Trying to describe the LA riots as some kind of pogrom is kinda insane. I mean gee, there's a major riot and some nasty pre-existing tensions other than the initial reason for the eruption come to the surface... you mean like every major riot in history?! Maybe then we shouldn't count on spontaneous and uncoordinated social phenomena to be the way workers organize themselves collectively. I mean, shit, again most riots are a whole mix of different events and reactions almost by definition.
There was a whole hell of a lot more examples of people looting during the riots than of ethnic conflicts - so if more people stole than there were black people attacking Koreans, then obviously theft was more commonly a motivation. In that case why don't we just join the right-wing in saying the riots were all just an excuse for black people and Mexicans "streaming over the border to get in and loot LA" (as a common right-wing argument at the time argued) to just steal things?
Personally I think there reason those riots happened when they did and how they did had more to do with years of LAPD "gang raids" and special gang units given carte blanche by the city. There were a whole series of high-profile cases of police brutality at that time and so the Rodney King case wasn't viewed as an isolated case at the time.
The LA riots are actually a riot with a pretty clear spark compared to many riots historically which can appear to be the result of a bunch of random things coming together - LA was what pretty much everyone agreed to at the time, a response to police brutality ratified and excused by the court system and an echo of Watts. I'd add that it was a reaction to a decade of police attacks and the recognition that after a short period of limited upward mobility for some blacks, things in 1991 weren't much different than in the 60s in regards to urban inequality and racism.