For those saying "this isn't who we are" and "this is unprecedented" here's a thread on 2 things:

1. the history of white mob violence in Washington, D.C.

2. the history of politicians using the idea of Black crime in D.C. to empower the police & deny civil rights.

1835 Snow riots: After an enslaved person allegedly attempted to kill his owner in 1835, a white mob destroyed symbols of Black success in D.C.: a church, school, and a restaurant owned by Black businessman Beverly Snow were badly damaged.

The response to white mob violence? Even tougher restrictions on Black life including a law that barred Black people from owning a business (other than driving carts) and required every Black resident to have at least five white people testify they were of good character.

1919: After several white women were reportedly raped by a Black man, a posse of over 100 white men, most of whom were in the military, went around D.C. and beat random Black men. Many Black businesses along U Street were attacked.

Some Black Washingtonians fought back and purchased over 500 guns to guard their streets and homes.

The police? Their efforts to restore order in D.C. consisted of clearing the streets of Black people.

While nearly all reports concluded white mobs instigated the riots and Black people acted in self-defense, only eight or nine of the roughly 100 people arrested during the riots were white and Black people imprisoned were treated brutally by the police.

So yeah, I'd say white mobs carrying out violent attacks is precedented in the nation's capital. I'd also say that an entirely misguided and insufficient response by police is also precedented. It's also precedented for police and military to be a part of the attacks.

Now for the second part: the double standard. A group of mostly white people carrying out a coup attempt were treated better than Black people are when they are driving, peacefully protesting, or just living their lives. Let's dig into that history, specifically in D.C.

Because D.C. gets so much national and even international attention, politicians have amplified Black crime in D.C. for decades to push their agenda to deny D.C. home rule, deny Black people civil rights, and give police more power.

In 1957, famous author Willie Snow Etheridge was mugged in the District right off Connecticut Avenue — a “good” and white part of town. Southern members of Congress distorted the story to add ammunition in their fight against integration.

Congressmen bemoaned the “terror”: The capital would be “an after dark ghost city” unless it passed stronger anti-crime laws. One blasted DC as “a half-civilized place where it is unsafe to venture into the streets at night." One said crime made the city a “national disgrace.”

At the time of the Etheridge incident, however, the D.C. crime rate was one of the lowest in the country, and 10 percent lower than the previous year.

Yet the narrative of a crime-plagued city persisted: In 1956, after D.C. crime decreased by nearly 20 percent over 3 years, citizens associations continued to ask Congress for more police, because residents “are afraid to go out after dark to meetings or for social occasions.”

Why the contradiction? Worry about crime was a cover for racialized fears. As the District became a majority-Black city in 1957, it was no coincidence that white Washingtonians reported feeling less safe and believed that the District was one of the most dangerous cities.

Southern lawmakers helped to stoke these fears. Sen. Olin Johnston (D-S.C.) made speeches in Congress almost daily condemning D.C. crime and the “chronic ailments that accompany forced integration.”

To Sen. Allen Ellender (D-La.), crime in DC proved “his contention that Negroes cannot govern themselves.” Another said that DC was “noted for the great number of serious crimes committed in its limits” and bluntly stated, “Negroes are responsible for this high crime rate.”

This narrative become so prevalent that in 1964, Republican presidential nominee Barry Goldwater turned the story of D.C. crime into a national campaign issue about not just race but also the failures of liberal leadership.

Four years later, Richard M. Nixon sounded similar notes, using D.C. crime as part of his “Southern strategy” that used racially coded language to gain white Southern support.

Assailing Washington as the “crime capital of the world,” Nixon used it as the prime example of why “get tough” policies were needed: “D.C. should not stand for Disorder and Crime,” he argued.

After Nixon entered office, he defunded much of Johnson’s War on Poverty and replaced it with a “War on Crime” in the District that eventually became law with the passage of the 1970 D.C. crime bill. https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/07/29/how-politicians-use-fear-cities-like-baltimore-stoke-white-resentment/

So, Americans have been told for decades and decades that Black Washingtonians are dangerous to the national capital. Politicians have intentionally constructed this racist narrative to push their agenda.

And that's part of why the public and police is so ready to fear and condemn and arrest and brutalize racial justice protesters in D.C. and treat white rioters with kid gloves.