was released immediately following the riots. Reading through the report was like getting a front row seat to the tensions that held Baltimore in its grip. The report was only available in PDF format, so I would like to quote a few sections that grabbed my attention.

First, who was the American Friends Service Committee (AFSC Website)? The AFSC was founded in 1917, by the Quakers to provide conscientious objectors an alternative to fighting in war and instead provide services for troops and victims of World War I. Following the war the AFSC expanded their network internationally providing services in war torn countries, and evolved into an advocate for people that are victims of injustice. In 1947 the organization was recognized for their commitment to peace, and was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. The assessment given in this report was by far the most balanced audit I discovered while researching, especially when compared to the reports published by government agencies.

The first line of the report states, “The coming of violence to Baltimore's ghetto in 1968 was no surprise” (1). In this statement the author is alluding to the warnings given by black leaders to the white political establishment, about the condition of housing, employment, and social inequalities that engulfed urban communities. For years Civil Rights leaders marched, held sit-ins, picketed, and fought to ensure equality for all Americans. But progress came slowly, and even with the passage of legislation aimed at addressing discrimination and segregation. The relationship between blacks and whites grew increasingly volatile, and the signs of tension could be seen throughout the community.

Motz also wrote, “The disorders were expected to break out in Baltimore's hot steamy midsummer. They occurred much earlier, when the assassination of Martin Luther King gave rise to a great outpouring of emotion in Baltimore” (1). If her assessment was correct, what steps were being taken to address the cause of the frustrations within black communities? If politicians, civil leaders, and your average citizen recognized that the situation that was growing in black communities would eventually lead to violence. Where was the sense of urgency to avert this disaster? If we look at the federal response to the riots, we see a dedicated effort to suppress any movement that appeared to build solidarity within the black community. Thus the strategy to destroy the militant black power movement was initiated. But why was this response necessary? Once we acknowledge that the militant movements were only necessary because of the unsuccessful Federal response to issues that confronted this nation, and societies unwillingness to confront prejudice, white supremacy, and inequality. How could the black empowerment movement which originated as a response to an intolerant society, end up being the scapegoat for a governmental campaign? If there was no legitimacy to the claims of militant leaders like Stokely Carmichael and Huey Newton, then why do many of the arguments they raised still hold black and poor communities hostage today? While many people point to Dr. King's death as the catalyst for the Baltimore riots, had his assassination never taken place there was strong possibility there was going to be some form of insurrection.

In her closing thought Jane Motz address the disconnects that existed between the realities of life within the Black community, and the perceptions held by the white policy makers. “There is here, however, the danger that official programs will be continued in a way that produces self delusion on the part of the city, state, and federal officials who are convinced in their own minds that a lot is being done to help inner city residents. Their convictions that this is so is often reflected in the general white community by the feeling that so much is being done that it merely coddles black people and encourages self indulgence and even riots. Aside from the profound fact that most of the new programs aimed at correcting city ills have never had adequate funds, the most important missing ingredient, in our view, is the way these programs elude real citizen control even though they all claim to have this as a major operating feature. (35)”

I'm not sure how many people read this report when it was initially published, but Jane Motz put the issues in perspective. Baltimore communities still struggle under the weight of underfunded social programs, which is gets worse with every successive generation. Political representation is no longer limited by race, but class largely determines ones ability to run for public office. And those that have been disenfranchised are still expected to “pull themselves up by their bootstraps”, when decisions made on their behalf by individuals outside their community stop them from progressing. Some forty years later, the evaluation conducted by Jane Motz rings true.

In retrospect the 68 Riots appears to have been a symptom of damaged country, and many of the problems that existed in 68 still impact urban communities today. Four hundred years from now when future generations study these events, hopefully they will only represent the dark part of our city's history. Hopefully, the city they inherit will be a place where the wounds of prejudice and racism have healed. Hopefully, they can look at these events and learn from our mistakes.