UC Berkeley UC Berkeley Electronic Theses and Dissertations Title Gangster Boogie: Los Angeles and the Rise of Gangsta Rap, 1965-1992 Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/3hd2d12n Author Viator, Felicia Angeja Publication Date 2012 Peer reviewed|Thesis/dissertation eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California Gangster Boogie: Los Angeles and the Rise of Gangsta Rap, 1965-1992 By Felicia Angeja Viator A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in History in the Graduate Division of the University of California, Berkeley Committee in charge: Professor Leon F. Litwack, Co-Chair Professor Waldo E. Martin, Jr., Co-Chair Professor Scott Saul Fall 2012 Abstract Gangster Boogie: Los Angeles and the Rise of Gangsta Rap, 1965-1992 by Felicia Angeja Viator Doctor of Philosophy in History University of California, Berkeley Professor Leon F. Litwack, Co-Chair Professor Waldo E. Martin, Jr., Co-Chair “Gangster Boogie” details the early development of hip-hop music in Los Angeles, a city that, in the 1980s, the international press labeled the “murder capital of the U.S.” The rap music most associated with the region, coined “gangsta rap,” has been regarded by scholars, cultural critics, and audiences alike as a tabloid distortion of East Coast hip-hop. The dissertation shows that this uniquely provocative genre of hip-hop was forged by Los Angeles area youth as a tool for challenging civic authorities, asserting regional pride, and exploiting the nation’s growing fascination with the ghetto underworld. Those who fashioned themselves “gangsta rappers” harnessed what was markedly difficult about life in black Los Angeles from the early 1970s through the Reagan Era––rising unemployment, project living, crime, violence, drugs, gangs, and the ever-increasing problem of police harassment––to create what would become the benchmark for contemporary hip-hop music. My central argument is that this music, because of the social, political, and economic circumstances from which it emerged, became a vehicle for underclass empowerment during the Reagan Era. It concurrently presented civic authorities, community organizations, the press, and, eventually, the nation’s top political leaders with a basis for the charge that hip-hop and violence were directly linked. The aim of this project is, primarily, to provide a lens for viewing events leading up to the 1992 Los Angeles Riots and, secondarily, to address the oft ignored connections between the ascendency of hip- hop and modern conservatism. I also intend for it to help bridge the gap between African- American cultural history and the historiography of the American West by reimagining the modern urban frontier, with all its temptations and contradictions, from the perspective of black inner-city youth. 1 For my sweet pea, Amalia i TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements iii 1 Introduction 1 2 “Walking Bombs”: The Los Angeles Police Department and the 1979 Eula Love Incident 8 3 “Everybody’s Gangbanging”: The Growth of Los Angeles Gangs in the Post-Watts Riots Era 29 4 “We Knew the Streets”: Electro-Rap, Gangs, and Early Los Angeles Hip-Hop 47 5 “Ya Better Bring a Gun”: Run-DMC and the 1986 Long Beach Riot 71 6 “The Gang Called Niggaz Wit Attitude”: N.W.A. and the Genesis of Gangsta Rap 93 7 “The Day the Niggaz Took Over “: A Conclusion 118 Bibliography 128 Discography 136 ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I have had the rare privilege of working with Professor Leon F. Litwack, the scholar who inspired me to pursue the path of a historian. As an undergraduate, he transformed my worldview by encouraging me to see the implications of both the events of history and of the ways in which those events are remembered. His dedication to intertwining African- American history with mainstream historical narratives provided me with the methodological foundation for my dissertation research, and it continues to inform my teaching. I am also forever grateful to Leon for all that he has taught me over the years about good writing. He has demonstrated, time and time again, the ways in which a well- crafted narrative can engage the reader. No one I have worked with is more adamant about the merits of clear prose, and no one has better revealed how difficult it is to produce it. For that, I thank him. I admit I have relished being Leon’s last doctoral student. It is especially bittersweet to be completing the program for that reason alone. But I am happy that he and his extraordinary wife Rhoda can, at last, enjoy full retirement. From my first year in the doctoral program, Professor Waldo E. Martin, Jr. embraced me as an advisee, a colleague, and a friend. He has been the voice of reason in my academic life, regularly reminding me that my goals as a scholar, a writer, a teacher, a mother, and a wife are in no way incompatible. Because of him, I have grown to trust that I can wear many hats and that I can do it all with grace. I am also thankful to Professor Scott Saul who graciously stepped in as a dissertation advisor during the final stages of the writing. Being from Los Angeles and engaged in some of the topics explored in this work, he was a tough critic, but one very much invested in the project. I know that his feedback and his suggestions for revisions will prove crucial to the eventual publication of this work as a book. If doctoral work is meant to be a labor of love, mine has been a labor of my family’s love. My coursework, the teaching, the research, and the writing have all been entirely dependent upon their unwavering support. My mother encouraged me always to keep my eyes on the prize. She urged me to approach each step of the process with courage and confidence, two attributes she instilled in me over the years through her own example. I am indebted to her for all of the time and energy she sacrificed to read drafts and provide words of wisdom. My mother, father, stepmother, and my brother each cheered me along the way and, most importantly, made it possible for me to strike a balance between scholarship and motherhood. But no one more fully understood my doctoral life––with all of its failures and triumphs––than my husband Ross. His friendship, paired with his passion for rap music and his obsession with words, buoyed the dissertation; although writing can be an isolating existence, Ross always made me feel I had a partner. All along the way, his unconditional love motivated me to accept the mistakes and to truly, wholeheartedly celebrate the victories. iii CHAPTER ONE An Introduction In August of 1965, just one year after President Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act and just days after the passage of the Voting Rights Act––two salient achievements of the Civil Rights Movement––an incident of police harassment near the Watts region of Los Angeles sparked a massive black uprising, a five-day riot that left thirty-five people killed, over 1000 injured, some 4000 arrested, and more than $20 million in property burned or destroyed. The country was stunned and confused. Why a riot? Why California? Why Los Angeles? Why now? As President Johnson wondered, “How is it possible, after all we’ve accomplished? How could it be? Is the world topsy- turvy?”1 The state government’s official report on the uprising and its causes, in fact, posed the pointed question, “Why L.A.”? It noted that unemployment among African Americans in Los Angeles County was two to three times higher than the county’s average. It noted that available jobs in areas like Watts tended to be temporary and did not provide adequate job security, and it noted a history of tension between black Angelenos and the police. The report suggested remedies, including more job training programs in the inner city, more low-income housing, and improved relations between black community leaders and law enforcement officials. It also indicated, however, that for African Americans in Los Angeles, “The opportunity to succeed is probably unequaled in any other major American city.” It stated that, in the riot areas, one-third of residents were homeowners and all residents had ample access to public facilities and services. Streets were wide and clean, and an abundance of trees, parks, and playgrounds made for a living environment akin to that in the city’s suburbs. Riot neighborhoods, to boot, had movie theaters, shopping districts, public transportation, and convenient access to voting facilities. The official report, in other words, while citing real problems, also perpetuated the myth of Los Angeles as the Promised Land and, in doing so, struggled to make sense of the uprising.2 In the 1980s, two decades after the 1965 Watts Riots, Americans continued to believe that Los Angeles was the place where blacks in the United States fared best. The California city’s affluent black political leaders, entertainers, sports figures, comedians, musicians, and television and movie stars helped reaffirm popular images of California as a paradise of sun, space, and opportunity for everyone who sought it out. Under President Ronald Reagan, the country as a whole was indeed in the midst of an economic upswing 1 Quoted in Doris Kearns, Lyndon Johnson and the American Dream (New York: Harper & Row, 1976), 305. 2 For more on the scope of the “Promised Land” myth for African Americans in the West, see Lawrence De Graaf, Kevin Mulroy, and Quintard Taylor, eds., Seeking El Dorado: African Americans in California (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2001); California Governor’s Commission on the Los Angeles Riots, Violence in the City––An End or a Beginning? A Report by the Governor’s Commission on the Los Angeles Riots (Los Angeles: Governor’s Commission on the Los Angeles Riots, 1965), 3.