"1877 Riots"

Hello my name is Kenia Cuenca, for the reading of "1877 Riots" my reaction is as follows; the reading part that starts at 369-381 that riot took place in Pittsburgh, "It was evident that a large portion of the citizens were averse to the presence of the troops, thinking that it incensed the strikers, which they believed the men could be controlled by reason and forbearance", before that paragraph I read that the troops and the authority gained up on the rioters. With out warning shooting people down including a 4 year old girl who wasn't part of riot. The author to me wrote that down to contradicted what was told on the news to the other citizens. They told them the opposite, the news said that they only fired at people who were rebelling and using weapons against the authority and they also said that the rioters fired first. Which wasn't true, I think they only did that to scare the people from rebelling again. The quote I chose from the passage, I want to question it. Was that the best and is it the only way to properly stop a riot? As it turned out it doesn't help much instead of enforcing people to surrender, and reason with them seem to be impossible. Most of the time it makes them even more violent. For example they wanted wages to be higher, knowing that they wouldn't get that they made riots. The people want their voices to be heard, going against what is meant to be right to the authority, might not seem to the people that have to live by those rights. There should be another way to get to the problems without people going against the authority nor the authority going against the people. 

The government lacks to listen to what the people want. There should be a compromise between the both of them. Government of the people, by the people, of the people. 

Reaction to the Flour Riot of 1877

Hello, my name is Kenia Cuenca. My reactions to "Flour Riot of 1877" are as follows, I found it surprising that the rioters didn't steal the flour that had been raised up in price. It was too expensive for the people of New York to buy. Only the wealthy could afford it, which made people angry. Since there was enough flour for people to buy at a lower price, the store owners made it seem like there wasn't enough flour, so that they can charge more for the high demands of the very little flour that was left. This of course could not be true because there was a large amount being imported. So basically what the rioters did was go to the stores that had flour and dump the flour on the floor. Which to me didn't seem like a good idea because it was winter and people were hungry. Instead I believe what they should've done was steal it. Although it's hard to steal the flour since a pack weights too much, for a single person to carry it and run at the same time from the police. When talking about it in class as a group, a classmate said that they did that as a form of retribution to show the authority that if they can't have it no one can. The people selling it can't make a profit and the rich wealthy people can't buy it any longer, which means that the poor people made their point across, that raising prices and taking advantage of them well bring them to take drastic measures. As to me I believe what the rioters did could've ended much worse. As the article states "They attempted to relieve themselves by putting its possession out of their power altogether", they didn't want to be controlled. In a way they felt like they were the ones that had control after they dumped the flour. Plus they went against the authority.