Semantics of L.A. Riots

Your examination of the rioters . . . whether they were random looters or principled protesters, the wild children of welfare or the impassioned architects of revolution . . . was reasoned and relatively unbiased. Your finding seemed clear, though: If these looters were in fact honest rebels, we should understand, maybe even applaud. I think you’ve stumbled badly in implying that revolution is automatically OK.

In the iron eye of history, revolution has a lousy track record. It boasts one triumph, our American Revolution, the only rebellion in history to pass power peaceably to the next generation . . . and all those afterwards. We were blessed, not only with a vigorous and capable populace, but with leaders of principle and, in Jefferson and Franklin, genius.

Other countries were less lucky. France, ignited by our example, collapsed in the horrors of the Terror, slaughtering thousands and spawning Napoleon, who killed tens of thousands while ravaging Europe.

The significant revolutions of this century were in Russia and China, led by Lenin and Mao, classic Communists. The homicidal thugs they put in power plunged both countries into bloody holocausts murdering tens of millions of their own people . . . genocides unmatched in all of history.

Revolutions in Cuba, Nicaragua, Laos all ended in tyranny. In black Africa, where the L.A. rioters claim their roots, revolution gave the world the likes of the monstrous Idi Amin, Mengistu and a devastated continent. I’m content with the revolution we managed to bring off two centuries ago. I wouldn’t rely on one run by the “rebels” who were looting VCRs and cases of Budweiser last spring.

CHARLTON HESTON

Beverly Hills