LA Riots Aftermath

I came across an article entitle “South Central-LA, 10 Years after the Riots.” The author, Steve Sailor, describes how ground zero of the LA riots has changed since the riots. He talks about how the neighborhoods have become more respectable and that the area does not look like a traditional ghetto that one sees in popular culture. However, he does point that in 1992, this same description would also fit. Sailor also talks about how Koreans have been replaced by Latinos in many neighborhoods. He cites the main reason for this is that after the riots community activists tried to prevent the rebuilding of Korean liquor stores because they felt alcohol contributed greatly to the riots.
After reading Steve Sailor’s article, I felt as if the author did not fully analyze post-riot LA. Sailor only describes how the layout of South Central LA has changed since the riots. However, if one wants to accurately describe how South Central LA has changed since the riots, one must talk about how the attitudes and demeanor of the people have changed. The few quotes he provides just support his claim that the design of the area has changed since the riots. He doesn’t mention the more important question of whether or not the collective neighborhood has changed its attitude since the riots.
In the article, the author makes some interesting observations, however his analysis differs from Min Hyoung Song in “Strange Future”. The two authors have different views of South Central LA after the riots. One could argue that due to these contradictory descriptions, Song would put Sailor in his section on naïveté. Sailor talks about how the epicenter of the riots has developed greatly while Song describes how in many places such as Vermont Street, the wreckage from the riots is still visible and many stores have yet to be rebuilt. The ruined buildings and the failure to fully redevelop the area would also indicate to Song that the impact of the riots is still resonating while Sailor most likely sees the riots as a short period of tumult that is no longer relevant.
Sailor also fails to fully understand what caused the riots in his article. He states numerous times that alcohol was the main reason for the riots. This explanation oversimplifies the causes of the riots and illustrates his naïveté as stated before. Although alcohol may have played a role in the riots, it certainly was not the main contributor. By stating alcohol as the principal reason, Sailor diminishes the racial tensions that were the foundation of the riots.
Sailor’s article provides insightful information about South Central LA after the riots; however his article fails to realize and address key issues of the riots.