Monday, November 14, 2011

Waiting for the next bloodbath in Oakland



November 12, 2011


As I write this, everyone is just waiting for the next bloodbath to descend on Oakland.  The television vans circle the plaza in front of city hall, eager to capture some “riot pornography” shots for the evening news.  The police have issued a new ultimatum and stand ready to once again use tear-gas canisters, batons, “rubber” bullets, and flash-bang grenades on the peaceful encampment.  Out of hundreds of encampments around the country, it may seem odd that progressive Oakland is the spot where such state violence is on display.  But perhaps Oakland is playing, as it has before, the role of testing ground for tactics of resistance and of repression.

The police have already played their hand once, clearing out the plaza on October 24 and then attacking a demonstration the following night – injuring many, including veteran Scott Olsen who survived two tours in Iraq only to be shot by a teargas canister and put in critical condition by Oakland police.  A day later, realizing they could not simply “hold” the plaza indefinitely, the police pulled out and the Occupy camp was back.

On the side of the state government, we see a desperate effort to reframe and demonize the demonstrations.  On the side of the Occupy movement, we see a constant improvisation and evolution of strategy.

This confrontation is not new.  In fact, only a few blocks from the City Hall is a city park in which Oakland Black activists set up a “Tent City for the Homeless” in 1984, renaming it Uhuru Park.  When the police came to arrest people and tear down the tents in the middle of the night, I was a legal observer.  For the crime of taking a photograph of an Oakland policeman beating an occupier, I was beaten so badly I had to be taken to Highland Hospital instead of jail.  And back in 1932 a “Bonus Army” of veterans set up a tent city in Washington DC, only to be dispersed by the infantry and cavalry, with many wounded and two killed. 

The University of California Berkeley’s actions on November 10 are a typical example of the state framing their use of repression. UC Berkeley police captain Margo Bennett (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=%2Fc%2Fa%2F2011%2F11%2F11%2FMNH21LTC4D.DTL ) had this to say as her forces were caught slamming peaceful students with batons:  “The individuals who linked arms and actively resisted, that in itself is an act of violence.  I understand that many students may not think that, but linking arms in a human chain when ordered to step aside is not a nonviolent protest.”  This is certainly a new definition of violence and one we will see more of.  Walter Benjamin in the 1930’s remarked that the state is the one institution which claims the “legitimate right to violence,” and indeed it uses violence all the time.  But if someone who is not a state employee lifts a finger, the media express shock, shock that anyone would do such terrible things. 

Then there is the project to demonize the demonstrators.  Oakland City Councilwoman Desley Brooks, preparing the way for the next Oakland bloodbath, sought to label (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/11/12/MNOI1LTP11.DTL ) them as the dreaded “other,” the outsiders that our culture has constructed.  She declared, “This is no longer an Occupy Oakland encampment.  This is not the original crowd, not the one that was about the principles of Occupy Wall Street. What we have now is a mix: homeless, anarchists, gang members, and maybe a handful left who are really about Occupy.”

Now, in the real world where most of us live, there are homeless people, mentally disturbed people, those who have been thrown off by society and join gangs, people in crisis.  They are, and will be, part of the gathering of the marginalized who make those in power uncomfortable.  And, you may note, cities like Oakland have upwards of 75%, not 9%, not 20%, but 75% unemployment for black males.  It’s a wonder the city has not exploded.  You might want a nice, middle-class gathering to petition to right the wrongs of society.  But the rabble is calling for the Bastille to be torn down.  Get used to it.  Putting the traditional label of “others” on many of these people does not justify the impending massacre.  Another irony here:  media complaints about Occupy Oakland come from both sides at once.  It is too white, where are the Black people at Occupy?  Oh, oh yes, there are a bunch of African American people here; but they look to be homeless or look like they are gang members.  No, Ms. Brooks, these are your constituents; this is the 99%. The massive turnout for the Oakland General Strike on November 2 gives a lie to the idea that the occupiers are isolated.  An outpouring estimated from 10,000 to 40,000 people came out.  They included Labor, community groups, teachers, children and yes, definitely small businesses!


Then we have Oakland mayor, Jean Quan.  She was once in a radical organization.  I’m sure she has read Lenin’s “State and Revolution” or Gandhi’s “Satyagraha” in study groups and recognized that the modern state is founded on organized violence.  Now she is part of the state and stuck in that contradiction.  And the state, we know, does these ugly things.  With the cover of one’s “office,” it is permissible to unleash violence.  Clint Eastwood’s new film on the FBI’s Hoover, “J. Edgar,” suggests that all the havoc he unleashed was because of his mean mom and repressed homosexuality.  Hey, lots of people have mean moms; lots of people are repressed.  But they aren’t allowed to hound thousands out of jobs and to jail, set up character assassinations and murder. It was only his office that allowed him to do that.

There is a strange and eerie feeling in the Occupy Oakland camp.  No one is happy when they are waiting to be physically attacked.  Everyone knows that this expression of public theater is on a collision course.  The problem could be easily be solved by issuing a permit and negotiating shared security and public health duties.  But the city is not even considering that option. The Occupy Oakland people will not, cannot, simply surrender.  The police are preparing another assault that will cost millions in immediate costs and even more in legal settlements over the coming years.  But no one, politicians, activists, journalists, or pundits, is willing to take the steps to stop it. 

Wednesday, October 19, 2011

Occupy Our Schools



Something is happening here but you don’t know what it is, do you, Mr. Jones? The sea change that is Occupy Wall Street does not have to do with the list of demands.  It does not have to do with Obama’s election chances.  In a perfect example of conflicting narratives, the cultural gatekeepers find it impossible to understand something that is right in front of their faces.

Occupy Wall Street is action.  We have had talk, talk, talk for years, decades even.  The right – the think tanks, big media outlets, politicians, foundations – thunders its dogma on a regular basis.  The left – community organizers, unions, educators, activists – refute their arguments, though with a much smaller voice and very few dollars.  But it has all just been a conversation.

Now action obliterates the deadlock.  Whatever we have been waiting for – Obama, common sense, karma – we realized it was never coming to help us and it is time for action. Action creates facts, and facts are essential – they create possibilities and new words, fresh vocabularies. The silenced majority, the 99%, has finally been pushed so far that it is pushing back.  Every movement is improbable until it happens; after the fact it so clearly was inevitable.

The bankers intone, “These people don’t understand the work we do.”  The right wing bloggers ask:  “Are they going to take the money away from the wealthy?” The talking heads warn, “Do they have any direction?” The answer, in brief, is we do, we will, and we have.  We do understand what bankers and investors do: they run a three-card-Monte game where only they can see under the cards.  They don’t add wealth to the economy, that’s done by people who go to work all over the world.  They simply siphon it out.  And yes we are coming to take the money from the wealthy.  These people are not job creators.  They are parasites who have stolen from those who actually create the wealth.  And finally, we have a direction.  It’s . . . oh, just watch and see.

The same type of bold action could be applied to schools.  The privatizers, those who would strip down our schools to being test-prep factories training only for compliance and passivity, have made their case with all the volume that billions of dollars can buy.  Wallmart’s Broad Foundation trains corporate executives with no educational experience to be school superintendents.  The film Waiting for Superman articulates a demand for the destruction of teacher’s unions and the creation of privately operated schools that take public money.  Secretary of Education Duncan calls for a “Race to the Top,” pitting student against student, teacher against teacher, school against school, and state against state in a Social Darwinist fantasy game worthy of Ayn Rand.

And of course we, educators and community members and students, patiently and thoroughly counter and disprove their arguments.  Their data are false, from claims about charter success to attacks on teachers.  Their goals are sinister, cloaked in a thinly disguised rhetoric of equity.  Read Linda Darling-Hammond, Pedro Noguera, Debbie Meier, Monty Neill, Diane Ravitch, Bill Ayers, Kris Gutierrez, Anthony Cody.  The list goes on and on. 

But so far it has only been a conversation.  It does not matter if we defeat their arguments over and over.  They still have the purse strings, the foundations, and the big megaphone.  The time has come for action.  Take over these schools.  Occupy them.  Sit in.  24 hours a day, 7 days a week.  We built these schools with our taxes, our labor, our commitment to students and communities.  They are not just playthings for overfed business dilettantes. Instead of taking marching orders from Wall Street, we need to take these schools and make them institutions of liberation. 

With students, community members, and teachers in these buildings, imagine the possibilities.  Poetry workshop in one room; free clinic in another; science lab in a third.  Food production.  Critical pedagogy class.  Strategy meetings.  A kind of education that embraces deep meaning, knowledge for people’s needs, and participatory democracy.  Watch these young people step up.  In a liberated space, the bored and resistant students in the back of the room will be transformed. You will see them taking responsibility for their education, demonstrate their desire for ethical action, for sacrifice for the common good, and for a future they can believe in.

Can we do this? At one site? At a hundred?  You can be certain that this is a discussion popping up all over the country.  This is the kind of action that would trump the endless, and ultimately losing, debate we have been locked in over the past years.  We can’t talk our way out of the problems in education.  But we can act, together, because another world is possible.






Thursday, June 30, 2011

Malcolm X still inspires today


 Malcolm X was a towering figure of the 20th century, connecting the wave of Third World revolutions sweeping the globe with the Black Liberation Movement inside the US. While the powerful seek to domesticate the man and tame his legacy – a narrow self-help guide or high school lesson on pulling oneself up by the bootstraps – his deeper contribution to the central liberating struggles of our time continues to resonate.

Malcolm X’s life and work was forged in the furnace of a specific historic moment: the old-style colonies were breaking up after the two devastating world wars; India won its independence; China overthrew a pro-western regime; revolutionary battles threw the French out of Algeria and Vietnam; Cuban guerrillas evicted the US supported dictator Batista.  Vijay Prashad’s powerful analysis of the period, The Darker Nations, documents the rise of the Non Aligned Nations movement and the creation of the term “Third World” to describe the former colonial and neo-colonial regions which wanted to be in neither the Soviet nor the US camps – they wanted independence, freedom from nuclear threat, democratization of the United Nations, and their own locally-grown participatory democracies.

During this same time, the long struggle of African Americans against white supremacy and for basic Constitutional rights and fundamental recognition of their humanity was taking a more militant turn.  Malcolm X, first from within the Nation of Islam and later from his own organization, pushed to redefine the terms of the movement – from a petition seeking a way into the US mainstream to a liberation struggle demanding independent power and transformation of the political economy.  Today we forget how far ahead of the wave Malcolm X was, how he created the wave.  This is what made him so dangerous to those in power, what drew the attention of the FBI as well as the CIA and various military intelligence agencies. 

So many touchstone principles that would soon propel the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), the Black Panther Party, and dozens of other organizations and movements, were first given clear articulation in the early 60’s by Malcolm X.  These included:
  • Black pride and “Black is beautiful.”
  • The move from a petition for rights to a demand for power.
  • The change from seeing African Americans as a minority to recognizing them as part of a majority, the Third World majority, on a global scale.
  • The identification of the conditions of African Americans as one of domestic colonialism as well as racial and ethnic discrimination.
  • The questioning of the use of non-violence as the primary tactic for black liberation, encapsulated in the phrases “The ballot or the bullet” and “By any means necessary.”
  • The recognition that white people could be and often were a hindrance to the fullest development of Black leadership and the African American struggle in the South. 
  • The demand that white people work against racism in their own communities and build solidarity with the Black Liberation Struggle.
  • The critique of the Black petty bourgeoisie, which seemed to be making it in America and leaving behind poor and working class African American communities.

The list goes on and on.  While he did not invent or own each of these principles, Malcolm X was the most clear, consistent, and successful popularizer of these views.  African American insights, critique, and inventions have always been major drivers in politics and culture in the US – whether it has been in music, theater, comedy, and literature or whether it was in a the political struggles to enact democracy through elections, economic structures, or education.  The reverberations of Malcolm X’s leadership were felt everywhere, even penetrating the consciousness of this white liberal college student first getting involved and trying hard to understand the world. 

I remember being in New York in the summer of 1966, a year after the assassination of Malcolm X.  I lived with Charles, an old friend from prep school.  We were exploring the city, taking classes, marveling at the explosion of arts, and following the various vibrant political battles everywhere.   In mid-June the front page of the New York Times featured a story on the “March against Fear” in Mississippi, which SNCC had mobilized after James Meredith was shot at the beginning of his solo protest against the segregated university.  Stokely Carmichael and Willie Ricks dropped a bombshell on the first evening rally, calling for something new to the Civil Rights Movement: Black Power! The marchers had responded with enthusiasm and Black Power became the chant punctuating the march and the Movement itself in that fateful summer.

Black Power had a resonance and meaning that was unmistakable, and it was not about “personal empowerment” or psychological states.  It was an enunciation of the anti-colonial struggle of African Americans, a call for political power – by any means necessary.  Everything Black activists said afterwards to elaborate and explain the idea was important but the phrase was clear and people knew what it meant.  It was Malcolm X’s vision, come to life in the battles of the deep South.

My friend Charles and I diverged right then.  He thought the Black Power turn was a disaster: it was reverse racism; it was going to isolate the movement.  But I had already been drawn to Che and the Cuban revolution, to James Baldwin’s The Fire Next Time, and to the Freedom Democratic Party and Fannie Lou Hamer’s articulation of the struggle in 1964. Many white activists agonized about what it would mean; some who risked their lives for the struggle for justice were hurt when they were asked to leave the South and organize against racism in their own communities.  But most got it, had even seen the truth of this analysis in the streets and the meetings.  They were pleased, delighted, inspired by the powerful turn that the movement was taking. 

Of course, the involvement of us white college kids was a matter of choice but also of privilege.  It mainly consisted of reading and discussing.  The challenge of the mid-1960’s however plunged us into action.  We were no longer just watching a movement; we started building a movement.  We were pushed to drop our beneficent and patronizing charity ideas, to think in terms of solidarity.  We began to fight as part of a strategy that recognized the leadership of the Black Liberation Movement and Vietnamese resistance, and the profound transformation of relationships around the world.  Did the revolution of the late 60’s and 70’s win?  No it did not.  But the world would be a much better place if it had.

Dr. Manning Marable’s new biography, Malcolm X: A Life of Reinvention, does much to fill in and correct the historical record.  Most agree that Malcolm X’s autobiography, written with Alex Haley is a powerful organizing document but leaves much out.  Marable offers many beautiful and satisfying moments: the background on Malcolm X’s family and upbringing, the story of the Garvey movement (the United Negro Improvement Association - UNIA) and its strength throughout the US in the teens and 20’s, the descriptions of Malcolm X’s trips to Africa and the Middle East which are much more detailed and impressive than earlier accounts, and the explication of the Muslim Mosque Inc. and the Organization of Afro-American Unity. 

But on the fundamental significance of Malcolm X, on his core vision and contribution, Dr. Marable gets it wrong.  In the midst of his detailed research, he swipes at the philosophy of Black Nationalism and anti-colonial internationalism.  In describing Malcolm X’s historic 1960 debate with civil rights leader Bayard Rustin, he asserts that Rustin won hands down because he proved the “practical impossibility” of setting up a Black state, exposing the “essential weakness” of the nationalist line. It is one thing to be opposed to Black Nationalism, but to suggest that it is simply an illusory idea with no possible way of being pursued is to mislead.  The long history of the struggle for Black Power goes back to Martin Delaney before the Civil War, through the UNIA of Marcus Garvey; it is seen in the work of W.E.B. DuBois and Carter G. Woodson in education; and even in the position of the Communist Party in the 20’s and 30’s which defined a Black nation in the South; the Négritude movement from the Caribbean and Harlem was part of this movement; and it includes many organizations in the 60’s and later, such as the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) after they embraced Black Power, the Revolutionary Action Movement, the All African Peoples Revolutionary Party, the African People’s Socialist Party, the Republic of New Afrika, the League of Revolutionary Black Workers, the Black Panther Party, DRUM, The Deacons for Defense and Justice, the Black Arts Movement, and the explosion of Black Student Unions.  These movements had all kinds of proposals:  some for territorial zones inside the US, some for reuniting with Africa, and some for independent political identity within an extended presence throughout the US.  Malcolm X was neither confused nor stumped when confronted with anti-nationalist arguments. His was an internationalist, anti-colonial vision and politics.  There is no one else in the US during this historical period who articulated and advanced this insight so powerfully.

Prof. Marable argues that reform was possible in the US and that this fact undermined Malcolm X’s position, suggesting that “perhaps blacks could some day become empowered within the existing system.” In order to show that change can come without overthrowing the system, he cites Nixon’s introduction of affirmative action laws. A look at the condition of African American people today in relation to educational opportunities and meaningful schools suggests that Malcolm X’s side of the argument was closer to the truth.  Marable rejects Malcolm X’s criticism of middle class Black leaders who had supported the election of Lyndon B. Johnson for president. “It apparently did not occur to (Malcolm X),” he asserts, “that great social change usually occurs through small transformations in individual behavior.” I’m sure it occurred to him but he was part of a much more radical critique, a more far-reaching call for transformation of social relations.

Dr. Marable declares that “‘black nationalism’ was highly problematic in a global context, because it excluded too many ‘true revolutionaries.’”  But it’s not problematic at all, any more than Cuban nationalism, Latin American solidarity, Pan-Africanism, Vietnamese nationalism, or anything else that was shaking the world precluded relations between Third World movements. 

As in all anti-colonial struggles, Malcolm X asserted the right of resistance and even the importance of African Americans arming themselves.  Marable declares that such comments “alienated white and black alike.” But in reality, this is part of what made him so wildly popular. When Malcolm X says that African Americans should vote but not for Republicans and Democrats, Dr. Marable claims that he “was promoting electoralism but in practical terms gave blacks no effective means to exercise their power.  Who were they supposed to vote for if no one on the ballot could bring any real relief?” The answer is clear: Malcolm X advocated independent political action.  That was the only place he believed African Americans could get relief.

The art of writing a political biography is tricky.  Two examples that stand out as excellent are Barbara Ransby’s Ella Baker and the Black Freedom Movement: A Radical Democratic Vision, and Henry Mayer’s All on Fire: William Lloyd Garrison and the Abolition of Slavery.  Each of these does something very important:  they situate the focal lives within the movements that produced them and the movements they built. They explicate the positions of the protagonists and appreciate the evolution of their positions – including the debates, experiences, and commitments that made them.  And they don’t put themselves in the position of debating with the person they are profiling.

While Manning Marable has made a great contribution with this biography, in some respects he misses the central significance of Malcolm X.  The speeches of Malcolm X are available everywhere and should accompany this book, for they animate, explain and consolidate so many experiences and feelings that were boiling beneath the surface at the time. Malcolm X understood and pursued the implications of the earth-shaking revolutions going on and his words continue to capture the radical imagination of freedom lovers around the world today precisely because he stood for international solidarity and a restructuring of power.  It is a vision that still inspires.


Thursday, June 23, 2011

Blogging

Well, it looks like Huffington Post has new rules.  I have written over 50 blogs for them.  I just learned that.labor and progressive are calling for writers to boycott after Arianna Huffington sold to AOL and pocketed a lot of money.  And the writers work for free. Here's the story of the boycott:  http://readersupportednews.org/off-site-opinion-section/71-71/6265-crossing-the-huffington-post-picket-line

I have to admit, I liked getting my stuff out there. But perhaps their new, slicker, shallower format will decide things anyway.  The last post I tried to submit was an appreciation of Malcolm X and a comment on Manning Marable's new biography.

But on June 21 I got back the following email from an editor:

Hello Rick,
Thanks for your recent blog submission. Unfortunately, this post is far too long for us. We advise bloggers to limit posts to 600-800 words. If you'd like to revise the post, please go back in from the back stage. I've moved it back to draft so you can resubmit and let me know when you're done.
Thanks,
Emily
When I inquired if this was a new policy, Emily wrote to me:
"We've always tried to enforce this policy."

Hmmm, the piece is slightly over 2,000 words.  Can I cut it that much?  600 words is like a gossip item, not an essay.  Anyway, there's a picket line up.  So for now I'm out.
So . . ..  hello blogspot.  Not sure how the reach of this deal will go.  I hate to give up the tens of readers I had back at Huffington (or at least ten readers).  But here we go.  Enjoy.