As someone who refers to that late April 1992 incident in Los Angeles as a rebellion but who does not use the term rebellion to describe every incident called a riot by the ruling I beg to differ. In my mind the the LA riots/rebellion were very political. Does anyone dispute that they were a response to the acquittal of the 4 cops accused of beating King? That alone in my mind makes them political.
What they were not was organized or centered around political demands. This of course reflects the low level of political consciousness in the U.S. today. Nevertheless it is a mistake to think that makes them apolitical.
On a related note, one thing that does amaze me is that I have met very few young people active in politics who were influenced greatly by the LA Rebellion whereas for me it is was an important event in my political development. I was in eighth grade at the time and, if my memory serves me correctly, actually in the middle of reading the Autobiography of Malcolm X when the rebellion happened. I credit that reading that book and reading about the rebellion as putting me on the course to becoming a socialist. It was not a straight line from there but it was those two events which set me in motion. Now when I meet activists my age I sometimes ask them what influence it had on them and for the most part they respond little to none. I have met many more who were influenced by the war against Iraq which I hardly remember.
> I think the Spice Girls are terrible though, and Catherine Driscoll was
> absolutely maddening on the subject on BS. I see nothing feminist about
> >In any event, the jig is up because Frances
> >revealed my 'true' identity. And now I see that
> >Doug has too. Not that I have to disguise myself,
> >actually Doug. And it certainly isn't the case
> >that Kelley Crouse means anything or carries any
> >more weight than SnitgrrRl. So what's the diff?
> There's no diff at all. It's all in the words; the signature's an afterthought.