A Herstory of the #BlackLivesMatter Movement

This article was written by Alicia Garza and originally posted at thefeministwire.com.

Black Lives Matter! This has become the central slogan of the massive upsurge of rage, protest and resistance that has shaken this country in recent months. We are reposting this important article about the origins of the slogan because we don’t want to see it lost in the swelling ocean of post-Ferguson commentary.

The slogan itself is brilliant, an assertion of what is at the heart of this upsurge. It is an example of what our political tradition calls the Mass Line. The ideas of the people are gathered and concentrated into programs and slogans which the masses can then take up and apply.

Another thing about the Mass Line is that it is practiced by revolutionaries, people trying to change the world. The slogan did not fall from the sky. As the article details, it was developed by three young, queer African American women with deep roots in the struggle, in response to the murder of Trayvon Martin. They added the Twitter hash tag to spread it more broadly and make it a more useful organizing tool.

Black Lives Matter resonates because it not only responds to police murders but is a defiant rejection of the thousand and one forms of oppression, repression and devaluation experienced by Black people as part of “everyday life” under white supremacist bourgeois rule in this country.

Read the rest at: 

http://freedomroad.org/2014/12/a-herstory-of-the-blacklivesmatter-movement/

Four Hundred Years: Slavery to Ferguson

Four Hundred Years: Slavery to Ferguson

Article by Sharon Kyle in the LA Progressive.

Most White People in America Are Completely Oblivious

By Tim Wise , Reprinted from alternet.org

Black people have to learn everything about white people just to stay alive. White people just don't get that.

November 25, 2014 |

Like this article?

Join our email list:

Stay up to date with the latest headlines via email.

I suppose there is no longer much point in debating the facts surrounding the shooting of Michael Brown. First, because Officer Darren Wilson has been cleared by a grand jury, and even the collective brilliance of a thousand bloggers pointing out the glaring inconsistencies in his version of events that August day won’t result in a different outcome. And second, because Wilson’s guilt or innocence was always somewhat secondary to the larger issue: namely, the issue of this gigantic national inkblot staring us in the face, and what we see when we look at it—and more to the point, why?

Because it is a kind of racial Rorschach (is it not?) into which each of these cases—not just Brown but all the others, from Trayvon Martin to Sean Bell to Patrick Dorismond to Aswan Watson and beyond—inevitably and without fail morph. That we see such different things when we look upon them must mean something. That so much of white America cannot see the shapes made out so clearly by most of black America cannot be a mere coincidence, nor is it likely an inherent defect in our vision. Rather, it is a socially-constructed astigmatism that blinds so many to the way in which black folks often experience law enforcement.

Not to overdo the medical metaphors, but as with those other cases noted above, so too in this one did a disturbing number of whites manifest something of a repetitive motion disorder—a reflex nearly as automatic as the one that leads so many police (or wanna-be police) to fire their weapons at black men in the first place. It is a reflex to rationalize the event, defend the shooter, trash the dead with blatantly racist rhetoric and imagery, and then deny that the incident or one’s own response to it had anything to do with race.

Reflex: To deny that there was anything racial about sending around those phony pictures claimed to be of Mike Brown posing with a gun, or the one passed off as Darren Wilson in a hospital bed with his orbital socket blown out.

Reflex: To deny that there was anything racial about how quickly those pictures were believed to be genuine by so many who distributed them on social media, even when they weren’t, and how difficult it is for some to discern the difference between one black man and another.

Reflex: To deny that there was anything racial about how rapidly many bought the story that Wilson had been attacked and bloodied, even as video showed him calmly standing at the scene of the shooting without injury, and even as the preliminary report on the incident made no mention of any injuries to Officer Wilson, and even as Wilson apparently has a history of power-tripping belligerence towards those with whom he interacts, and a propensity to distort the details of those encounters as well.

Reflex: To deny that there was anything racial about Cardinals fans taunting peaceful protesters who gathered outside a playoff game to raise the issue of Brown’s death, by calling them crackheads or telling them that it was only because of whites that blacks have any freedoms at all, or that they should “get jobs” or “pull up their pants,” or go back to Africa.

Reflex: To deny that there was anything racial about sending money to Darren Wilson’s defense fund and then explaining one’s donation by saying what a service the officer had performed by removing a “savage” like Brown from the community, or by referring to Wilson’s actions as “animal control.”

Reflex: To deny that there was anything racial about reaction to evidence of weed in Brown’s lifeless body, as with Trayvon’s before him, even though whites use drugs at the same rate as blacks, but rarely have that fact offered up as a reason for why we might deserve to be shot by police.

Reflex: To deny that there was anything racial behind the belief that the head of the Missouri Highway Patrol, brought in to calm tensions in Ferguson, was throwing up gang signs on camera, when actually, it was a hand sign for the black fraternity of which that officer is a member; and to deny that there is anything racial about one’s stunning ignorance as to the difference between those two things.

Reflex: To deny that there’s anything at all racial about the way that even black victims of violence—like Brown, like Trayvon Martin, and dozens of others—are often spoken of more judgmentally than even the most horrific of white perpetrators, the latter of whom are regularly referred to as having been nice, and quiet, and smart, and hardly the type to kill a dozen people, or cut them into little pieces, or eat their flesh after storing it in the freezer for several weeks.

And most of all, the reflex to deny that there is anything racial about the lens through which we typically view law enforcement; to deny that being white has shaped our understanding of policing and their actions in places like Ferguson, even as being white has had everything to do with those matters. Racial identity shapes the way we are treated by cops, and as such, shapes the way we are likely to view them. As a general rule, nothing we do will get us shot by law enforcement: not walking around in a big box store with semi-automatic weapons (though standing in one with an air rifle gets you killed if you’re black); not assaulting two officers, even in the St. Louis area, a mere five days after Mike Brown was killed; not pointing a loaded weapon at three officers and demanding that they—the police—”drop their fucking guns;” not committing mass murder in a movie theatre before finally being taken alive; not proceeding in the wake of that event to walk around the same town in which it happened carrying a shotgun; and not killing a cop so as to spark a “revolution,” and then leading others on a two month chase through the woods before being arrested with only a few scratches.

To white America, in the main, police are the folks who help get our cats out of the tree, or who take us on ride-arounds to show us how gosh-darned exciting it is to be a cop. We experience police most often as helpful, as protectors of our lives and property. But that is not the black experience by and large; and black people know this, however much we don’t. The history of law enforcement in America, with regard to black folks, has been one of unremitting oppression. That is neither hyperbole nor opinion, but incontrovertible fact. From slave patrols to overseers to the Black Codes to lynching, it is a fact. From dozens of white-on-black riots that marked the first half of the twentieth century (in which cops participated actively) to Watts to Rodney King to Abner Louima to Amadou Diallo to the railroading of the Central Park 5, it is a fact. From the New Orleans Police Department’s killings of Adolph Archie to Henry Glover to the Danziger Bridge shootings there in the wake of Katrina to stop-and-frisk in places like New York, it’s a fact. And the fact that white people don’t know this history, have never been required to learn it, and can be considered even remotely informed citizens without knowing it, explains a lot about what’s wrong with America. Black people have to learn everything about white people just to stay alive. They especially and quite obviously have to know what scares us, what triggers the reptilian part of our brains and convinces us that they intend to do us harm.

Meanwhile, we need know nothing whatsoever about them. We don’t have to know their history, their experiences, their hopes and dreams, or their fears. And we can go right on being oblivious to all that without consequence. It won’t be on the test, so to speak.

We can remain ignorant to the ubiquity of police misconduct, thinking it the paranoid fever dream of irrational “race-card” playing peoples of color, just like we did after the O.J. Simpson verdict. When most of black America responded to that verdict with cathartic relief—not because they necessarily thought Simpson innocent but because they felt there were enough questions raised about police in the case to sow reasonable doubt—most white folks concluded that black America had lost its collective mind. How could they possibly believe that the LAPD would plant evidence in an attempt to frame or sweeten the case against a criminal defendant? A few years later, had we been paying attention (but of course, we were not), we would have had our answer. It was then that the scandal in the city’s Ramparts division broke, implicating dozens of police in over a hundred cases of misconduct, including, in one incident, shooting a gang member at point blank range and then planting a weapon on him to make the incident appear as self-defense. So putting aside the guilt or innocence of O.J,, clearly it was not irrational for black Angelenos (and Americans) to give one the likes of Mark Fuhrman side-eye after his own racism was revealed in that case.

I think this, more than anything, is the source of our trouble when it comes to racial division in this country. The inability of white people to hear black reality—to not even know that there is one and that it differs from our own—makes it nearly impossible to move forward. But how can we expect black folks to trust law enforcement or to view it in the same heroic and selfless terms that so many of us apparently do? The law has been a weapon used against black bodies, not a shield intended to defend them, and for a very long time.

In his contribution to Jill Nelson’s 2000 anthology on police brutality, scholar Robin D.G Kelley reminds us of the bill of particulars.* As Kelley notes, in colonial Virginia, slave owners were allowed to beat, burn, and even mutilate slaves without fear of punishment; and throughout the colonial period, police not only looked the other way at the commission of brutality against black folks, but were actively engaged in the forcible suppression of slave uprisings and insurrections. Later, after abolition, law enforcement regularly and repeatedly released black prisoners into the hands of lynch mobs and stood by as their bodies were hanged from trees, burned with blowtorches, body parts amputated and given out as souvenirs. In city after city, north and south, police either stood by or actively participated in pogroms against African American communities: in Wilmington, North Carolina, Atlanta, New Orleans, New York City, Akron and Birmingham, just to name a few. In one particularly egregious anti-black rampage in East St. Louis, Illinois, in 1917, police shot blacks dead in the street as part of an orgy of violence aimed at African Americans who had moved from the Deep South in search of jobs.

One hundred and fifty were killed, including thirty-nine children whose skulls were crushed and whose bodies were thrown into bonfires set by white mobs. In the 1920s, it is estimated that half of all black people who were killed by whites, were killed by white police officers.

But Kelley continues: In 1943 white police in Detroit joined with others of their racial compatriots, attacking blacks who had dared to move into previously all-white public housing, killing seventeen. In the 1960s and early ’70s police killed over two dozen members of the Black Panther Party, including those like Mark Clark and Fred Hampton in Chicago, asleep in their beds at the time their apartment was raided. In 1985, Philadelphia law enforcement perpetrated an all-out assault on members of the MOVE organization, bombing their row houses from state police helicopters, killing eleven, including five children, destroying sixty-one homes and leaving hundreds homeless.

These are but a few of the stories one could tell, and which Kelley does in his extraordinary recitation of the history—and for most whites, we are without real knowledge of any of them. But they and others like them are incidents burned into the cell memory of black America. They haven’t the luxury of forgetting, even as we apparently cannot be bothered to remember, or to learn of these things in the first place. Bull Connor, Sheriff Jim Clark, Deputy Cecil Price: these are not far-away characters for most black folks. How could they be? After all, more than a few still carry the scars inflicted by men such as they.

And while few of us would think to ridicule Jews for still harboring less than warm feelings for Germans some seventy years later—we would understand the lack of trust, the wariness, even the anger—we apparently find it hard to understand the same historically-embedded logic of black trepidation and contempt for law enforcement in this country. And this is so, even as black folks’ negative experiences with police have extended well beyond the time frame of Hitler’s twelve year Reich, and even as those experiences did not stop seventy years ago, or even seventy days ago, or seventy minutes.

Can we perhaps, just this once, admit our collective blind spot? Admit that there are things going on, and that have been going on a very long time, about which we know nothing? Might we suspend our disbelief, just long enough to gain some much needed insights about the society we share? One wonders what it will take for us to not merely listen but actually to hear the voices of black parents, fearful that the next time their child walks out the door may be the last, and all because someone—an officer or a self-appointed vigilante—sees them as dangerous, as disrespectful, as reaching for their gun? Might we be able to hear that without deftly pivoting to the much more comfortable (for us) topic of black crime or single-parent homes? Without deflecting the real and understandable fear of police abuse with lectures about the danger of having a victim mentality—especially ironic given that such lectures come from a people who apparently see ourselves as the always imminent victims of big black men?

Can we just put aside all we think we know about black communities (most of which could fit in a thimble, truth be told) and imagine what it must feel like to walk through life as the embodiment of other people’s fear, as a monster that haunts their dreams the way Freddie Kreuger does in the movies? To be the physical representation of what marks a neighborhood as bad, a school as bad, not because of anything you have actually done, but simply because of the color of your skin? Surely that is not an inconsequential weight to bear. To go through life, every day, having to think about how to behave so as not to scare white people, or so as not to trigger our contempt—thinking about how to dress, and how to walk and how to talk and how to respond to a cop (not because you’re wanting to be polite, but because you’d like to see your mother again)—is work; and it’s harder than any job that any white person has ever had in this country. To be seen as a font of cultural contagion is tantamount to being a modern day leper.

And then perhaps we might spend a few minutes considering what this does to the young black child, and how it differs from the way that white children grow up. Think about how you would respond to the world if that world told you every day and in a million ways before lunch how awful you were, how horrible your community was, and how pathological your family. Because that’s what we’re telling black folks on the daily. Every time police call the people they are sworn to protect animals, as at least one Ferguson officer was willing to do on camera—no doubt speaking for many more in the process—we tell them this. Every time we shrug at the way police routinely stop and frisk young black men, even though in almost all cases they are found to have done nothing wrong, we tell them this. Every time we turn away from the clear disparities in our nation’s schools, which relegate the black and brown to classrooms led by the least experienced teachers, and where they will be treated like inmates more than children hoping to learn, we tell them this. Every time Bill O’Reilly pontificates about “black culture” and every time Barack Obama tells black men—but only black men—to be better fathers, we tell them this: that they are uniquely flawed, uniquely pathological, a cancerous mass of moral decrepitude to be feared, scorned, surveilled, incarcerated and discarded. The constant drumbeat of negativity is so normalized by now that it forms the backdrop of every conversation about black people held in white spaces when black folks themselves are not around. It is like the way your knee jumps when the doctor taps it with that little hammer thing during a check-up: a reflex by now instinctual, automatic, unthinking.

And still we pretend that one can think these things—that vast numbers of us can—and yet be capable of treating black folks fairly in the workforce, housing market, schools or in the streets; that we can, on the one hand, view the larger black community as a chaotic maelstrom of iniquity, while still managing, on the other, to treat black loan applicants, job applicants, students or random strangers as mere individuals. That we can somehow thread the needle between our grand aspirations to equanimity as Americans and our deeply internalized biases regarding broad swaths of our nation’s people.

But we can’t; and it is in these moments—moments like those provided by events in Ferguson—that the limits of our commitment to that aspirational America are laid bare. It is in moments like these when the chasm between our respective understandings of the world—itself opened up by the equally cavernous differences in the way we’ve experienced it—seems almost impossible to bridge. But bridge them we must, before the strain of our repetitive motion disorder does permanent and untreatable damage to our collective national body.
_____
*Robin D.G. Kelley, “Slangin’ Rocks…Palestinian Style,” in Police Brutality: An Anthology, Jill Nelson, ed., (New York, W. W. Norton, 2000), 21-59.

Tim Wise is the author of six books on race, including White Like Me: Reflections on Race from a Privileged Son and Dear White America: Letter to a New Minority. His website is timwise.org and he tweets @timjacobwise.

A few quick thoughts on the November 4th election by Bill Fletcher Jr

(1)There is almost always a low turnout during a midterm election and the party which controls the White House tends to lose. This is definitely true but should not let us off the hook.

(2)The Democratic base largely stayed home except in certain important races, such as in North Carolina. I think that we have to face the reality that the base that would be expected to vote Democratic was dis-spirited. It is not just the ads that the Republicans ran. The Obama administration has not led in a progressive direction. There are certainly some major accomplishments, but there had been great expectations by many that after the 2012 election he would come out swinging. I never had such expectations, but many people did. Instead the administration continued to be stuck in various crises but also was not articulating a clear direction. The Republicans were able to make Obama out to be the problem despite certain important facts, e.g., the economy has improved; troops had been pulled out of Iraq.

(3)Though the economy has improved, the condition for the average working person has not. Yes, unemployment is down but we are still dealing with structural unemployment that is weighing on everyone. The damage from the foreclosure crisis is far from over. And the rich are the ones who are benefiting from the improved economy. To turn any of this around masses of working people need to be organized to fight for a division of the wealth. Yes, that means building and supporting labor unions. But when the President does not make that a clarion call–except when speaking with union members–he has no answer to the public that is asking for their share.

(4)Race, as always, was a factor. The Republicans had sufficient codes to make it clear that race was an issue in the election. Discussions about Obama allegedly being prepared to open up the flood gates to immigrants is a case in point. But there were many other messages. Once again, the Republicans have positioned themselves as the “non-black party.” Race arose in some additional and odd ways. The Ebola crisis, for instance, was tinged with a racial cover. The fear and panic associated with it and blaming it on Obama!

(5)This election was about money…but also not: This was the most expensive midterm in history. Yet it was not a guarantee that one would win if there was money on the table. The Democrats, in various races, sunk in a great deal of money. So, we cannot put it all on that. Money, however, plus motivation can make one VERY bit difference.

(6)The Democrats keep falling back into running technocrats. While this was certainly not the case in every election, it was striking that there is this default position of channeling Michael Dukakis ’88 and suggesting that one is a good candidate because one can run the trains on time. Instead of positioning as an advocate for the people, and especially the people who are being squeezed, too many Democrats were running as technocrats and bi-partisan healers. Yet this, in part, relates to money. If you cannot run a campaign without goo-gobs of money, it is more difficult to run as a progressive populist.

(7)Progressives need to support and create organizations that are fighting for political power at the local and state level. We need formations (which i have called “neo-Rainbow”) that can identify and train candidates; build bases; take on initiatives and referendums; and run our candidates either in Democratic primaries or as independents, depending on the tactical situation. This brings with it a series of major challenges not the least being accumulating resources. There is no easy answer to the resource question but one thing that is certain is that building the sorts of organizations i am referencing, e.g., Virginia New Majority, Florida New Majority, Progressive Democrats of America, will necessitate around the clock resource accumulation, including but not limited to fundraising. We will NEVER have the funds of the Koch brothers so we need to get over that and think about the strategies, tactics and organizational forms necessary and appropriate to an asymmetric situation.

Terror … and Racial Terror

This article was originally published at ZNet and reprinted from Freedom Road Socialist Organization (FRSO) website http://freedomroad.org.



With all of the discussion about ISIS/ISIL, Al Qaeda, etc., one would think that the only terror on this planet is that derived from relatively small numbers of criminal fascists roaming the planet who claim to be Muslims. Yet that is not the only location of terror. In West Africa, for instance, millions live in terror as the horrific virus, Ebola, spreads, killing more than 3,000 people. Due in large part to the devastation wrought by neo-liberal policies on the health care systems of West African nations, Ebola has been spreading at an unanticipated rate.

There are other forms of terror, of course. Environmental devastation and climate change, which capitalism seems unable to stop but has also played a major role in advancing, threatens billions. Islands across this planet are threatened as water encroaches on coastal regions. And one need not be a rocket scientist to know that it is the working classes, the farmers and many other impoverished segments of society that will suffer on a scale beyond anything that will afflict the rich and powerful.

There is, however, a form of terror at work within the USA that is not named but are every bit as deadly and destructive as anything that ISIL and Al Qaeda can produce. This terror is racial terror, a reality that shapes the lives of millions of people of color. It is racial terror that helps to explain the shortened life spans of African Americans; the prevalence of various illnesses, or at least the high rate of illnesses, such as diabetes and hypertension, among people of color; and the flinch which we of color all experience in the face of racially-inspired insults, humiliations and micro-aggressions.

It is difficult for most white people to appreciate the racial terror with which people of color live. There are certain things that do not generally concern whites. They do not, generally, have to worry about the race or ethnicity of the person with whom they are driving. They rarely have to worry about being pulled over by the police when driving through a neighborhood that is not their own.

I frequently tell the story of attending the first Labor Notes conference in Detroit, Michigan in 1981. At the end of the conference a blond, Scandinavian woman was looking for a ride back to the East Coast. I had driven to Detroit from Boston with another African American man. We were asked if we could take her back to the East Coast. My friend and I looked at one another and, at about the same time, shook our heads “No.” It was not personal; the idea of two African American men driving across several states with a very attractive, blond woman was something that set off all sorts of bells and whistles. Yet, this is an experience that most whites would find difficult to fathom. In my mind’s eye, and that of my friend, we could imagine being pulled over by the police or being pursued by white men who were not particularly excited about the imagery, let along reality of two black men driving cross country with a white woman.

There is not a long distance between the fear of the experience of such racial terror, and the actual murders of Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown. These were cases of modern-day lynchings, which is one of the principal historic forms of racial terror in the USA. In both cases, irrespective of the actual or alleged attitude of the victims, Martin and Brown were gunned down not because of any violation of the law but because of a perceived threat that they represented to the perpetrator(s) of the violence…of the murders.

Many of us–men of color–have found ourselves in circumstances not dissimilar from either Trayvon Martin or Michael Brown. Only a few weeks ago I politely requested that a white man move out of my way in a very crowded area. I asked him three times “Excuse me,” only to have to push past him and hear him say to me “…Excuse yourself!” I turned and cursed at him and kept walking, but could such a curse have been interpreted by him as a threat to his life? Could he have later argued, after assaulting or killing me, that he felt threatened by my presence and that my language alone was enough to trigger his fears?

This may sound outlandish but it was Trayvon Martin who was murdered on his way home because George Zimmerman allegedly believed that Martin was in the wrong place at the wrong time and, further, that Martin–who was unarmed—allegedly posed a danger to Zimmerman’s life. Zimmerman had the gun; Trayvon had no weapons; and Zimmerman apparently felt justified in killing Martin.

What is so ironic in the notion of “Stand your ground” statutes and similar such measures really is the question of who, historically, has the right to fear whom. History answers that question unequivocally and decisively. There have been no mass lynchings of whites in the USA by people of color; we have not dropped bombs from the air on white communities; black police do not run amok through, let’s say, Italian American communities killing youth with abandon, claiming that such actions are justifiable based on the existence of organized crime in Italian American communities, i.e., the Mafia.

The racist terror that people of color experience is not limited to semi-random acts of violence or so-called police abuse. There exists a strong, racist, right-wing populist movement with a range of groups including Neo-Nazis, racist Skinheads, Neo-Confederates, Christian Identity, and right-wing militias that see themselves preparing for a coming race war. According to the Southern Poverty Law Center there are at least 688 such groups, many of which are well armed and some of which engage in terror attacks on people of color, Jews, lesbian/gay/bisexual/transgender people, leftists, union organizers, etc., anyone, in other words, who does not fit their concept of an “American.”

This right-wing, racist terrorism has accounted for more deaths of law enforcement officers, and more people generally than any alleged Islamic terror in the USA subsequent to the 11 September 2001 terror attacks by Al Qaeda. Yet such facts are not reported in the mainstream news and when anything approaching such charges are raised, there is almost immediate pushback by right-wing opportunists claiming that such charges are aimed at subverting the Constitution’s guarantee of freedom of speech.

It is in this context that it is important to reflect on the argument by Smith College Professor Paula Giddings who, in an August 28, 2014 piece for Agence Global ["Time for a 21st-Century Anti-Lynching Movement"] argued that what we are looking at is not simply a spate of police brutality cases or periodic acts of violence, but a continuation of the lynching ‘movement’ to which African Americans have been subjected since the days of slavery. I wish to take this argument a bit further.

In response to police brutality/abuse, there are frequently protests and acts of anger, sometimes taking the form of demonstrations and mini-movements. The Ferguson, Missouri uprising is, actually, a bit of an exception in that the protests have lasted longer than one usually comes to expect. In general, the protests wind down and, while bitterness remains, the incident drops into the recesses of our memories…until the next act. When we frame these atrocities solely in terms of “police abuse” and “police brutality” (which, of course, they are), we both limit the larger context for understanding this situation, but we also run into a challenge at the level of mobilizing the public. With regard to mobilizing, we must keep in mind that given the justifiable fear of crime in many of our communities, the population–and I am speaking here of people of color generally, and African Americans in particular–are not necessarily prepared to go all out in condemning the actions of the police. After all, they wish to ensure that they themselves are protected from criminal violence. So, there is an ambivalence that exists in communities of color as to how to approach both crime and police violence.

Killings carried out by individuals, as in the case of the Zimmerman slaying of Trayvon Martin, are recognized for what they are, racist violence. But such acts are rarely linked together. We are not presented with the broader context of race relations (and history) in the USA. More often than not we are presented with a story line that suggests that this individual case is both tragic and abnormal rather than part of a larger scenario.

Instead we should understand that the combination of the police abuse, individual acts of violence, and right-wing populist aggression is a reflection of contemporary racist terror, otherwise known as the spirit of lynching. It aims at suppressing dissent by suppressing the African American. It reinforces the racist hierarchy that has existed in the USA since before it was the USA. It is the delineation of limitations on the space, rights and actions of a population that is desperately feared not because of what it has done, but because of what was done to it. Each act of racist terror, or more accurately, the demonstration of and perpetuation of an atmosphere of racist terror reminds people of color generally, and African Americans in particular, that they are not accepted into the “white bloc’ because they are a suspect population.

Prof. Giddings is, therefore, correct that the violence that we are experiencing must be understood as lynching, and that what is called for is not simply an anti-police brutality movement or a “Justice for [the latest victim of racist violence]” movement, but an anti-lynching/anti-terror campaign. Such a campaign must be a campaign that seeks to accomplish several tasks. First, the campaign must reopen the history of the USA in order to demonstrate the background to racist violence and terror and its roots in the system created by the original settlers. Second, the campaign must pursue the struggle for the expansion of democracy and democratic rights. This includes a struggle against racial privilege and racial differentials in treatment that permit the current majority demographic to believe that actions taken against a ‘suspect population’ are somehow a priori, justifiable. Third, the campaign must defend the right of historically oppressed groups to self-defense. Historically oppressed groups, be they racially oppressed or oppressed by patriarchy, are asked to play the role of the perpetual victims, always turning the other cheek. They are not expected to defend themselves and are frequently punished for doing so. This must be altered in its fundamentals.

Through a 21st century anti-lynching movement we can actually move beyond despair and victimhood. Through a 21st century anti-lynching movement we can respond to the violent form of the ‘white backlash’ that emerged in the 1960s and has proceeded on like a juggernaut ever since, in the courts and in the streets. Through a 21st century anti-lynching movement we can get beyond the notion that racism and racist oppression are isolated to individual actions and are instead central to the mortar that holds the larger system together. Such a recognition is, perhaps more than anything else, what the elite, so-called mainstream, media most wishes to avoid.

Bill Fletcher, Jr., is the host of The Global African on Telesur-English. He is a racial justice, labor and global justice activist and writer. He can be followed on Facebook and at www.billfletcherjr.com.

Terror … and Racial Terror

Terror … and Racial Terror

Guidelines for Myself by Zhou Enlai, 1943

March 18, 1943
1. Study diligently, grasp essentials, concentrate on one subject rather than seeking superficial knowledge of many.

2. Work hard and have a plan, a focus and a method.

3. Combine study with work and keep them in proper balance according to time, place and circumstances; take care to review and systemize; discover and create.

4. On the basis of principles, resolutely combat all incorrect ideology in others as well as in myself.

5. Insofar as possible, make the most of my strengths and take concrete steps to overcome my weaknesses.

6. Never become alienated from the masses; learn from them and help them. Lead a collective life, inquire into the concerns of the people around you, study their problems their problems and abide by the rules of discipline.

7. Keep fit and lead a reasonable regular life. This is the material basis for self-improvement.

Outsourcing wildlife decline

Earth has lost half of its wildlife in the past 40 years, says WWF

by Damian Carrington, The Guardian, 9/29/14

Species across land, rivers and seas decimated as humans kill for food in unsustainable numbers and destroy habitats 

• See picture gallery of wild animals facing decline

• George Monbiot: It’s time to shout stop on this war on the living world

The biggest declines in animal numbers have been seen in low-income, developing nations, while conservation efforts in rich nations have seen small improvements overall. But the big declines in wildlife in rich nations had already occurred long before the new report’s baseline year of 1970 – the last wolf in the UK was shot in 1680.

Also, by importing food and other goods produced via habitat destruction in developing nations, rich nations are “outsourcing” wildlife decline to those countries, said Norris. For example, a third of all the products of deforestation such as timber, beef and soya were exported to the EU between 1990 and 2008.

********* 

The number of wild animals on Earth has halved in the past 40 years, according to a new analysis. Creatures across land, rivers and the seas are being decimated as humans kill them for food in unsustainable numbers, while polluting or destroying their habitats, the research by scientists at WWF and the Zoological Society of London found.

“If half the animals died in London zoo next week it would be front page news,” said Professor Ken Norris, ZSL’s director of science. “But that is happening in the great outdoors. This damage is not inevitable but a consequence of the way we choose to live.” He said nature, which provides food and clean water and air, was essential for human wellbeing.

“We have lost one half of the animal population and knowing this is driven by human consumption, this is clearly a call to arms and we must act now,” said Mike Barratt, director of science and policy at WWF. He said more of the Earth must be protected from development and deforestation, while food and energy had to be produced sustainably.

The steep decline of animal, fish and bird numbers was calculated by analysing 10,000 different populations, covering 3,000 species in total. This data was then, for the first time, used to create a representative “Living Planet Index” (LPI), reflecting the state of all 45,000 known vertebrates.

“We have all heard of the FTSE 100 index, but we have missed the ultimate indicator, the falling trend of species and ecosystems in the world,” said Professor Jonathan Baillie, ZSL’s director of conservation. “If we get [our response] right, we will have a safe and sustainable way of life for the future,” he said.

If not, he added, the overuse of resources would ultimately lead to conflicts. He said the LPI was an extremely robust indicator and had been adopted by UN’s internationally-agreed Convention on Biological Diversity as key insight into biodiversity.

Read the rest here.

Organized Labor Takes on Race and Michael Brown - COLORLINES

 

People cheer as Richard Trumka, president of the AFL–CIO, speaks on day two of the Democratic National Convention on September 5, 2012 in Charlotte, North Carolina. Joe Raedle/Getty Images

by Carla Murphy

Thursday, October 2 2014Back in 1999, Victor Narro co-organized* up to 100 Los Angeles-based day laborers—mainly Latino and many undocumented—to attend the AFL-CIO convention, the nation’s largest labor gathering. Now, he admits, they were all a little naïve. Without affiliate status, the group learned at the entrance that they could not share the hall with the representatives of 12 million union workers. “We felt like, ‘Why would [certain] workers not be allowed into the AFL-CIO convention?’,” Narro says.

What Narro, who is now a project director at the UCLA Labor Center, recalls more vividly though, is the unofficial greeting: A grip of ironworkers and others in the construction trade formed and, “basically told us we had no business being there. We’re not a union. We take away union jobs.” Echoing a sentiment shared by many working people of color today, Narro says, “We felt that we were not part of the labor movement.” The last decade has given Narro hope however that an unprecedented all-workers movement, not just a union member-only movement, could one day become a reality.

There are signs that traditional labor leadership, if not its dwindling white male rank and file, is taking steps to better include workers of color. Not only has it recognized the growing strength of alt-labor models like those built over the last 15 years by veteran organizer Narro. It’s slowly beginning to address the racial justice concerns of workers of color, too.

The latest indicator, labor observers say, was provoked by Michael Brown’s killing in Ferguson. It came three weeks ago in the form of a little-publicized but powerful speech by AFL-CIO president Richard Trumka. During his remarks Trumka—a former mine worker from western Pennsylvania—urged the mostly white audience attending their St. Louis convention to honestly tackle racism. “We cannot wash our hands of these issues,” he said, before recounting how local labor had instigated a 1917 pogrom against African-American migrants in St. Louis. “Racism is part of our inheritance as Americans. Every city, every state and every region of this country has its own deep history with racism. And so does the labor movement.”
After watching Trumka’s speech on YouTube (his second on race), Atlanta-based organizer Tamieka Atkins says she is more inclined to count herself as part of the labor movement. “I generally say that I belong to the domestic workers movement—or the workers rights movement because I haven’t felt represented by labor,” says Atkins, director of the first and largely African-American chapter of the Latina and immigrant National Domestic Workers Alliance. As a sign of their growing strength, the 10,000-member alliance boasts a newly announced MacArthur “genius” grant winner in Ai-Jen Poo and domestic workers’ bills of rights wins in four states.

“Now, because of this speech and other overtures,”—like dedicating a major part of the 2013 AFL-CIO convention agenda to non-union, undocumented and women workers—“I see more of an opening to say, I belong,” Atkins says.
Belonging means more than ticking off new non-white members, however. As Narro notes, it means transformation—and when it comes to workers of color that means integrating individual on-the-job concerns with “off-the-clock” community concerns like climate change, racial profiling, mass incarceration and, certainly, police violence. And therein lies the rub for organized labor as it looks toward the future.

Among the lines and metaphors most quoted back to this reporter from Trumka’s post-Ferguson speech is, “Our brother killed our sister’s son.” Officer Darren Wilson is union, as is Michael Brown’s mother. Trumka notably frames police violence towards young black men as a union “family matter.” But organizer Douglas Williams, who’s also policy committee chair of Moral Mondays-Alabama, sees more than an insular quarrel. He sees a fundamental internal conflict—and a clear choice being made.

“[Consider] the fact that the Missouri Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for Michael Brown’s murderer, and you see the importance of [Trumka’s] speech,” Williams says, adding that, “when someone with the gravitas of Richard Trumka stands up and gives such an unequivocal endorsement of racial equality and working-class power, it is a signal that the FOP are the people who are out of line.”

Trumka, in his speech, said he supports demilitarizing police, which, BuzzFeed reports, directly counters the position of the police union that falls under the AFL-CIO, the International Union of Police Associations (IUPA). (The FOP does not belong to the AFL-CIO’s 56-member federation.) Still, in keeping with the IUPA position, he urged people not to judge the specifics of Officer Darren Wilson’s case until investigations were complete.

For workers of color, the impact of racial issues, of which the Brown killing is only one example, can overtake traditional labor concerns about wages and benefits. “Some of our members are union, many of them are not. I might have a union contract, but that doesn’t stop the police from shooting me in the street,” Los Angeles Black Worker Center director Lola Smallwood-Cuevas says, adding that Trumka’s speech was, for her, “one of the proudest moments of belonging to the labor movement.”

Amaya Smith, national media director for the AFL-CIO, says the federation is tackling the issues surrounding Brown’s killing. “In Ferguson, the AFL-CIO leadership in partnership with the Coalition of Black Trade Unionists spent time meeting with and listening to local leaders and is actively looking for ways to duplicate those conversations nationally in labor halls and councils,” she says. Practical applications like “economic training [for union members] around mass incarceration,” for example, would be one way for the body to breathe life into Trumka’s speech, says Steven Pitts, associate chair of the UC-Berkeley Labor Center.

“One of the most interesting parts of the meetings in Ferguson is that community leaders often wore three hats—and one of them was often union member,” Smith says. “I think mainstream labor may not understand that a lot of the folks who’ve been working on the ground in Ferguson are also union members. They’ve already been part of this larger [social justice] fight.”

Immediately, Smith says, many union members are stepping up to support the planning of the upcoming National Weekend of Resistance in Ferguson from October 10-13. In Atlanta, Atkins is arranging for five women to attend. And over Labor Day weekend Smallwood-Cuevas took a 36-hour bus ride from Los Angeles to Ferguson with other worker center members as part of Black Lives Matter.

Jeanina Jenkins, who works at the Ferguson McDonald’s, may not be union but she’s typical of workers of color who integrate expectations of fairness, equality and justice both on and off the job. Jenkins earns $7.97-an-hour, an increase from the $7.50 she made last April when she decided to join the fast-food worker strikes. Jenkins was finishing up her shift when she heard shots fired the Saturday afternoon that Brown was killed. Since then, she’s been double-timing it on the picket line, in Ferguson streets and in strategy meetings with local youth ever since.

On the Saturday afternoon that we speak on the phone, she’s standing in front of the police station demanding the release of recently arrested protesters. “People around here know me ‘cause as a fast food worker, I’ve been striking for a long time. But out here, I’m just Jeanina. This is really about Michael Brown,” she says.

• Post has been updated since publication to accurately reflect that in 1999 Victor Narro did not organize up to 100 day laborers on his own.

World (human) Population Could Reach 12 Billion by 2100

San Joaquin Fox

A new paper in Science projects the world population could reach 12 billion by 2100 -- and then keep right on growing instead of leveling off as was earlier predicted.

The world population has doubled since 1970 and today tops 7 billion, growing by 227,000 people daily. The toll on wildlife is staggering: Species are disappearing 1,000 to 10,000 times faster than the natural rate.

"The unsustainable growth of the human population is a key driver of many of the world's environmental problems, including global warming and the loss of wildlife around the globe," said the Center's Stephanie Feldstein. "We can't continue on this same path and still hope to have a planet that's ultimately livable for people and wildlife."

Press release from Center for Biological Diversity:
http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/2014/human-population-09-18-2014.html

Solidarity and the US Anti-War Movement

The US peace movement has a solidarity problem. As I write this, the progressive, anti-imperialist forces of North Kurdistan are fighting for their lives against a vicious attack by both the Turkish military and the ultra-rightist ISIS forces. I cannot do justice to the struggle in a short blog post; therefore, I implore readers with even the barest shred of internationalist solidarity in their heats to visit the Kurdistan Communities Union blog and educate themselves.
Suffice it to say, the people of North Kurdistan are on the front lines of the struggle against imperialism. Yet, not one major US peace organization has anything to say about North Kurdistan or the struggle taking place there beyond the usual shallow calls for 'no war'. Of course, any sane person would wish to put an end to war! However, too many in the US peace movement never think beyond their distaste for armed conflict and grapple with its root cause: imperialism. Imperialism, whether conducted via military organizations like NATO and the US armed forces, or through 'peaceful' means by finance capital organizations like the World Bank is war. It is a rapacious war of conquest waged by the global 1% (or more precisely, the 0.0001%) against the global 99% and it will not end until every last drop of wealth is brought securely under the control of the global capitalist class, or that class is finally brought low by revolution. So long as the US peace movement refuses to consider the question of imperialism, and continues to limit its analysis to moralistic, pacifist bromides, it will remain globally isolated and utterly ineffective. While some may find my criticism too strident, it is commensurate with the seriousness of the crisis facing the US anti-war movement, and offered in the hope that some in that movement might find it useful. Whosoever may come across this post, whether your peace organization is large or small, national or local, or if you belong to no organization at all, I ask you to stand in solidarity with the people of North Kurdistan, and all other anti-imperialist fighters around the world. Their need is great and even the smallest measure of aid is welcome.

9/9/2014 Event - Salem, Oregon: Paid Sick Leave for all Oregonians

Family Forward Oregon will hold a meeting in Salem on Tuesday, Sept. 9, 2014 at 6:00 PM.

Location is at the Salem SEIU 503 office (1730 Commercial St SE, Salem).

Organizers will lay out their statewide campaign for paid sick days for all Oregonians.

They will answer questions, have materials on hand and engage on the issue.

9/7/2014 event - Albany, Oregon: Why Aren't There More Black People in Oregon?: A Hidden History

After months of hard work and planning, Albany will host a conversation project on Why Aren't There More Black People in Oregon?: A Hidden History, presented and facilitated by organizer and educator Walidah Imarisha.  On September 7, the tour will visit Albany after traveling to Grans Pass, Redmond, and Astoria before traveling to Newport and Bay City.

Following the presentation, we will kick off a discussion about how we can begin to break down some of the obstacles we face when building the community we want to live in -- a community where everyone is able to live their lives fully with safety and dignity.

Sunday, September 7th at 4:00PM

Albany Public Library, 2450 14th Avenue SE

Sponsored by Occupy Albany, Albany PeaceSeekers, the Albany Human Relations Commission and Linn-Benton Community College Department of Equity, Diversity & Inclusion

Have you ever wondered why the Black population in Oregon is so small?

 Oregon has a history not only of Black exclusion and discrimination, but also of a vibrant Black culture that helped sustain many communities throughout the state -- a history that is not taught in schools.

ROP is thrilled to be working with Walidah, the Oregon Humanities, and local leaders across the state to pull off this tour in rural Oregon, and we hope you'll join us Sunday afternoon in Albany!

Where was Oregon's Rep. Kurt Schrader when it really mattered to working familes?

Oregon progressives have many issues with one of our Democratic Party Congressional Representatives.  Here is a message to folks represented in Oregon by Rep. Kurt Schrader regarding his voting record:

Here is a short list of Congressman Schrader’s votes.

Kurt Schrader turned his back on long-term unemployed. The Murray-Ryan budget deal last December did not include an extension of unemployment insurance for the long-term unemployed. 1.3 million jobless workers had their benefits cut off on December 28th, and nearly another 1.9 million lost their unemployment benefits over the first half of 2014. This was a devastating blow for millions of Americans who were already struggling, but it also hurt our economy. 174 House Democrats wrote to Speaker John Boehner urging a vote on the extension of unemployment insurance before Congress went on Christmas break. Schrader was one of 29 Dems who didn’t sign on.

Kurt Schrader voted to exempt private equity firms from financial regulations enacted by the 2010 Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (aka "Dodd-Frank").
The House voted 254 to 159. The so-called Small Business Capital Access and Job Preservation Act (H.R. 1105) would exempt many private equity fund advisers from a provision in the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform law which required advisers with more than $150 million in assets under management to register with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Kurt Schrader joined 36 other Democrats who don't think that Private Equity should have to play by the rules.

Kurt Schrader voted to block coal ash regulations. Last year, the House passed legislation (H.R. 2218, the Coal Residuals Reuse and Management Act) that takes the authority to regulate coal ash away from the EPA and gives it to the states. The EPA has been hedging on coal ash regulations throughout the Obama administration, likely because of industry pressure. However, independent studies have proven that coal ash regulation--like many other EPA regulations--would create jobs. Even though the EPA has been slow, whom would you trust more to regulate coal ash: coal states like WY and WV or the EPA? Schrader was one of 29 Dems voting to weaken these regulations.

Kurt Schrader voted to Cut $8.7 Billion from Food Stamps, when the House passed the 2014 Farm Bill 251 to 166. 162 Republicans voted for it. 63 voted against it. 103 Democrats voted against it. 89 voted for it. Schrader, of course, was one of the 89. The Farm Bill contains $8.7 billion in cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), commonly known as food stamps. This translates to a $90 per month cut to beneficiaries. This cut follows November's $5 billion cut from the program, the "hunger cliff" that the Democrats themselves created.

Kurt Schrader voted to eliminate Clean Water Act protections. H. R. 935 would eliminate protections for waterways that are being sprayed with pesticides. The bill was designed to make the life of polluters easier at the expense of your health and the environment. 216 Republicans and 37 Democrats voted for it. 148 Democrats voted against it. 37 Democrats voted for it. Kurt Schrader was one of the 37.

Kurt Schrader voted against a $10.10 Federal Minimum Wage Rep. Alan Grayson (FL-09) offered an amendment to the 2015 financial services appropriations bill that would require the federal government to pay employees at least $10.10 an hour. The House voted it down 230 to 193. What was disappointing was that 5 Democrats joined the full Republican caucus in voting against it. Rep. Kurt Schrader was one of the 5.

Kurt Schrader voted for corporate tax breaks. In June, the House voted to extend a number of expired corporate tax breaks. The House first voted to remove a sunset provision in Section 179 of the tax code in order to allow businesses to continue to write off up to $500,000 worth of investments a year. It would cost roughly $73 billion over the next decade. It passed 272 to 144. 219 Republicans and 53 Democrats voted for it. 142 Democrats and 2 Republicans voted against it. Schrader was one of 53 Democrats that went along with it.

Kurt Schrader voted to weaken regulations on Wall St., hurting Consumers. 46 House Democrats joined the GOP in trying to prevent the CFTC (Commodity Futures Trading Commission) from doing its job. The Customer Protection and End User Relief Act requires the CFTC to conduct burdensome cost-benefit analyses of proposed regulations, which will cause further delays in rule-making and open up more opportunity for industry lobbying. It also restricts the CFTC’s ability to oversee the derivatives market. It also continues the chronic problem of underfunding that has plagued the CFTC for years. The House passed the Act by 265 to 144. 143 Democrats and 1 Republican voted against it. 219 Republicans and 46 Democrats voted for it; Schrader was one of the 46 voting for it.

Kurt Schrader voted to weaken regulations on oil and gas pipelines. In June, the House passed the North American Energy Infrastructure Act (H.R. 3301), a bill designed to open up the export market for liquefied natural gas (LNG) and reduce environmental review for oil and natural gas pipelines, making it easier for pipelines like Keystone XL to get approved. Schrader was one of 17 Dems to vote to weaken regulations on oil & gas pipelines.

Kurt Schrader supported efforts to kill net neutrality. Rep. Schrader pleased his corporate friends such as AT&T, Comcast and Verizon by signing his name to an industry-backed letter telling the FCC to kill net neutrality.

It seems Wall St. and other powerful corporate interests have a reliable friend in Kurt Schrader. Sadly, the working people of Oregon do not.

:

Stop the Attacks on Pres. Aristide and Haitian Democracy

With thanks to the Alliance for Global Justice. The ongoing struggle in Haiti has not received the attention from the US left that it deserves. This article is reprinted from their website. Please check it out. http://afgj.org/

Former President of Haiti Jean-Bertrand Aristide is bing targeted for harassment by the government of current President Michel Martelly. The US supported Martelly regime is pursuing trumped up charges of corruption against Aristide in an attempt to further intimidate Haiti's pro-democracy movement. Pres. Aristide was overthrown in a 2004 coup that was organized and coordinated with US government funding via the International Republican Institute and its partners in the National Endowment for Democracy (NED). The NED is a US Congress created and funded organization that tries to manipulate the electoral affairs of foreign governments.
CLICK HERE to email a sample letter (or write your own!) to the Haitian Embassy and the Western Hemisphere Bureau of the US State Department.

FOLLOWING IS A MORE IN DEPTH REPORT ON THE ATTACKS ON PRESIDENT ARISTIDE

Stop The Attacks On Former Haitian President Jean-Bertrand Aristide and the Lavalas Movement

An Urgent Call from Haiti Action Committee

On August 13, the Haitian government summoned former President Jean-Bertrand Aristide to court on corruption charges. This summons is part of a chilling pattern of repression aimed at destroying Aristide’s political party, Fanmi Lavalas, as the country approaches new legislative elections. We denounce it in the strongest possible terms.

 On March 18, 2011, tens of thousands of people followed President Aristide’s car as it drove from the airport to his home, following his return from seven years of forced exile. They then climbed over the walls into the courtyard of the Aristides’ residence to continue an emotional and heart-felt greeting for Haiti’s first democratically elected president, overthrown in a U.S.-orchestrated coup in 2004. In his speech at the airport, President Aristide focused on education and the importance of inclusion for all Haitians in the process of restoring democracy.

Since his return, President Aristide has done exactly what he promised to do – reopen the University of the Aristide Foundation (UNIFA). On September 26, 2011 the Medical School once again opened its doors. Today, there are over 900 students studying medicine, nursing and law at a University whose mission is to provide higher education to all sectors of Haitian society, not just the children of the rich.

 And yet, in spite of this powerful and important work, Aristide and other Lavalas leaders and activists remain the target of government harassment and attack. This is not surprising; after all, the Haitian government of Michel Martelly came to power after elections with a historically low turnout in which Fanmi Lavalas, Haiti’s most popular political party, was banned from participation.

Martelly has embraced Jean-Claude “Baby Doc” Duvalier, the former Haitian dictator. Human rights organizations estimate that the Duvaliers – “Papa Doc” and “Baby Doc” – were responsible for the deaths of over 30,000 Haitian citizens during their 29-year rule. While Duvalier now lives freely in Haiti and was honored by Martelly at the January 1^st 2014 Haitian Independence Day celebrations, President Aristide and the democratic movement are under assault.

For over a decade, U.S. and Haitian authorities have periodically threatened President Aristide with indictment and “tried” him in the pages of a compliant media. None of these charges has stuck, for the simple reason that they are all lies. This is the third time since his return in 2011 that Haitian authorities have trumpeted charges against President Aristide. Each time, after sensational headlines, the cases were unceremoniously shelved after an initial hearing and interview, before President Aristide could even challenge the accusations.

 The politicized nature of the charges is further evidenced by the history of the judge in the case, Lamarre Bélizaire. The Port-au-Prince Bar Association has suspended Bélizaire for ten years from the practice of law (the suspension to begin once he steps down as judge) for using the court to persecute opponents of the Martelly regime. This latest summons is one more example of a government determined to derail any opposition.

 Each time these charges are trotted out, the goal is to defame Aristide, weaken Lavalas and endanger the vital educational work that he has led since his return. Haiti’s grassroots movement knows that each new rumored indictment is part of a campaign to intimidate and silence them. When President Aristide was last called to court, thousands of people surrounded the courthouse, chanting: “If they call our brother, they call all of us.” Yesterday, once again, people took to the streets to show him their support.

We echo their voices. Enough is enough. It is time for education, health care, and democratic development in Haiti, not a resurgence of political repression. We call on the Haitian government to withdraw this warrant.

Sent by Haiti Action Committee
www.haitisolidarity.net

Marikana, Gaza, Ferguson: 'You should think of them always as armed' :: SACSIS.org.za

By Richard Pithouse · 18 Aug 2014

In colonial wars the occupying power invariably reaches a point where it has to acknowledge that its true enemy is not a minority - devil worshipers, communists, fanatics or terrorists - subject to external and evil manipulation, but the people as a whole. Once this point is reached every colonised person is taken as a potential combatant and the neighbourhood and the home are cast as legitimate sites of combat.

This is the moment when liberal paternalism breaks down.

From its first stirrings liberalism has often managed the contradiction between this reality and its affirmation of liberty by limiting its reach in both spatial and racial terms. The rules that were understood to apply in England or France were not applied on the slave plantations of America or the Caribbean or, more recently, during the colonial wars in Kenya or Algeria. The same is true in Gaza today.



But as Aimé Césaire argued in 1955, in an essay first published in Paris, colonialism has a ‘boomerang effect’ – what is done over there will eventually be done at home, usually to a group of people that has been raced out of the count of who is taken as an authentic citizen with full rights to presence. On the 17th of October 1961, as the Algerian war against French colonialism was coming to an end, thousands of Algerians, between thirty and forty thousand men, women and children, dressed in their best clothes, marched in Paris in protest at a curfew on Algerians. Before the march Maurice Papon, the chief of police who had been a collaborator with the Nazis during the Second World War, informed his officers that “Even if the Algerians are not armed, you should think of them always as armed.”

The marchers were met with a savage police attack. People were thrown into the Seine, some dead, others bloodied but still alive. Some were taken to the police headquarters and beaten to the death in the courtyard. Others were taken to sport stadiums and left to die without medical attention. For years there was simply no discussion of this in France. One result of this long silence is that the exact number of people murdered by the police on that day is not clear. Credible estimates range up to 200.

Colonial powers have always shared what they have learnt about oppression. Some of the people that tortured for apartheid learnt their skills from the French who had made torture a routine feature of their attempt to contain resistance to colonialism in Algerian. Colonised people have also always shared their knowledge about how to resist oppression. In 1962 Nelson Mandela went to newly independent Algeria to be trained as a soldier.

From the eighteenth century it was, perhaps more than anyone else, sailors who spread revolt from port to port. In 1804 African slaves won their freedom in Haiti. For years later slaves, ripped from around the world and thrown together in Cape Town, unfurled the banner of revolt in Cape Town. The docks in Cape Town would remain a site of subversive exchange until at least the early twentieth century when sailors bought anarchist, communist and Garveyist ideas into dialogue with more local experiences and ideas sparking the emergence of the Industrial and Commercial workers’ Union, which, as it spread from Cape Town, through the Eastern Cape to Durban and as far as what are now the independent states of Namibia, Zimbabwe and Zambia, became at various points, a trade union, a peasant movement and a shack dwellers’ movement.

Today the zones where enduring colonial power relations take their most extreme forms, places like Palestine and Haiti, are not solely sites of egregious oppression. They are also laboratories where new modes of oppression are tested. The Brazilian soldiers that were part of the United Nations occupation of Haiti and played a part in crushing the movement for democracy and justice in the shack settlements of Port-au-Prince returned home to occupy the favelas in Rio. The Israeli state sells the technologies it has tested in Palestine, and it and consultants linked to it train police officers, soldiers and private security companies from other countries. The lessons learnt in Gaza will be shared with the with the security apparatus from Johannesburg to Paris and New York as old forms of domination are modernised.

When the overwhelmingly white police department in Ferguson, Missouri, some of whom are Israeli trained, responded to protest at their murder of Michael Brown, an unarmed black teenager, they brought in equipment first used in the Iraq war. The images that rushed around the world showed what can only be understood as a mode of policing rooted in contemporary forms of imperial and colonial power in the Middle East, as well as the long history of state violence against black people in the United States. Unsurprisingly people in Gaza started sending advice to people in Ferguson via twitter about how to deal with stun grenades, tear gas and all the rest. Messages of support were sent from Gaza to Ferguson.

In our own country it cannot be denied that our own police, equipped in part from Israel, approach some of our fellow citizens as if they were the enemy in a colonial war. Nobody who has seen the footage of the Marikana massacre, or an eviction at the Marikana Land Occupation in Durban, can have any doubt about this. And as in Gaza, or Ferguson, the evident coloniality of some forms of contemporary state power is not simply a matter of the subordination of social questions to a military logic. Just as the same water cannons are used in Gaza, Port-au-Prince and Ferguson, as well as the shack lands of Brazil and South Africa, so too are the same ideological operations are repeated, albeit with different key words, around the world. The person who is always treated as if they are armed, whose life counts for nothing, whose home has no sanctity, is a terrorist in Gaza, a gangster or a criminal in Port-au-Prince, Ferguson, Rio or Durban. In Gaza the people are conflated with Hamas, in Port-au-Prince its Aristide and Lavalas. Here it’s the third force.

The impunity of the Israeli state, like the impunity of the American state, like the impunity with which our own state increasingly uses murder, and legitimates the use of murder as a tool of social control, must be smashed. The militarization of social questions must be smashed everywhere. If not what is done in Haiti will continue to boomerang into Brazil. It will continue to become part of the standard mechanisms to police the urban poor from Bombay to Johannesburg. What is done in Palestine will boomerang into the suburbs of Paris, the ghettos of the United States and the places where striking workers gather, and the dispossessed occupy land, in our own country.

Dr. Pithouse teaches politics at Rhodes University.

Read more articles by Richard Pithouse.

Should you wish to republish this SACSIS article, please attribute the author and cite The South African Civil Society Information Service as its source.

Protests erupt in Missouri after another police murder

Posted on August 11, 2014 by Jamala Rogers, from the Freedom Road Socialist Org website:  http://freedomroad.org/

Protestors in Ferguson confront police with hands raised to show they are unarmed. Michael Brown was shot and killed while doing the same.

 

Evidence is still being collected and facts sifted through as I write but what we are absolutely clear on is that a black, unarmed teen was murdered by a Ferguson cop yesterday. Ferguson is a one of many municipalities that make up St. Louis County in Missouri.

Michael Brown was visiting his grandmother at the Canfield Green apartment complex when the tragedy occurred. Details are sketchy but most eye-witnesses tell the same sad story: When accosted by the Ferguson police, Mike raised his hands to show that he was unarmed. Shots ranged out. He raised his hands again to show “compliance” and police fired again, killing him.

This cold-blooded murder of a black youth created instant rage. The word went out through social media and crowds began to gather demanding justice. Multiple police departments were deployed in response, armed with M16s as armored trucks rumbled down neighborhood streets. Community organizers from the Organization for Black Struggle and other groups rushed to the scene to support the family and residents, prepared to give leadership if necessary.

The scenario of young, black men being gunned down in America is nothing new. Not long ago, Carey Ball had a similar encounter with the St. Louis Police Department; he was shot 25 times with his arms up. It’s part of a strategy of racist repression in the urban centers where the sight of black people in general (remember Renisha McBride) and black men in particular, signal fear and danger.

Another march in Ferguson protesting Michael Brown’s murder.

There are a series of protests and vigils planned in response to the police murder but communities are weary of appealing to the entities that are responsible for or which uphold state violence—police departments, the FBI, the Justice Department, etc. It’s time to craft a more sophisticated approach to police violence that is proactive and impactful.

A Bill to Get the Labor Movement Back on Offense

Representatives Keith Ellison and John Lewis plan to introduce a bill Wednesday that would make labor organizing a basic freedom no different than freedom from racial discrimination. The legislation would amend the National Labor Relations Act to include protections found under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act to include labor organizing as a fundamental right.

George Zornick

 

The Nation

July 28, 2014

 

Public sector workers rallying in solidarity with Wisconsin workers outside Los Angeles City Hall
AP Photo/Jason Redmond

For years, the American labor movement has been on the defensive as it has become harder and harder for workers to join or maintain a union. But some House Democrats are planning a dramatic counter-offensive: a bill that would make union organizing a civil right.

Representatives Keith Ellison and John Lewis plan to introduce a bill Wednesday that would make labor organizing a basic freedom no different than freedom from racial discrimination. That sounds like a nice talking point—but this isn’t just another messaging bill.

The Ellison-Lewis legislation would amend the National Labor Relations Act to include protections found under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act to include labor organizing as a fundamental right. That would give workers a broader range of legal options if they feel discriminated against for trying to form a union.

Currently, their only redress is through a grievance with the National Labor Relations Board—an important process, but one that workers and labor analysts frequently criticize as both too slow and often too lenient on offending employers.
If the NLRA were amended, however, after 180 days a worker could take his or her labor complaint from the NLRB to a federal court. This is how the law works now for civil rights complaints, which gives workers the option, after 180 days, to step outside the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission process.

Then, workers would have sole discretion on whether to push a complaint, as opposed to relying on a decision by the NLRB on whether to forge ahead. Workers could also move the process along much faster than the NLRB handles complaints, which can often take years.

Ellison told The Nation that the legislation would also help workers recover more money—the NLRB will award back pay to a grieved worker minus whatever they earned while awaiting a decision, which can often amount to basically nothing. “[The NLRB] remedy, though useful and very important, and nothing in our legislation changes that, that remedy is considered slow and somewhat inadequate. For some of these union-busting law firms, [they] will say ‘so do it and we’ll just pay.’”
Ellison said he believes the labor movement needs to get back on the offensive. “With the Supreme Court in here, and what they just did in Harris v. Quinn and all the things they wrote about Abood, it’s insane to hope for the best,” he said, referring to the recent decision involving non-union public workers and their fee arrangements with unions. “I mean this Supreme Court is openly hostile to racial justice and worker justice simultaneously. So we better be moving out on both fronts.”

Ellison told MSNBC, which first reported the bill, that he got the idea from a book by Century Foundation fellows Richard Kahlenberg and Moshe Marvit, titled Why Union Organizing Should Be a Civil Right. They argue that the First Amendment’s right to free association should clearly include one of the most crucial forms of association—banding together to push back against unfair treatment from employers.
Marvit told The Nation he thinks treating labor organizing as a civil right is not only constitutionally appropriate but also much more appealing to the general public. “Civil rights is something that Americans really understand, and has a legitimacy that is sort of beyond reproach,” he said. “So when you put it in civil rights terms, it’s something that really speaks to people.” (In the interest of full disclosure, Marvit has written for The Nation in the past.)

“Frankly, I think Republicans have been saying it on the other side. That’s been the message of the National Right to Work Committee for sixty years, that workers have a civil right not to join a union,” Marvit continued. “And I think that’s been a successful argument for them. It taps into this notion of your freedom to choose.”

The Nation has learned that when Ellison and Lewis introduce the bill on Wednesday morning, they will boast eleven other original co-sponsors: Representatives Jerrold Nadler, John Conyers, Marcia Fudge, Barbara Lee, Mark Takano, Rush Holt, Eleanor Holmes Norton, Karen Bass, Danny Davis, Albio Sires and Janice Hahn. All of the co-sponsors are Democrats.

Major unions will also be on board. Both the AFL-CIO and the Change to Win coalition will back the bill, along with The United Food and Commercial Workers and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees.
Joseph Geevarghese, deputy director of Change to Win, told The Nation that his union was joining the push “because union organizing has been maligned. Unions have been maligned in our society. There is a value in re-defining what all of these tens of thousands of brave workers are doing as, “We have a fundamental right to stand up and speak out about injustice in this country.’”

http://www.thenation.com/blog/180792/house-bill-would-make-union-organizing-civil-right