Blood in the Water

Superintendent Mancusi, like Rockefeller, saw the uprising at Attica “as the work of black militant troublemakers” (17). That is, the rebellion was part of a broader black plot to overthrow “white” capitalist America, aided by White leftists. While no such plot existed, and the revolt occurred largely by chance, race still played a large role in what unfolded. Specifically, racism and racist anxieties played a role both in causing the uprising and in its bloody aftermath. Taking the former first, racism helped to aggravate tensions at the prison. As Thompson says, “So obvious was the racial discrimination at Attica that white prisoners readily agreed that guards applied rules differently to blacks and Puerto Ricans” (14). Non-White prisoners were more likely to be punished, and punished harder, by the exclusively White COs. They also got most of the worst jobs in the prison and were paid less for them. Further, they would often be subject to racial slurs and abuse.

However, if these issues contributed to the frustrations that sparked the uprising, they also influenced the state’s response to it. Namely, racist attitudes influenced how the prison would be retaken in two ways. First, although this was never stated, the lives of predominantly Black prisoners could be easily sacrificed. No one in the media or public would lose too much sleep about deaths amongst this group, nor would those higher up like President Nixon. Second, the idea that it was “black militants” behind the revolt made a violent retaking seem not only necessary but also morally justified. If the broader safety of White America, what Rockefeller referred to as “our free society” was at stake (194), then a strong message needed to be sent to militants, and Black Panthers, everywhere.

This racism would have deleterious consequences for the assault itself. Racist sentiment was doubtless present in many of the guards and troopers to begin with, and the implicitly racist logic of, and justification for, a violent retaking stoked and encouraged these attitudes. As Thompson says, on the part of the troops, “it wasn’t just any hatred—it was racial hatred” (185). This was evident in the assault. Black inmates were gunned down with abandon, and one prisoner who had surrendered was told he would “soon be dead because ‘we haven’t killed enough n******”’ (185). While not sufficient to explain all the barbarity post retaking, unrestrained racist aggression explains some of it. Likewise for the lies told afterwards. Again, the state had obvious motives other than racism to fabricate stories of atrocities, yet the details—the stuffing of genitals in the mouth, the fact that it was Frank Smith, a large black prisoner, who was accused—were evidently playing up to racist tropes about cannibalism and primitivism. This appeal to stereotypes also helps explain why such lies were, on the part of many in the media and public, so readily accepted.