Talk:1968 Democratic National Convention protests

Walker Report / Yippies

The determination of the event as a "police riot" should not be interpreted as excluding organizer planning and provocation as a factor. The two can exist together without contradiction.

The characterization of events as a police riot were taken from the Walker Report of 1968. While the report does use the term "police riot," it does not say the the riots were unprovoked. The Wikipedia article only cites later pages in the report, not the overview of findings found in the introductory paragraphs on page 1:

"During the week of the Democratic National Convention, the Chicago police were the targets of mounting provocation by both word and act. It took the form of obscene epithets, and of rocks, sticks, bathroom titles, and even human feces hurled at police by demonstrators. Some of these acts had been planned; others were spontaneous or were themselves provoked by police action. Furthermore, the police had been put on edge by widely published threats of attempts to disrupt both the city and the Convention. That was the nature of the provocation. The nature of the response was unrestrained and indiscriminate police violence on many occasions, particularly at night. That violence was made all the more shocking by the fact that it was often inflicted upon persons who had broken no law, disobeyed no order, made no threat. These included peaceful demonstrators, onlookers, and large numbers of residents who were simply passing through, or happened to live in, the areas where confrontations were occurring."

Any good introductory paragraph will similarly include both planned provocation and extreme police overreaction.

A more difficult task is bringing an understanding of provocation to the article. The provocateur seeks to push authorities to overreact, fully expecting that protestors and innocent people will suffer police brutality. That can be seen in this video of Abbie Hoffman explaining his vision before the events. (Unfortunately, I don't know the source of the video, but it seems to have been shot in NY Central Park not long before the convention. Anyone help here would be appreciated.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2oujcg_Tifw

"Essentially what we’re going to do is throw a lot of banana peels around Chicago. And have the machine stumble. And when it stumbles and it gets into a policy of overkill and it starts to devour itself," Hoffman laughs. "See in Grand Central Station, they weren’t just clubbing us longhairs, you see, they started to take on commuters. You know, and people coming home from the opera, and mayor’s officials who were wandering around, and FBI agents who were there in secret and disguised as hippies. They were all getting clubbed just like us!" As Hoffman said elsewhere, “Yippie is a hippie who’s been beaten up by the cops," and the Yippies' stated goal was always to radicalize the hippies.

(With all due respect to Gretel111 and her first-person experience in Chicago, she was a victim not just of police brutality, but also Abbie Hoffman.) AECwriter 19:28, 15 July 2014 (UTC)AECwriter

Untitled

I am not sure how to get this information into the main document or how it could best be expressed. Perhaps someone could take my narrative below and find a way to use it properly. The truth should be known and verified. Since I was there and an eyewitness, I believe I know something of the truth.

I was at the April Peace March in Chicago. I had not planned on joining the March but found myself with extra time and stopped to watch. I ended up joining the March in progress due to the police officer that refused to let me stand on the sidewalk watching. A clear violation of my rights. The police taunted us througout the walk. Upon arriving at the Daley Plaza, there were barricades placed that restricted the area for gathering to just the sidewalk. There was no visible reason for this. As the number of those arriving kept growing the sidewalk became packed and people became restless. The assumption was that there was to be speakers at the Plaza but this situation made this impossible. First one, then two young men jumped the barricades. That triggered the full scale police riot. They charged in lines from all directions. Swinging their clubs, kicking those that went down, and saying "This is what you will get in August". There was no way out as violent men in police uniforms blocked passage in any direction one turned. One young man, whom I later learned was one of the organizers, saw my attempts to escape, grabbed my hand and yanked me through a hole in the police lines. As I made my way to Pixley's Restaurant on Randolph near Michigan I saw young people being chased, pulled out of theatre lines and beaten by the police. As I sat in Pixley's, I saw police chasing someone down into the Illinois Central station. I hope he made it before they attacked him. At the young age of 19, this was a very traumatic incident in my life. The claims that the police were trying to "disburse" the crowds is an absolute lie, they actually were keeping them locked into the area and taking satisfaction in beating people. Gretel111 (talk) 18:18, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I moved this lengthy, um, treatise from the 1968 Democratic National Convention article to here. It is really too long for a section and needs to be cleaned up. It probably also should be cut down to a more encyclopedic entry. I wish someone luck in doing so. PerlKnitter (talk) 19:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

This article reads essentially as an apologia for the Daley administration. It's failure to adhere to NPOV is breathtaking. Acsenray (talk) 20:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

This entire page needs to be redone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.254.105.37 (talk) 15:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I've tried to remove the most spectacular violations of NPOV and replace them with more neutral language. The "conclusions" section, however, is little more than, to quote Acsenray, "an apologia for the Daley administration", and I thus deleted it.Tintagel555 (talk) 22:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Really needs help

I just started reading it, and in the first paragraph "Somewhere in the drug induced haze, it was suggested to have a free music festival in Chicago to defuse all the political tensions" is written. Now, I'm not denying it's true, but seriously... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.150.31.81 (talk) 03:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC) I completely agree in that the article needs refinement, shall we say. I was there. I participated in the demonstrations (age 15), and at one point narrowly escaped being bludgeoned by (steel cored) billy-clubs. For example, one inadequacy is that the article makes no report about the huge, unprovoked, beating-up by police on Schiller just east of Wells. I'll report back when I have time. 65.28.75.92 (talk) 19:54, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

ChicagoWikiProject Importance Rating

Initially made this High importance so that the approval process for the Top rating can be followed. In my opinion this should be a Top importance article.Pknkly (talk) 19:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:56, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Walker Report / Yippies

The determination of the event as a "police riot" should not be interpreted as excluding organizer planning and provocation as a factor. The two can exist together without contradiction.

The characterization of events as a police riot were taken from the Walker Report of 1968. While the report does use the term "police riot," it does not say the the riots were unprovoked. The Wikipedia article only cites later pages in the report, not the overview of findings found in the introductory paragraphs on page 1:

"During the week of the Democratic National Convention, the Chicago police were the targets of mounting provocation by both word and act. It took the form of obscene epithets, and of rocks, sticks, bathroom titles, and even human feces hurled at police by demonstrators. Some of these acts had been planned; others were spontaneous or were themselves provoked by police action. Furthermore, the police had been put on edge by widely published threats of attempts to disrupt both the city and the Convention. That was the nature of the provocation. The nature of the response was unrestrained and indiscriminate police violence on many occasions, particularly at night. That violence was made all the more shocking by the fact that it was often inflicted upon persons who had broken no law, disobeyed no order, made no threat. These included peaceful demonstrators, onlookers, and large numbers of residents who were simply passing through, or happened to live in, the areas where confrontations were occurring."

Any good introductory paragraph will similarly include both planned provocation and extreme police overreaction.

A more difficult task is bringing an understanding of provocation to the article. The provocateur seeks to push authorities to overreact, fully expecting that protestors and innocent people will suffer police brutality. That can be seen in this video of Abbie Hoffman explaining his vision before the events. (Unfortunately, I don't know the source of the video, but it seems to have been shot in NY Central Park not long before the convention. Anyone help here would be appreciated.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2oujcg_Tifw

"Essentially what we’re going to do is throw a lot of banana peels around Chicago. And have the machine stumble. And when it stumbles and it gets into a policy of overkill and it starts to devour itself," Hoffman laughs. "See in Grand Central Station, they weren’t just clubbing us longhairs, you see, they started to take on commuters. You know, and people coming home from the opera, and mayor’s officials who were wandering around, and FBI agents who were there in secret and disguised as hippies. They were all getting clubbed just like us!" As Hoffman said elsewhere, “Yippie is a hippie who’s been beaten up by the cops," and the Yippies' stated goal was always to radicalize the hippies.

(With all due respect to Gretchen111 and her first-person experience in Chicago, she was a victim not just of police brutality, but also Abbie Hoffman.) AECwriter 19:25, 15 July 2014 (UTC)AECwriter — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aecwriter (talk • contribs)

Everything in this section (except what I am now writing) is a precise duplication of the first section on this talk page. I tried deleting it but an automatic filter prevented me. 66.188.122.14 (talk) 09:17, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

final sentences and attribution

"Subsequently, the Walker Report to the National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence assigned blame for the mayhem in the streets to the police force, calling the violence a "police riot". It later became said that on that night, America voted for Richard M. Nixon.[23]"

i followed the link to the Frankel citation, which appeared to relate ONLY to the first sentence. I can find no reference to the last sentence (and "it became said" is awful, really) in that article. Therefore, I have removed the final, unrelated sentence. I welcome reversion or clarification if the Frankel article does suggest otherwise. Actio (talk) 02:27, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Comparison with 2021 Capitol riot

Can you imagine what would have been the result had one officer and four protestors been killed in the riot? The Democratic Party (United States) would have been discredited for a generation. It is unlikely Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton or even Barack Obama would ever have been President. Amyzex (talk) 19:24, 5 January 2024 (UTC)