Shakespeare's Last Stand

Astor Place Riot, taken from Wikipedia

Well, I've finished The Shakespeare Riots and it was very interesting and well written. At the end, Nigel Cliff concludes that the dramatic Shakespeare people knew and loved in the 19th century was eventually transformed into the literary Shakespeare that we have now, partly because of the changes to American society and partly because of the rise of the popular novel. He's probably right about that, but I wonder if the riots really had more to do with lower class frustration than with Shakespeare.

I had never heard of the Shakespeare riots (or the Astor Place Riot, as it is also known) before reading this book and I was appalled at how violent they were, especially considering the ostensible cause. But then, people who are disgruntled by unfairness will find any reason to express their frustration, no matter how nonsensical it is. Examine any riot and you'll find the same underlying cause: class warfare, the great division between the haves and the have-nots. And that seems to have been at the root of the riots that took place in New York City in 1849.

The people who were killed on May 10, 1849, were mostly killed by gunfire from the New York militia who had come to quell the riot. Up to that time, however, the rioters--mostly working class folk and Irish gangs--were throwing paving stones at police officers. Those weapons could have had lethal consequences as well.

When things threatened to get out of control completely, the National Guard were called in. When the rioters wouldn't stop throwing stones, they were fired upon. Unfortunately, many of those killed (of the total of 25 or so) were innocent bystanders. The authorities were criticized for their actions, as were the National Guard troops at Kent State. Few were critical of the rioters because they came to seem like the victims when the government used its superior force.

It's interesting to me to see how little has changed since then with respect to the conflict between the rich and the poor and how it erupts into violence that ultimately has no effect on the basic structure of society. As with most riots, the outcome was pointless destruction of life and property. Life went on until the next crisis brought the tensions to a head once again.

The boiling over of anger and frustration does not change the power arrangement, in most cases, and so results in very little positive change. Those who rule are happy about that, since they believe the way things are arranged is best for society. The lower classes are not capable of governing and so should be prevented from having power. Perhaps they're right. Is there a way to give the "common people," as they used to be known, power without destroying the society we now have? That's a good question, and one not addressed by Nigel Cliff.

But we are still asking it, especially when we look at how other societies deal with their oppressive governments and the rift between one segment of society and another. We want to help those who yearn for freedom, but then we find that it's much more complex than that, because often when they get freedom, they don't use it in the way we think they should. The Shakespeare Riots were quite complex. Nigel Cliff tried to get at all the causes and I think did a pretty good job of it. But how to prevent such events from recurring? He doesn't really say.

This was a good book that I highly recommend. What's next on my reading list? I'll let you know . . .