Watch the video above for the full argument.
The core claim is worth sitting with on its own: crime rates among both black and white Americans were declining in the years leading up to the 1960s.
Then, in the same decade that produced landmark civil rights legislation, crime spiked sharply — and cities across the country saw waves of rioting.
That timeline runs against the version most people have absorbed by default.
The common explanation treats rising unrest almost entirely as a response to injustice that had simply built up over time, finally boiling over.
The video makes a different case. Specific policy decisions made during that period — including instances where law enforcement was deliberately held back from intervening — shaped how those riots unfolded and how far they spread.
Subscribe now and get 50% off a full year of Deskooled.
If crime was already falling before the decade that’s remembered for rising disorder, what actually changed?
That’s the uncomfortable question sitting underneath this argument. It’s easier to tell a story where unrest is the inevitable output of injustice reaching a breaking point. It’s harder to ask whether specific, reversible choices — how aggressively laws were enforced, how leadership responded in the moment, what kind of restraint was ordered from the top — played as large a role as the underlying social conditions themselves.
Neither explanation erases the other.
Real grievances existed, and real policy choices were made in response to them. But if the second half of that equation gets left out of the story entirely, the lesson people take away is incomplete — and incomplete lessons tend to get repeated.
What gets lost when a complicated history gets flattened into a single, simple cause?
Usually, the parts that would actually be useful to know the next time similar conditions start to build.
Watch the full video above for the specifics.
Subscribe now and get 50% off a full year of Deskooled.