“A central contention of this book is that the term ‘riot’ is a misnomer. Due to the rhetoric of politicians, media coverage, and much of the academic research on the subject, Americans have become accustomed to think of these moments of mass violence—from Harlem in 1964 to Minneapolis in 2020—as misguided at best, and meaningless or irrational at worst. In either case, these incidents are often seen as being devoid of any political motivation or content.”

Hinton’s use of the word “rebellion” rather than “riot” is a conscious choice throughout America on Fire (See: Index of Terms). She explains that the word “riot” has often been used in a misleading way to shape a narrative that Black rebellions are born from random outbursts of violence, instead of being deliberate acts of defiance with a meaningful political goal: to fight back against a system built on racial hierarchy.

“As much as nonviolent direct action, with its august lineage going back to Gandhi and others, violent rebellion offered a means for people of color to express collective solidarity in the face of exploitation, political exclusion, and criminalization. Both traditions continue to ground movements for racial justice. Yet the violent conditions that have shaped the Black experience have made violent responses and the politics that fueled them inevitable.”

Hinton draws upon The Connections Between Past and Present in movements for racial justice, pointing out that such movements historically have made progress through both nonviolent and violent protest. This challenges a dominant narrative in American culture that the nonviolent strategy of Martin Luther King Jr. is a legitimate form of protest, while the more violent ideology of the Black Power movement led by Malcolm X is illegitimate and immoral. Hinton argues that, in fact, violent protest can also be a powerful, legitimate, and sometimes necessary force for change—a point she will return to in the Conclusion of the book.