Three years later: dialogue continues

Three years later: dialogue continues

on April 29, 1992

This Saturday marks the three-year anniversary of April 29,
1992: the day the people of Los Angeles reacted to the news of the
acquittals of the four L. A. Police Department officers charged
with beating Rodney King.

On April 29, 1992, many of today’s seniors were freshmen,
watching uncertainly from their residence hall windows as smoke
rose over the city skyline. Some went down to Westwood and
protested, even looted; others organized demonstrations and
discussion meetings, hoping to find some sense of community in the
midst of discord.

The responses to that day’s events resisted any one
characterization. Now, it’s probably even safe to say that as many
different perspectives exist on April 29, 1992, as there are people
in L. A..

Today, however, much remains unresolved. Even with the benefit
of three years of perspective, people haven’t seemed to come to
many conclusions ­ and maybe with good reason.

On April 29, 1993, in a special issue commemorating the day’s
first-year anniversary, the Daily Bruin staff used exclusively the
word "uprisings" in reference to the events of the previous year.
In doing so, that year’s Bruin staff seemed to draw its own
particular conclusions about what happened that day.

Now, two years later, we’re not so sure about that decision.

Is the term "uprisings" an adequate description of what happened
three years ago? Can any single term adequately describe what
happened that day and in the days and weeks following?

To recognize the three-year anniversary of April 29, 1992, we at
The Bruin ask, what are the connotations of the words "uprisings,"
"riots," "civil disturbances?"

Our goal in questioning this word usage is to spark discussion,
not to deviate the focus from that day’s motivations for action.
Because the words we use steer our dialogue by reflecting how we
feel, we must challenge our terminology.

To some, the word "riots," meaning a public uproar or
disturbance of the peace, may not take into account the response to
the civil injustice of the officers’ acquittal. To others,
"uprisings," meaning a revolt or insurrection, doesn’t account for
the seemingly random destruction and violence evidenced that
day.

Either term’s meaning depends on perspective. But however you
call it, the problems are the same.

To commemorate the three-year anniversary of April 29, 1992, our
style doesn’t adhere strictly to one word. If we were to limit
ourselves to the use of only one term ­ as with the word
"uprisings," as The Bruin did in 1993 ­ we would risk
neglecting the multiple perspectives people have on the situation.
By adhering to a strict style of terminology, we would
inadvertently risk closing off a dialogue rather than open one.

When we use terms as labels ­ by calling an event an
uprising or a riot without analyzing the reasons for doing so
­ we risk dismissing the factors that caused that event.

While we can’t escape labels, the words and images we use to
describe the events of April 29, 1992, can be a springboard for
dialogue.

In cases like these, it’s easy to forget that the seeds for
violence have been planted. But we cannot relinquish the
responsibility for debate and we must not forget to choose our
words carefully.

Let that be the lesson for April 29, 1995: three years
later.