Showing posts with label anti-colonialism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label anti-colonialism. Show all posts

Wednesday, September 30, 2015

Settlers, Oppressed Nations, Indigenous Peoples

A friend recently wrote me, asking me “after how many years/generations do new settlers become Indigenous to a land? So, for example, are the Boers descendants today in S. Africa, African?”

It’s a question i’ve had a number of conversations about, not because i’ve any kind of special standing on the issue, but i think because it’s a question undergirding a lot of ways things are talked about on the radical left and in anticolonial movements. Over the past years i have come to the conclusion that like so many other questions, there are multiple valid answers, and the point is not to fixate on one correct one, but rather to map out the consequences of the various possible positions. As our needs change, the frameworks that will be of most use for us will change. We can make words and frameworks mean whatever we want, but we cannot make the consequences of doing so whatever we want. That’s my starting point.

In radical left, liberal, and academic usage, “Indigenous” has replaced “aboriginal” in terms of meaning the people who were originally here. Which means you never become Indigenous merely by living some place (or your ancestors having lived in the place) for a long time. It is a matter of having been the ones there at the point that the cataclysmic event of euro-colonialism took place; in that sense, the fact of the unique world-historic tragedy of eurocolonialism is implicit in the framework itself. This meaning of the term i think is useful as it reveals certain political (and legal) questions specific to the peoples who were here and were colonized or who resisted and have continued to resist colonization from that turning point to the present, and because it recognizes that event as the epoch-defining catastrophe that it is.

But in terms of revolutionary left political strategy, i find the framework “colonized” and “suffering national oppression” to have a wider scope of application, and to be more generally germane. They don’t replace or “trump” the framework of Indigeneity, but they relate more directly to the social contradictions that drive society forward. National oppression in particular relates directly and neatly to class, in a way that Indigeneity does not necessarily do.1

Again, to be clear, national oppression doesn’t “trump” indigeneity, and this is not a matter of downgrading the strategic and ethical weight of Indigenous struggles. But these struggles are also struggles against national oppression, and it is that which in fact is normally the characteristic which best defines their relationship to capitalism-imperialism.

In this regard, i should also point out that the framework that is gaining ground, of indigeneity existing in a dichotomy with “settlers”, i find less useful than the use of the word “settlers” found in J. Sakai’s book by that name, i.e. limited to those who formed and continue to constitute the oppressor nations in the settler-colonies. Current usage includes non-Indigenous oppressed nationalities within settler-colonial states; this can lead to political errors. So although descendants of Africans, or Puerto Ricans, or Chicanos, may not be Indigenous, the framework i normally find most useful does not include them as settlers.

As to the related question of immigrants from other colonized nations, and whether they are best viewed as “settlers”, i think that is a question that will be determined by future developments “on the ground” as they say. These are people who almost always are coming to the imperialist countries in the hopes of enjoying a better standard of living than the world average, certainly better than the situation they leave behind. Yet racism is worsening in these same imperialist countries, becoming more prevalent even as its outside appearance may change, pushing people of color into more precarious situations, working similarly to exclude newcomers who do not share First World national privilege. Globally, most of these immigrants will remain excluded from whitelife, as will their descendants, while a minority (perhaps a large minority?) will be integrated within it. The latter group may be best categorized as “settlers”, though probably with qualifications (indeed, the same could be said for those from oppressed nations who have assimilated in to the global middle class). The former group, however, will become part of a multiethnic (though basically “people of color”) working class or lumpen collectivity which depending on the context, may or may not make sense to qualify as “settler”.

These are just my thoughts, in response to a friend’s question — but it is a question i have discussed with a number of people over the years, so it is something folks seem to think about. The thing i would stress, and not only around this question, is what i said at the beginning: these are best not viewed as questions with one correct answer, but rather as social phenomenon that can be understood using a variety of frameworks, each of which will have inescapable consequences in terms of both theory and practice. The aim should be to understand those consequences and factor them in to the decision as to which framework to adopt in a given situation.

  1. Indigeneity does relate directly to class as in the overwhelming majority of Indigenous peoples, the world over, suffer greater poverty and all the hardships that come from being excluded from economic wealth and oppressed by capitalism and even subject to genocide. But it does not relate neatly, as large numbers of people from other oppressed nations also share these same conditions.


on the main Kersplebedeb website: http://ift.tt/1j1b7XN



Friday, January 18, 2013

Zig Zag on Idle No More: "In any liberation movement there are internal and external struggles"

We are living in exciting times, with large numbers of people clearly fed up and taking action, no longer content to wait for the right moment or the right ideas or the right leadership to tell them what to do. Whether we think of Occupy, the Arab Spring, or the current Idle No More upsurge, spontaneity and taking a stand seem to be the order of the day. For those of us have lived through less exuberant times, it is a welcome change. That said, this new environment that clearly comes with its own potential pitfalls and weaknesses.

In order to try and understand this better, i asked some questions of Zig Zag, also known as Gord Hill, who is of the Kwakwaka'wakw nation and a long-time participant in anti-colonial and anti-capitalist resistance movements in Canada.  Gord is the author and artist of The 500 Years of Indigenous Resistance Comic Book and The Anti-Capitalist Resistance Comic Book (published by Arsenal Pulp Press) and 500 Years of Indigenous Resistance (published by PM Press); he also maintains the website WarriorPublications.wordpress.com.

Here is what he had to say...




K: What are the living conditions of Indigenous people today within the borders of what is called "canada"?

ZZ: Indigenous people in Canada experience the highest levels of poverty, violent death, disease, imprisonment, and suicide.  Many live in substandard housing and do not have clean drinking water, while many territories are so contaminated that they can no longer access traditional means of sustenance.  In the area around the Tar Sands in northern Alberta, for example, not only are fish and animals being found with deformities but the people themselves are experiencing high rates of cancer.  This is genocide.


K: Dispossession has been a central feature of colonialism and genocide within canada. Can you give some examples of how people have resisted dispossession in the past?

ZZ: Well in the past Native peoples had some level of military capability to resist dispossession, which ended around 1890.  More recently there have been many examples including Oka 1990, Ipperwash 1995, Sutikalh 2000, Six Nations 2006, etc.  At Oka it was armed resistance that stopped the proposed expansion of a golf course and condo project.  At Ipperwash people re-occupied their reserve land that had been expropriated during WW2, and they still remain there to this day.  At Sutikalh, St'at'imc people built a re-occupation camp to stop a $530 million ski resort. They were successful and the camp remains to this day.  At Six Nations they re-occupied land and prevented the construction of a condo project.




K: The canadian state has an army, prisons, police forces, and the backing of millions of people - not to mention the fact that it is completely integrated into world capitalism, both as a major source of natural resources and as an imperialist junior partner, messing up peoples around the world. What kind of possibilities are there for Indigenous people to successfully break out of this system, and resist canadian colonialism? What is the strategic significance of Indigenous resistance?

ZZ: Indigenous peoples must make alliances with other social sectors that also organize against the system.  The strategic significance of Indigenous peoples is their greater potential fighting spirit, stronger community basis of organizing, their ability to significantly impact infrastructure (such as railways, highways, etc, that pass through or near reserve communities) and their examples of resistance that can inspire other social movements.


K: What are bills C-38 and C-45, and how do they fit into the current global economic and political context?

ZZ: Bills C-38 and C-45 are omnibus budget bills the government has passed in order to implement its budget.  They include significant revisions of various federal acts, including the Navigable Waters Protection Act, environmental assessments, and the Indian Act. These are generally seen as facilitating greater corporate access to resources, such as mining and oil and gas.  The amendments to the Indian Act affect the ability of band councils to lease reserve land.  The move to open up resources, by removing protection from many rivers and lakes and "streamlining" environmental assessments is clearly meant to bolster Canada as a source of natural resources and to overcome public opposition to major projects such as the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline and others.


K: Is this something new, or more of the same old same old from the canadian state?

ZZ: These bills are new in that they're designed, in part, to facilitate greater corporate access to resources, primarily in the changes to the environmental assessment and Navigable Waters Protection Act.  These are measures designed to re-position Canada as a major source of oil and gas for the global market, and particularly Asian markets, while diversifying Canadian exports of such resources away from a US focused one, as the US economy continues to decline.  At the same time they are indeed a continuation of policies adapted by the federal government for many years now, which include major projects such as the Alberta Tar Sands and proposed pipeline projects.  These policies are the result of the neo-liberal ideology that states have been following for the past few decades.


K: What is one to make of this Idle No More movement that has sprung up over the past six weeks?

ZZ: It's similar to Occupy in that it reveals a yearning for social change among grassroots Native peoples, but it is also reformist and lacks any anti-colonial or anti-capitalist perspective.  It is fixated primarily on legal-political reforms, specifically repealing Bill C-45 (which passed in mid-December).  Although it has mobilized thousands of Natives, this is only to create political pressure on the government.  The four women from Saskatchewan who founded the movement are lawyers, academics, and business managers, so it is no surprise that the entire trajectory of the movement has been focused on legal-political reforms.  Another prominent speaker on behalf of INM has been Pam Palmater, a lawyer and Chair in Indigenous Governance at Ryerson University.  Last summer, she campaigned against Shawn Atleo for the position of "grand chief" of the Assembly of First Nations (AFN).

As it isn't anti-colonial or anti-capitalist, it has been a safe platform for many Indian Act chiefs and members of the Aboriginal business elite to participate, and many have in fact helped orchestrate the national protests and blockades that have occurred.  In fact, INM allied itself early on with chiefs from Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and Ontario.  It was chiefs from these provinces that made the symbolic attempt to enter the House of Commons on Dec. 4, an event that in many ways really launched INM and built the December 10 day of action.

These chiefs oppose Atleo, support Palmater, and have been the driving force behind most of the major rallies and blockades that have occurred in their respective provinces (with notable exceptions, such as the Tyendinaga train blockades).  

The involvement of the band councils has helped stifle any real self-organization of grassroots people.  The reformist methods promoted by the original founders has included the imposing of pacifist methods and so has dampened the warrior spirit of the people overall. Another factor in the INM mobilizing has been the fast carried out by the Indian Act chief Theresa Spence in Ottawa.  This has motivated many Natives to participate in INM due to the emotional and pseudo-spiritual aspects of the fast (a "hunger strike" to the death).  Despite the praise given to Spence, she revealed her intentions in late December when she made a public call for the chiefs to "take control" of the grassroots.




K: What you are outlining seems to be a class analysis of the INM movement. Some people have suggested that class analysis is incompatible with anticolonial analysis, that it is divisive, or amounts to applying a european framework that is not relevant to Indigenous people. What do you make of this?

ZZ: Under colonization the capitalist division of classes is imposed on Indigenous peoples.  The band councils and Aboriginal business elite are proof of this.  Under capitalist class divisions, there are new political and economic elites that are established and who have more to gain from assimilation and collaboration, despite any movements for reform they may be involved in.  As separate political and economic elites, they have their own interests which are not the same as the most impoverished and oppressed, which comprises the bulk of Indigenous grassroots people.  Middle class elites are able to impose their own beliefs and methods on grassroots movements through their greater access to, and control of, resources (including money, communications, transport, etc.).

For a genuinely autonomous, decentralized and self-organized Indigenous grassroots movement to emerge, the question of middle-class elites, including the band councils, must be resolved.  I would also say that in any liberation movement there are internal and external struggles.  The internal one determines the overall methods and objectives of the movement, and therefore cannot be silenced or marginalized under the pretext of preserving some non-existent "unity."  In fact, only when internal struggles are clarified can there be any significant gains made in the external one, against the primary enemy (state and capital).




K: January 11 was the day that Harper was initially supposed to meet with Spence and other chiefs from across canada. But on the day of the meeting, due to Harper’s shenanigans, Spence and most other chiefs opted to boycott it, and Spence declared she would be continuing her hunger strike. How deep is this split, and does it signify that some chiefs are breaking with the neocolonial setup and developing a radical potential?

ZZ: There have always been divisions within the AFN and between regions.  As I mentioned, some Indian Act chiefs, especially in Saskatchewan, Ontario and Manitoba, have been spearheading many of the Idle No More rallies and breaking from the AFN's agenda.  This shouldn't be interpreted as proof that they are more radical, but rather that they have their own agenda.  "Grand chief" Nepinak of the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, the AFN's provincial wing, has been very active in promoting INM rallies and blockades, etc.  But Nepinak's AMC also suffered massive funding cuts announced in early September.  His organization will see their annual funding cut from $2.6 million down to $500,000.  He is fighting for his political and economic career and has little to lose by agitating for more grassroots actions, but that doesn't mean he's now a "radical."  Rather, the band councils and chiefs must be understood as having their own agenda in regards to their power struggle with the state.  Many are easily fooled by militant rhetoric and symbolic blockades, but these are old tactics for the Indian Act chiefs.

Along with chiefs fighting for the maintenance of their provincial or regional organizations (such as the AMC or tribal councils), which is contributing to band council participation across the country in INM mobilizing, the chiefs in Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and Ontario have a political struggle with Atleo and have their own vision for greater economic development.  It was the chiefs from these provinces that boycotted the meeting between the PM and Atleo, and who called for the January 16 national day of action.

Delegations of these chiefs have travelled to Asia, Venezuela, and Iran seeking corporate investors, especially in the oil and gas industry.  Chief Wallace Fox of the Onion Lake Cree Nation, one of those at the forefront of recent events and an outspoken opponent of Atleo, is the chief of the top oil producing Native band in the country (located in Alberta and Saskatchewan).  Fox and other chiefs have also attempted to gain access to OPEC, the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, for partnerships with corporations.  Nepinak and other chiefs also met with Chinese officials in December, also looking for potential partnerships.

The rationale of these chiefs, Palmater and their allies in INM (the four "official founders") is that Atleo is collaborating with the assimilation strategy of the Harper regime.  Meanwhile, it is they who seek to take control of the AFN and impose their own version of Native capitalism, based in part on foreign investment in resource industries.  Ironically of course, many INM participants are rallying to defend Mother Earth, in many ways being used as pawns in a power struggle between factions of the Aboriginal business elite.  Many INM participants, I would say, are unaware of these internal dynamics.  Their mobilization under the slogans of "stop bill c-45," "defend land and water," etc., are positive aspects of INM, and show the great potential for grassroots movements.  But this is something that is in the early stages, and the movement will have to overcome the parasitical participation and control of the Indian Act chiefs as well as middle-class elites for it to advance.


K: There were hundreds of Idle No More actions on January 11. Here in Montreal, roughly three thousand people demonstrated, by far the largest protest related to Indigenous issues i have ever seen in this city. At the same time, the demonstration was overwhelmingly made up of non-Indigenous people, ranging from radical anticapitalists to members of Quebec nationalist and social democratic groups. This seems in line with the INM strategy of framing the movement as representing all canadians. How compatible is this with an anticolonial perspective, and what are the strengths and weaknesses of such diverse support?

ZZ: The first priority and main focus for an anti-colonial liberation movement must be its own people.  This is how it develops its own autonomous methods and practise, free from outside interference.  This helps to unify the movement and establish it as an independent social force.  Alliances are clearly necessary, and while the ultimate goal might be a multi-national resistance movement, colonialism and the unique history as well as socio-economic conditions of Native peoples means they must be able to organize autonomously from other social sectors.

I think in principle to frame Idle No More as one representing all Canadians is correct, but the way in which they are doing this waters down and minimizes the anti-colonial analysis that is necessary for radical social change.  By trying to appeal to the "Canadian citizen" it may broaden its appeal but to what end?  In the process it will have weakened the anti-colonial resistance.  Even now you can see the renewed calls for "peaceful" protests from INM'ers, as well as statements from the "official founders" that they don't support "illegal" actions such as blockades.  They're very sensitive to any loss of public support, claiming it is now an "educational" movement and that they don't want to inconvenience citizens.  The reformists might claim that in this manner we can build a bigger movement to defeat Bill C-45, but clearly such bills are just part of a much larger systemic problem we can identify as colonialism and capitalism.  Without addressing the root causes we'll just be doing the same thing next year against another set of bills. And of course, basing one's anti-colonial resistance on the opinion of the settler population will never lead to liberation.


K: We seem to have entered a period of spontaneous upsurges like INM internationally, be it the Arab Spring or Occupy or the recent anti-rape protests in India; in each of these cases masses of people are clearly fed up and willing to throw themselves into action, but for better or for worse they often bypass any of the organized anti-imperialist or anti-capitalist groups or traditions. Is this a sign of a failure on our part, that when circumstances finally give way to revolt we are not connected to those doing the revolting? Or is there something else going on?

ZZ: I would say a part of these mobilizations is the use of social media in spreading information and coordinating actions. Certainly in the Arab Spring, Occupy and now Idle No More, this has been a significant component of the mobilizing that has occurred.  It seems that there are more people who have been influenced by these ongoing social revolts and mobilizations, that then decide to take action of some kind, and the internet empowers them to organize rallies, etc.  They don't need the already existing radical groups to do this, and may not even know of their existence.

This leads to the situation where mobilizations are called, gain traction and then expand -- but they have a very shallow analysis of the system and lack experience in real resistance.  In both Occupy and INM we see inexperienced organizers who believe they have re-invented the wheel, who feel they know best how social movements should conduct themselves, etc.  At best, these mobilizations show that there is a yearning for social change among a growing number of people, but social media enables them to bypass more experienced and radical groups, and their naivete leads them to think that these groups fail because they're too radical. Therefore they appeal to the most basic and populist slogans, the least threatening forms of action, etc.

I don't know if I would characterize it as a failure on the part of radical groups that they are somewhat disconnected from these types of mobilizations.  They're not revolts, they're largely reformist rallies without a radical analysis dominated by liberals and pacifists, middle-class organizers, etc.  Until these movements are radicalized there is little possibility for radicals to be fully involved.  Another aspect of these types of mobilizations is their relatively short duration.  Occupy was largely over three or four months after it began, with some exceptions (such as Oakland).  How long will INM endure?


K: Although their leadership may be neo-colonial and middle-class, surely many of those in the grassroots who are attracted to surges like INM are not. How should established Indigenous anti-colonial groups relate to these mass mobilizations? Are there specific approaches that are more effective than others? And are there things to avoid?

ZZ: I would say Indigenous anti-colonial groups should engage such movements critically, and not simply take the role of cheerleaders. When large numbers of people are aroused and mobilized, it means they're thinking about, and discussing, concepts such as colonialism, tactics, strategies, methods, etc.  So it is an opportune time to contribute radical anti-colonial and anti-capitalist analysis, even though some participants in the movement think that such debate "divides" people. I would avoid denouncing such movements, or opposing them, of course, because there are both positive and negative aspects.  Promote the positive and try to illuminate the negative, the contradictions, etc.  As many participants are new and inexperienced, anti-colonial groups can contribute a lot to expanding and radicalizing the movement.





Monday, June 04, 2012

NOLA: APOCalypse: Survival Strategies for the New Millenium



Just received this callout for an Anarchist People of Color gathering in NOLA later this year, which i figured i'd share with you all:

Aah, it’s the moment we’ve all been waiting for: While current paradigms of social, political and economic oppression thrash against their imminent demise, taking the planet down with them, we have an opportunity to rise through the cracks and build a new future.

APOCalypse will gather people of color together to discuss, build and share radical anti-authoritarian practices based on autonomy, egalitarian relationships, and justice. This July, we hope to bring together a couple hundred friends, comrades, family members and strangers to New Orleans, Louisiana, to celebrate, re-map, and craft our anti-authoritarian visions and skills for the years to come.

Through parties, plenaries, workshops, panels, roundtables and space for impromptu discussions, we hope to create space to discuss what it means to organize as radicals and anarchists; the future of indigenous solidarity; people-of-color movement history; science fiction; queerness; and conversations on racialization. We’ll have childcare, a kids’ track, an elders’ circle, and a healing justice center to stay sane and together for the long run.

We, as Anarchist People of Color (APOC), share a loose set of politics being anti-authoritarian and a common identity as people of color. We are not a formal organization, political party, non-profit, charity, committee, church group, dance troupe, etc…

We, the coordinators of this convergence, know each other either directly or indirectly from years of organizing, and through APOC connections. Many of us met almost 10 years ago at the first national APOC conference in Detroit, Michigan. We are excited to reconnect, reassess, reunite and meet new people. We aim for this convergence to not just be a reunion though but a multi-generational, multi-dimensional gathering that can offer something for almost every anarchist or politically radical person of color out there.

We hope that participants are looking for dialogues, methods, and theories that resist oppression by understanding the root causes of injustice – while developing strategies for ecologically, politically, socially, and economically sustainable communities. Not everyone coming will be or has to be an anarchist. We just hope that participants will want to build power in ways that are not hierarchical, racist, and heteropatriarchal, but are instead collaborative and horizontal.

We don’t intend this convergence to be a place to hammer out points of unity, build a formal anything or come close to representing all anarchist people of color. We hope that we’ll just get a chance to meet, dream, learn and make some amazing plans.

*Please note that we are organizing with and inviting people of color only.*

The convergence will be in downtown New Orleans, in the Marigny/7th Ward area. The registration point will be at 1024 Elysian Fields Ave, 70117.

GET INVOLVED! To participate in the convergence, please register at * www.apocconvergence.info/registration*so that we can prepare for your stay.

We are currently accepting workshop and event proposals. * www.apocconvergence.info/call-for-proposals*

Feel free to email us with any questions at *apocconvergence@gmail.com*.

Thank you!


APOCalypse

Here is more information that was sent along with this call:

APOCalypse: a National Anarchist People of Color Convergence
Survival Strategies for the New Millennium
July 12th – 15th, 2012
New Orleans, Louisiana
www.apocconvergence.info
Register here: http://www.apocconvergence.info/registration/

CALL FOR PROPOSALS
Calling all activists, organizers, artists, performers, musicians, theorists, healers, academics, designers, zinesters, seamsters, and all!

This July, we hope to bring together a couple hundred friends, comrades, family members and strangers to New Orleans, Louisiana, to celebrate, re-map, and craft our anti-authoritarian visions and skills for the years to come.

We’ll have parties, plenaries, workshops, panels, roundtables and space for impromptu discussions on what it means to organize as anarchists; the future of indigenous solidarity; people-of-color movement history; science fiction; queerness; and conversations on racialization. We’ll have childcare, a kids’ track, an elders’ circle, and a healing justice center to stay sane and together for the long run.

We are currently accepting proposals for workshops, spaces to chill, activities, performances, and events. We want there to be facilitated spaces to talk shop, and, also spaces to just chill, reconnect with old friends and socialize with new. (Please submit proposals to host a chill space so we can make these happen!)

Please note that this convergence is by and for self identified people of color only.

ABOUT THE CONVERGENCE:
It’s been almost 10 years since the first national APOC conference in Detroit, Michigan. We are excited to reconnect, reassess and reunite and meet. We aim for this convergence to not just be a reunion but a multi-generational, multi-dimensional gathering that can offer something for almost every radical person of color out there.

We think it’s important for us to come together to celebrate our successes, learn from our failures, and analyze our roles in local, national, international, and dare we say, intergalactic movement building. We also think that it’s a good opportunity to talk face to face, and not just facebook to facebook.

We don’t intend this convergence to be a place to hammer out points of unity, build a formal anything or come close to representing all anarchist people of color. We just hope that we’ll get a chance to meet, dream, learn and make some amazing plans

PROPOSAL GUIDELINES:
Please consider and answer the following questions in your proposal to facilitate or host a workshop, space, activity, performance, or event. We will try to read everything we receive from you; it would be helpful to us if you limited your proposal to 1000 words/2 pages.

  • Name of workshop, space, activity, discussion, performance or event
  • Describe the content/topic of what you are proposing.
  • Please read over our tracks in BOLD below. Is there an existing track your proposal could fit within? Is there a track you’d like to see that doesn’t already exist?
  • How is this a kid friendly space or not? And if not, is there a way we can support you to be more kid friendly? *Note: there is a kids & youth track in the making, so molding your workshop to create space for kids is not mandatory.
  • How are you preparing for differently abled bodies? Is there a way we can support you to do so?
  • Do you need or want support in structuring and/or running what you propose? Are there other resources you will need? (For example, an easel, projector, markers, etc.) Sorry, we are unable to provide funds at this time.
  • Many of the topics and issues we end up talking about at APOC events can be triggering or bring up difficult emotions for many. How do you plan for your session to be able to adequately hold space for people and/or address conflict? Are there any triggers you can anticipate and advise people of at the beginning of your session?
  • How will your workshop/event be committed to anti-sexist, anti-racist, anti-classist, queer politics?
  • How is your proposal specifically related to APOC?

Please include the best way to reach you: your telephone number, email, etc. and email your proposals to: programming.apocconvergence@gmail.com

We look forward to hearing your ideas!
–the Programming Collective & the Childcare/ Youth Collective –
tracey (New Orleans), puck (Oakland), lida (New York City), ianna (Oakland), wakx (Seattle), gahiji (New Orleans), xan (Oakland), dan (New York City)

Currently, the convergence tracks are:


  • THEORY, ACTION, AND STRATEGIES OF ANARCHISM
 ARTISTIC COMMUNICATION, EXPRESSION, CONNECTION

  • OUR IDENTITIES, OUR LIBERATION
  • PREPARING OURSELVES FOR THE COMING APOCALYPSE 

  • YOUTH TRACK (ages 12 and up) – description coming soon

  • KIDS TRACK (pre-12) – description coming soon

  • DREAMING AWAKE: visions for 2012 & beyond (also known as the SCI-FI TRACK)

  • WINGNUT TRACK

  • -and others to come based on submissions that we receive…


THEORY, ACTION, AND STRATEGIES OF ANARCHISM

This track will focus on some of the basic tenets, theories and practices of anarchism, both western and non-western. Workshops and discussions will address how anarchism relates to Left movements, labor unions, the non-profit industrial complex (social services/ the shadow state), membership and base-building organizations, academia, etc. This is a good place for people to talk strategy and build nationally.

This track is dedicated to analyzing and re-inventing horizontal organizing structures and direct action tactics we’ve used to challenge capitalism, the state, and other coercive systems. Because a critical part of anarchist theory in action is the work of creating transformational healing and justice; this track is committed to envisioning and discussing strategies to build and sustain autonomous communities by confronting and addressing gendered, raced, and classed violence; on institutional and interpersonal levels.

ARTISTIC COMMUNICATION, EXPRESSION, CONNECTION

This is the track to geek-out about the history of radical art, as well as the track to create new work and share techniques, skills, and maybe a harrowing wheatpasting story or two. How have performances, paintings, pirate radio stations, fighting arts, dance, and sculptures incited, propelled, or supported critical dialogue, movement, or action historically or in your own practice? How do we hold and honor those artists and revolutionary movements who came before us without commodifying their images? What is the role of social media — its liberatory potential alongside its dangers?

OUR IDENTITIES, OUR LIBERATION?
Identities categorize, define, divide, inspire and unite us. In them, we seek refuge, rebellion, commonality, and history. We defy, defend, betray and blend the borders of our belonging. We often organize in their names and speak from their positions. But when do we own our identities, and when do they own us? In this track, we trace and interrogate the lineage of “people of color” organizing in the US. We seek to understand how we relate as the landscape constantly changes around us. Where and what is our firm place to stand on — being black, being immigrant, being mixed-race, being indigenous, being queer, being working class, being a POC? What does stability bring and then, what does instability offer? What strengths, what hazards, what possibilities exist?

PREPARING OURSELVES FOR THE COMING APOCALYPSE
Ours is a dystopic age: honeybees dying, elemental catastrophes and the rise of disaster capitalism, global climate distortions, cities emptying. We know we have to see this birth of a new world (dis)order through, hasten the collapse of old structures that keep us caged, and yet, we have to survive to do it.

This track asks us to consider the long haul: aging, capacity/ disability, parenting/ family, ownership. As we get older and still work to build this revolution, how do we fight burnout; mend and rejuvenate our bodies, minds and spirits; and build networks of support to do unpaid revolutionary work? As we build a new world in the old, let’s reflect on our failures, excesses, successes and lessons from utopian experiments like collectivization, land trusts, homeschooling, polyamory, back-to-the-land ventures, squatting, organizing the rich, and organizing the poor. You tell us, what else have you tried?

DREAMING AWAKE: VISIONS FOR 2012 & BEYOND (also known as the SCI-FI TRACK)
Langston Hughes said, “books had been happening to me.” This is the track where we ask each other what would Nalo Hopkinson, Samuel Delany, and Octavia Butler do? Where we hatch our escape plans, swap the survival skills that comic books imparted to us, and imagine what color spandex Neruda’s angels of bread would rock. Proposals submitted for this track might be more in the vein of nerdy chill sessions, writing alternate endings for our favorite sci-fi adventures, or they might be skillshares on queering mathematics and bending space-time (is that even a thing? let us know!). What kinds of things does your “imagination dare to dream when (pronoun) is sleeping”?

WINGNUT TRACK

You must self-identify as wingnut to gather and hold space here. You know who you are. It’ll be fun. Secret handshake, tin foil hats… show up, make it realer than real.

Remember, for more information or to get in touch with the organizers: apocconvergence@gmail.com
& on facebook: https://www.facebook.com/AnarchistPeopleOfColor



Thursday, May 24, 2012

Decolonizing Anarchism: An Anticolonial Critique


There was an "anti-colonial Victoria Day" book launch in Montreal on May 21, where Maia Ramnath presented her new book Decolonizing Anarchism, published by AK Press and the Institute for Anarchist Studies (and available from leftwingbooks.net). What made this launch special, and different from most such events, was that the Ramnath spoke on a panel with Ponni, a radical activist from India, who used her intervention to level a detailed and outstanding critique of the book, from an anti-authoritarian and anticolonial perspective.


Given the strength of this critique, i asked Ponni if i could upload the transcript here to my blog. She graciously agreed, though wanted me to make it clear to readers that this is not a "review", it is a talk given at an event, and so is not structured or intended as a written piece would be. Here it is:

I am an activist with the queer movement, feminist movement and labour struggles and a student of history. I also work on conflict related issues in Sri Lanka primarily in the north and east of Sri Lanka. I have studied modern Indian history - which means 1757 to 1947. But later I have come to be involved in a range of different research projects on social movements in post-independence India including archiving the women’s movement in some parts of India in the 70s. I am also part of an informal network of queer feminists across the South Asian region.

This introduction is important not to establish my authenticity; in fact I am mildly annoyed by the authenticity that is read on to me in the global west even by the closest of comrades. It is to explain the background from which the following comments are coming. In many ways the book is too close to home, to say the least.

What I enjoyed in the book are the snippets of information about related social movements in the ‘diaspora’, if I can read that modern category on to another period and the limited channels of solidarity that exist today among activists in South Asia and groups based in the global west.
Here are a few points of criticism for the book.

1.    Tracing the story of Veer Savarkar as part of a revolutionary history - you might have your reasons and frankly I am only partially curious about them - but it goes against at least two generations of historians if not more, working to write his and others’ such as his stories out of the ‘nationalist’ history. The story is told through Bal-Pal-Lal by Congress and left historians alike. All three of them had problematic stances towards a Hindu identity and a nationalist identity from our vantage point today, but did not go on to found the Rashtriya Swayam Sevak Sangh - the Hindu fundamentalist body, a right-wing, nationalist, paramilitary, volunteer and militant organization that still exists - in 1925, a mere few years after where you stop with the story of Savarkar in this text.  Savarkar supported among other things the Jewish state in Israel in 1947. The next generation is of course Bhagat Singh, Sukhdev and Chandrasekhar Azad.  Their story the author addresses to some extent. If the idea was to tell the story of the ‘extremists’ as the Indian National Congress dubbed them, I see the relevance of that. But we do not have the privilege yet of looking at Savarkar as anything more than a self-identified, Hindu fundamentalist leader. India is a Hindu country and State-run massacres of thousands of Muslims are going unpunished and at this stage complicating the history of the founder of Hindutva is like complicating the story of the establishment of the Jewish state. While we can acknowledge the marginal significance of both of these projects as long terms theoretical concerns, we do not have that privilege yet.

2.    The book has fallen into every trap that historians in privileged institutions in India are in. It is a view from Delhi and it is centered on Bengal. Neither of which are surprising to me given that I have been trained in these very institutions. But this becomes problematic in this context as the claim of being from an anarchist tradition is thoroughly debunked if the author could not see beyond the obvious privileged halos of the nation she’s writing about. It is of course not a question of simple exclusion; it is a question of a severely inadequate and often fallacious representation of thinkers and traditions which would have fit very nicely within the author’s project. The only reference to a person based in Madras in the late 19th and early 20th century is that of a Brahmin thinker and writer Acharya at the same time when the likes of Ayothee Daasar the anti-Brahmin Buddhist thinker and philosopher was writing extensively and rationalist groups such as those who ran the magazine Sudesamitran were functioning and had a broad range of connections with their counterparts in Europe.

3.    Speaking of the author’s project - needless to say there is one - there always is. But the author claims in the beginning of the book “instead of always trying to construct a strongly anarcha-centric cosmology- conceptually appropriating movements and voices from elsewhere… as part of our tradition, and then measuring them against how much or little we think they resemble our notion of our own values - we could locate the western anarchist tradition as one contextually specific manifestation among a larger - indeed global tradition of anti-authoritarian thought… something else being the reference point for us, instead of us being the reference point for everything else.”  The author has not done a few basic prerequisites in order to be able to achieve this decolonizing - for example to conceive and frame a working definition of anarchism for the context she is studying and writing about. 
The different ‘a’s, small or big are not a working definition for South Asia. Declarations of not being able to mention these terms to folks there and the problems with that are understandable but not excusable in a research project. In fact, an explanation of your own political trajectory and the words you are attached to in your tradition might have led to more engaging and maybe more illuminating conversations there. Further, there are ways to make the story South Asian in the pre-independence period by telling the stories about thinkers and movements that are shared across borders that were drawn later. The revolutionary poet Faiz Ahmed Faiz or the stories of Sadat Hasan Manto would have been useful as they span at least the regions that are now India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. Khan Abdul Gaffer Khan or Frontier Gandhi a person of marginal presence in the nationalist story is told in India and completely erased in the story as told in Pakistan would have been a fascinating figure. Traditions of separatism in Baluchistan and their history would have been another story to tell. Or just the description of the actual geographical and cultural entity that is Punjab would have made the story more inclusive. And of course, at least anarchists should acknowledge the small fish in South Asia, be they Sri Lanka, Burma, Bhutan and so on and their unique position and the shadow of the other 3 nations that looms large over them. The hegemony of India in south asia means weapons for the fascist government in Sri Lanka, unchecked control on the economies of Bangladesh and Pakistan, double standards on Tibet and lip service to struggles for democracy in Burma. It is not one that can be done away with in a disclaimer, at least not by us who trace our roots to antiauthoritarian radical political traditions.    

4.    It is this lack of a working definition for herself that leads to statements such as ‘the narrative is still dominated by male upper caste voices whereas anti- authoritarian… has to confront the malignant realities of caste and patriarchy. Yet this is not a history of caste or patriarchy or the movements to dismantle the structures of oppression based on them. So for the purposes of this project, it seemed better to offer what is actually there rather than simply to condemn or discard the record on account of what isn’t there’. The problem with this statement is that it is there. It required another pair of eyes to look in order to find them. It is like, I am told by trusted political allies here, telling the sotry of the civil war in the Us without talking of how Indigenous people were brutally affected - because that information is ‘not there’.

5.    Then it is not surprising that the author ends with ‘in this way, the warp and the weft of the ongoing process of South Asian decolonization beyond formal independence on into the 21st c are tantalizingly analogous to those of western anarchist tradition’.  It is not analogous. And as someone who is part of the movements the author is referring to, I do not think there is an adequate critique of nationalism or for multiple forms of protest in India. There isn’t a context in which to state the limitations in our movements in order to move us forward to bring thousands on to the street as is happening so inspiringly in Montreal every night. Anarchist thought can help us through these questions. But this author has missed the bus and eventually simply given us the anarchist tick mark.

What is missing in this book is not to be raised here just as exclusions but have a profound effect on the political universe the book inhabits from my vantage point. Here are the stories I would have told:

(Before that a quick note about my vantage point: it is an important one because this book is about my history as an activist and historian engaged in progressive research and activism in various movements. This book is clearly not written for the people about whom the book is. And somewhere the decolonization project has to begin with being able to write texts that are written in the global north that can be of some relevance or of significance in terms of bringing in fresh perspectives to those who the text is about. If we don’t do that we are not different from those who we stand against in our political work.)

  • Periyar - on August 15th, 1947, the day of independence, he said is the first day of the beginning of the slavery of all those who were not north indian, Brahmins. A translation of that speech is available online and I will be happy to provide the details. This is the same thinker who, in his last speech before he died literally said ‘smash the state’ in Tamil. 
  • I would have included the story of Savitribhai and Jothirao Phule who for me embodied the anti-authoritarian tradition of going against the state and society in order to provide knowledge to young minds while being critical of the power of knowledge itself. They did this by leading groups of young Dalit men and women, boys and girls into the hallowed spaces of education. 
  • I would have told the story of Ambedkar’s conversion to Buddhism and his use of Buddhism as a tool of dismantling the very basis of Brahminism. If Aurobindo’s engagements with radical traditions and then his engagements with spirituality can be part of the story I don’t see why Ambedkar’s relationship with Buddhism cannot be. I see it as a moment of a leader who believed in the state and the law, so much to draft the constitution of India, turning towards an anti-authoritarian thread that he saw to be much more powerful than any constitution can ever be.  
  • I would even have used the partially idiosyncratic travails of Subhas Chandra Bose whose story can be told a million ways. He believed in reclaiming the arms of the state and its bureaucracy, more specifically the armed wing and went about it in multiple ways. 
  • I would not have forgotten Telengana the peasant’s land struggle in rural Andhrapradesh in 1949, two years after formal independence. 
  • I would have told the story of the Emergency of 1975 through the intense context of political turmoil but also critical thought, discussion and debate that existed inspired by the 1968 student revolts in France and later by Maoist struggles in China and also the mobilization against the Bangladesh war in 1971. The 70s saw an overwhelming radicalization of many who joined various political streams. The JP movement spread throughout the country as did Lohiaite socialism. The Dalit Panthers of the 60s inspired directly by the Black Panthers in North America and the ultimate end of their heyday by the late 70s would have been part of this story. 
  • Irom Sharmila the Gandhian who has been on fast for the past 12 years against the Armed Forces Special Powers Act, the Kabir Kala Manch, the Dalit cultural troupe that have been arrested by the Maharashtra government for singing songs of Dalit liberation are all for me the streams of thought and action that are inspired by anti-authoritarian traditions. 
  • Given the myriad reservations about violence as a means of struggle I would have included the debates within the ultraleft parties such as the formulations of Chandrasekhar of JNU, a student leader who was brutally murdered by the police, or the articulations of numerous other leaders of the far left as well as commentators including the likes of Gautam Navlakha and Arundhati Roy. 
  • I would include the cultural history of the theatre of Safdar Hashmi or Habib Tanvir, with all the problematic aspects as well as the songs of our own Ghadar of Andhrapradesh who has inspired generations of revolutionary thinkers across political lines. 
  • And last but not the least; I cannot for a moment swallow the absence of women as well as the women’s movement in this story. The autonomous women’s movement emerged as a reaction against party-based left spaces as well as the State itself. So in a sense against two kinds of authoritarianisms. This then lead to numerous conversations about what a movement space looks like in which were numerous conversations of the minute details of anti-authoritarian feminist politics. I would have included the story of Anuradha Gandhi, a left thinker, activist and feminist. I would have included the work and thoughts of Sudesh Vaid who was one of the founding members of the civil liberties strand of politics and was also a self-avowed feminist. I would have spoken on the anti-State thought of the feminist struggles against forced contraception during Indira Gandhi’s time or the national network of women against state violence. If an anarchist scholar wherever she may be from had looked at the story of the women’s movements, pointed out to the anti-authoritarian strands and pointed out to the lack thereof in some places even, I would have used that text to have conversations back home. 


6.    The project is an ambitious one.  Any attempt at writing a ‘history of India’ is fallacious as it is not a cohesive unit and has never been. Neither is it a collection of several units. It exists in a complicated web of power that has to be laid out before one embarks on such a project if at all. It has been done with a narrow expanse of secondary reading and primary research being constricted to my friends and professors in Delhi it seems, who themselves know of their limitations. The crux of the problem with this text may be in its intention and in its lack of shifting the lens away from the political tradition that the author hails from. For example: “mushairas” is not spoken word. ‘Direct translations’ such as these are problematic as the author herself points out in her disclaimers. Stepping out of the frameworks we are in is very difficult to do for any of us. But we can only address this by rigorous reading of all that is available and by unabashedly spending sizeable amounts of time living and working while observing the movements in a context that are foreign to you. Without that rigour in methodology, the anti-colonialism cannot even begin. Otherwise one can write about moments of conversations between different political traditions and have us read between the lines of those conversations and see how they can inform our solidarities in the present. The author does that every now and then and I personally think she should continue on that track. It is a useful one and no one else is doing it that much. Until we figure out the nitty gritty of how we can do this, as the author says ‘look to your own house, work at and from your own sites of resistance.’




Thursday, January 12, 2012

Class Antagonisms Inside the Fundamental Contradiction of National Oppression, by Sanyika Shakur







Class Antagonisms inside the Fundamental Contradiction of National Oppression
7–4–47 ADM (11)

Having just passed the 19th, and quickly approaching the 20th, anniversary of the L.A. Rebellion [1], We should be reminded here of what Rodney King whimpered as he stood in front of a bank of microphones surrounded by class enemies and neo-colonial politicians.

We should remember how he’d been dressed in that non-threatening cardigan sweater, white shirt, and black tie. How his hair had been tortured into submission by a jheri curl. We should reflect, as well, upon how timid and spooked he looked and on how concerned and stern those who flanked him were as well. That was a Kodak moment. It was staged to foster an image of contrition and resignation. Submission. A victim.

Rodney King had been led to believe, thru a bourgeois sense of reasoning, that the Rebellion was really about him. That the reason New-Afrikans and Mexicanos took to the streets of South Central was the result of his filmed beating.

That, of course, is typical of mechanical, bourgeois thinking. What it’s not typical of however, is someone from the ‘hood.[2] And this cuts both ways. No one in the ‘hoods and barrios, ever thought it was about Rodney King. We’d all seen the film, over and over like everyone else. But that was par for the course. We’d always seen that - long before anyone had caught it on tape.

Actually, We’d experienced much more than that. Why, it’s safe to say, that hoods have gone to War with each other, in vicious waves of internal (intra-class) combat, for much less than that. Tho’, because of a general colonial mentality, which prevents the challenging of (from bottom up) oppression, the same “hood” forces will not, in any systematic way, wage war on the pigs! Or for Freedom, Land and Socialism.[3]

Rodney King, alone and of his own accord would not have thought to hold a press conference to ask the asinine question (in the form of a whimpered request), “Can’t We all just get along?” The fact of the matter was We were getting along. New Afrikans and Mexicanos were getting along just fine. What we couldn’t overstand was why he was admonishing Us for getting at the exploiters of our communities? The impression he gave, with his handlers’ hands up his back, like a ventriloquist doll, was that a “Race Riot” [4] was going on. As if we had begun to kill each other, or burn and rob each other’s homes. His handlers compelled him to send up a false flag - a diversion. But, you see, this was the very thing that exposed the class interests and reactionary politics of the Uncle Toms that had been designated to handle him and by extension Us! [5]

Let’s go back for a minute, let’s talk social development (“history”). There exists a fundamental contradiction in Our lives that, like an elephant in the room, no one wants to acknowledge. Here’s the thing, as a consequence of the war waged upon various Afrikan Nations by European powers, those of Us captured and kidnapped where taken out of Our own self-determining social developments and violently forced into Euro-amerikan his-tory. This is not simply a clever play on words. This is a reality. We lost the ability to control Our own destiny.[6] Read that again.

From that time until now, the fundamental (basic) contradiction between the U.S. oppressor Nation and Our own oppressed, and colonized Nation, has been the governing imperialist relationship. Which is to say, Us not being in control of the qualitative factors [7] that determine Our lives as a people. A Nation!

Our tradition of struggle against this fundamental contradiction has taken on many faces - some hidden or obscured, and some open and hostile. But all of these have been to resolve the fundamental contradiction and to regain Our independence.[8] While there have been bona fide struggles to resolve the contradiction, there, too, have been reactionary, neo-colonial struggles, waged by internal enemies loyal to the oppressor Nation and culture, that have tried time and time again to subvert and control Our destiny for the benefit of the capitalists.[9]

They’ve come among Us, always imposed from above, stirring up emotions and giving lip service to “progress”, “equality”, “justice” and “prosperity”. These always within the colonial confines of the oppressors’ arrangements.[10] And none, collectively, ever materialize, because without a resolution of the fundamental contradiction - that is, the freeing of Our productive forces from U.S. imperialism and the governing of Our own affairs, We’ll remain a “minority” within the Amerikan system (as opposed to a majority in Our own) and subjected to the established bourgeois social contract, i.e. colonialism. Neo and Post.[11]

We can parade all thru the empire with “black” congressman, “black” mayors, “black” governors, “black” police chiefs, “black” supreme kourt justices - hell, even a “black” president - and absolutely nothing will alter the genocidal relationship that governs Our national oppression here because the “blacks” are a part of the colonial apparatus. They have made a strategic alliance with the capitalist-imperialists to act as go-betweens in Our oppression and exploitation.[12]

This is a conscious class stand. The “black” petty- bourgeoisie is not innocently confused, like say Mrs. Johnson across the street is about our national oppression. About the existence and subjugation of New Afrika. They are well read, have travelled and are experienced - they have just chosen sides against Us and in favor of Our historical enemies! And, the sooner We recognize and internalize this, the better off We’ll be.[13]


Black ain’t nothing but a color. As a designation of Our national Identity it has played out. It is a superficial overstanding at best and a foolish and dangerous analysis at worst.[14]

We have no collective control over the qualitative factors which determine our lives. We do not, in other words, control Our destiny. Not as a people (Nation) or a state (government). We are not a free, self-determining people. We were, before contact, kidnapping and national oppression - but not now. And until this fundamental contradiction is resolved, until New Afrika is independent of U.S. imperialism and neo-colonial domination, We will remain at the continual mercy of Our historical enemies and their warped worldview. A worldview that breeds, promotes, encourages and finances predation and exploitation!

Which brings Us back to Rodney King and “Can’t We All Just Get Along”. The question that begs an answer is: Who is this “We” he spoke of? The rebellion was against what was generally perceived as the system and particularly against exploiters who parasitically attached themselves to Our oppression, chose to bleed our communities of the little finances we were able to have. The masses, in their choice of targets, were only re-appropriating the wealth they’d invested in these stores and businesses that were then taking that wealth out of the ‘hoods and barrios and giving it to the enemies of Us all. So “We”, the poor and exploited, were already “getting along” with each other. Who We didn’t get along with were those who’d exploited Us. Who’d bled our areas dry of finances while flooding our areas with a bunch of crap and b.s.

It wasn’t the Crips, Bloods or Surenos [15] who’d pulled Rodney King out of his car and beat the hell out of him. Nor was it the Black Liberation Army or the Brown Berets. So, why was his press conference directed at Us in the ‘hoods

and barrios? This also alerted Us to whom had arranged this press conference. The next question in line with his request is: What exactly did he mean by “Get along?“ As in, “Can We All Get Along?”

Didn’t Our “Getting Along” with national oppression lead Us to this point? Didn’t We “just get along” after they kidnapped Us, colonized Us, hung Us, neo-colonized Us, imprisoned Us, ghetto-ized Us, miseducated Us, un-employed Us, assassinated Our leaders, drugged Us, infected Us [16] and sent our youth to fight other oppressed peoples for them? Didn’t We get along during all that? Getting “along” with U.S. imperialism and our own genocide, has gotten Us into this sordid ass state.

“Getting Along” allowed the pigs to feel comfortable with pulling Rodney King out of his car and beating the hell out of him. The pigs didn’t fear reprisal from the Black Liberation Army for harming one of Our nationals because when they imprisoned Our combatants We “just got along” with that. Re-read that.[17]

But you see, here’s the thing - that was not Rodney King’s words, nor his thoughts. Probably not even his will. No, those who were pulling his vocal cords were those who had a vested interest, a stake, in the system - as it was before the Rebellion. Those who had made a political and economic (class) alliance - with the imperialists! His now famous quote was actually a message from our class enemies by way of someone who they thought we could identify with. But, of course, his (their) words fell upon deaf ears because those who’d been treated just as bad (and some even worst) were out in the streets looking for a better day.

All the things people labored so hard to manufacture, at minimum wage jobs, but could not afford to buy, they got for FREE. People were getting food, clothing, diapers, shoes and whatever else they could never afford, but always needed. And this in an Empire who’s wealth began upon their conquests and continues upon their exploitation today. Let Us not forget that the U.S., as an Empire, has never supported itself - EVER! It was born a parasite and grew to prominence - as a parasite. It is today a parasite. But in the wealthiest Empire on the planet, in the history of the world, people are starving, homeless and generally without.

The repression required to keep Us “just getting along” is a massive effort undertaken by every branch of the oppressor government: Executive, Legislative and Judiciary. In fact, laws are enacted to maintain bourgeois hegemony over both internal and external colonies. Both Federal (National) and State (Regional) laws function to keep the oppressed tethered to the floor of the Empire.[18] There is a general and a permanent state of war that governs all relations between oppressor and oppressed. Sometimes it’s hidden and tactically called something else - usually something with a benign name that sounds well-meaning. You know like “War on Poverty”, or “War on Drugs” - “War on Gangs”. They militarize everything having to do with relations between oppressed and oppressor Nations. It’s all part and parcel of the general and permanent state of war between Us and them! And just because We ain’t ready, organized and responding to it don’t mean it’s not a war. The ‘hoods, barrios and reservations are virtual prisons. The schools are half-way houses and the prison industrial complex is doing big business. It’s a war alright. Ready or not.[19]

A permanent state of war must exist in order to maintain fear in and control over the internal colonies. This permanent state of war is called colonialism. When they allow someone who looks like you to govern you, for them - this is called Neo (New) Colonialism. And, when they let a “black” run the business, as in Rock Bottom being president of the U.S. - this is called post-neo-colonialism. But colonialism all the same. The system is capable of morphing at moment’s notice in order to survive and continue to oppress. As Butch Lee pointed out, “it can even appear as its opposite in order to evade destruction.” The slogan popularized by the old Black Liberation Movement, “By Any Means Necessary”, actually embodies what the U.S. system of capitalism is really about. In practice. Always.[20]

They will select a “black” sock puppet to be the president to demonstrate to their investors that they are color blind - turn right around and imprison 800,000 New Afrikans.[21] Then, the sock puppet president, turns around and appoints various women to his team to show the people it is not patriarchal - but the same system is waging an authoritarian war on women and children. Tho especially women and children of color - those from the internal colonies (New Afrika, Puerto Rico, Aztlan and Indigenous Nations).[22]

And, of course, We have to contend with the loyal-enemies of the Empire. These are the ones who go hooping and hollering about “racism” and “discrimination” - boo-hooing about how exclusionary the system is - and yet they really only want in. They want “equality” - to be equal with the very ones they claim are “racists”. They use terms like “OUR government”, or “OUR troops in Afghanistan” - “OUR police Force”. They are clamoring against “discrimination” because they feel they, too, should be allowed to prey on people. They want to be “equal” in the system of capitalism. They don’t want to stop the problem - they want to be a part of it. Why else would they ask for “equality” without calling into question the entire grotesque apparatus? [23]

This is what makes the petty bourgeois class of “blacks” so dangerous. They have the resources, approval and backing of the imperialists to carry on their campaigns of accepted forms of protests, even when it appears to question the bourgeois laws of the enemy. For instance: they’ll support both a new trial and the release of Mumia Abu Jamal, only because we can prove that he was wrongly convicted as a part of a frame-up . And while We go on to link this frame-up with a total array of colonial maneuvers carried out to keep New Afrika oppressed and exploited, they’ll pull back at “racism” and ignore Our need for self-determination. This, because their class interests reach an ending at calling into question the fundamental contradiction.[24] We can demonstrate this by the fact that there is no support for Sundiata Acoli, Jalil Muntaqim, Sekou Odinga or any other New Afrikan prisoners of war. Anything that points to the challenging of the fundamental contradiction - that calls into question the actual National Oppression of New Afrika - the petty bourgeoisie will ignore, reject or outright deny support for. This would not be in accord with their class interests as parasites upon Our misery, their collaboration with our oppressors. So, within the framework of their accepted forms of protests, as loyal enemies (as oppo-sames), they can call Mumia’s capture, incarceration and conviction “racist”, “discriminatory” and “questionable”. But that’s where it will end. That’s the parameters. That’s the function of this class. To appear as staunch defenders of “black”, or “Afrikan American”, rights, progress and equality only within the boundaries of established imperial rule. Which is to say only as “citizens” of the oppressor Nation - as “minorities” needing special handling. Victims.

And here we are back at Rodney King. Once the spontaneous L.A. Rebellion had run its course, brought under control only secondarily by the National Guard - it’s primary weakness, of course, was its spontaneity [25] - the U.S. government enacted a counterinsurgency policy called Weed and Seed. This directive was issued straight from the White House, from then president George H.W. Bush. And, let Us not forget, that this same pig had, from February 1976, to November of that same year, been Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. So he was no stranger to counterinsurgency programs.[26]

Weed and Seed was a counterinsurgency program much like the Phoenix Program run previously on the Vietnamese people to, it explicitly said, “neutralize the Viet Cong by assassinating its cadres, destroying its bases among its people and strategically winning over the Vietnamese population”. That is exactly what Weed and Seed was about as well. In the ‘hoods and barrios of South Central.[27]

Once you see New Afrikans as an internal, colonized Nation and not simply as a “black minority of discriminated against U.S. citizens”, you’ll begin to overstand the interchangeability of military tactics used against other colonies around the world. Not only did Weed and Seed implement a weeding out of “troublemakers”, i.e. combatants, leaders and political adversaries, but it seeded points of contention and distrust amongst the various participants in the Rebellion and Resistance that grew eventually into what’s happening now between almost every ‘hood and barrio. These conflicts did not fall from the sky. Their origins are on Earth, issuing from designs that serve someone’s needs. The idea is to follow the conflicts to the point of interest. Which is to say, who is benefiting from the conflicts? Keep the term Weed and Seed in mind as We go forward here.

Nationals of two oppressed and colonized Nations (Aztlan and New Afrika) are involved in shooting wars. Yes, these conflicts largely involve lumpen (criminal) elements. Those involved in street org activity. The lumpen element to a degree played some significant roles in the Revolution of the 60’s and early 70’s. Especially those who were able to transform their criminal mentalities into conscious Revolutionary mentalities. Even tho’ it’s largely lumpen elements in contention in the ‘hoods/barrios, regular, working-class people, students and children, are also being affected by these clashes. But the thing is, the combatants are nationals of oppressed Nations - those the U.S. government has already deemed “social dynamite” [28] and have slated for liquidation thru one of its various methods of collective death and destruction. So, once the enemy culture saw the mass unity during the Rebellion, measures thru Weed and Seed, were undertaken to divide, so as to be in a better position to CONQUER, these elements who obviously had no qualms about rebelling against oppression.

Here’s one of the tactics they used: On Florence and Normandie Avenues, the acknowledged point of origin of the Rebellion, New Afrikans were shown on film pulling a Mexicano priest from his car, yanking his pants down, while he has on the ground, and spray painting his private parts black. This was not what it actually was reported to be. While this priest was, in fact, Mexicano, he’d been pointed out by a Mexicano as a child molester and was thus disciplined by the first group that got to him. But because those who got him were New Afrikan and he was obviously a Mexicano and no sound was attached to the video, the media was allowed to mis-interpret the scene as they wished.

And this is what they did. So, there was Reginald Denny layed out after being pulled from his truck - after he’d yelled “get your black asses out of the street” to the Rebels - and then beaten. And across the street was the Mexicano priest, pants pulled down, private parts painted black - and the Rebels were seemingly targeting anyone who wasn’t New Afrikan as they passed. This is what it looked like from the helicopter and after the news people interpreted it as such. But that wasn’t true.

The Rebels, the lumpen, had just had a very physical brawl with a few dozen L.A.P.D. pigs over their manhandling of a fellow by the name of Marc.[29] During the Rebels’ battle to free Marc from the pigs clutches, a radio call came out which instructed the pigs to retreat - to leave the area. They got into their cars and left. Then the Rebels walked up to Florence Avenue and were attempting to secure the intersection from all vehicle traffic - that is: all vehicle traffic. Any motorists that attempted to pass had their vehicles bombarded with stones, sticks and bottles. The tactic was to secure the intersection against the eventual return of the L.A.P.D. Which, is must be added, has its 77th Division (a notoriously aggressive and hostile station) right down the avenue of Florence at Broadway. So, the idea, on a purely spur of the moment level, was to secure the main intersection from any and all flowing traffic. What is interesting to note is that the young Rebels and lumpen weren’t trying to “start” the L.A. Rebellion. And it certainly wasn’t about the Rodney King beating or verdict. Tho We’d all seen that too. Where earlier in that fateful day the four L.A.P.D. pigs were acquitted after a trial for the taped beating.[30] While it most definitely wasn’t the central factor, it was however one more nail in the coffin of belief in the system. This, if only for a few days, while Rebels re-appropriated various goods and demolished certain structures they knew were used to exploit and extract wealth out of the area. Local, mom and pop shops, were not destroyed or looted.

However, by showing over and over the corner of Florence and Normandie, Reginald Denny’s stoning, the priest’s painting and the chaotic attempts by the Rebels and lumpens to secure the corner, the impression of “Madness” and “Racism” was projected out into the city, region, state and the Empire. And, of course, like most things involving a challenge to capital, exploitation and private property, the states’ propaganda machine put its own spin on these events. With a few agents on the ground, in key places, doing whisper campaigns, it wasn’t too hard to convince right-wing street (and prison) organizations that it was the “Racist blacks attacking Mexicans”. Thus began the acrimonious flow of orders to “get even” that issued from the tombs of the SHU units. Check the stats - after the ‘92 Rebellion, the hoods and barrios across L.A., Watts, Compton and Lynwood erupted in lethal clashes that have culminated in the hostile stand off that exists today. In the midst of the Rebellion nevertheless, there came a ceasefire order observed by some of the most dangerous and combative street orgs within the New Afrikan communities. Eighty percent of the sets complied with the cease fire. Bitter enemies blended across color lines in South Central, Watts and Compton. This was in the historic spirit of the 1965 Watts Rebellion [31] that saw a ceasefire and blending of the older New Afrikan street orgs in favor of United Action Against the L.A.P.D. and National Guard. Weed and Seed was to prevent this from happening again.

Once the streets orgs agreed upon a ceasefire in 1965, they, unlike the Crips and Bloods of 1992, had a social movement to join as an alternative.[32] A social movement that was increasingly becoming an armed revolution. Malcolm had been murdered earlier that year, in February. The Revolutionary Action Movement (RAM) was active, and nightly on the bourgeois news, images of civil rights protests were being shown. There existed a more obvious exposure of the fundamental contradiction. New Afrika was being rapidly de-colonized. The system of capitalism was morphing again, looking, searching, for new ways to maintain its control over the internal colonies, while simultaneously struggling to get new colonies in Vietnam, South Amerika and Afrika. The following year, in October, the Black Panther Party for Self-Defense would start. And, too, would the United Slave Organization. Most of the street org combatants who’d come together in a cease fire during the 1965 Watts Rebellion, would go on to join either the Panther Party or the United Slaves. A move that wasn’t lost on the FBI who, thru its Counterintelligence Program (Cointelpro) worked tirelessly to exacerbate pre-existing conflicts between individual combatants that inevitably spilled over into gunfights and murders.[33]

The same tactics were used against the Crips and Bloods under Weed and Seed, after the 1992 Rebellion. Same war, different names of the maneuvers, same objective. What should come across as evident to Us as We reflect on the various tactics used against Us over the centuries is that the enemy has more faith in Our ability to get free than we do. Put another way, the enemy has had to implement so many ploys, to hold, control, exploit and now to eliminate Us that for Us to sit and point these things out make even the most astute observer appear as a wing-nut conspiracy theorist. Tho of course, it’s no theory when its actually happening, as Butch Lee and J. Sakai point out in Rethinking New Orleans,[34] it ain’t a conspiracy when it’s done out right and in the open - it’s a strategy. Why else would the imperialists have to implement plan after plan - sometimes elaborate and varied - to contain New Afrika (or any other colony) if for (1) it wasn’t capable of breaking Free, (2) it wasn’t an asset and (3) it wasn’t able to turn it’s oppression into the actual defeat of the empire itself? [35]

Oftentimes the reaction to an issue can be a lesson unto itself. In this instance the enemy’s reaction to Our very existence is quite enough for those with eyes and ears, to recognize the vast potential in our collective ability to break de chains. Of course, the fact remains that the chains which bind - that at this stage are psychological - are so thoroughly in place that the masses have to be convinced that they are oppressed.[36] Consciousness will not fall from the sky. Nor will people be moved to action by mere thoughts, or ideas in anyone’s head. On both accounts material, earthbound, tangibles - food, clothing, shelter, Land, and control of destiny (Socialism) will motivate the masses. People are moved by interests.

So, in closing, it never was about Rodney King, the verdict, or any singular thing at all. These, however were accelerants, or sparks, at any given time, but the basic most fundamental thing that causes Us to struggle, to resist, is that We are not collectively free to determine Our own destiny. That we are under the thumb of U.S. imperialism. And this imperialism is administered thru colonialism - colonial violence (violence both armed and unarmed). Violence does damage (physically or mentally) - in the streets or in the schools. Thru police shootings or cultural hegemony. The colonialism is in place to exploit

Us through capitalism. Let’s be clear on this. Because whether the people are conscious of this or not, it is the reality We are in. And it follows that it will be Our recognition, challenge to and resolution of this fundamental contradiction that will end Our National oppression. Without overstanding this, We’ll continue to be played on Amerika’s Ferris Wheel of “citizenry” - dazed and confused. Being led by the “black” bourgeoisie to meekly just “get along” with Our oppression. Hau!

Rebuild!

Sanyika Shakur



[1] L.A. Rebellion, 4-29, 5-1– This is the “official” timeline. However, it took the security forces (police - above and undercover– CHP, sheriffs and national guard) at least seven days to regain full control of rebel areas.

[2] Suffice it to say that those of us in the hoods and barrios have always had a running battle with the L.A.P.D. and L.A. Sheriff’s Department. We’ve never found it expedient to hold press conferences to highlight either Our beatings nor our attacks on them. We took our lumps, just as We gave them theirs.

[3] What prevents hood forces from systematic, i.e. organized and sustained combat, is the colonial mentality. This mentality sees the state and its operators as legitimate and reflects upon itself as not. Thus ultimately the lumpen submits to the “legitimate authority” and allows the state to carry out its function – which is to dominate, oppress and exploit. For further reading on the criminal/colonial mentality see: Notes From A New Afrikan P.O.W, Journal, Book One (Spear and Shield Publications) and “Mediations On Frantz Fanon’s Wretched of the Earth”, Yaki Yakubu (Kersplebedeb, 2010).

[4] i put both race and riot in quotations because, of course, both are misnomers – false flags designed to not just mis-inform, but to distort the reality. There are no “races”. There’s but the human race. Again, see “Meditations….” (Yaki). Nor was the Rebellion a “riot”. That term was deliberately used to de-legitimize, to belittle and confuse. And of course no reports of private homes or national clashes were reported–or seen.

[5] For a critical breakdown and overstanding of the black petty-bourgeoisie, see: “Settlers: Mythology of the White Proletariat” by J. Sakai.

[6] A people’s sovereignty is measured by its ability to control, chart and determine its own destiny. That is, who it trades with, who it is, who it gets along with and who it doesn’t. For example, the Provisional Government of the Republic of New Afrika is not at war with Afghanistan – but, the u.s. has so blurred the reality of Our national

reality, that not only do Afghani people believe that all the people in the political borders of amerika are at war with them, the actual colonial subjects of captive nations believe it as well. Thus, even though the PG–RNA is not at war with the Afghanis, it has literally no control over its nationals to prevent them from going to war on behalf of the u.s. oppressor nation. It does not have the power to control Our national destiny.

[7] Of course the qualitative factors are education, health care, employment, judiciary and housing. All these are administered at a hefty and often mind-warping and spirit-breaking price by the colonialists!

[8] As revolutionary nationalists We reject the notion and line that says our freedom is to be found, or “won” by integrating into and becoming “equal” with the very system responsible for our oppression and the people who administer that domination. Therefore we look to the lines of struggle which have sought to regain independence from - out and away of - the colonialists, e.g. the Garvey Movement, Henry Highland Garnet, Pap Singleton, the BLM and NAIM. And similar national liberation struggles here and abroad - all anti-imperialist struggles.

[9] See: Settlers: Mythology of the White Proletariat, J. Sakai, Chapter 4: Neo-colonialism and Leadership.

[10] Here you have to visualize Al Sharpton, Rev. Jesse Jackson, MLK Jr. etc. These are Our “leaders” not because We have chosen them – or because they speak our aspirations to power, but because Our enemies have chosen them to mis-interpret Our aspirations to fit into the colonial scheme of national oppression. Hence at every outbreak of struggle, whether it’s the L.A. Rebellion or the Jena 6 issue, Mumia’s case or the Occupy the Hood struggle in Oakland - here come the neo-colonialists not to help us, but to do reconnaissance for the enemy. To find out what’s going on and then to report it, get instructions on how to twist it, then jump opportunistically out in front to mis-lead it right back into the clutches of the colonial parameters. That’s the function of this class. See “Settlers....”

[11] We should clarify this term “post-colonialism”. Ward Churchill pretty much summed this up in “On the Justice of Roosting Chickens” (AK Press, 2003) when he said: “...how about we actually complete the process of global decolonization before we announce our entry into “the postcolonial era”? Truly, how can we be in a post (after) colonial era when colonialism still exists??

[12] In our struggle - inside the colonial reality of New Afrika and its struggle to identify itself in the sea of imperialist distortion and neo-colonial ignoration - which, as Ward Churchill points out in “On the Justice of Roosting Chickens (AK Press, 2003), is deeper than mere ignorance. Ignoration is: “...instead to be informed and then to ignore the information”. So, to be ignorant is not to know, but ignoration is to know, but to ignore. Churchill says: “there is a vast difference between not knowing and not caring....” (pg.7.) So, here We are trying to show that within the New Afrikan Nation there is a class struggle between those who identify themselves as “Black” or “African American” and New Afrikans. And further, that those petty-bourgeois forces are actually conscious of themselves as go-betweens in order to steer the masses wrong (rightward) and serve their class interests and that they deftly employ ignoration. So, when We use “Black” here it is to direct attention to this class. As collaborators. Like the Negroes Malcolm pointed out when bringing “Black” into existence.

[13] Ignoration.

[14] To label oneself “Black” or others “White”, “Brown” or “Red” is to fall into the ideological trap of racism. It is to believe and propagate the false social construct that humans are broken down into different “races” which are classified outwardly by the complexion of ones skin, or the texture of one’s hair. Though, of course, it’s deeper than this since it also promulgates ones superiority and inferiority according to those who designed it. What it essentially does is bury the reality of class and politics - the real social determinants of humans. Humans are all one race. No matter if you subscribe to racism or not, if you’re using terms like Black, White or Brown to determine yourself or others you are pushing a racist line. See: “Meditations on Frantz Fanon’s Wretched of the Earth” by Owusu Yaki Yakubu (Kersplebedeb, 2010). We’ll use these terms in quotations to point to their un-reality. Or in distinguishing New Afrikan revolutionary nationalists from petty-bourgeois collaborators.

[15] Here We use the three dominant street orgs in L.A. - Crips, Bloods and Surenos (Southsiders) - to point up the reality that those on the front lines, in the initial stages of the Rebellion were, in fact, street org combatants who’d felt a sense of pride and control over their areas. Of course, the grassroots - the students, working class and the elderly eventually came out en masse and kept it going. And, here, the Surenos (Southsiders) are the conglomerate “Latino” street orgs that function under the 13 (or Trece) numerology.

[16] “Infected Us” points to the various government tactics of smallpox (Trail of Tears), syphilis (Tuskeegee study -1932 to1972), HIV, hypertension, etc, etc. Hepititis, as well. See “Doctors of Death” by Dr. Alan Cantwell.

[17] To recognize Political Prisoners of War is to recognize the reality of the nation. We feel that because there is a low national consciousness level - so few are aware that they are colonial subjects of captive nations that this directly correlates with the low levels of recognition and support for Our captured combatants. Some of the longest held Prisoners of War, hail from internal colonies here (New Afrika, Puerto Rico, Aztlan and the Indigenous Nations), inside the u.s. of a.

[18] See: The New Jim Crow, by Michelle Alexander.

[19] See: Rethinking New Orleans, by Butch Lee and J. Sakai (Kersplebedeb) and The FBI War On Tupac Shakur and Black Leaders, by John Potash (Progressive Left Press, 2007).

[20] See Perversions of Justice: Indigenous Peoples and Anglo-American Law, by Ward Churchill (City Lights, 2003).

[21] See: The New Jim Crow, Michelle Alexander.

[22] See: Night-Vision: Illuminating War and Class on the Neo-Colonial Terrain, by Butch Lee and Red Rover (Vagabond Press, 1993).

[23] There’s another term We could use here to describe this class - or rather what this class suffers from: cognitive dissonance. This, on top of their ignoration. And cognitive dissonance is: even when confronted with overwhelming evidence that what one perceives is wrong, one still, without fail, believes to the contrary. It was coined by Dr. Leon Festinger, of the University of Chicago, in the 1950’s. The petty-bourgeoisie in order to sustain itself as a class of mis-leaders has to submit to a collective sense of cognitive dissonance and ignoration.

[24] Even in giving lip service support to Mumia within the parameters of the bourgeois order, they did so only after the massive effort of the people grew too big to ignore. They safely laid in the cut, and tailed safely behind.

[25] We have to acknowledge what Comrade George Jackson coined “The Riot Stage” of social development, and of consciousness. This stage is characterized by spontaneity and shortsightedness. Usually led by petty- bourgeois sentiment and emotions. This, of course, is a weakness that is exploited by the enemy. They’d easily prefer a quick, spontaneous flare-up - a “riot” - to an entrenched, protracted people’s war waged by the internal colonies. So, in portraying the Rebellion, even by calling it a “riot”, they’ll promote it as if it really was a great threat to the establishment. And as revolutionaries We have to point out that yes, We are glad to see that the masses have not been so lulled to sleep by the illusions of bourgeois democracy that they wouldn’t resist at all. We simultaneously must stress that rebellions are not revolutions. That rebellions are, by and large, reformist. Since one can rebel against something without necessarily being for its opposite. Usually if it’s spontaneous, this is the case. So while the L.A. Rebellion was against exploitation, pig repression and a general sense of oppression, it wasn’t actually for Land, Independence and Socialism. Nor was it actually defined as anti-capitalist. But for Us cadres it was a sign of collective life and a will to resist. Good soil to plant new seeds.

[26] For a very good breakdown on counterinsurgency, check out: “Our Enemies in Blue: Police and Power in America” by Kristian Williams (South End Press, 2007).

[27] To show the audacity of the colonialists, since 1992, they have an actual program called the Weed and Seed Program which is at: 1133 Rhea Street, Long Beach, CA 90806. Website www.longbeach.gov/health/FSS/ws.asp. Here are the “services” it offers: “Clothing, mental health, counseling, social service information, low cost housing, drug and alcohol treatment, WIC, child care and schools. Also provides: education, career preparation, social and economic/life skills activities, job readiness skills, drug and gang prevention and education program and promotes educational programs to ex-offenders to assure work skills for employment”. This is from its website. This is counterinsurgency disguised as a “helpful program”.

[28] See “Lockdown America: Police and Prisons in the Age of Crisis” by Christian Parenti (Verso, 1999).

[29] Marc Williams is the older brother of Damian “Football” Williams, charged in the L.A. 4 case that came out of the beating of Reginald Denny and the securing of the corner of Florence and Normandie. Damian was captured personally in a media staged moment by chief of police Daryl Gates.

[30] This after they won a change of venue from the city of Los Angeles to Simi Valley where the population is not only amerikan and conservative, but largely inhabited by L.A.P.D. members and their families.

[31] Watts Rebellion began on August 11th and lasted until August 14th. Brought under control by the State National Guard.

[32] This is an important point because from 1965 to at least September 1971, when the Crips began, street org activity was replaced by struggle for liberation within the framework of the Black Liberation Movement. And We need only to give a cursory glance at who all were street org combatants to point up the power of the BLM then: Alprentice “Bunchy” Carter, Sekou Odinga, Zayd Malik Shakur, Afeni Shakur, Nuh Washington, etc. - all were bangers before joining the Revolution. Some in L.A. Some in New York or others parts of the Empire. The movement attracted them, though, and cadres transformed them. But after the movement was disrupted by the counterrevolutionary thrust of the state - which was, in part possible by the movement’s own internal weaknesses. Street orgs than again, began to proliferate. So, when in ’92, the Crips and Bloods agreed on a cease fire, they had no movement, no cadres to transform them. In swooped Weed and Seed and the Crips, Bloods and Surenos were easy pickings. It wasn’t long before chaos was back as the norm. Only this time as a shooting war between nationals of oppressed nations. A tactic of counterinsurgency is: Problem - Reaction - Solution.

[33] See: The FBI War on Tupac Shakur and Black Leaders, John Potash (Progressive Left Press, 2007).

[34] Rethinking New Orleans, Butch Lee and J. Sakai (Kersplebedeb Publishing).

[35] To “Capitalism as We know it to be, in present and past form. Which is to say that, no matter the internal struggles in Europe, among Europeans, between those who ruled and those who were ruled, between serfs and lords, etc. - no matter these influences - what cemented and gave assurance to the development of what We know as capitalism, imperialism, was the enslavement and transport of Afrikan people, from the Afrikan to other continents. Was the circumstances which led to the birth of New Afrika. The movement of Afrikan people from independence - to independence, is what will end the life of the Empire. No matter how hard it may be for some folks to accept right now”. Bakari Shanna, Notes From A New Afrikan P.O.W. journal, Book Two (Spear and Shield Publications, 1978).

[36] It used to be that “Raising consciousness” to particular levels was enough to show the masses that no real self-determination existed and that bourgeois democracy was a sham. Now, however, with the initiative firmly in the clutches of the state, globalists and their propagandists, and cadre, We have to literally convince the masses that all this is smoke and mirrors. It’s a daunting task, actually. Especially in the post-9/11 age of “everyone who is anti-state is a terrorist”. Still, however, it is what is to be done.
***********************************

Sanyika Shakur in a New Afrikan Communist currently held in Pelican Bay's Security Housing Unit; you can write to him at:

Kody Scott  D#07829
PBSP-SHU / C-7-112
PO Box 7500
Crescent City, CA
95532