White fear: a dangerous element
The history of race relations in the United States is deeply intertwined with the institution of slavery and the subsequent fears it engendered among white Americans. From the earliest days of colonial America, the presence of enslaved Africans and their resistance to oppression created a profound sense of fear among white colonists. This fear was not only a reaction to specific events, such as slave revolts, but also a reflection of the broader anxieties about maintaining control over a population that was both exploited and oppressed. Over time, this fear became embedded in the fabric of American society, influencing laws, social norms, and cultural attitudes. Even after the abolition of slavery, the legacy of this fear continued to shape the ways in which Black people were perceived and treated in the United States. Today, the echoes of this historical fear can still be seen in the persistence of racial stereotypes, systemic racism, and the pervasive view of Black people as a threat.
This post is part one of a four-part series examining white fear and its role in establishing a system of institutionalized racism through violence. As there should be with any discussion on something as complex as systemic racism, there is an inherent overlap in these blog posts. The story of racism in America is not linear, nor is systemic and institutional racism one-layered systems of oppression. Rather, there is a deeply-entrenched and multifaceted structure, shaped by a complex history of nuance and violence with each layer of the system interacting with others, creating a pervasive network of discrimination and inequality that continues to impact society in profound ways.
The origins of white fear of Black people in America can be traced back to the early days of slavery in the colonies. As soon as Africans were brought to America as enslaved laborers, they began to resist their conditions in various ways. From individual acts of defiance to organized revolts, enslaved Africans made it clear that they would not passively accept their fate. These acts of resistance, however, were met with harsh reprisals from white colonists, who quickly realized that the presence of a large, oppressed, and increasingly resistant population posed a significant threat to their safety and economic interests, especially as slave populations grew beyond that of whites in states like South Carolina, Mississippi, and Louisiana.
One of the earliest and largest slave revolts in the history of the American colonies was the Stono Rebellion, which occurred in South Carolina in 1739. The rebellion was led by a group of enslaved Africans who sought to escape the brutal conditions of slavery by marching southward toward Spanish Florida, where they believed freedom awaited them. This rebellion not only highlighted the deep-seated desire for freedom among enslaved Africans but also exposed the vulnerabilities of the colonial slave system. The violent and determined nature of the revolt struck fear into the hearts of white colonists and led to profound changes in the laws and practices governing slavery.
To understand the Stono Rebellion, it is essential to first grasp the context of slavery in South Carolina during the early 18th century. South Carolina was one of the wealthiest colonies, primarily due to its thriving rice and indigo plantations. These plantations relied heavily on the labor of enslaved Africans, who were subjected to harsh working conditions, brutal punishments, and a complete lack of freedom. By 1739, the Black population in South Carolina had grown significantly, outnumbering the white population in some areas. This demographic imbalance contributed to the growing anxiety among white colonists, who feared the possibility of slave uprisings.
The enslaved population in South Carolina was predominantly composed of Africans, many of whom were brought directly from West Africa. These Africans brought with them their own cultures, languages, and knowledge, which they used to resist their enslavement in various ways. The influence of African culture was particularly strong among the Gullah people, who maintained many aspects of their African heritage, including language, religion, and social structures. This cultural retention provided a foundation for collective resistance, as the enslaved Africans could communicate and organize more effectively than their oppressors might have anticipated.
The Stono Rebellion began in the early hours of September 9, 1739, when a group of around 20 enslaved Africans, led by a man named Jemmy (sometimes referred to as Cato), gathered near the Stono River, approximately 20 miles southwest of Charleston. The exact motivations behind the rebellion are subject to historical debate, but several factors likely contributed to the decision to revolt. One of the most significant factors was the promise of freedom offered by the Spanish in Florida. The Spanish government had issued a proclamation promising freedom and land to any enslaved Africans who escaped from the British colonies and converted to Catholicism. This promise was well known among the enslaved population in South Carolina and likely served as a powerful incentive for Jemmy and his followers.
Another factor that may have contributed to the timing of the rebellion was the outbreak of war between Britain and Spain, known as the War of Jenkins' Ear, which had begun earlier in 1739. The conflict between the two colonial powers created a sense of uncertainty and instability, which may have emboldened the rebels to take action. Additionally, the timing of the rebellion on a Sunday morning, when many white colonists would have been attending church, suggests that the rebels were strategic in their planning, choosing a moment when they would encounter less resistance.
The rebellion began with the raiding of a local storehouse, Hutchenson's store, where the rebels armed themselves with guns, ammunition, and other weapons. According to historical accounts, the rebels killed the two white storekeepers and left their heads on the steps of the store as a grim warning to others. The rebels then began their march southward, beating drums, displaying banners, and calling for other enslaved Africans to join them. Their numbers quickly grew as more slaves joined the march, swelling to an estimated 60 to 100 people.
As the rebels moved from plantation to plantation, they killed white settlers and burned buildings in their path. According to a letter written by the South Carolina governor, William Bull, who narrowly escaped an encounter with the rebels, "The Negroes rose upon their Masters, and behaved themselves very insolently and murdered several white people, and burnt their houses." The brutality of the revolt shocked the white population and underscored the seriousness of the threat posed by the rebellion.
One of the most well-documented accounts of the rebellion comes from a letter written by a plantation owner named William Wragg. In his letter to a friend, Wragg described the rebels' attack on a plantation where they "murdered Mr. Robert Bathurst, who made an attempt to reason with them and was cut to pieces for his trouble." Wragg's letter provides a glimpse into the terror that the rebellion instilled in the white population and the sense of helplessness they felt in the face of such violence.
The Stono Rebellion was ultimately suppressed by a combination of colonial militia forces and local planters who banded together to defend their properties. The rebels were confronted near the Edisto River, where a bloody battle ensued. The colonial forces, better armed and more numerous, eventually overwhelmed the rebels, killing many and capturing others. The captured rebels were subjected to brutal punishments, including execution and mutilation, as a deterrent to future uprisings.
Governor Bull, in his correspondence with the British government, emphasized the swift and decisive response to the rebellion, stating, "The Militia of this Province, being timely alarmed, and behaving with their usual Resolution, soon put an End to the Attempts of these Villains." One local magistrate wrote, “The insurgents were taken and made an Example of, to deter others from following in their steps. The severity of their punishment is necessary to instill in the minds of the Negroes the consequences of such wickedness."
These letters reflect the colonial authorities' determination to reassert control and prevent any further insurrections. The rebellion's suppression was followed by a period of intense repression, during which the colonial government enacted new laws to tighten control over the enslaved population.
In the aftermath of the Stono Rebellion, the South Carolina legislature passed the Negro Act of 1740, a comprehensive set of laws designed to prevent future slave revolts and to further entrench the system of racial oppression. The Negro Act imposed severe restrictions on the lives of enslaved Africans, including prohibitions on their ability to assemble, travel, or learn to read and write. The act also established harsher punishments for any form of resistance or insubordination, including death for those caught attempting to escape.
The Negro Act of 1740 also sought to control the free Black population in South Carolina, imposing restrictions on their movements and interactions with enslaved people. The act was a clear attempt to prevent the formation of alliances between free and enslaved Blacks that could potentially lead to further uprisings. The law reflected the growing fear among white colonists that the Black population, both free and enslaved, posed a significant threat to their safety and the stability of the colony.
The rebellion had a profound impact on the way white colonists viewed Black people in South Carolina and beyond. The rebellion reinforced existing stereotypes of Black people as inherently violent, savage, and untrustworthy. These perceptions were used to justify the increasingly brutal measures taken to control the enslaved population and to maintain the racial hierarchy that underpinned the colonial economy.
In letters and other writings from the period, white colonists often expressed their fear and distrust of Black people, citing the Stono Rebellion as evidence of the dangers posed by granting them too much freedom or autonomy. For instance, in a letter to a fellow planter, a South Carolinian named James Oglethorpe wrote, "The late rebellion of our negroes has taught us the necessity of keeping them in the strictest subjection, for they are a fierce and barbarous people who, if given the opportunity, would rise against us and destroy all that we hold dear."
The fear of Black uprisings had a broader impact on the development of racial attitudes in the American colonies. The rebellion was widely reported in newspapers and other publications, fueling fears of slave revolts and contributing to the entrenchment of racial stereotypes and segregationist policies. The rebellion became a cautionary tale, used to justify the harsh treatment of Black people and the continuation of slavery as a means of maintaining social order. This deeply ingrained fear of slave rebellions, amplified by events like the Stono Rebellion of 1739, would reach new heights decades later with the onset of the Haitian Revolution. While slaveholders in the American South already feared revolts, the Haitian Revolution profoundly intensified those anxieties, as it unfolded on an even larger and more terrifying scale.
Beginning in 1791, the Haitian Revolution, one of the most significant uprisings in world history, culminated in the establishment of Haiti as a free and independent nation in 1804. It was led primarily by enslaved Africans on the French colony of Saint-Domingue, who had endured brutal exploitation on sugar and coffee plantations. Influenced by the ideals of liberty and equality from the French Revolution, the enslaved population sought not only political freedom but total emancipation from slavery. Leaders such as Toussaint L'Ouverture, Jean-Jacques Dessalines, and Henri Christophe played pivotal roles in organizing the resistance against French colonial forces and local white planters, igniting a rebellion that would reshape the Caribbean.
As the revolution progressed, enslaved populations revolted in violent uprisings, gaining control of much of the island. This set the stage for intense battles between the formerly enslaved, the French, and other European powers like Britain and Spain, who sought to exploit the conflict for their own gain. Toussaint L'Ouverture emerged as a brilliant leader, forging alliances and outmaneuvering colonial forces, though he was eventually captured and sent to France. The revolution continued under Dessalines, who led the final push to defeat Napoleon's forces in 1803.
The Haitian Revolution marked a historic moment—the first time an enslaved population overthrew their oppressors and established an independent state. Haiti became the first Black republic and the second independent nation in the Western Hemisphere, following the United States. The revolution sent shockwaves across the Americas, striking fear into the hearts of slaveholders who worried that the Haitian example might inspire similar rebellions in their own lands. The success of the revolution also forced European powers to reconsider their colonial strategies in the Caribbean. Despite achieving independence, Haiti faced political isolation, economic sanctions, and internal challenges, the consequences of which would reverberate throughout the 19th century and beyond.
It captured the attention of the U.S. president and the Founding Fathers in a profound and unsettling way. As the only successful slave revolt in history, it challenged the very foundation of the American republic—a nation that, despite its revolutionary ideals of liberty and equality, was deeply entangled in the institution of slavery. The revolution was closely watched by the leaders of the United States, many of whom were slaveholders themselves, including President George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison.
The implications were enormous. For President Washington, the early stages of the uprising were a cause for significant concern. Washington, like many others, feared that the Haitian Revolution might inspire similar revolts among enslaved people in the United States. The prospect of a successful rebellion that could lead to the creation of an independent Black republic was seen as a direct threat to the stability and security of the Southern states, where slavery was a cornerstone of the economy and society. Washington's administration cautiously monitored the situation, aware that the revolution could embolden enslaved people and abolitionists within the U.S.
The Haitian Revolution had a profound impact on white views of Blacks in the Americas. For many white slaveholders and colonial authorities, the revolution represented their worst fears realized—a large-scale, successful slave revolt that overthrew the existing social and racial order. The revolution challenged the deeply ingrained belief in the inherent inferiority of Black people and the supposed naturalness of their subjugation. It also exposed the vulnerability of the colonial system and the potential for enslaved people to rise up and demand their freedom.
In the United States, the revolution had a significant influence on the development of racial attitudes and policies. The revolution was widely reported in American newspapers, often in sensationalized and alarmist terms. New York newspaper headlines read "Revolution in Haiti: Fear of Slave Revolts Spreads Across the American South" and "Horrors in Haiti: White Planters Massacred by Rebel Slaves."
Thomas Jefferson, who became president during the revolution, was particularly alarmed by the revolution's success. A staunch defender of slavery, Jefferson saw the Haitian Revolution as both a political and ideological threat. He feared that the spread of revolutionary ideals from Haiti would fuel abolitionist movements in the United States and undermine the institution of slavery. Jefferson's concerns were not just theoretical; he actively sought to isolate Haiti by supporting an economic embargo against the new nation, refusing to recognize its independence, and discouraging any interaction that might spread the revolutionary fervor. The revolution, in Jefferson's eyes, was a dangerous precedent that could unsettle the precarious balance of power between free and enslaved people in the United States. He wrote to James Monroe "The revolutionary storm now sweeping the globe will be upon us. We are not able to resist it, and we shall be submerged in the deluge."
The fear and anxiety sparked by the revolution not only gripped the Founding Fathers but also reverberated through the Southern states, setting the stage for a new wave of resistance among enslaved people in the United States, most notably exemplified by Gabriel's Rebellion in 1800 led by Gabriel Prosser, an enslaved blacksmith in Virginia.
It wasn't long before French plantation owners fleeing the violence in Haiti arrived on American shores. White Americans were terrified the rebellion would prove contagious, sparking a similar mass slave insurrection in the United States. But for black Americans like Gabriel, the Haitian Revolution served as proof that enslaved people could overthrow their oppressors. Three years later, he drew inspiration from the new French Republic, which had been established following a bloody overthrow of France's absolute monarchy. In 1794, the new republic abolished slavery. In Richmond, Gabriel met French abolitionists who had aligned themselves with local artisans and the Democratic-Republican Party in Virginia. Their bold ideas about black freedom, inspired Gabriel.
Over the course of the following months, Gabriel Prosser skillfully recruited a network of enslaved people and poor whites in Virginia, leveraging shared grievances against the oppressive system of slavery and economic inequality. His plan involved gathering a large force to march on Richmond, seize weapons, take the capitol, and demand freedom for all enslaved people. However, the rebellion's secrecy was compromised when two enslaved men, fearful of the potential consequences and seeking to protect themselves, informed their master of the plot. By noon the next day, Governor Monroe of Virginia received word of the planned rebellion. He immediately ordered that all weapons be removed from the capital and placed in Richmond's prison for safekeeping. Meanwhile, several Henrico County whites took matters into their own hands, arming themselves and riding through the countryside in search of rebels.
Facing the threat of rebellion, Virginia Governor James Monroe called on militia captains in Richmond and the surrounding counties to apprehend rebels, and within the next few days, six men were already in jail. At first, state authorities underestimated the conspiracy's reach, but as more information came to light, the true extent of the planned rebellion became clear and panic spread through Virginia's white population. It wasn't just the threat of murder that alarmed whites. Many falsely believed that rebel slaves sought to rape white women.
These baseless fears inflamed white anger and drove local leaders to punish the rebels harshly. Within a week, nearly 30 suspect rebels were hanged in the city square. These public hangings were designed to entertain whites and terrorize blacks, demonstrating the fatal consequences of disobedience. Authorities also hanged some slaves on trees outside town, a crueler and slower death by asphyxiation.
Gabriel was eventually apprehended a month later in Norfolk, Virginia. A fellow enslaved man named Billy, who had helped Gabriel cross a river, soon realized Gabriel's identity and the opportunity it presented. The $300 reward for Gabriel's capture was a life-changing sum, enough for Billy to potentially secure his own freedom. Seizing this chance, Billy alerted the authorities when their ship docked in Norfolk, leading to Gabriel's arrest.
The authorities only granted Billy $50, far less than what he needed to buy his freedom.
Gabriel was quickly declared guilty and sentenced to be executed. Gabriel asked for a three-day delay so that he could have the small comfort of being hanged alongside four of his friends. The justices agreed, but when the day came, authorities broke their promise. Gabriel was hanged alone.
The failed rebellion stunned the nation and left a long shadow over Virginia. Forty percent of the state's population was enslaved at the turn of the century. Prominent leaders, including Monroe and Jefferson, believed the presence of a large, oppressed population posed a major risk. They knew that slaves were capable of mounting an elaborate and violent revolt like the one in Haiti. They were terrified it could happen in America.
John Randolph, a powerful congressman and Virginia plantation owner, summed up white fears about the danger lurking in their midst, writing in a letter, “The accused have exhibited a spirit, which, if it becomes general, must deluge the southern country in blood.”
The aftermath of Gabriel's Rebellion led to significant changes that fortified slavery as a dominant institution in Southern society. In response, the Virginia legislature strengthened the state militia, and Richmond authorities established a dedicated guard to police Black residents in the capital. Virginia imposed new restrictions, prohibiting nighttime gatherings of enslaved people and placing Black churches under strict surveillance. The state also cracked down on the practice of "hiring out," which had allowed Gabriel and his collaborators a degree of independence. Additionally, lawmakers curtailed the activities of freedmen, banning them from working on boats to prevent communication within the Black community. In 1806, Virginia passed a law requiring newly emancipated freedmen to leave the state within a year, aiming to prevent them from becoming a model of freedom for those still enslaved. While many white politicians of the time acknowledged slavery as an evil institution, they failed to abolish it and often enacted policies that expanded and protected it. By the turn of the century, many whites across the South had convinced themselves that slavery was a positive good for society and took significant steps to secure its continuation.
Though no whites were killed in Gabriel's Rebellion, Southerners were haunted by nightmarish visions of a successful slave insurrection for decades to come. But enslaved men and women would never forget Gabriel's daring fight for freedom. A week before Gabriel was hanged, another slave was born, 70 miles away in the isolated backwater of Southampton County, Virginia. Reclusive and deeply religious, he was visited by strange visions that convinced him he had to act out against slavery. He would go on to launch a deadly rebellion, one that would shake Virginia's ruling class to its core.
On the night of August 21, 1831, Nat Turner, an enslaved preacher who believed he was divinely called to lead his people to freedom, initiated a rebellion that would become one of the most significant slave uprisings in American history. The insurrection began on the plantation of Joseph Travis, Turner’s owner, where Turner and his small group of trusted followers killed the entire Travis family as they slept. Armed with axes, knives, and a few firearms, the rebels then moved methodically from plantation to plantation, killing white inhabitants and recruiting other enslaved people to join their cause. Turner and his men spared no one, including women and children, believing they were carrying out divine retribution against their oppressors.
As the rebellion unfolded, Turner’s ranks swelled to over 70 participants, comprised of both enslaved and free Black men. Over the course of two days, the group killed approximately 60 white people. Turner’s strategy emphasized swift and silent movement, aiming to build momentum and avoid direct confrontation with organized resistance until they had gathered enough strength. Despite their efforts, the rebellion was brought to an abrupt end on August 23, when a force of white militia and local vigilantes confronted the rebels. Most of the insurgents were killed or captured in the ensuing clash, but Nat Turner himself managed to escape, evading capture for several weeks as he went into hiding.
Newspaper’s across Virginia spread the message—"Horrid Massacre in Virginia" that read, "the horrors of a savage war, such as has been waged by the blacks in St. Domingo, can be repeated among us at any moment. The Southampton massacre is a warning of what might come" and, "Negro Plot: Shocking Barbarities" that read, “the massacre in Southampton exhibits the most savage barbarity, and shows a disposition among the slaves of the most diabolical character."
Turner's eventual capture and subsequent trial drew significant attention. He was tried in Jerusalem, Virginia, on November 5, 1831, and was convicted and sentenced to death. On November 11, 1831, Nat Turner was hanged. His body was then flayed, beheaded, and quartered—a gruesome display meant to serve as a deterrent to other enslaved people who might consider rebellion.
The aftermath of Nat Turner's Rebellion was marked by widespread panic and brutal retaliation. White mobs and militias scoured Southampton County and the surrounding areas, hunting down anyone suspected of being involved in the rebellion. Over the next few months, more than 100 Black people, many of whom had no connection to the rebellion, were killed by angry white mobs. The state of Virginia executed 56 Black people as a result of the rebellion.
Nat Turner's Rebellion had a profound and far-reaching impact on white society, particularly in the South. The rebellion struck deep fear into the hearts of white Southerners, reinforcing their worst fears about the potential for slave insurrections. The growing population of enslaved people, coupled with the rise of the abolitionist movement in the North, only heightened these anxieties. Memories of previous uprisings, such as the Haitian Revolution and Gabriel's Rebellion, further fueled this fear. In the immediate aftermath, white Virginians expressed their terror and outrage in letters and diaries, capturing the pervasive sense of vulnerability that spread throughout the South as news of the rebellion traveled.
The rebellion also intensified the national debate over slavery. In the North, abolitionists pointed to the uprising as evidence of the inherent injustice of slavery and the inevitable violence it would produce. Meanwhile, Southern defenders of slavery used the rebellion to justify the continued subjugation of Black people, arguing that it demonstrated the dangers of granting any semblance of freedom or autonomy to the enslaved. In response, Virginia and other Southern states enacted harsher laws to tighten control over the Black population, both enslaved and free. These included stricter codes regulating movement, assembly, and education, as well as the notorious "Black Codes," which further restricted the rights of free Black people and aimed to prevent them from aiding or inciting enslaved populations.
The fear and repression that followed Nat Turner's Rebellion had lasting consequences for the institution of slavery and racial attitudes in the South. The rebellion reinforced the stereotypes of Black people as inherently violent and savage and the belief among white Southerners that Black people needed to be kept under strict control. This contributed to the entrenchment of white supremacy and the further degradation of Black rights in the decades leading up to the Civil War. Nat Turner's religious fervor also led to increased suspicion of Black religious gatherings, resulting in laws that restricted these meetings and often required the presence of white ministers. In this atmosphere of fear and repression, Southern society doubled down on its commitment to slavery, ensuring its continuation and deepening the divide that would eventually lead to the Civil War.
However, the fear of Black people did not dissipate with the end of slavery after the Civil War. Instead, it transformed into new and insidious forms, perpetuating racial violence and discrimination in the post-war era. During Reconstruction, the fear of Black political power led to the rise of white supremacist organizations like the Ku Klux Klan, which used terror and violence to intimidate Black people and suppress their rights. The specter of Black uprisings continued to haunt white Southerners, resulting in widespread lynchings and other forms of extrajudicial violence designed to keep Black people "in their place."
Governor James Orr of South Carolina articulated this fear, stating, “The emancipation of the Negro has thrown our entire social system into a state of disarray. If we do not establish firm controls, they will overrun our institutions and we shall see the worst form of barbarism in our midst." Similarly, Senator Benjamin Tillman of South Carolina declared, "We of the South have never recognized the right of the Negro to govern white men, and we never will. We will not submit to his control, and if it is forced upon us, we will resort to force." These sentiments were echoed by Andrew Johnson, Abraham Lincoln’s successor, who warned, "The Negro, once set free, is a dangerous element. His ignorance, coupled with the mischievous influence of Northern radicals, poses a threat to the peace and stability of our nation."
The end of the Civil War and the emancipation of millions of enslaved Blacks in 1865 marked a pivotal moment in American history, but it did not bring the equality that many had hoped for. Instead, it ignited a deep-seated fear among white Southerners who were alarmed by the social, political, and economic implications of Black freedom. This fear gave rise to systemic racism, most notoriously manifested in the establishment of Jim Crow laws, which enforced racial segregation and disenfranchisement to reassert white supremacy and maintain the social order of the antebellum South. These fears were multifaceted—rooted in economic concerns over the loss of labor, social anxiety about racial equality, and political alarm at the prospect of Black people gaining the right to vote and hold office. In response, many white Southerners turned to violence and intimidation to suppress Black rights and maintain their dominance.
The abolition of slavery following the Civil War did not alleviate white fear of Black rebellion; in many ways, it intensified it. The Reconstruction era (1865-1877) saw the federal government attempt to rebuild the South and integrate formerly enslaved people into American society as equal citizens. This period of political and social upheaval was marked by significant advancements for Blacks, including the establishment of schools, the election of Black legislators, and the passage of the 14th and 15th Amendments.
However, these gains were met with fierce resistance from white Southerners, who viewed the empowerment of Blacks as a direct threat to their social and economic dominance. This fear was not just of political or economic competition but of a potential reversal of racial hierarchies. White Southerners feared that if Blacks gained too much power, they might seek revenge for centuries of oppression.
This fear manifested in the rise of white supremacist groups such as the Ku Klux Klan, which used violence and terror to suppress Black political participation and maintain white dominance. The end of Reconstruction and the subsequent imposition of Jim Crow laws represented a retrenchment of white power and a formalization of racial segregation, driven in part by the desire to prevent any possibility of Black rebellion.
Between the Jim Crow era and modern day, white fear of Blacks has persisted and evolved, rooted in the historical anxiety over Black rebellion and the potential challenge to white supremacy. During Jim Crow, this fear was institutionalized through segregation, voter suppression, and widespread violence, such as lynchings, to maintain control over Black populations. As legal segregation ended, the fear of Black empowerment and rebellion shifted into concerns about crime and disorder, leading to the criminalization of Black communities, mass incarceration, and aggressive policing practices. This fear continues to manifest in the response to modern movements like Black Lives Matter, where demands for justice and equality are often met with suspicion, resistance, and an overemphasis on maintaining "law and order," reflecting a deep-seated unease about the potential for social upheaval.
During that time, Black communities have notoriously organized peaceful protests and movements, often exercising restraint due to the fear of "whitelash," or severe backlash from white society, which could lead to violent repression and further marginalization. Throughout the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s, Black Americans organized numerous peaceful protests to challenge segregation, disenfranchisement, and racial violence. One of the most iconic example is the 1963 March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom, where Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. delivered his famous "I Have a Dream" speech. This protest was meticulously planned as a peaceful demonstration, with over 250,000 participants gathering in a powerful, nonviolent call for civil and economic rights. Despite its peaceful nature, many in the white community and certain media outlets viewed the march with suspicion, fearing that it would lead to riots or social unrest. The fear was so pervasive that there was a significant police presence, including the National Guard, prepared to suppress any potential violence.
Two years later, the 1965 Selma to Montgomery marches were organized to demand voting rights for Black Americans. These marches were peaceful, but participants were met with extreme violence from law enforcement and white supremacists, most notably on "Bloody Sunday," when state troopers attacked marchers with tear gas and billy clubs as they crossed the Edmund Pettus Bridge. The brutality against peaceful protesters was broadcast on national television, shocking the nation and garnering sympathy for the Civil Rights Movement. However, in the South and among many white Americans, the fear of Black empowerment led to increased resistance to the movement's goals.
The Los Angeles Riots of 1992, while often cited as an example of Black violence, began with a long history of peaceful protests and community organizing against police brutality in Los Angeles. The acquittal of four LAPD officers who brutally beat Rodney King, an unarmed Black man, was the catalyst for the riots. However, the frustration and anger that erupted into violence were the result of years of peaceful efforts by Black communities to address police brutality being ignored or dismissed.While the media focused extensively on the violence and looting that occurred, the years of peaceful demonstrations and advocacy that preceded the riots were largely ignored. This selective reporting reinforced the narrative that Black communities are prone to violence, obscuring the legitimate grievances that led to the unrest.
The label of "riot" not only shaped public perception of the events in Los Angeles but also served to delegitimize the underlying causes of the protest, such as systemic racism and police violence. By framing the response to injustice as a "riot," the media and public discourse shifted attention away from the need for meaningful reform and instead focused on the destruction and disorder, further entrenching negative stereotypes about Black communities.
The day the “riot” broke out, The Los Angeles Times headline read, “Looting and fires ravaging LA”, describing the city as a “war zone.” Terms like “anarchy,” “siege,” “mayhem,” and “destruction,” were frequently used in reports to dramatize the events, often heightening the sense of fear and urgency in the coverage of the riots.
On January 6, 2021, a mob of approximately 2,500 predominantly white men violently stormed the U.S. Capitol in an attempt to overturn the 2020 presidential election results. They breached security barriers, vandalized offices, and chanted threats against elected officials, including calls to "Hang Mike Pence," as they sought to disrupt the certification of the Electoral College vote. The insurrection was a direct assault on American democracy, with rioters aiming to subvert the peaceful transfer of power through violence and intimidation.
The New York Times headline read, “Trump incites mob”, The Wall Street Journal “Mob storms capitol”, while Fox News has a specific section on their website for “Capitol Protests” archives. Terms like “protest,” “rally,” “demonstration,” and “incident,” were frequently used in reports to downplay the severity of the event.
Modern movements, like Black Lives Matter, that, unfortunately, have to continue to bring awareness to police violence against Black people, are predominantly peaceful demonstrations advocating for racial justice and equality. The vast majority of participants engage in nonviolent actions, such as marching, holding signs, and chanting, aiming to draw attention to the systemic racism that has long plagued American society. However, like the Civil Rights protests before them, these peaceful protests are often overshadowed in the media by isolated incidents of violence, which are frequently used to misrepresent the movement as a whole. The reality is that studies consistently show that over 90% of Black Lives Matter protests are peaceful, with participants striving to bring about change through civil disobedience and public awareness, rather than through chaos or destruction.
The perception that Black-led protests are inherently violent can be traced back to deep-seated fears within the white community, rooted in the history of racial oppression in the United States. Since the era of slavery, there has been a pervasive fear among white populations of Black rebellion and uprising. This fear was historically amplified by the possibility of slave revolts, which could disrupt the social and economic order that heavily relied on enslaved labor. Over time, this fear evolved into a broader suspicion and anxiety about any form of Black resistance, contributing to the disproportionate portrayal of Black-led movements as threats to public order. This historical context helps explain why peaceful protests, like Black Lives Matter, are often viewed with undue alarm and are subject to heavy-handed policing.
Furthermore, the distorted perception of these protests is exacerbated by the media's role in sensationalizing violence, particularly when it involves Black individuals. Media coverage often focuses disproportionately on the rare instances of looting or clashes with police, rather than the overwhelmingly peaceful nature of the protests. This selective reporting not only fuels white fears but also reinforces the narrative that Black activism is synonymous with violence, echoing the age-old stereotypes of Black criminality. By understanding the historical roots of these fears and recognizing the peaceful intentions behind these movement, society can begin to shift the narrative and more accurately represent the movement's true purpose: seeking justice and equality for all.
A common criticism of movements like Black Lives Matter is that it’s racist against white people. However, the movement's purpose is not to marginalize or exclude others, but to highlight and address the specific challenges faced by Black individuals due to systemic racism. This is similar to how Breast Cancer Awareness marches focus on breast cancer, not because other forms of cancer are less important, but because breast cancer has its own unique challenges that require targeted attention and the organizers were survivors of breast cancer. Just as supporting breast cancer awareness doesn't diminish the seriousness of prostate cancer, advocating for Black lives does not imply that white lives—or any other lives—are less valuable. Black Lives Matter aims to draw attention to the injustices disproportionately affecting Black communities, with the goal of creating a more equitable society for everyone, regardless of race.
Critics who label Black Lives Matter as racist against white people either misunderstand the movement's intentions, are motivated by racism themselves, harbor fears about Black progress, or a combination of the three.
