I assume you are referring to the riots after MLKs assassination.
I would assume that many white FReepers were either not born yet in 1968, or were children. Others were in Vietnam then, a place their nominal 'white privilege' couldn't protect them from. Most here probably do not come from wealthy or otherwise privileged backgrounds.
So why is it defensible that they, and their children are targeted for things they did not control and acts they did not commit? What makes them 'privileged' because they have less pigment in their skin? What makes them responsible for the breakdown of the black family, the failure of inner-city schools, inner-city crime, gangs, and the other intrinsic social factors that rob children of their innocence and promote despondency?
Yes, there are clearly many white people who have contributed to these things, but not because they are 'white'. Many 'people of color' have contributed as well. It's not about skin color. It's about ethics. In that context, it has been unethical politicians, white and non-white, who have exploited minorities for their own personal gain who have contributed to the tragedies of life in urban environments - as much or more than any other factors. Minority 'entertainer's who push hatred and glorify 'gang culture' are also contributors.
The point is just that to blindly blame 'whites' for all problems of non-whites is ludicrous, and does nothing to solve these problems. It's also racist.
I assume you are referring to the riots after MLKs assassination.
No, the Civil Rights Act of 1968, on top of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, combined with executive orders and judicial hallucinations, "institutionalized" discrimination against white, straight men.
Additional legislation, such as the TJTC (Targeted Jobs Tax Credit), and others further discriminated against white men in employment.
In academia, it has been an all-out war against white males, in acceptance and graduations.
The list is long.