Hey brother. Not to be that guy, but the framing of this question conflates two extremely different things, uses some rather coded language, and comes bearing a lot of assumptions about American history. So let’s clarify some things. By “pre-war race riots” where “one racial group” attacks another, I assume you are predominately referring to white supremacist pogroms of Black and brown neighborhoods, like the Tulsa Massacre. By “modern” race riots where a “localized racial group participates in general destruction of property,” I assume you are referring to uprisings by mostly Black communities, a resistance tradition which has a long history from Watts in 1965 to Ferguson in 2014 to, of course, the George Floyd uprisings two summers ago.

In reality, these are simply not comparable. Yes, they both employ physical violence, but the similarities end there. anti-Black and brown pogroms and lynchings in the United States are organized and unorganized expressions of white supremacy, employed to enforce an already/existing racist American social order. They are conservative by nature and often have/had the tacit backing of the local government. Black uprisings, by contrast, have never been “Black supremacist.” Indeed, the relative peacability of Black riots — targeting primarily non-Black owned property right at home rather than going into non-Black neighborhoods and committing racist acts of terrorism and murder — shows how extraordinarily different these two concepts of “race riots” are. They are change-oriented political expressions of rage by disenfranchised people and absolutely never have the support of local government.

Note that I am a white american talking out of my ass here. I also don’t mean to sound like a dick shutting down your question. But I think the conflation of these two kinds of “race riots” is, from a historical perspective, indefensible.