Showing posts with label Social oppression. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Social oppression. Show all posts

Friday, January 25, 2019

Michelle Alexander On the Liberation of Palestine and the Ongoing Legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and the Grave Necessity Of Speaking Truth to Power in Global Affairs

All,

THANK YOU MICHELLE as usual for your bedrock courage, knowledge, insight, clarity, and compassion, as well as your customary intellectual, moral, ethical, and political honesty and integrity. As always you make me proud to be an active advocate and steadfast supporter and defender of the social, cultural, political, and intellectual traditions and values that you so brilliantly represent and embody. More than ever we all deeply need and desire what you have to offer and provide us.

Love & Struggle,

Kofi


LONG LIVE DR. MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. (1929-1968)

https://www.nytimes.com/…/martin-luther-king-palestine-isra…

Opinion

Time to Break the Silence on Palestine

Martin Luther King Jr. courageously spoke out about the Vietnam War. We must do the same when it comes to this grave injustice of our time.

by Michelle Alexander
January 19, 2019
New York Times



“We must speak with all the humility that is appropriate to our limited vision, but we must speak,” the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. declared at Riverside Church in Manhattan in 1967.  Credit: John C. Goodwin
 
On April 4, 1967, exactly one year before his assassination, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. stepped up to the lectern at the Riverside Church in Manhattan. The United States had been in active combat in Vietnam for two years and tens of thousands of people had been killed, including some 10,000 American troops. The political establishment — from left to right — backed the war, and more than 400,000 American service members were in Vietnam, their lives on the line.

Many of King’s strongest allies urged him to remain silent about the war or at least to soft-pedal any criticism. They knew that if he told the whole truth about the unjust and disastrous war he would be falsely labeled a Communist, suffer retaliation and severe backlash, alienate supporters and threaten the fragile progress of the civil rights movement.

King rejected all the well-meaning advice and said, “I come to this magnificent house of worship tonight because my conscience leaves me no other choice.” Quoting a statement by the Clergy and Laymen Concerned About Vietnam, he said, “A time comes when silence is betrayal” and added, “that time has come for us in relation to Vietnam.”

It was a lonely, moral stance. And it cost him. But it set an example of what is required of us if we are to honor our deepest values in times of crisis, even when silence would better serve our personal interests or the communities and causes we hold most dear. It’s what I think about when I go over the excuses and rationalizations that have kept me largely silent on one of the great moral challenges of our time: the crisis in Israel-Palestine.

I have not been alone. Until very recently, the entire Congress has remained mostly silent on the human rights nightmare that has unfolded in the occupied territories. Our elected representatives, who operate in a political environment where Israel's political lobby holds well-documented power, have consistently minimized and deflected criticism of the State of Israel, even as it has grown more emboldened in its occupation of Palestinian territory and adopted some practices reminiscent of apartheid in South Africa and Jim Crow segregation in the United States.

Many civil rights activists and organizations have remained silent as well, not because they lack concern or sympathy for the Palestinian people, but because they fear loss of funding from foundations, and false charges of anti-Semitism. They worry, as I once did, that their important social justice work will be compromised or discredited by smear campaigns.

Similarly, many students are fearful of expressing support for Palestinian rights because of the McCarthyite tactics of secret organizations like Canary Mission, which blacklists those who publicly dare to support boycotts against Israel, jeopardizing their employment prospects and future careers.

Reading King’s speech at Riverside more than 50 years later, I am left with little doubt that his teachings and message require us to speak out passionately against the human rights crisis in Israel-Palestine, despite the risks and despite the complexity of the issues. King argued, when speaking of Vietnam, that even “when the issues at hand seem as perplexing as they often do in the case of this dreadful conflict,” we must not be mesmerized by uncertainty. “We must speak with all the humility that is appropriate to our limited vision, but we must speak.”

And so, if we are to honor King’s message and not merely the man, we must condemn Israel’s actions: unrelenting violations of international law, continued occupation of the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza, home demolitions and land confiscations. We must cry out at the treatment of Palestinians at checkpoints, the routine searches of their homes and restrictions on their movements, and the severely limited access to decent housing, schools, food, hospitals and water that many of them face.

We must not tolerate Israel’s refusal even to discuss the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes, as prescribed by United Nations resolutions, and we ought to question the U.S. government funds that have supported multiple hostilities and thousands of civilian casualties in Gaza, as well as the $38 billion the U.S. government has pledged in military support to Israel.

And finally, we must, with as much courage and conviction as we can muster, speak out against the system of legal discrimination that exists inside Israel, a system complete with, according to Adalah, the Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel, more than 50 laws that discriminate against Palestinians — such as the new nation-state law that says explicitly that only Jewish Israelis have the right of self-determination in Israel, ignoring the rights of the Arab minority that makes up 21 percent of the population.

Of course, there will be those who say that we can’t know for sure what King would do or think regarding Israel-Palestine today. That is true. The evidence regarding King’s views on Israel is complicated and contradictory.

Although the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee denounced Israel’s actions against Palestinians, King found himself conflicted. Like many black leaders of the time, he recognized European Jewry as a persecuted, oppressed and homeless people striving to build a nation of their own, and he wanted to show solidarity with the Jewish community, which had been a critically important ally in the civil rights movement.

Ultimately, King canceled a pilgrimage to Israel in 1967 after Israel captured the West Bank. During a phone call about the visit with his advisers, he said, “I just think that if I go, the Arab world, and of course Africa and Asia for that matter, would interpret this as endorsing everything that Israel has done, and I do have questions of doubt.”

He continued to support Israel’s right to exist but also said on national television that it would be necessary for Israel to return parts of its conquered territory to achieve true peace and security and to avoid exacerbating the conflict. There was no way King could publicly reconcile his commitment to nonviolence and justice for all people, everywhere, with what had transpired after the 1967 war.

Today, we can only speculate about where King would stand. Yet I find myself in agreement with the historian Robin D.G. Kelley, who concluded that, if King had the opportunity to study the current situation in the same way he had studied Vietnam, “his unequivocal opposition to violence, colonialism, racism and militarism would have made him an incisive critic of Israel’s current policies.”

Indeed, King’s views may have evolved alongside many other spiritually grounded thinkers, like Rabbi Brian Walt, who has spoken publicly about the reasons that he abandoned his faith in what he viewed as political Zionism. To him, he recently explained to me, liberal Zionism meant that he believed in the creation of a Jewish state that would be a desperately needed safe haven and cultural center for Jewish people around the world, "a state that would reflect as well as honor the highest ideals of the Jewish tradition.” He said he grew up in South Africa in a family that shared those views and identified as a liberal Zionist, until his experiences in the occupied territories forever changed him.

During more than 20 visits to the West Bank and Gaza, he saw horrific human rights abuses, including Palestinian homes being bulldozed while people cried — children's toys strewn over one demolished site — and saw Palestinian lands being confiscated to make way for new illegal settlements subsidized by the Israeli government. He was forced to reckon with the reality that these demolitions, settlements and acts of violent dispossession were not rogue moves, but fully supported and enabled by the Israeli military. For him, the turning point was witnessing legalized discrimination against Palestinians — including streets for Jews only — which, he said, was worse in some ways than what he had witnessed as a boy in South Africa.

Not so long ago, it was fairly rare to hear this perspective. That is no longer the case.

Jewish Voice for Peace, for example, aims to educate the American public about “the forced displacement of approximately 750,000 Palestinians that began with Israel’s establishment and that continues to this day.” Growing numbers of people of all faiths and backgrounds have spoken out with more boldness and courage. American organizations such as If Not Now support young American Jews as they struggle to break the deadly silence that still exists among too many people regarding the occupation, and hundreds of secular and faith-based groups have joined the U.S. Campaign for Palestinian Rights.

In view of these developments, it seems the days when critiques of Zionism and the actions of the State of Israel can be written off as anti-Semitism are coming to an end. There seems to be increased understanding that criticism of the policies and practices of the Israeli government is not, in itself, anti-Semitic.

This is not to say that anti-Semitism is not real. Neo-Nazism is resurging in Germany within a growing anti-immigrant movement. Anti-Semitic incidents in the United States rose 57 percent in 2017, and many of us are still mourning what is believed to be the deadliest attack on Jewish people in American history. We must be mindful in this climate that, while criticism of Israel is not inherently anti-Semitic, it can slide there.

Fortunately, people like the Rev. Dr. William J. Barber II are leading by example, pledging allegiance to the fight against anti-Semitism while also demonstrating unwavering solidarity with the Palestinian people struggling to survive under Israeli occupation.

He declared in a riveting speech last year that we cannot talk about justice without addressing the displacement of native peoples, the systemic racism of colonialism and the injustice of government repression. In the same breath he said: “I want to say, as clearly as I know how, that the humanity and the dignity of any person or people cannot in any way diminish the humanity and dignity of another person or another people. To hold fast to the image of God in every person is to insist that the Palestinian child is as precious as the Jewish child.”

Guided by this kind of moral clarity, faith groups are taking action. In 2016, the pension board of the United Methodist Church excluded from its multibillion-dollar pension fund Israeli banks whose loans for settlement construction violate international law. Similarly, the United Church of Christ the year before passed a resolution calling for divestments and boycotts of companies that profit from Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories.

Even in Congress, change is on the horizon. For the first time, two sitting members, Representatives Ilhan Omar, Democrat of Minnesota, and Rashida Tlaib, Democrat of Michigan, publicly support the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement. In 2017, Representative Betty McCollum, Democrat of Minnesota, introduced a resolution to ensure that no U.S. military aid went to support Israel’s juvenile military detention system. Israel regularly prosecutes Palestinian children detainees in the occupied territories in military court.
PHOTO: Relatives of a Palestinian nurse, Razan al-Najjar, 21, mourning in June after she was shot dead in Gaza by Israeli soldiers.CreditHosam Salem for The New York Times

None of this is to say that the tide has turned entirely or that retaliation has ceased against those who express strong support for Palestinian rights. To the contrary, just as King received fierce, overwhelming criticism for his speech condemning the Vietnam War — 168 major newspapers, including The Times, denounced the address the following day — those who speak publicly in support of the liberation of the Palestinian people still risk condemnation and backlash.

Bahia Amawi, an American speech pathologist of Palestinian descent, was recently terminated for refusing to sign a contract that contains an anti-boycott pledge stating that she does not, and will not, participate in boycotting the State of Israel. In November, Marc Lamont Hill was fired from CNN for giving a speech in support of Palestinian rights that was grossly misinterpreted as expressing support for violence. Canary Mission continues to pose a serious threat to student activists.

And just over a week ago, the Birmingham Civil Rights Institute in Alabama, apparently under pressure mainly from segments of the Jewish community and others, rescinded an honor it bestowed upon the civil rights icon Angela Davis, who has been a vocal critic of Israel’s treatment of Palestinians and supports B.D.S.

But that attack backfired. Within 48 hours, academics and activists had mobilized in response. The mayor of Birmingham, Randall Woodfin, as well as the Birmingham School Board and the City Council, expressed outrage at the institute’s decision. The council unanimously passed a resolution in Davis’ honor, and an alternative event is being organized to celebrate her decades-long commitment to liberation for all.

I cannot say for certain that King would applaud Birmingham for its zealous defense of Angela Davis’s solidarity with Palestinian people. But I do. In this new year, I aim to speak with greater courage and conviction about injustices beyond our borders, particularly those that are funded by our government, and stand in solidarity with struggles for democracy and freedom. My conscience leaves me no other choice.

PHOTO: The Said al-Mis'hal cultural center in Gaza was hit by an Israeli airstrike in August.CreditKhalil Hamra/Associated Press

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Michelle Alexander became a New York Times columnist in 2018. She is a civil rights lawyer and advocate, legal scholar and author of “The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness.” 

A version of this article appears in print on Jan. 19, 2019, on Page SR1 of the New York edition with the headline: Time to Break the Silence on Palestine. Order Reprints | Today’s Paper

PHOTO: “We must speak with all the humility that is appropriate to our limited vision, but we must speak,” the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. declared at Riverside Church in Manhattan in 1967.CreditCreditJohn C. Goodwin

Saturday, February 7, 2015

Joselyn Barnes and Jack Shuler On the Historical Persistence and Expansion of White Supremacist Violence Against Black People in the U.S. and Globally--And Why It Persists


https://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Panopticon-Review/342702882479366

Bringing Fanon's "Concerning Violence" to Film

 Thursday, 05 February 2015 
 by Alnoor Ladha
 Truthout | Interview
    
A still from from the film Concerning Violence.
                    (Photo: Concerning Violence)

Activist and author Alnoor Ladha interviews Joslyn Barnes, co-producer of Göran Hugo Olsson's film, Concerning Violence, which explores African liberation struggles of the 1960s and 1970s.

Alnoor Ladha: I recently watched Concerning Violence and was in awe during the entire duration of the film. What is it about these scenes from colonialism and imperialism that strike a chord at the deepest core of our humanity?

Joselyn Barnes: That they are true. As Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak says in her preface to the film, "The issue of colonization is a greed shared by humankind. No one is better than anyone; every generation must be trained in the practice of freedom, caring for others, as did [Frantz] Fanon, and that is what colonization stops. Within the greed for capital formation, colonization allows already existing ignorant racism to spread the markets in the name of civilization or modernization or globalization, as it does today. This film captures the tragedy of the moment when the very poor are convinced in the name of a nation, that is going to reject it once it is established on its own two feet, to offer themselves up for a violent killing. Fanon insists that the tragedy is that the very poor is reduced to violence, because there is no other response possible to an absolute absence of response and an absolute exercise of legitimized violence from the colonizers."

Spivak's preface was indeed powerful. And poignant. One could argue, and indeed we do, that our current brand of capitalism, neoliberalism, is simply a continuation of colonialism. That the logic of capital requires extraction, exploitation, violence etc. Would you agree with this line of thinking?

Decolonization, as Fanon pointed out, needs to work in both directions. The colonized and the colonizer both must be decolonized.

I was at a very large dinner party in Park City, Utah, a few weeks before the Mubarak regime tumbled in Egypt. I was genuinely (and retrospectively, naïvely) shocked by how many people at that dinner literally said, "Better the devil you know . . . " meaning they'd rather see the murderous dictatorship continue than take the risk of change for better or worse. But worse for who?

"We know who supplies the weapons; we know who makes the loans; we know who then demands structural adjustment or in a new guise - austerity."

It really struck me that even in this purportedly progressive environment, some people are clearly viewed as more human than others. And here again, we see a certain colonial mentality. Decisions are made every day in Washington, DC, and other centers of power that have a huge impact on the day-to-day lives of millions and millions of people who have no part in making those decisions. But we know who supplies the weapons; we know who makes the loans; we know who then demands structural adjustment or in a new guise - austerity.

We know, but we look away. And we've been looking away for so long that we not only don't see our connection to this global situation, we don't even see that we ourselves are a country rapidly headed in the same direction, where for example those same weapons are being used against some of us (e.g. Ferguson, Missouri), and eventually all of us. Maybe people at a dinner party on the other side of the world will think of us one day when we attempt to rise up, and say, "Well . . . better the devil you know . . ."

Where a regime cannot be established that capitalist interests view as friendly, then the plan B seems to be perpetual destabilization. This Boko Haram situation in Nigeria is a case in point. Who is benefitting from this horrific scourge? And of course, if you just listened to news reports you would never know that the roots go all the way back to colonization, to the discovery of oil, to the assassination of Murtala Muhammed, and beyond. Stability used to be valued for businesses to thrive. But the profits to be reaped through militarization, conflict entrepreneurism, extraction [and] land grabs are so incredibly massive and pertain to the highest echelons of power, that they have overshadowed even a desire for stability. This is an extractive mindset, and what can you call this but a form of colonization?

Indeed. Do you think neoliberalism is better or worse than its predecessor regimes?

I think the current economic system is destroying life as we know it on this planet, because it relies on an idea of unlimited growth that is so evidentially unsustainable, because it relies on militarization and debt, and also because it is inherently inimical to any idea of a commons - or a common good. So I wouldn't say it's a matter of the particular brand of capitalism, e.g. neoliberalism, but the logic of capitalism itself - the commodification of the environment and people through their labor, and private ownership of production.

"We are giving up every freedom but the freedom to choose what to buy or consume."

But I do wonder whether this particularly aggressive form of capitalism - get what you can, while you can - comes from a displaced fear of annihilation (Freud's return of the repressed) or from a fear of not being real enough (Buddhist philosopher David Loy). The latter idea points to a subconscious awareness that our "person" is constructed, which is also exacerbated in this social media era of the curated self.

Or perhaps we are still conditioned by the discredited social Darwinist construct that capitalism is the economic model that best suits our "human nature." Regardless, at this precise moment where the planet's ecological system has reached the limit of supporting what the global economic system demands, we have a no-limits, free-for-all extractive ideology and we are being deluged by an image environment that inculcates a continually deferred fantasy of wealth and power that invites us to enter a virtual reality - and shortly, an augmented reality - where we are giving up every freedom but the freedom to choose what to buy or consume.

What do you think is the relevance of studying the colonial resistances for the current struggle against neoliberalism? What are the key lessons for social movements?

Fanon walks us through Hegel's famous chapter on "Master and Slave" and turns it to his own use, as Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak writes and says in the film's preface: "Fanon's lesson was that you use what the masters have developed and turn it around in the interests of those who have been enslaved or colonized. In this he is with great leaders like W.E.B. Du Bois and Nelson Mandela."

This is certainly worth studying deeply. To consider just one element: the state. Social movements are reimagining the role of the state, recognizing that it is actually critical insofar as it is the only entity that can deal on a mass scale and potentially check the power of multinational corporations. But also that the state cannot be created or captured as it was during colonization, or compromised as it was during the postcolonial period, or in the current era of financialization of neoliberal economic policy, by private capital or global financial institutions in its search for sources of financing.

Ensuring accountability and transparency, as with the work on the halting and return of illicit financial flows, or - as is being proposed by a growing number of developing countries together with civil society across the world - the proposed repayment of the climate debt that the [global] north owes the south, is badly needed. As is a re-evaluation of the catastrophic opportunity costs of the weapons trade, the war on terror, the war on drugs - all sources of the greatest corruption. But even this is not sufficient.

How can the state be reimagined so that it can determine its economy effectively, make decisions about where and how money gets spent, manage resources, build green domestic industries and a fair tax base, address inequalities and ensure human rights? A number of governments in Latin America and the Nordic countries are at the forefront of shaping progressive social policies, but monies to support these are generated within a growth model based on extractive industries, which social movements are challenging.

I agree with Fanon when he concludes, "We must try to set afoot a new human being." One that recognizes, as John Berger once said, that  suffering begins with the existence of the "other" as an unequal. Though, for Fanon, the issue was not about being the other; it was aboutnot even being an other.

What do you think will be the future of the violent struggle against the state? Do you think climate change will exacerbate or accelerate the clash between the power elites and the people?

The US government entity most prepared for climate change is the Pentagon. That says a lot about how the US government views climate change, as well as how it plans to address climate change. And we know from the history of many disasters that in fact it is government agencies that often exacerbate chaos and violence, whereas most ordinary people get themselves organized, cooperate and share when they are not armed to the teeth and concerned about a spectral, harmful "other" invented by elites interested in maintaining their own power.

Unfortunately, the corporate media is intent upon cultivating a culture of fear - and notably, nothing drives consumption like fear. Patriotic duties after 9/11 were spying and shopping, per the Bush II regime. And now they go hand in hand.

Imagined conflicts are connected with scarcity in the popular mainstream narrative, and of course, capitalism runs on scarcity as a premise. But scarcity is mainly a function of inequality, waste [and] poor or ineffectual infrastructure. And that is mainly a question of priorities.

"It's the state as currently realized that is most often violent. It  is capitalism that is the crisis. And climate change is one catastrophic result."

What happens in the streets during a crisis is rarely reported upon accurately. Corporate media creates a spectacle, and emphasis is placed on situations of conflict. In fact, narrative itself relies almost entirely on dramatic conflict in the West [or global] north. I think this has its roots in Judeo-Christian traditions, which demand a protagonist, and have a heavy emphasis on ideas of redemption and justice.

And while I think authentic defense is legitimate, this narrative is perniciously justifying tremendous expenditures on weapons, on massive surveillance - which whistleblowers like Chelsea Manning, Edward Snowden and others have literally risked their lives to reveal for the common good, and which journalists like Julian Assange, Glenn Greenwald, Laura Poitras, Jeremy Scahill, James Risen and Andrew Feinstein have made visible - which is the heart of Fanon - for the common good - and on blatantly unconstitutional and often secret changes to the law, all in the name of keeping us safe. But who is this "us"?

I was not aware until I read Rebecca Solnit's book, A Paradise Built in Hell, that there is a clinical term called "elite panic." But it makes sense - as she notes, elites fear social disorder because it challenges their legitimacy. And they are so used to being in charge that when they are not in charge they actually think no one is in charge, fear the worst and panic. Often they are in a position of power to use or authorize deadly force or to control information that everyone should be privy to, and actually make matters worse or even commit crimes as a result.

It's truly psychotic, and this is where a psychiatrist - to return to Fanon - is useful, because he was able to analyze this insanity and propose a treatment, if not a cure. So, to return to your question, and to provide a Fanonian response: It's the state as currently realized that is most often violent. It is capitalism that is the crisis. And climate change is one catastrophic result.

But it doesn't have to be this way. As Naomi Klein says in her important new book, This Changes Everything, and in the new film that Avi Lewis has made based on this book (which I am producing with him), it's also an opportunity to rethink and rebuild social and economic systems and develop alternatives that will improve our quality of life and our connectedness for the common good.

This is not a utopian hope of ending all conflict - as that kind of hope may actually attenuate neoliberal capitalism. But we do now really have to deal with the inherent contradictions at the heart of our system, stop reaching for the shiny apple of tech fixes and conceive a new narrative. Fortunately, as was evidenced in the process of making Avi Lewis' film, there is already a global pattern of local movements living and working at the forefront of climate change who are modeling alternatives.

We are seeing the effects and constant implementation of imperialistic technik when it comes to terrorism. How do you think Concerning Violence relates to the recent attacks in Paris?

Yes, agreed. War is a diversion, as Walter Benjamin said, and the only way that people can be mobilized not as classes but as masses. Hence, desperately flailing politician Francois Hollande takes a page from the US handbook and declares war on terror - i.e. perpetual war. And his popularity rises, if not soars. "As if air-strikes in Iraq will help France with its social disintegration," Vijay Prashad immediately pointed out in Al-Araby. "There is as much a direct line from the 2005 Clichy-sous-Bois banlieue riots to the alienation of the French-Algerian brothers as any line that goes from them into northern Syria, Iraq or Yemen."

I think we should start there, rather than with the terrible attacks on Charlie Hebdo or the kosher supermarket, because there is something a lot deeper going on than a hashtag activism campaign or purportedly equal-opportunity-offender satire can address. Thomas Chatterton Williams noted in a recent piece in n+1 magazine, "What gets lost in all the sudden reflexive sentimentality is the degree to which #jesuischarlie creates a false binary between legally permissible bigotry and murderous terror - a virtually impossible political bind for many of the already marginalized targets of the publication's relentless ire."

"That is the heart of Fanon - making the invisible visible, both in life and in death."

To examine this from a Fanonian standpoint: When Fanon says in "Concerning Violence" that decolonization is always violent, he means effectively that things have to change, and because of the mindset of power, this means that someone has to lose. He also underscores that it's naïve to think that violence will make the change that's needed. But what we are seeing unfold before our eyes is exactly what Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak points out to in the preface: The moment when people are convinced to offer themselves up for a violent killing, and exploited for this very purpose, "the tragedy is that the very poor is reduced to violence, because there is no other response possible to an absolute absence of response and an absolute exercise of legitimized violence from the colonizers."

Why do we not see this cause and effect equation clearly? Because it is deliberately obfuscated. We immediately get the so-called "terror experts," whom Intercept journalist Jeremy Scahill rightly excoriated this past week. And we get the bugbear "clash of civilizations" narrative when what we are seeing here is more a clash of barbarisms. Western values? Really? Shall we do a body count? Because that is the heart of Fanon - making the invisible visible, both in life and in death.

Teju Cole, in a recent New Yorker article, echoes Judith Butler in her book Frames of War, where both ask the very pertinent question of whose lives are grievable? "Specific lives," Butler says, "cannot be apprehended as injured or lost if they are not first apprehended as living."

This is exactly Fanon's point - whatever is being done to you, the colonized, is not registered as unethical because you don't even appear in an ethical relationship. And this is precisely why so many people live in a situation of violence. And apparently the only way to not be violent is to be invisible within this framework.

In a competition for a kind of visibility, we get 90,000 militarized French police taking to the streets to find three armed men. And a  parade of world leaders, many of whom imprison journalists; disavow, justify, torture and bomb civilians; and have their entire populations under surveillance in programs that dwarf anything the Stasi ever conceived of, under the guise of championing free speech. Among these are repressive regimes that the West has supported and armed. And then there is Benjamin Netanyahu flying in to invite the Jewish population of France to emigrate to Israel, that exemplar of Western values in the Middle East: He-Who-Mows-the-Lawn of Gaza every few years, most recently slaughtering some 2,000 people - a third of them children.

I think Fanon is important here because he has a response to this lunacy. He understood violence as a condition into which he was born. He felt he had to do something about it or he would be complicit. So he left Martinique as a teenager and went to fight the Nazis in World War II. His traumatic experiences, which he details in his work, led him to become a psychiatrist. During the Algerian struggle for independence he dealt with patients who had psychiatric problems because they had been torturers or because they had been tortured. He began to analyze and write about the sick society. And as Professor Lewis Gordon has pointed out, "Fanon had a critique of people who claimed to be anti-violent. If your anti-violence means doing nothing about violence, then you are an agent of violence. You have to actually do something to support human dignity."

Fanon offers a way out of hell, literally by walking us through it. And this is what the film Concerning Violence does so well. This is the project of Fanon, to awaken people to seeing themselves and their societies and countries in ways that they may not have seen themselves, or may not wish to. Everyone needs the practice of freedom, as Spivak said, and every group has to understand that it has to set the conditions for the "new concepts" Fanon proposed. The direction in which we will go, depends on every one of us.

What is the main takeaway from your film? Why did you make it? What lesson do you want to impart on the world?

Louverture Films became involved in making Concerning Violence because we trust Göran Hugo Olsson [the director] and his partners at Story SA in Stockholm, with whom we made Black Power Mixtape: 1967-1975. And also because we feel that Fanon's essay is of tremendous historical and contemporary relevance. It provokes important questions. It's never our intention to impart a lesson. As for the takeaway, I think that's for audiences to decide, it's the viewer who completes the work, after all.

Concerning Violence is showing at select theaters across the United States in February. You can see the viewing schedule here. Lauryn Hill, the narrator of the English language version of the film, will be showing the film and playing acoustic sets at select venues.

Copyright, Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.

Alnoor Ladha

Alnoor Ladha is a co-founder of /The Rules, a global collective of activists and organizers focused on addressing the root causes of inequality and poverty. He is also a board member of Greenpeace International, USA.

 
Related Stories:

 
20 Years After the L.A. Riots, Revisiting the Rationality of Revolt
By Nigel Gibson, Truthout | News Analysis
Of Illicit Appearance: The L.A. Riots/Rebellion as a Portent of Things to Come
By Lewis Gordon, Truthout | News Analysis
Revolution Is a Warm Gun: Rethinking the Left's Positions on Violence and Gun Control
By Arun Gupta, Truthout | News Analysis
Red Love: Toward Racial, Economic and Social Justice
By Peter McLaren, Lilia D. Monzó, Truthout | Op-Ed



A History of Killing Black Men and Getting Away With It
Friday, 06 February 2015  
by Jack Shuler
Truthout | Op-Ed
                 (Image: Lauren Walker / Truthout)

On February 8, 1968, Samuel Hammond, Delano Middleton and Henry Smith were killed when white highway patrolmen fired at a crowd of students protesting in front of South Carolina State College, a historically black college in Orangeburg, the town where I was born and raised.

That violence was the culmination of weeks of disruption over continued segregation in local medical facilities and at All Star Bowling Lanes. Two days before the shooting, an attempt to integrate that bowling alley had ended in a brawl between students and law enforcement officers. Communications between the college and the community reached a standstill. National Guardsmen rolled in. Patrolmen loaded their weapons.

And then, on a Thursday night, those three young men were killed and at least 28 black men and women were wounded, most of them shot from behind. Gov. Robert McNair expressed his sorrow, but claimed the students had been out of control and had fired first on the highway patrolmen (though there's no proof of that allegation). He blamed former Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee organizer Cleveland Sellers for what happened. Sellers was the only person connected to the events of that week to serve any jail time. On May 27, 1969, the nine patrolmen were exonerated. The victims received no restitution.

A year after that fateful decision, student protesters at another historically black college, Jackson State College in Mississippi, were fired on, leaving two dead and 10 injured. That event was mostly ignored because a week earlier, Ohio National Guardsman had killed four white students at Kent State. In the balance of things, the official narrative decided those white lives mattered more.

If we take the long view, one that begins with slavery and traces the violence through the lynching epidemic and Jim Crow, we shouldn't be surprised to learn that every 28 hours a black person is murdered by police or vigilante law enforcement.

All that's left of All Star Bowling, the focal point of the 1968 protests, is a rusted sign and dusty lanes that haven't seen pins in more than a decade. The old brick building is flanked by storefront churches in a withered postwar shopping plaza where the parking lot pavement is broken and weeds push through the cracks. But the memory of what happened there in 1968 persists in the collective memory of Orangeburg.

While writing my book Blood and Bone, I mined my town's history - my own history - interviewing neighbors and acquaintances, and researching what happened in Orangeburg in an effort to reconcile with that history. I was humbled by the firsthand accounts, admissions and recollections of those I spoke with - like when victim Ernest Shuler (no relation) described his chronic pain from buckshot still stuck in his  foot. Or when Geraldyne Zimmerman described the fear she felt as she heard the wailing sirens and cars racing down her street that night. Or my great uncle, J.C. Pace, who was on the scene as a state highway patrolman, telling me that he thought about those gunshots every day for the rest of his life.

I found that, no matter whether it was a guardsman or patrolman, a student activist or citizen who was alive then, near to or far from the massacre, they were all touched by those bullets in some way. And when I spoke with archivists, historians, journalists, pastors, community leaders and young college students, those shots were still reverberating for them, too.

But the story seems to reverberate most for black men. Black student leader John Stroman told me in an interview, "[What happened in] Orangeburg taught me one thing: My life ain't mine." The massacre taught him that white people could kill black people and get away with it.

We're still teaching that lesson.

In South Carolina, there have been apologies for what happened in 1968 from governors and mayors, but when it comes down to it, that doesn't amount to real justice.

South Carolina Rep. Bakari Sellers, in the name of his father, among others, continues to present legislation to the state government of South Carolina asking for a new investigation of the massacre. Others write letters to newspapers with the call to never forget. And then, of course, some just want to leave the past exactly there, in the past, wishing no further harm to South Carolina's reputation and legacy. But a state-sanctioned investigation could foster a public conversation that has yet to happen and give South Carolina and this country a desperately needed story of redemption and reparations. It might also validate the concerns those students had in 1968 and that many people still have today.

If we don't do that, we're perpetuating the same old lie - that black lives don't matter.

Copyright, Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.
 
Jack Shuler is John and Christine Warner professor and associate professor of English at Denison University and author of three books including one exploring the Orangeburg massacre entitled Blood and Bone: Truth and Reconciliation in a Southern Town (University of South Carolina Press, 2012). His most recent book is The Thirteenth Turn: A History of the Noose (PublicAffairs, 2014).

 
Related Stories:

Michael Brown and Anti-Black Violence
By Staff, The Feminist Wire | Op-Ed
Emmett Till, Michael Brown and the Ongoing Struggle for Racial Justice
By Peter Dreier, Truthout | News Analysis
Ferguson October: Activists Call for Nationwide Convergence to Demand Justice for Michael Brown
By Amy Goodman, Democracy Now! | Video Interview
Ferguson Outrage Grows From Local Protests to Global Movement
By Crystal Shepeard, Care2 | Report
Why Are Our Sons Gunned Down? Parents of Black Victims of Police Killings Lead DC March
By Amy Goodman, Democracy Now! | Video Report

Sunday, August 31, 2014

The Structural, Institutional, Systemic, and Visceral Dominance of White Supremacy, the Real National History Of the United States, And the Ongoing Ominous Lessons Of Ferguson, Missouri--PART 3

WELCOME TO THE UNITED HATES OF HYSTERIA: LAND OF THE SPREE, HOME OF THE KNAVE, AND ETERNAL DOMAIN OF THE 3H CLUB: HATRED HUBRIS AND HYPOCRISY: 2014 EDITION


http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/08/29/bad-apples-in-ferguson/

WEEKEND EDITION AUGUST 29-31, 2014

The Media: When in Doubt, Blame Blacks

Bad Apples in Ferguson
by ISHMAEL REED
CounterPunch
 
ISHAMEL REED

Given the fact that the Jim Crow media are dominated by the POVs of middle and upper-class whites, mostly males, it was no surprise that most of the commentary and reporting about Ferguson was managed by people who never experienced racial profiling. People like CNN’s Jeffrey Toobin, Harvard graduate and Harvard married, who has said that the charges of prosecutorial misconduct are ridiculous. Another know-it-all-nik named Marc Fernich, appearing on Al Jazeera on August 24,2014 called “preposterous,” a claim made by the St.Louis NAACP head, Adolphus Prultt, 2nd, that the police occupation of Ferguson was similar to how Palestinians had been greeted by the forces of occupation. He was unaware that Palestinians were sending advice to the residents of Ferguson about how to handle tear gas. Palestinian writer, Amer Zahr, in his article, August 17th,” BEING BLACK, BEING PALESTINIAN wrote “It is hard for me to see Ferguson through anything other than Palestinian eyes.

“The killing of 18-year-old Michael Brown, as he was unarmed and reportedly surrendering, has triggered protests in Missouri against aggressive police action.  The protests have been met, quite expectedly, with aggressive police action.  This aggressive police action will be met with more protests and on and on we go.  Sound familiar?

“The similarities between Ferguson and Palestine are stark.  Shared experiences, sentiments, and anger abound.  As it turns out, being black here and being Palestinian over there aren’t really that different.”

The smarmy Joe Klein waded in for Time about how black culture was responsible for the death of Michael Brown. He used the same argument in New York magazine   May 7,1989 that was typically lengthy and pompous piece about the Central Park Five. All about our morals from a man who lied about his authorship of “Primary Colors.” Of course, the five were innocent. Is there such a thing in journalism as plagiarizing oneself and getting paid by an organization like Time for engaging in this practice, repeatedly? No wonder FAIR calls Klein, “the media spokesperson for white people,” well he’s not quite white to young whites, who, according to The New York Times article about how the American Nazis are recruiting them. Klein is the guy who claimed, recently, and unopposed, that black men were responsible for the country’s rape problem. Black girls get raped by their mother’s boyfriends according to him. Tell that to the white co-eds who are raped by white men in college on a regular basis. Black men aren’t in college. They’re in jail.

We can’t get Joe to comment on the domestic violence against Jewish women in the United States and Israel. He’s part of the cover-up. How about a lengthy piece about this problem for New York magazine?

Predictably, just as the media were stenographers for the Pentagon during the Iraq war, they, like Marc Fernich, behaved as a sort of a press agent for Ferguson law enforcement and a cheering section for Darren Wilson, who might have shot an unarmed Michael Brown twelve times.  The media concentrated on the violence committed by a few, who were present in the mostly peaceful demonstrations and not on the violence of the police, who putout a lower case tonkin gulf propaganda spiel, which the media also fell for. All about Molotov cocktails provoking them into action. Three black ministers who were present where one Molotov cocktail incident was supposed to have taken place said that they didn’t see any. This gave the police, which was armed as though they were in Afghanistan, to assault men women and children with tear gas, while calling them “niggers.” Those who called 911 to report Michael Brown’s death, his body being allowed to lie in the sun for four hours (to show what happens when you fuck with the police), said that the dispatchers called them monkeys.

Fox News, Goebbels America, picked up a rumor about Wilson having his eye socket damaged by Brown. This lie was repeated by the Zimmerman/Wilson network, CNN. Their regular, Mark O’Mara, the character who lied about Trayvon Martin’s past and threatened the white women on the jury with the specter of black rape if they didn’t vote for an acquittal of Zimmerman. You could understand why some of the media would support Wilson, but The New York Times, whose editorial page, except for Paul Krugman, and Ishmael Reed from time to time, reads like a Tea Party Rally, was reprimanded twice by its Public Editor for behaving as a kind of pro bono defense counsel for Darren Wilson. First, Lawrence O’Donnell found support from the public editor of the Times when he accused the Times of floating a misleading line in its efforts to keep the right wing among its readership happy. O’Donnell said the Time’s report that there were “sharply” different versions among those who witnessed the shooting was false. In one front page Time’s story the murderer was called “well-mannered…soft-spoken…a good kid “while Michael Brown, who never killed anybody was “a teenager grappling with problems and promise.” When a cop killed Oscar Grant out here, a local paper called the cop, “a gentle giant.” Next the Times got into trouble when a black reporter wrote that Michael Brown “was no angel.” Answering “the storm” of protests that followed his comment, Times Public Editor Margaret Sullivan wrote in a post on Monday afternoon that the “no angel” term was “an ill-chosen phrase”: ”In my view, the timing of the article (on the day of Mr. Brown’s funeral) was not ideal. Its pairing with a profile of Mr. Wilson seemed to inappropriately equate the two people. And “no angel” was a blunder,” Sullivan wrote.

Sullivan also interviewed the reporter who wrote the article, John Eligon, who said he agrees “no angel” was a poor choice of words. Eligon also said he pressed editors on another part of the article that’s drawn criticism – Brown’s interest in rap.

I tried to weigh in as someone who has experienced racial profiling, most recently when walking with my companion in the historic Mountain View Cemetery in Oakland. The people in the cemetery office called the police. They got there promptly. We had a hard time getting them to solve the drug traffic in our neighborhoods. Sometimes they didn’t even show up. Elderly members at our Crime Council meetings question, regularly, why the police are so chummy with the drug dealers. Wonder why. But they showed up about five minutes after I entered the cemetery. Maybe I was going to rob some graves? The Oakland police run the city. Though racial profiling is rampant, The East Bay Express has accused the current crop of mayoral candidates of supporting racial profiling. That’s because they brought police Chief Bratton out here to advise them on “stop and frisk,” and paid him a $200,000 consultant fee.

The Times told me that they had enough comments about Ferguson. The majority was written by white men. The police show them their Dr.Jekyll side. We get Mr. Hyde. These commentators are the ones who put out the lie that only a few bad apples in police departments are responsible for racial profiling; thirty police were involved in a scandal in Harlem Precinct in the 1990s.

I wanted to challenge the media’s use of polls to show that the issue of police brutality reflected disagreements between whites and blacks, when the police kill and beat the shit of Hispanics and Native Americans as well. Do the pollsters exclude the view of other ethnic and religious minorities like the Muslims who were spied upon by the notorious NYPD, because including them would challenge the views of their white readers and viewers? The people that Jeff Zuker of CNN and Comcast of MSNBC and Rush Limbaugh of Bain Capital’s  Clear Channel wish to woo. The people whom they depend upon to buy their shiny gas guzzlers and Viagra. Are the media again protecting whites from the charge that they’re ignorant of what’s happening between the police, to whom they give carte blanche to handle minorities anyway they wish, and the black Hispanic and Native Americans men and women who get murdered by the police on a regular basis. Unlike the toned down types, the black college professors whom MSNBC use to avoid paying full-time professional journalists like Michel Martin, black commentators like Earl Ofari Hutchinson and  Brooklyn-born rapper Talib Kweli were able to give a different account of what happened in Ferguson.

Davey D’s on KPFA’s “Hard Knock Radio,” and Amy Goodman’s “Democracy Now” had the best coverage because they aren’t beholden to media bosses to provide them with expense accounts and car. They interviewed people from the community and activists whose accounts on the ground were different from the accounts given by the police and the police friendly media. One woman told Amy Goodman that the Ferguson police broke down their apartment door and put 9 millimeter guns against her children’s heads because one of the kids didn’t tell his mother that he had received a citation for the theft of a Snicker’s bar. The three 10,11, and 12 spent thirty days in jail, while the criminals at Bank of America and Wells Fargo get to negotiate their fines. She said that her mother had warned her that the Ferguson police was a KKK outfit.

It took Davey D, Rose Clemente and Atty. John Burris to connect the police killings of Hispanics to that of blacks, which was ignored by the mainstream media.

After my Wednesday Aug.20th swim at the Berkeley YMCA, I ran into a retired 83 year old Hispanic judge. The situation in Ferguson came up. He said that there had been clashes in East L.A. between the police and Hispanics over police shootings.

On Thursday, Aug.21, Civil Rights Atty. John Burris, appearing on KPFA’s “Letters and Politics,” said there had been four shootings of Hispanics by Salinas, California’s police since March. In one case, a Hispanic man, Carlos Mejia, was attempting to solicit some gardening work. According to Burris, he carried the gardening shears in his hand. Someone called the police. The police shot him when he turned toward them after walking away. The video is eerily similar to the Michael Brown. After this May 20,2014 shooting, Hispanic demonstrators protested. Some threw rocks and bottles at the police.

On August 27,even Joy Reid, one of the best commentators, said that police shootings of black men represented a Racial Divide between blacks and whites and that it wasn’t of concern for other minorities. She should travel west of the Rockies from time to time or is she just following the memos from higher ups?

Predictably, Jeff Zucker’s CNN even rushed on a Town Meeting about a rating driven Black and White divide. No Hispanics appeared on the panel even though the police have used lethal against them as well. Apparently nuance doesn’t draw ratings. Native Americans have issues with police brutality as well. Joy Reid should read the online Native American news service, Indian Country, from time to time. But for the men who own and whose POVs dominate the media, we lie.

One of the origins of the term “Indian Summer,” is that Indians lie so much that an Indian Summer is a false summer.

One could conclude that since the word of whites has more credibility, historically, than that of blacks, not to include the testimony by Hispanics, Native Americans and Muslims about their sometimes terrifying encounters with the police is to isolate blacks and cast them as unreasonable malcontents. Paranoid even and whining about “victimization,”and set up for a mismatch.

Finally, E.J.Dionne and Eugene Robinson of The Washington Post discussed one of those White/Black polls on MSNBC.

You can understand why the regular pundits and their producers like Jeff Zucker might want to stage an opinion UFC match between Blacks and Whites for the entertainment of their viewers, but that these men of intellectual heft would cling to an outmoded model for race relations is depressing. The United States is no longer just Black and White.

Ishmael Reed is the publisher of Konch.  His information is at IshmaelReed.org.

Sources

1 Pacifica’s Mitch Jeserich hosts “Letters & Politics,” a look at burning political issues and debates, and their historical context, within the US and worldwide.(Burris interview was aired).

2 www.latinorebels.com/…/full-video-of-salinas-police-shooting-unarmed-,https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLK0eo26MgE

3 http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2014/08/21/separate-and-unequal-ferguson-has-implications-all-ethnicities-156516

4 http://fair.org/extra-online-articles/joe-klein-media-spokesperson-for-white-people/

5 http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/news/bratton-slams-dirty-30-sgt-article-1.728555

copyright© 2014 Ishmael Reed


Ishmael Reed is the internationally acclaimed author of over twenty-five books (novels, essays, plays, and poetry)—including Mumbo Jumbo, The Last Days of Louisiana Red, and Yellow Back Radio Broke-Down. He is also a publisher, television producer, songwriter, radio and television commentator, and lecturer. Founder of the Before Columbus Foundation, he taught at the University of California, Berkeley for over thirty years, retiring in 2005. In 2003, he received the coveted Otto Award for political theater. He is also the publisher of Konch, an online literary and cultural arts magazine that he founded in 1990.

Two of Reed's books have been nominated for National Book Awards, and a book of poetry, Conjure, was nominated for a Pulitzer Prize. His New and Collected Poems, 1964–2007, received the Commonwealth Club of California's Gold Medal. A poem written in Seattle in 1969, "beware : do not read this poem", has been cited by Gale Research Company as one of the approximately 20 poems that teachers and librarians have identified as the most frequently studied in literature courses. Reed’s novels, poetry and essays have been translated into French, Spanish, Italian, German, Japanese, Hebrew, Hungarian, Dutch, Korean, Chinese and Czech, among other languages.

Since 2012, Ishmael Reed has maintained the honor of being the first SF Jazz Poet Laureate from SF JAZZ, the leading non-profit jazz organization on the West Coast. An installation of his poem “When I Die I Will Go to Jazz” appears on the SFJAZZ Center’s North Gate in Linden Alley. LitQuake, the annual San Francisco Literary Festival, honored him with their 2011 Barbary Coast Award

Among Reed's other honors are writing fellowships from the Guggenheim Foundation and National Endowment for the Arts. In 1995, he received the Langston Hughes Medal, awarded by City College of New York; in 1997, the Lila Wallace Reader’s Digest Award, establishing a three-year collaboration with the Oakland-based Second Start Literacy Project in 1998.

In 1998, he also received a John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Fellowship award. In 1999, he received a Fred Cody Award from the Bay Area Book Reviewers Association, and was inducted into Chicago State University’s National Literary Hall of Fame of Writers of African Descent. Other awards include a Rene Castillo OTTO Award for Political Theatre (2002); a Phillis Wheatley Award from the Harlem Book Fair (2003); and in 2004, a Robert Kirsch Award, a Los Angeles Times Book Prize, besides the D.C. Area Writing Project’s 2nd Annual Exemplary Writer’s Award and the Martin Millennial Writers, Inc. Contribution to Southern Arts Award, in Memphis, Tennessee. A 1972 manifesto inspired a major visual art exhibit, NeoHooDoo: Art for a Forgotten Faith, curated by Franklin Sirmans for The Menil Collection in Houston, where it opened on June 27, 2008, and subsequently traveled to P.S. 1 Contemporary Art Center in New York City, and the Miami Art Museum through 2009. Buffalo, New York, celebrated February 21, 2014, as Ishmael Reed Day, when he received Just Buffalo Literary Center's 2014 Literary Legacy Award.
ISHMAEL REED
b. 1938 

Saturday, August 23, 2014

The Structural, Institutional, Systemic, and Visceral Dominance of White Supremacy, the Real National History Of the United States, And the Ongoing Ominous Lessons Of Ferguson, Missouri--PART 2

http://www.thenation.com/blog/181332/strange-fruit-ferguson

Strange Fruit in Ferguson
Mychal Denzel Smith
August 20, 2014
The Nation
 
People are moved by a line of police as authorities disperse a protest in Ferguson, Missouri, early Wednesday, August 20, 2014. (AP Photo/Charlie Riedel)

The people of Ferguson, Missouri, have rallied and marched and protested for eleven straight days and nights. They want justice for Michael Brown, the 18-year-old unarmed black boy killed by Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson on August 9. They’ve been met with tear gas, assault rifles, rubber bullets, armored police cars, dogs and the National Guard. And they show no signs of letting up.

But why?

I’ve been trying to figure out why so many people have had such a strong reaction to Brown’s killing. Because this isn’t new. His death is tragic, but fairly ordinary in the course of black people’s interactions with the police. We deal with this all the time.

On her MSNBC show this past Saturday, Melissa Harris-Perry demonstrated just how ordinary it is. She read a list of names of unarmed black men killed by police in the last decade alone, and it was chilling, to say the least. “Timothy Stansbury, unarmed. Sean Bell, unarmed. Oscar Grant, unarmed. Aaron Campbell, unarmed. Alonzo Ashley, unarmed. Wendell Allen, unarmed. Jonathan Ferrell, unarmed. Eric Garner, unarmed,” she said, before adding, “From 2006 to 2012, a white police officer killed a black person at least twice a week in this country.”

Twice a week. It’s business as usual for police to kill black people. And those are only a few names—many more black men and women have been killed by police. Many of them were also unarmed. Many were around the same age as Michael Brown. So what makes him special? Why did his death elicit such a strong reaction?

Of course, there are several factors to consider. That he was a young black man and not a young black woman is part of it. Black women/girls are often forgotten as victims in the discussion of police violence. That he was regarded as a “gentle giant” (Brown was 6'4" tall and close to 300 pounds) and a prospective college student are relevant. His image as “harmless” and “respectable” makes him more sympathetic to some people. That a mostly white police force routinely harasses black residents of Ferguson matters. And the fact witnesses say at the time of his shooting Brown had his hands up in the air, surrendering, also matters. It makes the six bullet wounds he suffered appear even more callous.

But for me, the detail that sticks is that Brown’s body was left in the street for at least four hours. Not only did people in the community witness the shooting, they were forced to look at the aftermath. For hours, they had to see Michael Brown’s bullet-ridden, bloody body lie rotting in the street.

It’s not unlike Henry Simmons’s bullet-filled body being hung from in tree in Palm Beach, Florida, in June of 1923. Or that of William Turner, whose body was hung, then cut down, then hung again before being burned in a bonfire in Helena, Arkansas, in November 1921. There was also Jim Roland, shot and killed by a mob in Camillia, Georgia, after having refused to dance for a white man who was pointing a gun at him in February 1921. And also Frank Dodd, shot and hung from a tree “in a negro settlement on the outskirts of DeWitt, Arkansas, in October 1916.” And so many more.*

They were lynched. They were killed and displayed publicly for the amusement of the lynch mobs and other white folks, and for the further terrorization of black people.

The police didn’t hang Michael Brown, but they made a public display of his killing. They left his body lying there for all to see. The psychic toll that exerts on a community calls to mind the eerie words once sung by Billie Holiday: “Southern trees bear strange fruit/ blood on the leaves and blood at the root…/ here is a fruit for the crows to pluck/ for the rain to gather, for the wind to suck.” But for Brown and Ferguson, the “poplar trees” were replaced with a city street.

It is an injustice that Michael Brown was killed. But injustice alone doesn’t move people to action. His killing is one of many. But the sight of Michael Brown’s body being left in the middle of the street is the closest this generation has come to seeing, in real life, the strange fruit of which Holiday sang. That’s an image you just can’t shake.

What Would Real Economic Justice Look Like in Ferguson?
Michelle Chen
August 20, 2014
The Nation 
 
Protestors in Ferguson, Missouri (AP photo/Charlie Reidel)

The rage rippling through Ferguson, Missouri, was sparked when a police officer killed an unarmed young black man. But the media coverage of the unrest has highlighted other "crimes:" the "seizure" of a local McDonald's, the "looting" of a convenience store. These contrasting images—property damage and petty theft versus the theft of black lives and systematic social disinvestment—reveal how America's color line skews the societal valuation of life and property. Ferguson's resistance represents both an uprising against the injustice and a reclamation of community space.

While the Ferguson protests revolve around racial strife, the class dynamics of the unrest are unmistakable on the besieged streets; structural racism has been imposed over the years through housing discrimination, massive impoverishment and white-dominated government.

A sense of economic disenfranchisement pulses through the protests, and the militarized police crackdown has only served to highlight the vicious divides of wealth and power that bind Ferguson. Labor activists are now deepening the conversation about what "justice for Mike Brown" should mean for the impoverished community that now grieves for him.

Bringing an economic justice message to the forefront of the demonstrations, activists with the Future Fighters, a millennials-focused offshoot of Service Employees International Union (SEIU), have been marching every day, in solidarity with rights organizations like the NAACP and Organization for Black Struggle. The group is devising programs to clean up the streets after protests, conduct know-your-rights trainings for protesters, and assist with coordinating crowds. They also seek to provide basic material support by distributing water, steering people toward safe spaces if they need a break from the protests, or just reaching out and talking to locals, to help them cope with surrounding trauma.

Local Future Fighters Chair Jerry Hart, a hospital tech in St. Louis, says organized labor has a key role to play on the ground, particularly with many SEIU members living and working in Ferguson: "If you're SEIU, the people that you represent live here. They have to go to work to and from here every day. If you want to call yourself a labor union, you have to be involved in something like this, because it is a labor issue as well."

The Fighters are striving to keep the climate of the nonviolent demonstrations relatively calm. But while they do not endorse the more severe tactics that damaged local property, they understand the impulse.

Te'Aun Bell, a hospital cook from Kansas City and Future Fighters activist, tells The Nation, "They want peace… The people of the community aren't okay with the looting, but at the same time, they realize that this is the lash out from anger, from frustration. I'm not saying it all is, but some of it is."

Drawing from his experience as a native St. Louisan, Hart has a grasp of the frustrations driving some protesters to lash out. He has family members who are "out looking for a job and can't find one, because in some cases, they may have a [criminal] record, or just minimal education. So those two things play [into each other]: you have nowhere to go, no education, no job. Because your back is against the wall, you're willing to do anything to survive."

When he's on the streets with the other demonstrators, he adds, "There's so much emotions going on out there. As soon as you step out there, you feel it. You can feel the tension. Not just Ferguson, but the city is hurting [over] this."

Future Fighters also wants to launch a grassroots media project to document and record stories from Ferguson for broadcast outlets, with the aim of shifting the media lens toward the everyday struggles of local residents, rather than just images of conflict in the streets.

Hospital tech and Future Fighters member Loreal Cornell hopes the Ferguson protests galvanize political action that could lead to a more accountable government and police force.

"We have a lot of youth who don't know who their alderman is, or what a mayor does, or what a governor assists us with," she says, because young people are not learning in school about how the political process relates to their lives. For long-term political change, "we want to most definitely educate people on their rights, but also on how…we can elect officials who can [address] the things that we complain about… who are going to do the right thing and get our community to where they're uplifted and they're growing."

Labor and racial struggle have always braided together in St. Louis's history. The East St. Louis race riots of 1917 erupted when white workers attacked black migrants from the south who were seen as scabs. In the following decades, black workers consolidated their organized labor power in the St. Louis region and brought it into the foreground of civil rights struggles.

Today in Ferguson, the struggles of the working poor take a different tone. Segregation has shifted from Jim Crow to the structural exclusion of the racial wealth gap. Poverty has soared in Ferguson while jobs and public services have eroded. Since 1983, Missouri's union membership rate has dropped by half to under 9 percent, below the national rate.

The economic violence enveloping Ferguson will continue to challenge activists after the street clashes and tear gas have dissipated. Bradley Harmon, local head of the Communications Workers of America, tells The Nation via e-mail, "Once the immediate issues of justice for Mike Brown are off the table and his killer is convicted, we still have a community divided by race, still deindustrializing, with a public infrastructure falling apart. We still have a decline in the standard of living for the vast majority of working people."

Noting that labor is "probably the most racially integrated social force in St Louis," Harmon says Ferguson could catalyze entwined struggles for economic and racial justice: "I think if we're going to reverse the decline of organized labor, we're going to [have to] take on the systemic poverty and exclusion and withdrawal of public services that made Ferguson happen."

As part of a broader community resistance movement, Cornell says, Future Fighters are using union organizing tactics to help empower working people, by "getting the message to people in a different type of way and asking them, what would this situation look like if we actually won this movement? How would our community look? How would Ferguson be built up? And that I think is the question that gets minds rolling… This could be exactly what this community needs."

Missouri labor groups have many fights ahead of them—organizing workplaces, pushing the "Fight for 15" to raise fast-food worker wages, and demanding equitable funding for public services. But a first step would be to reclaim Ferguson's streets: from there, the community could demand justice and reparations, for the dignity that the state, the corporations and history have stolen from them.

Why All Communities of Color Must Demand an End to Police Brutality
by Deepa Iyer
August 20, 2014
The Nation
 
A man holds up a piece of police tape during a protest in Ferguson, Missouri, August 11, 2014 (AP Photo/Jeff Roberson)

The images out of Ferguson, Missouri, these past two weeks have been shocking: tear gas blanketing suburban streets, law enforcement creating a war zone and defiant protesters braving it all. But it is important to remember that what started Ferguson's fight is far too common: the police killing of an unarmed black teen.

African-Americans are the primary targets of law-enforcement profiling and violence, as the killings of Oscar Grant, Sean Bell, Jonathan Ferrell and Eric Garner all attest. But during this past week, Latino, Asian-American, Arab-American and Muslim organizations have all released statements of solidarity informed by similar experiences with discriminatory law enforcement practices, as well as an urgency to collectively identify and implement solutions.

In fact, Latinos and Asian- and Arab-Americans have a critical stake in reforming discriminatory police practices. While African-Americans in Ferguson must remain the primary voices and decision-makers calling for action to address the murder of Michael Brown, other communities of color can and must join Ferguson's fight by linking the impact of racially motivated policing with the structural racial inequities that exacerbate it.

Latinos and Asian and Arab-Americans are no strangers to police violence and profiling based on skin color, accent, language, immigration status and faith. For example, Fong Lee, the 19-year-old son of Laotian refugees, was shot and killed by a police officer as he was riding his bike home from school in Minneapolis in 2006. For years, Latinos, along with African-Americans, have been the disproportionate targets of the New York Police Department's "stop-and-frisk" tactic. And Muslim, South Asian and Arab-American communities have experienced ongoing surveillance in mosques and student associations, all in the name of national security.

In their ongoing war on undocumented immigration, federal and state law enforcement agencies have been accused of engaging in rampant profiling of Latino and Asian-American communities. Federal programs such as Secure Communities and "Show Me Your Papers" laws enacted in Arizona, Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, South Carolina and Utah have led to stops and detentions of people based on their accents or skin color, and deepened both documented and undocumented immigrants' fears of engaging with law enforcement.

When law enforcement trample on the rights of any group, we must all resist: the oppressive, militarized tactics on display in Ferguson have undermined people's basic rights to peaceful assembly and movement, and it's not the first time. For Asian-Americans, the curfew that caused so much unnecessary violence in Ferguson over the weekend was reminiscent of the "enemy alien curfews" that restricted the movements of Japanese-Americans, as well as German, Italian and Japanese noncitizens, during World War II—also imposed for reasons ostensibly related to public safety. The military-grade hardware we've seen on the streets of Ferguson has also been deployed by law enforcement in border cities in California, Texas and Arizona, where reports of racial profiling, harassment and deaths of Latinos seeking refuge in the United States have been occurring for decades now.


How can we fight back against police brutality and profiling? To start with, we can push for concrete solutions already proposed by communities of color, such as requiring police to wear cameras, ensuring police accountability through the legal system, documenting police stops, ending racial and religious profiling, providing culturally and linguistically appropriate trainings for law enforcement that reflect the communities they serve, instituting diverse recruitment and hiring practices, and abiding by the concepts of community policing based on mutual trust and respect. Coalitions such as Communities United for Police Reform in New York City provide hopeful examples of how organizing black, brown and interfaith communities can lead to legislative victories that maintain public safety, civil rights and police accountability.

But police brutality is just one symptom of this country's larger structural racism, which segregates our schools and cities, increases the poverty and unemployment rates for people of color, has psychological consequences for families and young people, and decreases our life expectancy. African-Americans disproportionately bear the brunt of this structural racism, but it affects many immigrants and other minorities as well. In order to transform our communities, all people of color must find common cause in each other's movements. We can only end racial injustice through strategic multiracial alliances at the local and national levels that are informed by an understanding of our connected histories, and through working within our constituencies to address anti-black racism and stereotypes about one another.

We can and must start with Ferguson.



Read Next: Zoë Carpenter on why protesters in Ferguson can't stay home at night



As Police Continue Ferguson Crackdown, Protesters Vow to Keep Taking the Streets
Tuesday, 19 August 2014
By Mike Ludwig, Truthout | Report



Dee Nixon and other protesters out on the streets of Ferguson, Missouri in protest over the killing of Michael Brown, an unarmed black teenager. (Photo: Mike Ludwig)


Dee Nixon said he goes out to protest in the streets of Ferguson, Missouri before work, and then comes back out again after work.
"I'm going to keep coming out, all day, everyday," said Nixon, a 22-year-old resident of Ferguson who attended another demonstration Monday night.

Nixon said he learned from his mother that he was related to Michael Brown, the unarmed 18-year-old shot and killed by local police officer Darren Wilson on August 9, only after Brown died. His daily participation in the protests against the killing, Nixon said, is "all about family."

"Because it could have happened to any of us," Nixon told me.

As we spoke, a scuffle broke out across the street as a group of riot police grabbed and arrested a protester. Hundreds of people had just finished marching in protest of Brown's killing and the general treatment of black people in the St. Louis area by law enforcement.

Many of the marchers had already gone home, but dozens of activists, journalists, community leaders and youth - visibly angry about the murder of their peer - had stayed at an intersection, where a row of riot cops and National Guardsman stood with weapons drawn. Behind them was a line of armored vehicles and squad cars leading back toward a command center established in a strip mall by state police.

Local businesses on the street had boarded up their windows after several nights of clashes on West Florissant Avenue, where the city's most confrontational protests have occurred over the past week.

People in Ferguson have been protesting for 10 days now and are showing no sign of stopping. Police have blamed "criminals" and outside agitators for stirring up violence during nighttime demonstrations, but on Monday night, it was clear that the police - along with their military-grade weapons - were a provocation in and of themselves. It was a cop that fatally shot Michael Brown, after all.

"We're just trying to have the same rights as you," one angry demonstrator told a group of mostly white journalists.

"I think it's the fact that everybody is upset. This has happened too many times," said a local man who told me his name was Gerard. "First I thought they were going to continue with [the protests] until they released the officer's name, you know, but now I think they are going to keep going until the officer is convicted."

A few skirmishes broke out in the intersection where police had drawn their line in front of the command center and constructed a media pen for journalists in a parking lot, but after a few arrests were made, the crowd thinned and it seemed like the protest was over. Then, down the street, the familiar sounds of flash bang grenades were heard as sparks and tear gas filled the air.

Protesters had dragged traffic cones and portable toilets into the street, and a few small fires could be seen burning through the tear gas. Gunshots rang out from a side street. Some protesters grabbed the gas grenades and threw them back.

As the smoke cleared and activists treated people blinded by tear gas, police could be seen casing a restaurant with automatic weapons drawn. Protesters told reporters that the police starting filling the street with tear gas after a few plastic bottles were thrown.

"My anger is seeing my people, black or white, brown or blue, getting hurt," said Travis Sowell, a 19-year-old black man who gave an emotional testimony to reporters after the clash. "What I'm going to do is stand here every night . . . no pillow, no covers."

A group of young protesters, unfazed by the clash and the tear gas, soon began chanting "Mike Brown" in front of the news cameras.
In an early morning press conference, Missouri Highway Patrol Capt. Ron Johnson, who has taken over security in Ferguson, blamed "criminals" and outside agitators for inciting the violence that sparked aggressive police responses in Ferguson, and asked that the community no longer protest at night.

Gerard's friend Mike, who had a T-shirt wrapped around his face, told me that violence broke out during a protest on the night of August 17 only after the police tried to contain demonstrators.

"Everybody from Ferguson is from around here, this is their neighborhood," Gerard said. "Even outside people, it hits home. St. Louis is not a big city; we're a big little city . . . if this guy doesn't get convicted, man, for shooting an unarmed 18-year-old, then it's going to be chaos."

Police had cleared the streets by 2 am, but the late-night protesters in Ferguson had once again made their point. If there is no justice for Michael Brown, there will be no peace.

Copyright, Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.

MIKE LUDWIG
Mike Ludwig is a Truthout reporter. Follow Mike on Twitter @ludwig_mike.

RELATED STORIES

Michael Brown and Anti-Black Violence

By Staff, The Feminist Wire | Op-Ed


How the Mainstream Media Helped Kill Michael Brown

By Aaron Cantu, Truthout | News Analysis


Ferguson and Resistance Against the Black Holocaust

By Chris Crass, SpeakOut | Op-Ed


Michael Brown and the United States' Structural Violence Epidemic

By David Ragland, SpeakOut | Op-Ed


Ferguson Exposes the Reality of Militarized, Racist Policing

By Kevin Zeese and Margaret Flowers, Popular Resistance | News Analysis



 
http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/25668-the-killing-of-black-men-continues

The Killing of Black Men Continues
Tuesday, 19 August 2014
By Dr. Ron Daniels, Institute of the Black World | Op-Ed


Protesters holding signs outside the Greater Grace Church during a rally for Michael Brown, the 18-year-old unarmed black man who was fatally shot by white police officer Darren Wilson, in Ferguson, Mo., Aug. 17, 2014. (Photo: Whitney Curtis / The New York Times)
When will it stop? The police killing of Michael Brown, an unarmed teenager in the streets of Ferguson, Missouri, coming on the heals of the killing of Eric Garner, an unarmed Black man by a policeman’s choke hold in Staten Island, New York, is yet another painful, traumatic reminder of the long history of occupation, torture, abuse and killing of Black people in America, particularly Black men. Indeed, within hours of the killing of Michael Brown, Ezell Ford, an unarmed Black man with a history of mental problems, was killed in Los Angeles under suspicious circumstances. It doesn’t matter that there is an African American President of the United States or that Blacks are mayors of major American cities, run Fortune 500 companies or are pace setters as high paid and adored hip hop moguls, entertainers and athletes; the killing of Black men continues.

Once again legions of Black people and people of conscience and goodwill are in the streets in Ferguson, Missouri and in solidarity rallies across the country. But, to add insult to injury, in scenes reminiscent of the brutalizing of civil rights protesters in Birmingham and Selma in the 60’s, St. Louis County Police units with sharpshooters, sniper squads, mine-resistant trucks and a “Bearcat armored truck” unleashed a ferocious assault on peaceful marchers, firing tear gas, stun bombs and rubber bullets into the ranks of terrorized protesters. The whole nation and the world witnessed this vicious onslaught against the First Amendment by highly militarized police that looked more like soldiers on the frontlines in Iraq and Afghanistan than the suburb of a major American city. There was “shock and awe” throughout the land.

The question of the hour is, and has been for far too long, when will the killing of Black men and the occupation of Black communities stop? For the past several years, I have been repetitively crying out that there is a State of Emergency in Black America, mostly in poor urban, inner-city areas – the “dark ghettos.” The police occupation of Black communities, the abuse and killing of Black men and, yes, mass incarceration are the manifestations of this crisis. But, lest we only get caught up in the tragic particulars of the moment, we must be clear that the root cause of this crisis is the utter failure of this nation to finish the unfinished civil rights/human rights agenda for equitable inclusion of people of African descent, Black people, into the socio-economic fabric of this society. Black people continue to suffer the consequences of the “bounced check,” the promissory note,” that keeps coming back marked “insufficient funds” that Dr. King poignantly pointed out on the National Mall more than a half century ago.

In a book edited by Jill Nelson in 2000 entitled Police Brutality: An Anthology I wrote, “The policy of more police and prisons has been used as a substitute for policies that promote social, economic, and racial justice for people of color. This formula of ill-conceived public policy and policing practices has produced a highly combustible situation in communities of color throughout the nation.” These words were penned in the wake of the police torture of Abner Louima, the police slaughter of Amadou Diallo and the killing of a number of Black and Latino young men in the greater New York area under suspicious circumstances. Nearly fifteen years since the publication of Jill Nelson’s book, much has changed, but the killing of Black men continues.

As Michelle Alexander brilliantly discusses in her milestone book The New Jim Crow, rather than finish the unfinished civil rights/human rights agenda, this nation, including the Mayors and Police Chiefs of cities across the country, embraced the “War on Drugs” and adopted crime containment and community “pacification” tactics clearly targeting America’s “dark ghettos.” The media was complicit in this strategy by helping to create and popularize images of dangerous, crime-infested Black communities and the “dangerous Black man.” Under Mayor Rudolph Giuliani New York led the way in instituting so called “zero tolerance” policing, based on harassing and arresting people for petty offenses, and the militarization of the police by the creation of specialized paramilitary units that conducted sweeps of Black and Brown communities. Racial profiling through the wide-spread use of Stop-and-Frisk was an integral component of a racially biased and inflammatory policing strategy. The Giuliani method of policing became the model for the nation.
It is useful to provide this background and analysis because the police occupation of Black communities and the killing of Black men will not end until the ill-conceived policies and strategies contributing to the State of Emergency in America’s” dark ghettos” are eliminated and replaced by just and humane alternatives. Black people and people of good will must move beyond essential but episodic protest of police occupation, abuse and killings to more sustained strategies and campaigns to end racially-biased drug, criminal justice and policing policies and practices once and for all. And, these strategies and campaigns must begin at the local/county level and reach all the way to the federal government.

Black people must exercise political and economic muscle to demand greater civilian control and oversight of the police. In Ferguson, Missouri Blacks are 67% of the population but all the political structures are dominated by Whites. This must change. Blacks and their allies must march on ballot boxes to seize the reins of power as a major step towards changing policing policies and practices in Ferguson. However, replacing White faces with Black faces in the corridors of power is not sufficient. Ultimately there must be a change in the policies and practices of the police. In local communities across the country we must demand an end to the militarization of the police, the utilization of military tactics as control mechanisms and the profiling/targeting of Black communities. We must also demand an end to the “broken windows” and “zero tolerance” strategies that insult the intelligence and infuriate Black people. Community-Policing must become the center-piece of a human-centered, holistic approach to crime prevention and public safety in Black communities.

SIRIUSXM Radio Talk Show Host Mark Thompson has been advocating for increased community oversight of the police through the creation of Civilian Police Review Boards. This is not a new idea, but it is worthy of consideration as long as Review Boards are well funded and have independent investigatory and prosecutorial powers. In the past Fraternal Orders of Police (police unions) have fiercely opposed strong Review Boards. As a result, many of the Review Boards around the country have been like toothless tigers, defanged and incapable of effectively holding police accountable for abuse and misconduct. Rev. Heber Brown, Pastor of Pleasant Hope Baptist Church in Baltimore, is also suggesting that Black people lessen their dependence on policing authorities by instituting more self-policing structures and mechanisms in the Black community. This idea seems to be gaining resonance around the country.
Black people must also use economic sanctions/boycotts to complement protests and political action to achieve just and humane alternatives to police occupation and racially-biased policing practices. Economic sanctions campaigns should be coupled with demands for private and public sector investment in Black communities to create jobs and develop business/economic infrastructure. Ending bad policing is not enough. Black people must struggle to revitalize Black communities. At all levels, the approach must be holistic.

To devise and implement local action agendas for change in drug, criminal justice and policing policies and practices in local communities, as Kwame Ture aka Stokely Carmichael would say, “Black people must be organized.” There is an urgent need for permanent coalitional/collaborative type structures, comprised of organizations and leaders committed to working cooperatively and collectively to mobilize/organize for substantive change. The effort of the Institute of the Black World 21st Century (IBW) to build Drug and Criminal Justice Policy Collaboratives (Justice Collaboratives) in Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, Washington, D.C. and Baltimore could serve as a model for the development of these types of structures across the country.

At the national level we must demand that the federal government stop providing funding for local police departments to purchase the kind of military hardware the nation and world witnessed being used in the assault on peaceful protesters in that night of infamy in Ferguson, Missouri. At the direction of President Obama, Attorney General Eric Holder should decline to fund proposals for military equipment and expand funding for proposals that promote Community-Policing. There must be a strong signal from the White House and Justice Department that military policing is taboo and Community Policing is the national priority.

As IBW strongly advocates in the recently released Report Card On President Obama’s Drug and Criminal Justice Policies [www.ibw21.org], the President and the Attorney General must vigorously continue dismantling the “War on Drugs” and all the damaging policies and practices related to this longstanding, racially-biased strategy. President Obama should also seize the moment to convene an Emergency Summit on Policing Policy and Public Safety to identify and share best practices for building effective police/community relations. Community advocates, scholars/experts in the field, public interest legal organizations, Chiefs of Police and Presidents of Police Unions should be at the table. Though skepticism about such a Summit is warranted, it could have the effect of providing the President and the Attorney General with a high profile platform to articulate principles for a different kind of policing in this country. Mayor Bill Di Blasio, as a self-proclaimed new progressive, would do well to convene such a summit among stakeholders in New York as well – since this city has been the trendsetter for the kind of racially-biased policing that has been so destructive of Black communities nationally.

Finally, creating a new paradigm for policing is necessary but not sufficient to end the State of Emergency in America’s “dark ghettos.” The damages to Black families and communities must be repaired. Black America must stridently renew the demand for a “Domestic Marshall Plan,” (IBW has created a framework entitled The Martin Luther King-Malcolm X Community Revitalization Initiative) with massive investment in jobs, economic development, housing, health and education to create safe, wholesome and just communities. In fact, given the enormity of the State of Emergency, President Obama should convene another 1968 Kerner Commission type body to examine the root causes of the persistent crises afflicting America’s “dark ghettos.”

I conclude with the final passage of my essay in Jill Nelson’s Anthology Police Brutality. “Unless and until this nation makes a firm and irreversible commitment to ensure that all people who live in this society will enjoy access to the same social and economic rights – good jobs, quality education, housing, health care, clean environment — instability, violence, and crime will continue to be problems that no amount or method of policing can contain for long. As community-based organizations, civil and human rights organizations, and public-interest advocacy groups struggle against police brutality and misconduct, the fight to create a new paradigm of policing must necessarily be seen as part of the broader struggle to create a more just and humane society. Therefore, the demand for police reform and accountability must necessarily be coupled with the demand for public policies that promote social, economic, and racial justice. Our goal must be nothing short of creating a just, humane, and peaceful society. If there is no justice, there will be no peace in these United States of America.” “It’s been a long time coming, but change gone come!”

This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.

DR. RON DANIELS


Dr. Ron Daniels is President of the Institute of the Black World 21st Century and Distinguished Lecturer at York College City University of New York. His articles and essays also appear on the IBW website www.ibw21.org and www.northstarnews.com. To send a message, arrange media interviews or speaking engagements, Dr. Daniels can be reached via email at info@ibw21.org

http://www.truth-out.org/buzzflash/commentary/most-whites-still-don-t-understand-the-dangers-of-being-a-black-man-in-the-us

Most Whites Still Don't Understand the Dangers Of Being A Black Man in the U.S.
by Mark Karlin
Editor
BuzzFlash at Truthout
 

On August 18, the Pew Center for the People & the Press released a poll that reveals "stark racial divisions in reactions to Ferguson police shooting":

Blacks and whites have sharply different reactions to the police shooting of an unarmed teen in Ferguson, Mo., and the protests and violence that followed. Blacks are about twice as likely as whites to say that the shooting of Michael Brown "raises important issues about race that need to be discussed." Wide racial differences also are evident in opinions about of whether local police went too far in the aftermath of Brown's death, and in confidence in the investigations into the shooting.

The new national survey by the Pew Research Center, conducted Aug. 14-17 among 1,000 adults, finds that the public overall is divided over whether Brown's shooting raises important issues about race or whether the issue of race is getting more attention than it deserves: 44% think the case does raise important issues about race that require discussion, while 40% say the issue of race is getting more attention than it deserves.

By about four-to-one (80% to 18%), African Americans say the shooting in Ferguson raises important issues about race that merit discussion. By contrast, whites, by 47% to 37%, say the issue of race is getting more attention than it deserves.

In a summary of the poll, Pew recalls that in its survey after Trayvon Martin was gunned down by George Zimmerman, "60% of whites said race received more attention in that case than it deserved."

Years ago, I heard a speaker discuss how the history of the United States cannot be viewed through a focused lens unless one considers the legacy of slavery, the suppressive humiliating period of Reconstruction, the plantation ghettos of cities in the north and south, and the criminalization of being a black male. All of these require an open racism among many whites and a sub-conscious racial bias among many persons who think of themselves as liberals.

Yes, there are black males who have made it in the world of the white ruling elite, such as the president of the United States and the attorney general. However, there are two major caveats to consider in this regard.

First, it is clear that even though Barack Obama has the academic pedigree, intellectual capabilities and irrepressible desire to accommodate whites by not pressing on the pedal of assisting African-Americans who have - as Eugene Robinson notes in a commentary on BuzzFlash today - been left behind, he is still vilified by a large segment of the white population in the United States because he is black.

Second, the number of black men and women who have made it through the racial barrier, while significant, is miniscule in relation to the number of blacks (and other people of color) under siege by police and a criminal justice system that works on the principle of guilty until proven innocent for most non-whites. This is why the United States has the highest incarceration rate in the world.

Yes, there is a class issue in race bias, but the racist backlash to President Obama's presidency (symbolized most blatantly by the "birther" accusations that morphed into the war on "Obamacare") indicates that the white racial prejudice of thinking blacks more violent, more disinterested in working, more dangerous to society has long been - and still is - an institutionalized racism that permeates the US economic and criminal justice system.

It is sadly ironic that President Obama came to national prominence with a speech at the 2004 Democratic Convention that claimed that the United States was not composed of red and blue states, but that we all belonged to one blend of red and blue mixed into a unified purple nation.

As the events in Ferguson - joining a long list of daily acts of police-sanctioned racial brutality, harassment, arrests and murder - indicate, the racial gap in the United States about what constitutes justice and freedom is still as wide as the Grand Canyon.

The Pew Poll does raise a glimmer of hope in the wider recognition among young people - as compared to the older population - of the racial implications of the Mike Brown shooting:

By a wide margin (55% to 34%), adults under 30 think the shooting of the unarmed teen raises important issues about race. Among those 65 and older, opinion is divided: 40% think the incident raises important racial issues while about as many (44%) think the issue of race is getting more attention than it deserves. [These figures represent the overall polling group not broken down by racial category.]

That is a foundation to build upon in a moment of mourning, police militarization and racial rancor among those in the US who have been stigmatized, stalked by police and economically left behind, but only if ignorance is counteracted by an active uprising of social justice.

The poet Gwendolyn Brooks described in a famous lyric how truth is not always welcome. It makes demands upon us to change, to encounter the uncomfortable. Supposing, Brooks ponders, our lack of self-knowledge one day encounters the enlightenment provided by the shining clarity of the sun?

Though we have wept for him,
Though we have prayed
All through the night-years—
What if we wake one shimmering morning to
Hear the fierce hammering
Of his firm knuckles
Hard on the door?
Brooks does not think we would welcome what we had so long sought:
Shall we not shudder?—
Shall we not flee
Into the shelter, the dear thick shelter
Of the familiar
Propitious haze?
Sweet is it, sweet is it
To sleep in the coolness
Of snug unawareness.


The murder of Mike Brown and the disastrous aftermath of police oppression in Ferguson, Missouri, reminds us all that we cannot continue as a union in a state of "snug unawareness" if we are to achieve the equality that is part of our national narrative, but is still parceled out with institutionalized racial selectivity.

Copyright, Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission

Activist: For a New Generation, Ferguson Marks Historic Nonviolent Resistance to Police Repression
Tuesday, 19 August 2014
By Amy Goodman, Democracy Now! | Video Report

http://www.democracynow.org/2014/8/19/activist_for_a_new_generation_ferguson



As protests continue in Ferguson, activists are traveling to Missouri to join the movement in solidarity. We speak with one activist who has just arrived to Ferguson from Florida, Phillip Agnew, the executive director of Dream Defenders, a network of youth of color and their allies who engage in nonviolent civil disobedience and civic engagement to bring about social change. "I came here to be part of resistance," Agnew says. "We have not seen a reaction of nonviolent civil disobedience [to] officers of the state like this in my lifetime." Agnew helped organize protests to the 2012 shooting of unarmed, African-American teenager Trayvon Martin in Sanford, Florida.

TRANSCRIPT:

AMY GOODMAN: A new survey by the Pew Research Center finds the public reaction to the shooting of Michael Brown is sharply divided along racial lines. Eighty percent of African Americans say the case raises important issues about race that need to be discussed. Less than 40 percent of whites agree. In fact, nearly half of whites say race is getting more attention than it deserves. African Americans are also more critical of the police response to the protests, with 65 percent saying police have gone too far, compared to just 33 percent of whites.

That rift has called to mind the racial divisions that split open in the ’60s with a series of uprisings in cities across the country. In 1967, President Lyndon Johnson established what became known as the Kerner Commission to investigate the causes of the unrest. In February 1968, the commission famously concluded, quote, "Our nation is moving toward two societies—one black, one white—separate and unequal." Well, just over a month later, the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. sparked uprisings in more than a hundred cities across the country, including Kansas City, Missouri, where the National Guard was deployed and at least five people were killed.

Our next guest, Jamala Rogers, was born in Kansas City, Missouri, and witnessed the 1968 uprisings. She recently wrote a piece for the St. Louis Public Radio titled "Kerner Commission Warning Comes True—Two Societies, Separate and Unequal." Rogers is a founder and past chair of the Organization for Black Struggle in St. Louis, Missouri. She was on a conference call Monday about the Michael Brown shooting with Attorney General Eric Holder and senior Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett.

We’re also joined by Phillip Agnew, executive director of Dream Defenders, a network of youth of color and their allies, who engage in nonviolent civil disobedience and civic engagement to bring about change. He just came into Ferguson last night, and we’re going to find out why. But first to—we’re going to start with—we’ll start with Phillip Agnew.

Why did you come to Ferguson, to the streets of Ferguson, Phillip?
PHILLIP AGNEW: I came here as a young person who knows all too well what it’s like to live on the second rung of society. I came here to be a part of resistance. We have not seen a reaction of nonviolent civil disobedience by officers of the state like this in my lifetime. And I came here to stand side by side with folks and to learn how we can help. I came here because just last year we had a young man murdered by an officer of the Miami Beach Police Department in cold blood, and a year later he’s still paid and on the force. I came here because this moment, this town has become the epicenter and a test ground for what American officers of the state will do and have done around the country to repress First Amendment rights, the rights to peaceably assemble. And anybody that does not see it, doesn’t wake up right now, is in for a rude awakening tomorrow.

AMY GOODMAN: Your response, Phillip, to the National Guard being called in?

PHILLIP AGNEW: Listen, the protocol is not working. The police are the people that caused this problem. The police are the people that exacerbate the problem. And bringing in the National Guard, I don’t think, will do anything to quell a community who, as I said before, is reacting in the only way humanly possible when you see one of your own children murdered in cold blood by the very people who are supposed to protect them. And so, the National Guard coming in is going to do nothing to alleviate the grief and the pain from a community that continuously has salt poured in the wound by the people who are supposed to serve and protect them. So, the National Guard, I’ve heard, is the last attempt to restore peace and order. If there is any peace and order to be had in this community, the police need to go. There is a war zone here. I feel like I’m a war correspondent. There’s Army tanks here. There are Army men here. There are people in fatigues. You’re asked where you’re going when you want to go anywhere in the city. And this is not what you would imagine an American city to look like. You would imagine America would do things like this to people in Gaza, but not here in Ferguson, in St. Louis, Missouri.

AMY GOODMAN: You know, it’s interesting, Phillip. Yesterday we talked about the Dred Scott case, Dred Scott buried just down the road, miles down Florissant at the Calvary Cemetery. His case is known as Dred Scott v. Sandford, which made me think, just in free association, of Sanford, Florida. You really rose to national prominence—

PHILLIP AGNEW: Right.

AMY GOODMAN: —in dealing with the Trayvon Martin case, the killing of another young man by a wannabe police officer, a local volunteer security guy, right, George Zimmerman, who was acquitted. Can you talk about connections you see, coming here from Florida?

PHILLIP AGNEW: There are plenty of connections. You talked a little bit earlier about living in two Americas. There have been two Americas since the founding of this country, and we live in it in Florida, and we live in it—and they’re living in it here in Ferguson, as we speak. There is an America where people are able to voice their concerns. There is an America where people are actually able to live freely, to live happily. As I drove around, I saw people walking their dogs and going about daily life. And just down the blocks, there’s another— [no audio]

AMY GOODMAN: We’re going to go to a break and just fix the audio. You’ve been listening to Phillip Agnew, who’s the head of Dream Defenders. He just came into Ferguson, Missouri, from Florida, as people are gathering there deeply concerned about racial justice in this country. We’ll also be joined by Jamala Rogers of the Organization for Black Struggle. Again, we’re on the streets of Ferguson, Missouri. Stay with us.

This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.


http://www.newrepublic.com/article/119157/darren-wilsons-conviction-will-be-basically-impossible

FERGUSON, MISSOURI

AUGUST 20, 2014

Convicting Darren Wilson Will Be Basically Impossible

You can thank Missouri law for that

By Yishai Schwartz @YishaiSchwartz
The New Republic


On Wednesday, amid continued protests demanding “Justice for Michael Brown” prosecutors will bring evidence before a grand jury as they determine whether to indict Brown’s killer, Officer Darren Wilson. The power to indict rests with local prosecutors and pliant grand juries, and as Jonathan Cohn has pointed out, a prosecutor will usually refrain from indicting altogether if the accused faces a low likelihood of conviction. In this case, a combination of entrenched racial and occupational biases, and most importantly the details of Missouri law, all but ensures that a conviction is off the table.

We may never know what actually happened during the violent encounter between teenager Michael Brown and policeman Darren Wilson. But legal judgments rarely happen with perfect knowledge and absolute certainty. In their place, we rely on presumptions and standards that guide our thinking and discipline our judgments. In general, we presume innocence. But when we know that a killing has occurred and can definitively identify who committed the act, traditional common law demanded that our presumptions shift. We are supposed to presume guilt, and it is the shooter who must prove that his actions were justified. Unless the shooter is a policeman. And unless the victim is a black male. And unless the shooting happens in a state with self-defense laws like Missouri.

In any clash of witness testimony, police officers begin at huge advantage. Although the courts insist that juries give policemen no extra credence because of their badges as an “essential demand of fairness,” that’s not how jurors actually think or behave. Large percentages of potential jurors readily admit to giving police testimony extra weight, and many more likely act on this implicit bias. And in this case, the favoring of police testimony is compounded by another more pernicious bias: racial prejudice. Extensive research shows that Americans are far more likely to believe that African Americans—and especially young black men—have committed crimes and display violent behavior. It therefore won’t take very much to convince a jury that Officer Wilson was acting out of self-defense.

But these cultural biases are only part of the story of why a conviction will be near-impossible. The central reason is a recent trend in many states' criminal laws. Throughout history, claims of self-defense and compelling police activity have served as justifications for the use of deadly force. Most people intuitively understand that self-preservation is a basic right and that police must sometimes use violence to protect society and apprehend criminals. But generally, we expect situations of justified violence and legal killing to be the rare exception, and most people would probably imagine that policemen and citizens raising claims of justifiable homicide must meet a substantive burden of proof. But today, in states like Missouri, these justifications barely require any evidence at all.

In other states, claims of self-defense need to be proven as more likely than not, or in legal speak, to a “preponderance of the evidence.” It’s still the state’s obligation to prove “beyond a reasonable doubt” that the defendant actually killed the victim. But once that’s established, the prosecution doesn’t also have to prove “beyond a reasonable doubt” that the killing wasn’t justified. That’s because justifications—like self-defense—require the accused to make an active case, called an “affirmative defense,” that the circumstances were exceptional. The logic here is simple: As a rule, homicide is a crime and justification is reserved for extraordinary cases. Once the state has proven that a defendant did in fact kill someone, it should be the accused’s obligation to prove his or her actions were justified.

Not in most states today, including Missouri. Instead, as long as there is a modicum of evidence and reasonable plausibility in support of a self-defense claim, a court must accept the claim and acquit the accused. The prosecution must not only prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime, but also disprove a defendant’s claim of self-defense to the same high standard. Under Missouri law, all a citizen claiming self-defense or a police officer claiming to have fired while pursuing a dangerous criminal need do is “inject the issue of justification.” In other words, he only needs to produce some evidence (his own testimony counts) supporting the claim. Once he does so, “any reasonable doubt on the issue requires a finding for the defendant.” In Missouri, the burden doesn’t budge an inch, even after we know that the defendant has killed the victim. It doesn’t matter that there is certainty that Darren Wilson shot Michael Brown. As long as there is still the slightest possibility that Wilson acted in his own defense, Missouri law favors Wilson.

Within reason, legal protections for, and presumptions in favor of, policemen acting in the line of duty make sense. Society has chosen to give these men and women guns, after all. And if we expect these officers to put their lives on the line, we owe them some measure of trust and due deference. But trust cannot become a license to kill. We have a word for a situation where killing is the default, where violence is so expected that the burden is no longer on a killer to prove his actions are justified. That word is war. It has no place in suburban St. Louis.

Correction and update: A previous version of this article implied that Missouri's low burden for self-defense claims made it an outlier among U.S. states. Although historically, many states required defendants to actively prove a justification defense (and Ohio still does), in the last few decades most other states have moved away from Ohio’s approach and resemble Missouri’s. The legal situation is therefore perhaps even more troubling than originally implied. The language of the story has been updated to reflect this.



Getty Images staff photographer Scott Olson is arrested by police as he covers the demonstration following the shooting death of Michael Brown on August 18, 2014 in Ferguson, Missouri.(Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

All,

If you really want to know what "it's really like" to live (and die) in these United Hates during what is ominously called the 'Age of Obama' check out these photographs...and pass the word...(SAME AS IT EVER WAS INDEED)...

Kofi

P.S. How many miles is Ferguson, Missouri from the Gaza strip in Palestine any-damn-way...anybody got a MAP?...

POLICY

What a Getty Photographer Captured Before He Was Arrested in Ferguson

Scott Olson, who was arrested Monday, has taken some of the most iconic pictures from the protests in Missouri.

By Reena Flores and Matt Berman
August 18, 2014
National Journal


Getty Images photographer Scott Olson was arrested Monday night during protests in Ferguson.

Reporters on the scene captured photos and videos of his arrest. An Instagram video appears to show Olson as police tie the photographer's hands behind his back.

"Media are required to be in a certain area," Olson says in the video. He goes on to identify himself as a photographer with Getty Images.

Olson was released just before 10 p.m. ET, according to Getty Images VP Pancho Bernasconi on Twitter. According to Bernasconi, Olson said upon his release: "I want to be able to do my job as a member of the media and not be arrested for just doing my job."

Getty confirmed the release in a statement Monday night. "Getty Images condemns Scott's arrest and is committed to ensuring that he and our other photographer colleagues are able to report this important story," Bernasconi said in the statement.

"We strongly object to his arrest and are committed to ensuring he is able to resume his important work of capturing some of the most iconic images of this news story," Bernasconi said in an earlier statement Monday night.

Getty managed to capture several pictures of Olson being arrested, and identified him in their captions. Olson has been in Ferguson since early last week, and has taken some of the most memorable pictures of what has happened there since 18-year-old Michael Brown was shot by a police officer on Aug. 9.

Here are the most striking photos of Olson's coverage from Ferguson. 
This is one of the last photos Scott Olson contributed to Getty Images before he was arrested in Ferguson, Missouri.(Scott Olson/Getty Images)

 Police force protestors from the business district into nearby neighborhoods on August 11, 2014 in Ferguson, Missouri. (Scott Olson/Getty Images)

Lesley McSpadden, the mother of slain teenager Michael Brown, joins a capacity crowd of guests at Greater St. Marks Family Church to discuss the killing of her son and the civil unrest resulting from his death on August 12, 2014 in St Louis, Missouri.(Scott Olson/Getty Images)
 
 Demonstrators gather along West Florissant Avenue to protest the shooting death of Michael Brown on August 14, 2014 in Ferguson, Missouri. (Scott Olson/Getty Images)
 
 Demetrus Washington joins other demonstrators protesting the shooting death of teenager Michael Brown on August 14, 2014 in Ferguson, Missouri.(Scott Olson/Getty Images)

 Demonstrators protesting Michael Brown's murder walk past tear gas released by police Aug. 17, 2014 in Ferguson, Missouri.(Photo by Joshua Lott/Getty Images)

 A child, who was being held by her mother who was protesting the shooting death of teenager Michael Brown, holds up her hands after police ordered them off the street by on August 13, 2014 in Ferguson, Missouri. (Scott Olson/Getty Images)
 
 Police advance on demonstrators protesting the killing of teenager Michael Brown on August 17, 2014 in Ferguson, Missouri.(Scott Olson/Getty Images
 
 Demonstrators raise their arms during a protest against the killing of Michael Brown on Aug. 17 in Ferguson, Mo.(Scott Olson/Getty Images)
 
 A demonstrator, protesting the shooting death of teenager Michael Brown, scrambles for cover as police fire tear gas on August 13, 2014 in Ferguson, Missouri.(Scott Olson/Getty Images)
 
 Police surround and detain two people in a car on August 13, 2014 in Ferguson, Missouri. Ferguson is experiencing its fourth day of unrest after following the shooting death of teenager Michael Brown on Saturday. Brown was shot and killed by a Ferguson police officer. (Scott Olson/Getty Images)
 
 The scene at the first of three press conferences held by Missouri officials and police on Aug. 15 in Ferguson, Mo.(Scott Olson/Getty Images)
 
 Demonstrators protest the killing of teenager Michael Brown on August 12, 2014 in Ferguson, Missouri. Brown was shot and killed by a police officer on Saturday in the St. Louis suburb of Ferguson. Ferguson has experienced two days of violent protests since the killing but, tonight's protest was peaceful. (Scott Olson/Getty Images)
 
 Demonstrators flee as police shoot tear gas into the crowd of several hundred after someone reportedly threw a bottle at the line of police on Aug. 13 in Ferguson, Mo.(Scott Olson/Getty Images)
 
 Police stand watch as demonstrators protest the shooting death of teenager Michael Brown on August 13, 2014 in Ferguson, Missouri. Brown was shot and killed by a Ferguson police officer on Saturday. Ferguson, a St. Louis suburb, is experiencing its fourth day of violent protests since the killing.(Scott Olson/Getty)
 
 Police stand watch as demonstrators protest the shooting death of teenager Michael Brown on August 13, 2014 in Ferguson, Missouri. Brown was shot and killed by a Ferguson police officer on Saturday. Ferguson, a St. Louis suburb, is experiencing its fourth day of violent protests since the killing. (Scott Olson/Getty Images)
 
 An Al Jazeera television crew, covering demonstrators protesting the shooting death of teenager Michael Brown, scramble for cover as police fire tear gas into their reporting position.(Scott Olson/Getty Images)
 
 Capt. Ronald Johnson of the Missouri State Highway Patrol, who was appointed by the governor to take control of security operations in the city of Ferguson, walks among demonstrators gathered along West Florissant Avenue on August 14, 2014 in Ferguson, Missouri. Violent protests have erupted along West Florissant in Ferguson each of the last four nights as demonstrators express outrage over the shooting death of Michael Brown by a Ferguson police officer on August 9.The governor appointed Johnson after receiving numerous complaints about the excessive show and use of force by the police against protestors and the news media covering the demonstrations. Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO) today called for the demilitarization of the police. (Scott Olson/Getty Images)

Police stand watch as demonstrators protest the shooting death of teenager Michael Brown on August 13, 2014 in Ferguson, Missouri. Brown was shot and killed by a Ferguson police officer on Saturday. Ferguson, a St. Louis suburb, is experiencing its fourth day of violent protests since the killing.(Scott Olson/Getty)
 
 Olson is arrested by police as he covers the demonstration following the shooting death of Michael Brown on August 18, 2014 in Ferguson, Missouri.(Joe Raedle/Getty Images)


This story was updated with report about Olson's release.


http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/25721-no-rights-that-a-white-man-is-bound-to-respect-the-occupation-and-ethnic-cleansing-of-africa-america

No Rights That a White Man Is Bound to Respect: The Occupation and Ethnic Cleansing of Africa-America
Thursday, 21 August 2014
By Dr Marsha Coleman-Adebayo and Kevin Berends, Black Agenda Report | Op-Ed
 
Memorial for Michael Brown, an unarmed black teenager killed by a white police officer in Ferguson, Missouri. His name will be added to the anonymous statistics and meaningless deaths of African-Americans at the mercy of a merciless system. August 19, 2014. (Photo: People's World)

"Ferguson has already waged a good fight.”

There is always context – the larger gestalt of any given time. The sixties are symbolized by Birmingham, Selma, Little Rock. Both racial divides and historic photographs are frozen in black and white of menacing police, German shepherds, water hoses. Whether we add Ferguson, Missouri, to this lexicon of moments defining African-America—and America—will depend largely on whether or not the courage on display in Ferguson is isolated or is conveyed through progressive action to the wider population.

The persistence of the Ferguson uprising has the signature of something larger and deeper, with hundreds of citizens giving new meaning to the universal sign of surrender, by lifting their arms—not in capitulation—but in refusing surrender. Chanting, "Don't shoot!" protesters invoke the last words of police-murdered-teenager Michael Brown, executed by a white police officer who hit him with at least six shots—Brown's unarmed hands raised in the air.

This time the images come in hi-definition and real time. Sharp against the police officer's pant legs straddling it we can see the almost green cast to the German shepherd's fur and muscled, gloved white arms holding the leash. This time there is little discernible difference between the occupying military equipment we have seen deployed in Middle East occupied war zones and the bullet-proof, cammo vests marked “POLICE” in bold letters on the back, with tanks, personnel carries and snipers training tripod-steadied, high-powered rifles on the protesters.

The acquittal of George Zimmerman in the 2012 murder of 17 year-old Trayvon Martin is as good a place as any to look for the underpinnings of this uprising. That decision sent an undeniable message that the Supreme Court's 1857 Dred Scott v. Sanford decision remains solidly in place. Chief Justice Roger Taney issued the court's opinion:

"[African Americans] had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations; and so far inferior, that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit. He was bought and sold, and treated as an ordinary article of merchandise and traffic, whenever a profit could be made by it."

Black people summarized as "it."

"Dred Scott's core values—the very DNA of racism—remain largely the same.”

Not surprisingly, after Dred Scott 3,500 African-Americans were lynched from 1882 to 1920. The country transitioned through one historic epoch to another: Reconstruction, Jim Crow, segregation, the Civil Rights movement and now into our so-called current "post-racial" period where one black man is killed by police or vigilantes every 28 hours. Dred Scott's core values—the very DNA of racism—remain largely the same. African-Americans have no rights that white men or white women are bound to respect.

Predictable outgrowths of the Brown murder are the arrests and injuries that have occurred as a result of the popular resistance by both the citizens of Missouri and people who have traveled there to stand in solidarity with the embattled community. Mya Aaten-White, for example, a graduate of Howard University, was shot in the head by St. Louis police while she peacefully protested Brown's murder. The police initially tried to blame that attempted murder on a drive by shooter.

From Palestine to Nigeria the Brown case has captivated the global community for two striking reasons: its exposing escalation in police violence targeting the public; and its revealing African-Americans communities as occupied territories. The illusion that white supremacy is dead and African-Americans integrated into US society is only sustained during periods of détente. Quiet for quiet as the saying goes. During periods of the citizenry rebelling against violence, repression and racism, the state exercises the full range of its fine-adjusting tools, including tanks, armored vehicles and swat/assassination teams armed with precision weaponry.

Such is the history of previous up-risings. In July 1964 Harlem and Rochester, New York, erupted a week apart; Watts went up in 1965; Detroit, in 1967; Washington, DC, in 1968, Los Angeles, in 1992. Patterns emerged where black overseers in the form of police officials and political talking heads get dutifully deployed—in hope of quashing the insurrection while scrambling for the crumbs that may fall from their master’s table once the tear gas dissipates and the carnage is hosed away. The usual suspects converge again in Ferguson.

Brown's is the latest in an alarming series of murders and public humiliations inflicted over a short period of time on the African American community. On August 5, four days before the police execution of Michael Brown, John Crawford III, a 22 year-old Ohio man was murdered by police while shopping in Walmart. He reportedly picked up a toy rifle within the store while talking on his cell phone. Shoppers in the store were alarmed by seeing Crawford with the toy gun. Police were called and opened fired. John Crawford died at a local hospital, his death ruled a homicide by the coroner’s office. Predictably, Crawford officials refuse to release the surveillance tape to his family.

"Black overseers in the form of police officials and political talking heads get dutifully deployed in hope of quashing the insurrection.”

Eric Garner was murdered during an arrest by New York City police on July 22, 2014. The Staten Island man and father of six was placed in an illegal chokehold which triggered an asthma attack. Video shows Garner struggling to tell the police that he could not breathe. Nevertheless, the police continued to choke him until he was unresponsive. His death has been ruled a homicide by the New York Medical Examiner’s Office. Garner’s alleged “crime” was that he was selling untaxed individual cigarettes. When police approached him he simply asked why he was being harassed. His life was the answer to that reasonable question.

An Arizona professor, Ersula Ore was walking down the street after teaching her English class at Arizona State University. In order to avoid a construction zone, she walked around the site in the street. A campus police officer stopped her and when she questioned him as to why she was being charged, the officer threw her on the ground and handcuffed her. During an interview on CNN's New Day, Ore was asked about the incident.

"I think I did what I was supposed to do. I was respectful. I asked for clarification. I asked to be treated with respect, and that was it."

Ore faces charges of assaulting a police officer, resisting arrest, failing to provide ID and obstructing a public thoroughfare. Arizona State University has sided with the campus police over its faculty, a situation that might be considered bazaar were it not a case of a black woman being attacked by a white man. Michael Brown was executed for the same “offense” of walking down the street.

Renisha McBride, 19, was murdered on November 2, 2013 outside her hometown of Detroit, Michigan. The brutality of Renisha’s murder has shocked even veteran urban dwellers. The accused murderer, Theodore Wafer, 54, literally shot Renisha’s head off with a 12-gauge shotgun through his locked screened door.

As in the Brown case, the police department rushed to criminalize the victim. Instead of investigating what role racism played in this tragedy, media reporting Renisha’s death have focused on autopsy results that indicate elevated alcohol levels and a trace of cannabis. McBride's attorney responded: "I don't think the fact that she was intoxicated changes anything," he said. "The bottom line is, he should've called 911 when he heard a disturbance, and we know for a fact that the police would've been there in two minutes. Instead, he did the reverse. He took his shotgun, went on the porch, blew her head off and then called 911."

"The list of crimes against African-Americans goes on and on even as the arsenals arrayed against them escalates beyond control.”

Wafer was recently convicted of second degree murder and manslaughter—little consolation for her loved ones. Still, one must wonder if a zero-tolerance for racism may have spared Renisha's life had her murderer been ingrained with the belief that in America it is not okay to kill black people.

And finally, the country witnessed another case of gruesome police brutality. In broad daylight a California Highway Patrolman without fear of punishment viciously beat a homeless black woman. Onlookers drove past in cars and pedestrians watched. In this case, the victim was pummeled lying face up on the ground on the side of a Los Angeles freeway. Not surprisingly, the Highway Patrol refused to answer questions about the incident. It was only after a pedestrian's video of the incident went viral that the police parroted a statement about conducting an investigation. The list of crimes against African-Americans goes on and on even as the arsenals arrayed against them escalates beyond control.

Ferguson experienced that arsenal in the aftermath of Brown's summary execution when the police brought SWAT teams and heavy military equipment into that suburban American neighborhood. When the police realized the optics of their operation were all wrong they brought in, predictably, Officer Friendly—Highway Patrol Captain, Ron Johnson—to mollify the mobs. At first, Capt. Johnson found warm receptivity with the residents as he walked along Ferguson's streets with them on Saturday listening to their pain. This came on the heels of calls for restraint from the Brown family, the president, religious and other cultural leaders after the heavy-handed military deployment failed.

By Sunday night Officer Friendly had abandoned his conciliatory overtures in favor of branding the uprising on Sunday night, “shootings, vandalism and other acts of violence that clearly appear not to have been spontaneous but premeditated criminal acts...The catalyst was not civil disobedience, but pre-planned agitation.”

What a difference a day makes. Gone was Officer Friendly, replaced by statements one would sooner expect form Lester Maddox.

There are in Ferguson's symbolism motifs from other epic struggles: the lone protester who stopped a file of tanks in Tianamen Square. Tahrir Square's fruit vendor. The people of Gaza standing defiantly in the rubble from Operation Protective Edge in opposition to vastly superior force, refusing the demand of “quiet for quiet.” Instead, after a week of unrest, the people who have taken to the streets remain determined—even to death—in their pursuit of justice.

Ferguson has already waged a good fight. Without the well-deserved support of a broad left/right coalition that can see this as a moment when the powerless outstrip the powerful, Michael Brown's name can be added to the anonymous statistics and meaningless deaths of African-Americans at the mercy of a merciless system. Ferguson throws itself against the iron gate of that system. It is up to the rest of us to see that gate gets flown wide open.

This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.

DR. MARSHA COLEMAN-ADEBAYO


Dr. Marsha Coleman-Adebayo is the author of No FEAR: A Whistleblower's Triumph over Corruption and Retaliation at the EPA, which is available through amazon.com. Dr. Coleman-Adebayo worked at the EPA for 18 years and blew the whistle on a US multinational corporation that endangered vanadium mine workers in South Africa. Her successful lawsuit led to the introduction and passage of the first civil rights and whistleblower law of the 21st century: the Notification of Federal Employees Anti-discrimination and Retaliation Act of 2002 (No FEAR Act). She is director of transparency and accountability for the Green Shadow Cabinet.