65 pages • 2 hours read
Blood in the Water
A modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more.
Introduction-Part 1Chapter Summaries & Analyses
Part 1: “The Tinderbox”
Introduction Summary: “State Secrets”
Thompson begins by asking why, given that the Attica uprising took place in 1971 and Blood in the Water was published in 2016, it has taken over 45 years for a history of it to be written. This is because, she argues, of the state’s recalcitrance in disclosing important documents and its continued efforts to cover up what happened “to protect the politicians and members of law enforcement who caused so much trauma” (xvii). Nevertheless, Thompson expresses hope that the current work will be part of a process of healing for those affected.
“Frank ‘Big Black’ Smith” Summary
Frank Smith, known as “Big Black” Smith, was a large African-American man who had been imprisoned in 1969 for holding up a dice game with a gun. Frank Smith was transferred to Attica in 1970. He was, unlike many of the prisoners there, non-religious and non-political. He had heard, though, of the revolts that year in other New York State prisons and felt that something similar might happen at Attica.
Chapter 1 Summary: “Not So Greener Pastures”
Thompson describes conditions for prisoners in Attica in 1971. Prisoners were confined in cramped cells for between 15 and 24 hours a day. There was insufficient food, clothing, and toiletries, with inmates given only one roll of toilet paper per month. There were only two doctors for over 2,000 prisoners, and no dentists. Further, racism was evident in the allocation of prison jobs and punishments, and the guards routinely censored mail and reading materials. Finally, the prison population was expanding, yet no new space was being created to accommodate this growth.
Chapter 2 Summary: “Responding to Resistance”
Thompson describes the broader social and political context behind the uprising. At a national level, by the mid-1960s, there was a sense that crime was becoming a major problem. Thus, President Lyndon B. Johnson began a “war on crime” in 1965, granting unprecedented power to the police and drafting draconian legislation that allowed arrests and prison numbers to sky-rocket. Richard Nixon continued this agenda in 1968, leading the United States to have the world’s highest prison population by the 1970s. At a state level, New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller presented a “tough on crime” image to try and secure the Republican nomination for the presidency (19).
Chapter 3 Summary: “Voices From Auburn”
This chapter describes a rebellion that happened at another New York State prison. Just three months after a strike in the metal shop at Attica, there was an uprising at Auburn prison following an incident in which prisoners had wanted the day off to celebrate “Black Solidarity Day” (22). Despite assurances from guards to the contrary, prisoners were punished, and so the prisoners rebelled, taking 50 civilian hostages and listing a series of demands for better conditions. After a six-hour stand-off and the promise that there would be no reprisals, inmates surrendered. Having done so, however, they were beaten and forced to run a gauntlet of correctional officers (Cos), with 120 men sent into indefinite solitary confinement and six facing criminal indictments.
Chapter 4 Summary: “Knowledge is Power”
Chapter 4 gives an account of prisoners’ attempts to educate themselves and their increasing radicalization because of this education. In education classes at Attica, they had been able to read Marx, Adam Smith, and Mao and relate these writings to their situation. This politicization was facilitated further by politicized prisoners like Sam Melville and Herb Blyden helping to educate the apolitical men. It was also accelerated by the transfer of some of the Auburn rebels to Attica, where they spread their stories of how they had been locked in solitary for six months and beaten.
Chapter 5 Summary: “Playing by the Rules”
Thompson discusses what became known as the “July Manifesto.” Discovered, and probably written, in June 1971, it was a list of demands for better treatment, including for a fairer parole system and changes to neglectful medical staff and policy. It was addressed to Russell Oswald, head of state correctional services, and the writers stressed that they were “trying to do this in a democratic fashion” (32)—that is, without resorting to strikes or violence. Though in some ways sympathetic, Oswald was suspicious of the manifesto, linking it to a similar document found in a Californian prison. Despite further correspondence with Oswald, prison conditions deteriorated as officials sought to punish prisoners for devising the manifesto.
Chapter 6 Summary: “Back and Forth”
As things dragged into mid-August, as Thompson notes, there had been no noticeable improvement in prison conditions. Indeed, prisoners were still not allowed more than one shower per week, despite temperatures surpassing 90 degrees Fahrenheit. That said, the July Manifesto had created a solidarity between prisoners that overcame racial and political divides. This unity was manifest in a “spiritual sit in” in the mess hall to protest the death of a famous prisoner (36), George Jackson, at the hands of guards in California. In a bid to ease tensions Oswald agreed to visit Attica and talk to the prisoners.
Chapter 7 Summary: “End of the Line”
This chapter discusses Oswald’s proposed visit to Attica on September 2. He was supposed to meet with representatives “from the Attica liberation Faction” and address inmates live over the speaker system (38). He did not show up, citing the illness of his wife, who had just been admitted to the hospital. Instead, the prison played a pre-recorded message by Oswald that did not address any of the demands of the July Manifesto. That he had not visited as promised, and the insipid character of his pre-recorded speech, meant that, as Thompson puts its it, “most of Attica’s men felt betrayed by Oswald” (39). Further, he helped encourage a sense that efforts to achieve change through established, and peaceful, channels had failed.
Introduction-Part 1 Analysis
By 1971 most Americans would have agreed with Governor Rockefeller’s view, as presented by Thompson, “that something had to be done” (21). Prison rebellions had ripped across the state in 1970, and along with growing tensions at Attica, riotousness in the penal system had become unsustainable. Opinions differed, however, on how this problem was to be solved. On the one hand, there was what might be called the “liberal” perspective. By this view, prisoner unrest was an understandable protest, and response to, inhumane confinement. As Thompson emphasizes, “prisons like Attica were bursting at the seams” (19). Already poor living conditions had been exacerbated by an influx of new inmates, locked up as the result of an increasingly bellicose “war on crime.” This rise in the prison population also made life hard for the guards: The same number of poorly trained, and payed, correctional officers were expected to look after ever-growing numbers of prisoners. As Thompson observes, in some cases a single officer would be looking after over a hundred men.
In such circumstances, vicious cycles of mistrust and abuse could quickly develop. Frightened officers were more likely to use physical threats and punishments, which in turn generated greater tensions, anxiety, and a more hostile environment. With such conditions, riots and rebellions could all too easily be sparked. It seemed clear what needed to be done. It would be, as commissioner of corrections Oswald himself at first believed, “to professionalize and humanize prisons” (20). To forestall further violence, resources should be made available not only to tackle over-crowding, and provide adequate food and medical care, but to transform the role of prisons themselves. Rather than focusing on prison as punishment, there could be a shift to re-integration and rehabilitation. Education and vocational programs, both sorely lacking, would give inmates a sense of hope and purpose. As important, they would prepare the inmates for life outside prison, thereby reducing the risk of re-offending and thus helping to lower rates of incarceration and further alleviate cramped conditions.
However, there was also the “Conservative” view of events. According to this perspective, prison rebellions were a symptom of a broader problem in society. Though the precise meaning of this term was often contested, social “permissiveness” was held up as the culprit. Specifically, the toleration of civil rights and anti-Vietnam war movements, as well as the liberalization of sex, in the 1960s had undermined respect for traditional authority. This change then manifested in prisons. Instead of seeing themselves as law breakers, rightly serving time for crimes, prisoners had started to view themselves as victims of societal injustice. Worse, they now felt emboldened to try and change this situation, often via radical lawyers or violent protest.
Further, this process was being facilitated by militants. A small number of inmates with radical political agendas were intentionally fomenting discontent and planning insurrections. Indeed, Governor Rockefeller, and others, went further. As Thompson notes, Rockefeller “viewed any prisoner agitation as part of a larger leftist plot, just ‘one more step toward the ultimate destruction of the country’” (21). In other words, controlling prisons was not just about preventing rebellions, or reigning in 1960s excesses. It was about protecting the American way of life itself—
something now as menaced by radical inmates, pacifists, and Black militants as by Cold War nemesis the Soviet Union.
Even if some on the right might have baulked at the notion of communist plots, this general perspective still suggested a policy of definitive action. Following this view, to deal with the situation in American prisons first required getting tough on perceived troublemakers. They should be identified and isolated from other inmates. The broader prison population should also be made to realize, via stronger deterrents and stricter punishment for dissent, that discipline and obedience were not optional. They should, in addition, be given fewer, not more, rights when it came to political organization and expression.
In terms of Attica itself, though, the position was oddly mixed. Despite his ideological commitments, Rockefeller was also a pragmatist. It seemed initially that he might be willing to work with Oswald, to pursue a dual strategy of clamping down on “militants” while improving living conditions. The problem was the pace of this work. Improvements were simply not happening quickly enough, or they were happening in a way that was visible to inmates. This perception led prisoners to try to push for reforms themselves, as seen with the July Manifesto. Such action unnerved Oswald. He felt that changes should come from “above,” specifically from his own office, rather than being dictated from “below.” This opinion ultimately pushed him towards the conservative position regarding the problems in prisons, and it meant the reform agenda was sidelined even more, with disastrous consequences for all the men at Attica.
Unlock all 65 pages of this Study GuidePlus, gain access to 8,800+ more expert-written Study Guides.
Including features: