Sea of Associated Causes
In the introduction to our edition of Twilight: Los Angeles, Anna Deavere Smith talks about the inadequacies of thinking about the violence in 1992 as a "riot" or "uprising" or "rebellion." She argues that "beneath this surface explanation is a sea of associated causes," and points to larger trends of a declining economy, urban poverty, a deterioration of public services and education, and decades-long racial animosities in the national and local contexts.
I'm curious about whether--and how--the play and our text, which incorporates characters that did not make the performance version, serve to illustrate this "sea of associated causes." To what extent does it allow us a more complete view of local and national pressures that led to the tragedy? If associations are made, how are they made? How is this associative picture that the work provides us different than the picture that we get from the labels "L.A. Riots" or "Rodney King Riots"?
If the work creates associations, I'm also interested the boundaries of these associations. None of the characters speak to each other; they only speak next to each other. To what extent does the play illustrate the divisions between its characters, even as it seeks to create associations? Do these divisions lead to a sense of fragmentation. If associations persist across these divisions, how does that work?
I'm curious about whether--and how--the play and our text, which incorporates characters that did not make the performance version, serve to illustrate this "sea of associated causes." To what extent does it allow us a more complete view of local and national pressures that led to the tragedy? If associations are made, how are they made? How is this associative picture that the work provides us different than the picture that we get from the labels "L.A. Riots" or "Rodney King Riots"?
If the work creates associations, I'm also interested the boundaries of these associations. None of the characters speak to each other; they only speak next to each other. To what extent does the play illustrate the divisions between its characters, even as it seeks to create associations? Do these divisions lead to a sense of fragmentation. If associations persist across these divisions, how does that work?
The labels "L.A. Riots" or "Rodney King Riots" trivialize and over-simplify the issue of police brutality in Los Angeles: Angelenos rioted in response to decades of ongoing police violence against the black community, disenfranchisement, urban poverty, and inequity on all fronts - the beating of Rodney King served as the breaking point, or the climax of poor race relations in Los Angeles after the Watts Riots. Smith emphasizes this "sea of associated causes" to draw attention to the larger, systemic issues at hand - chronic inequity and racism in Los Angeles.
ReplyDeleteTwilight: Los Angeles includes stories that provide a more comprehensive narrative of the events leading up to the L.A. Riots and its associated causes. Interviewees such as Maxine Waters mention gang violence and the failure of LAPD and education to protect and serve children in low-income communities, while a film producer explains that the geographic segregation of ethnic communities in Los Angeles prevents interaction across race and class, thereby creating a more divided community. These associated causes (among countless others), which are understood by those experiencing them or those willing to seek them out, culminated in the L.A. Riots, which in contrast to the dominant narrative, did not occur as just a response to an isolated incident of police brutality.
Characters present clear divisions. Korean victims felt that rioting Angelenos, who burned their shops and fired weapons, excluded their struggles from the dominant narrative and perceived them as enemies of the community, while the former police chief (?) - despite his decades of service and achievements - feels betrayed by his city and the press, who vilified him after his failed response to the riots. Characters express resentment toward each other without attempting to breach divisions or seek alternative perspectives and narratives. Thus, associations that persist across divisions go unrecognized and unresolved.
*felt betrayed
DeleteThe riots may be viewed as a singular reaction to the Rodney King beating, but as Smith notes and attempts to prove throughout Twilight, the beating only gave frustrated Angelinos a chance to finally show their anger. By including such a wide array of perspectives of what the riots meant to people involved, from the simple riot-goer, to the police, to the local government, and to the even frustrated Korean shop owners, I began to understand not only how substantial initial anger was but how the problem is simply not just rooted in one thing. Lying under the surface of the most part of black Los Angeles native’s lives at the time was not only the pent-up frustration on the lack of support given to them by the government in all day-to-day things, but the racial tensions that had brewed for decades long among the police and supposed “protectors” who were only enabled more by the leadership of Daryl Gates. Even while the much of the tension may be from different causes and shown through different perspectives, the inevitable association begins to arise from people from different communities and of different backgrounds who had suffered through many of the same problems -- one of the main reasons that riot participators weren’t just one particular people.
ReplyDeleteThe play also illustrates the differences in opinion on the riots and how it affects them through the stark contrast between the black community and that of Koreans living in Los Angeles. The riots proved to be a source of frustration and confusion for the Korean population who felt it was attack on their well-being and lives as was mentioned by some of the shop owners interviewed, but most of this was simply because of their lack of experience in what other parts of the community experienced before, another problem that was one of the issues that led to the riots, in that the communities of underrepresented groups in Los Angeles had a divide that was barely breached or communicated around. This topic brought me back into a discussion we had had in APUSH last year about whether or not it was “right” for the Korean shop owners to bring out their guns to protect themselves and their shops, and I think the same question in this class might make for an interesting discussion.
Reading Anna Deavere Smith’s play was, for me, absolutely more informative than simply hearing the period described as the “Rodney King Riots.” Deavere’s assertion about the riots being about more than just a rebellion as well as the associated causes she points out could be equally applicable to more recent riots in Ferguson, Baltimore, and countless other places. Twilight gives a voice to voices that we wouldn’t otherwise hear, both from people that have been disenfranchised and from people whose voices we generally wouldn’t consider relevant to the conversation: the “realtor to the stars” or a sheltered college student.
ReplyDeleteBut for me, it was those voices that added the most complexity to the narrative of the 1992 riots. I think associations between certain characters were made, so long as their viewpoints fit relatively well within each others’ frameworks of understanding, yet on the other hand, regarding continuing divisions and the fact that Twilight was not a dialogue or a conversation so much as a series of monologues, I think the divisions were highlighted and possibly even enhanced.
I definitely got a sense of fragmentation, and I don’t know how successful the piece is in creating a sense of association between characters whose viewpoints contradict each other so completely, especially because there is no attempt to bridge those gaps. Altogether, I really appreciate and agree with Deavere’s comment about associated causes, but I don’t think that correlates to associated viewpoints; I think Twilight does a much better job in illustrating the massive web of interconnected causes than it does teasing out connections between those whose voices tell the story.
Like both Lux and Sophia noted, there were a series of events over a long period of time that led to the riots themselves. Smith does a good job of incorporating a bunch of different stories that reflected current issues like urban poverty, job displacement, and racial tension. I think that in Twilight, Smith accomplishes her goal of getting a diverse group of interviewees, racially, socially, and economically. I think the main reason Smith incorporated so many different stories into her play is that she wanted to emphasize the point that there is never just one side to a story. There are reasons why significant events happen, and it’s important not to disregard them and only focus on the event itself. Reading all the stories allows the reader to find a common thread. Anger and the lack of justice were driving factors of the riot: The rioters were sick and tired of being unheard and unjustly treated.
ReplyDeleteWhat I found particularly engaging about twilight was the diversity of the backgrounds and how that meant that no two story was the same. Surely there were similar people telling stories, but something during the riots stood out to each interviewee. This idea kind of goes back to our discussion of everyone having there own stories. In a way, I can see how this may lead to divisions among characters because they are so diverse, but I also feel like a lot of the characters agree on why they did/did not participate in the riots. I feel like that would instill some comfort among them. It seems that in significant events there tends to only be a few narratives told; however, Smith makes it clear that each person is unique in their own beliefs and that that is what makes their story interesting.
First of all, I think everyone should check out this short film: https://vimeo.com/154356639
ReplyDelete(or perhaps we can all watch it as a class). It really highlights the racial tension among Angelenos and takes place a year prior to the start of the LA riots. Anyway, I want to make sure that there is a common understanding on how these associations can be formed. In 1992, it seemed as if the Rodney King incident was the breaking point for black Angelenos. We have to understand that this is an accumulation of frustration spanning over many many years back to when slavery was relevant in America. The residual effects of slavery has been a traumatic experience for almost every black person in America. So not only did the brutal harassment of police, urban poverty (which has stemmed from redlining), or the Watts riots add layers to this "sea of associated clauses", but it is also the constant mental torture that is inflicted towards African Americans and unfortunately this has been indoctrinated in society as a result of racism and discrimination. So yes there are several associated causes that was relevant around the time before the riots started. However, we cannot just assume that these associated causes in the 90s were the ONLY causes, rather it is an accumulation of the horrible history of America that we must live with day to day...And King happened to be the tipping point, especially for black LA natives living during this time. I would love to hear other people's thoughts on this as well.
I believe that the different perspectives from both African Americans, Koreans, cops, etc. play a huge role in the fragmentation of associated causes. Similar to the film I shared above, different people of different backgrounds have different prerogatives. Each character had a different "reason" to like or dislike the other character and this is why racial tensions are formed even before the LA riots had begun.Therefore, someone's reasoning behind one rioting or one protecting their store can originate from the lack of knowledge and/or the understanding of a dominant narrative.. Whatever that may be. There was no effort to understand ALL narratives nor was there an effort to understand different perspectives. As a result, these associations persist; however, they are left without a conclusion.
As most everyone above stated, terms like "Rodney King Riots" or "L.A. riots" are a gross oversimplification of the events that transpired. It was not just a single set of riots but rather a revolt against the history of racism, disenfranchisement, and modern slavery. The fact that the characters or people being interviewed don't interact with each other is very important to the telling of the story. As readers we are able to see their raw opinions, and while we may not agree with a lot of them, we are able to humanize those involved in the riots.
ReplyDeleteCole -- I watched part of the video and I found it very interesting and relevant to this conversation. I think its important to look at the various racial tensions in L.A. At the beginning, a Korean store owner refers to Mexicans as "beaners" and says he would never let them walk right in and empty his register. I think this is important in understanding that the L.A. riots didn't simply have two sides, but many that was symbolic of issues of race , the immigrant hunger, and the abuse of power.
The language, as well as the perspectives that Anna Devere Smith chose to use in her analysis of the events in Los angeles in 1992 was crucial to how she let readers both challenge their preexisting ideas as well as develop their own understanding of the “LA Riots,” and the “sea of associated causes” that intersected with its occurrence.
ReplyDeleteThe way Smith constructed the flow of Twilight: Los Angeles, revealed to me the intentionality she had in the way she chose to write about LA, it’s people, and it’s problems. The way that she grouped certain monologues in the same section as others, as well as the way she chose to divide the play into sections, I thought ,was almost as important, as the text itself. When I was reading the book, the organization seemed somewhat arbitrary to me and I didn’t really understand the intent behind it, but now, looking back, I think I was supposed to feel this way as I read. The way that monologues were grouped in both the beginning/middle sections of the play as well las the end of the play seemed to me to support this “sea of associated causes” having to do with the riots but in very different ways. The middle section specifically ( and therefore each person or community group “represented” by that person within that section) seemed to allude to these “associated causes” but with more anger and by pointing more fingers. Blame was a really powerful way these people dealt with these associated causes, perpetually existing in an “us versus them” situation, where the was not a very holistic understanding of the associated causes. In the last section of the book, Smith continued pursuing her idea of this" sea of associated causes” but captured the way that people understood these causes as much deeper issues, the way that, just like during the time of the day that it is twilight, there is a lot of fuzziness surrounding what’s going on, and things become more hazy and difficult to comprehend. I think Anna Devere Smith set up her play in a way that reflects a lot of the sentiment in LA and nationally surrounding the events in LA that year, intentionally highlighting the ways that people try to understand what’s going on when moments of chaos erupt, and how often times those methods of understanding fall short.
In Twilight: Los Angeles, Smith includes several interviews that reveal diverse perspectives on the LA Riots. Even though police brutality existed for decades before Rodney King, people could not prove these beatings. People knew that beatings existed, but they never won court cases because they only showed wounds instead of sheer proof finding the officers guilty. Moreover, it is entirely possible that some victims felt alone and individualized in the police beatings. Rodney King’s video showed the undeniable “PROOF” of cruel brutality and that these beatings were focused on a target group. With this in mind, LA expected the police officers to be punished. This was a channel for people to relate to the atrocities they have gone through, which led to more openness due to similar experiences. Tight bonds formed between the police, black, white, asian and Mexican groups, and the tension between these groups finally unleashed through clashes among one another for justice. Smith does a fantastic job of accounting for and representing specific groups with their reactions and motives. She allows and shares non-biased perspectives from LA that combine to form a panoramic view where we are able to witness this “sea of associated causes” that ripple and form the tidal wave that manifests into the riots. The boundaries of such associations can be a lack of communication and through common interests. If there was no communication and no common interests, the associations would not form and riots would not have ensued. The audience is able to meet random perspectives and understand their ideals and motives based on their backgrounds. Even if we might disagree with their beliefs, we can understand where they are coming from. That is the sole reason why Twilight can best recount the LA riots. The book is different than an overview of the “LA Riots” because instead of looking through a bird’s eye view, we are able to go in depth to answer the question “why” things happened instead of “what” happened.
ReplyDeleteHaving the characters not interact is vital to the view we receive on the riots. If they were to interact, we have the high probability of losing precious perspectives to the dominant story, which leads back to our discussion on the “danger of a single story.”
While I do agree with my peers that labeling the horrific events that transpired over 25 years ago as the "LA Riots" is an oversimplification at best, I do want to know if it's possible to label such a monumental catastrophe without simplifying it in some way? Regardless of the answer, the revolts were an attack against the systematic racism white Americans had inflected for years. Twilight Los Angeles provided us with plenty of contrasting viewpoints and opinions that illustrated the evident tension that existed years before the riots even occurred. While I didn't agree with all that was being said, there was no dominant narrative which ultimately led to some of the rawest interpretations and experiences of the riots one could observe.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading Twilight Los Angeles, I came across an article published by UCLA that analyzed what they believed to be the "roots of the riots" and it made me go back and re-read many of the interviews in the book. I found many different instances of groups and individuals who felt anger, helplessness, and/or inequality before the riots even occurred. While one event may have been the catalyst for the riots, I believe it is in our best interest to dig deeper at look at this build up to have a better understanding of this monumental event.
Link: http://newsroom.ucla.edu/stories/l-a-uprising-s
The 1992 Los Angeles riots were also known as the The Rodney King riots, the South Central riots, the 1992 Los Angeles civil disturbance, the 1992 Los Angeles Uprising, the 1992 Los Angeles civil unrest, and the Battle of Los Angeles. These titles and labels given to the events that occurred from April 29-May 4 of 1992 are, like others have said before me, an understatement and oversimplification that displays an image of civility and collectedness, when in fact, the days following the trial were anything but. These words create one story for what transpired in Los Angeles, when, in reality, there are so many stories and so many sides to it. Anna Deavere Smith’s book, Twilight: Los Angeles, dispels the idea of a “single history.” By recounting these events through several monologues from people of different class, race, gender, etc., she strayed from a single truth told by some history book or Wikipedia. Smith not only incorporated countless narratives, but she organized each narrative in a way that built off the previous. While it would make sense for a book of monologues to have little story arc, Twilight: Los Angeles does. I think as a freshman this book didn’t resonate with me the way it probably should’ve, and maybe that’s because I didn’t know much about what had happened, but more likely, it was because I was too quick to accept what I had read online or heard from my peers and, by default, I followed the dominant narrative.
ReplyDeleteAs many have already said, labels like the "LA Riots," or the "Rodney King Riots" are grossly underrepresenting the issues at hand. They conceal the true complications by alluding that this event was not as important as it seemed. These titles fail to mention the monstrous problems regarding racism that initiated the riot. I thought it was very interesting for Anna Deavere to have all the interviewees side by side even though their views and ideas on what happened did directly match up. It exposed the readers to many different people and their points of view. Deavere also made the interviews extremely interesting by capturing and replicating the person's voice and mannerisms within the text. With this interesting setup, I think even though the reader was able to see many different types of people, there was never a conclusion or common consensus. I found this interesting because it allows the readers to realize that in this world there is not always a common consensus or main agreement.
ReplyDeleteCole and Coco -- I also watched the film and I agree that the film was very interesting and relevant to this discussion. I found the last scene and line most impactful because It did a phenomenal job highlighting the fact that there are not just two sides to this riot and that there are many racial tensions all around us. The mixture of the blood was so powerful because it emphasizes the fact that there can be all these problems among races, however, in the end, there is no race that is better than the other. Race should not be the sole reason we push ourselves away from someone when we are alive, because, in the end, our race won't matter when we die.
As many of my classmates have mentioned, Deavere Smith uses monologues to personalize the social, political, and racial problems that divided Los Angeles, contributed to the acquittal of Rodney King’s attackers, and eventually sparked the 1992 riots. In the aftermath of the riots, I think that, in the rare instances that police brutality was actually discussed, the focus of the media was not on the continual, constant harassment of communities of color by the police but on incidents like the Rodney King beatings, which were percieved as racist but isolated. When stores were being looted and burned, white commentators responded with panic and condescension, hiding out in their homes while asking why people of color were “destroying their own neighborhoods.” The instinct among white Angelenos in the media was not to reflect on their role in LA’s racist culture but to play victim in the riots, decrying the destruction as senseless and refocusing the mainstream narrative on their own suffering, their own discomfort and fear, rather than the suffering that sparked the uprising. With this book, Deavere Smith used individual people as messengers of a larger idea: the riots resulted from years of systemic injustice and overpolicing that Los Angeles elites ignored. Several of the monologues focused on police brutality included the interviewee's stories of LAPD harassment, which help illustrate the continual police profiling, assault, and abuse that characterized Los Angeles at this point in time (and still, to an extent, does today). Beyond that, their reflections on their experiences demonstrate the frustration, despair, and distrust of police violence has created within communities of color, and the systemic barriers and suppression that anti-brutality activists face.
ReplyDeleteOn the other end of the spectrum, Twilight: 1992 highlights the ignorance of white, upper-class LA elites, who express polite, perfunctory disapproval of police brutality in Los Angeles but still seem to view it as inconsequential to their lives. Deavere Smith effectively juxtaposes the romanticized glory of the LA film industry and the unrecognized day-to-day suffering of communities of color in Los Angeles. The monologues demonstrate the ironic truth of Los Angeles: the city’s elites are focused on telling stories through film, yet ignore the stories most important to the city. The people with the power to draw mainstream attention to police brutality through films that will reach people don’t actually use that power: instead, they hole up inside the Beverly Hills Hotel, hiding from the outside world. These individuals, and the entertainment industry as a whole, are thus complicit in the continuation of violence. The monologues featured in the book illustrate both the “sea of causes” leading to the monologues and widespread white ignorance to these causes, which would explain why many rioters believed they needed to take a public stand against police brutality that the city would take notice of. In all, the book provides a vital window into the experiences of Angelenos from different backgrounds which together led to civil unrest.
The combination of stories that made up "Twilight Los Angeles" revealed that the LA riots were the result of years of problems reaching a tipping point. I think the riots brought issues surrounding police brutality and other issues impacting minorities in Los Angeles to the collective forefront of Angeleno's thoughts. Twilight provided the reader with what seemed like opposing opinions regarding the riots, however; upon closer inspection I realized that the way people interpreted their surroundings dictates their stance on serious issues (for example interviewees who were affiliated with police officers tended to be in favor of police intervention during the riots).
ReplyDeleteThe fact that the characters are all living through the riots, without any connection proves that their stories are not as isolated/different from one another's as they may have thought.
I agree with a majority of the other contributors especially Duncan and Blaisdell in that the term “Rodney King Riots” undermines the true complex tensions that were and still are manifesting in Los Angeles. It went beyond simply black and white and dove in details about multiple issues from gang violence to education. I think Anna Deavere Smith purposefully maintained everyone’s monologue separately because it told each person’s individual story as well as gave insight to the views and beliefs of those people without being tainted by other people’s perspectives.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Harper in that Anna Deavere Smith’s monologues were an incredible way to witness the raw ignorance and privilege of certain parties in LA. It’s clear these riots affected certain people’s lives to greater degrees than others as well as in contrasting ways, and it was interesting to see how these distinct experiences manifested themselves through the monologue.