A Passion to Understand: USA

Saturday, 30 January 2021

Unspeakable: The Tulsa Race Massacre by Carole Boston Weatherford and Floyd Cooper | Book Review

Greenwood District, Tulsa, Oklahoma was once home to a thriving African American community. On May 31st and June 1st 1921, a mob of armed white Tulsans attacked the community, killing as many as 300 African Americans and displacing 8,000 more. 2021 will mark the 100th anniversary of what became known as the Tulsa Race Massacre, the history of which was suppressed for seventy-five years.

Unspeakable: The Tulsa Race Massacre is a picture book by author Carole Boston Weatherford and illustrator Floyd Cooper. It's short at 32 pages but aims to help young readers understand these terrible events so that "we can move toward a better future for all". It's aimed at the 8-12 years age group.

Reading Unspeakable: The Tulsa Race Massacre was physically painful. In the beginning, the book describes the thriving community of Greenwood District and the high street that became known as the "Black Wall Street". The descriptions of culture, fashion and community reminded me so much of what I've read about Sophiatown and District Six in South Africa, communities with vibrant cultures that were similarly razed to the ground.

Weatherford has done a fine job of simplifying the events for young readers, but presenting sufficient detail to draw older readers into healthy debate and discussion. It would be a good platform to stimulate further research and self-study too. The author's and illustrator's notes were particularly interesting, detailing their personal reasons for being involved in this work. Of particular note is the author's comment that the event was not even taught in Oklahoma schools until the twenty-first century.

The illustrations by Floyd Cooper are exquisite, showcasing the fashions and vibrancy of Greenwood District, and ultimately the violence and devastation. The illustrations do a great job of bringing the events and people to life, ensuring that the reader relates to them and to the injustice of the events.

Unspeakable: The Tulsa Race Massacre is published by Carolrhoda Books, an imprint of Lerner Publishing Group

I would wholeheartedly recommend this book and am pleased to note that it's being released in both the US and UK (and presumably around the world).

An advance, electronic copy of this book was provided by Netgalley for the purposes of this review.

Book Review: West of Jim Crow: The Fight Against California's Color Line by Lynn Hudson ★★★★☆

I know very little about American civil rights history from the late 19th to early 20th century. This is not surprising; my focus has primarily been on Africa (especially South Africa) and on genocides in the 20th century. It has been interesting to learn that anti-miscegenation laws and job-colour bars weren't the invention of Apartheid South Africa but originated in North America. Specifically, a set of so-called Jim Crow laws emerged in America from about 1880 that sought to enforce racial segregation and these laws would be a highly influential on laws adopted by South Africa.

In West of Jim Crow: The Fight Against California's Color Line, Lynn M Hudson focuses on the African Americans who moved to California to escape Jim Crow, expecting freedom and the benefits of full citizenship but instead realising that Jim Crow and racial segregation were all too present in the west.

This is not simply a recounting of the racism, fear-mongering and obsession with eugenics that featured so prominently in white society for the century after the Reconstruction Era (although these are mentioned in some detail throughout the book). West of Jim Crow is about the tireless efforts of Black Americans to assert their citizen rights, establish respectability, secure equal opportunities and protect their men and women from the scourge of lynching and the rise of the KKK.

It is also notably about the role of Black women, their agency and the significant roles they took in journalism, activism and other roles to secure their rights both as women and as human beings. As Lynn M Hudson remarks on many occasions, just because there is little in the written records about Black women's struggles for freedom and activism, does not mean there wasn't significant agency and activism present.

West of Jim Crow is structured around six chapters, each concentrating on a specific event in Californian history:

Reconstruction: the initial gains and setbacks in the period following the Civil War, with the rise of Jim Crow and associated Jim Crow entertainments and minstrelsy
The Panama Pacific International Exposition: a look at the systematic erasure of civil rights gains, the emergence of the NAACP, the popularity of Birth of a Nation and the rise of eugenics
The Rise and Fall of Allensworth: the town founded by and for African Americans, doomed to fail because of misrepresentation, geographical and environmental issues
On Lynching: an account of the events that divided a country into those who supported lynching and those who were appalled by it; eerily prescient of Trump, tiki-torch marches and the gun lobby
On the Ku Klux Klan: fighting arson and intimidation while the KKK infiltrated law enforcement and local government in California
The Fight to Desegregate Pasadena's Municipal Swimming Pools: how activists began to use the damages of Jim Crow to argue for civil rights, winning the Pasadena pool case and later the Brown v Board of Education case

West of Jim Crow covers an incredible wealth of information and provides an interesting, readable account of African American history in California. Initially I felt a bit exhausted by the repetitive, circular mode of writing, featuring titbits and breadcrumbs followed by elaboration and exposition. I've noticed that this form of writing is favoured by many historians and while it can be taxing to read, the truth is it is preferable to a dry, linear account and also aids significantly in the reader's retention and comprehension of historical information.

Despite this small reservation, I give West of Jim Crow an excellent four out of five stars and highly recommend to those wishing to know about this particular area of Black history.

★★★★☆

West of Jim Crow: The Fight Against California's Color Line is available to purchase from Amazon.com and Amazon.co.uk (disclosure: affiliate links. I will earn a small amount if you purchase using these links, at no additional cost to you).

My thanks to University of Illinois Press and Netgalley for advance, electronic copy of this book.

Before the Spring: Invasion of Iraq and Iraq War (2003-2011)

This is the second in a series on A Decade of Conflict Leading up to the Arab Spring.

The United States invasion of Iraq took place between 19 March and 1 May 2003. It was presented to the American public and the world at large as an action that would rid the world against terrorism, protect against Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction, and liberate the people of Iraq.

The invasion was seen to be successful because it resulted in the toppling of Saddam Hussein’s Ba’ath Party government in just 21 days and allowed the subsequent occupation of Iraq. It was the first action in what was to become the Iraq War which officially lasted until 18 December 2011.

The difficulty is that Iraq held no weapons of mass destruction, was not in any way involved in the 9/11 terrorist attacks on America (which was the galvanising force behind American support for the invasion), and left the people of Iraq traumatised and devastated after being subjected to nearly a decade of brutal force.

Army Sgt stands guard near burning oil well in Rumaylah Oil Fields [Wikicommons]

It is likely that the invasion of Iraq, a sovereign state, by United States forces was illegal and then Secretary-General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan, said as much in 2004. Far from freeing the Iraqi population, the war resulted in the death of at least 100,000 Iraqi citizens (with some estimates rising to 1 million civilian deaths, see Casualties of the Iraq War).

A heavy bombing campaign lead to the wide scale destruction of infrastructure and services in Iraq, leaving the population without water, electricity, sewerage systems and hospitals. The bombs dropped on Iraq were laced with depleted uranium resulting in a lasting radioactive contamination that will likely remain for generations. There has been a sharp increase in childhood leukaemia, cancer and infant mortality in highly bombarded regions in Iraq.

The war in Iraq resulted in a humanitarian crisis of massive proportions that has spilled over into neighbouring countries.

“UNHCR estimates that more than 4.7 million Iraqis have fled their homes, many in dire need of humanitarian care. Of these, more than 2.7 million Iraqis are displaced internally, while more than 2 million have escaped to neighboring states.” - UNHCR, "Iraq Refugee Emergency"

Malnutrition and disease outbreaks are widespread in a population with a disproportionate amount of widows and orphans.

Finally, much was made of the positive effect that the war would have on the liberation of women in Iraq. In their book What Kind of Liberation? Women and the Occupation of Iraq, Nadje Al-Ali and Nicola Pratt discuss the challenges facing the women of Iraq. They have noted an increase in neo-conservatism and the rise of violence against women, oppression and honour killings. Women and young girls are often forced into prostitution or become victims of sex trafficking and exploitation. Despite the rise of women-headed households, Iraqi women face great obstacles in becoming employed or gaining an education.

More so than ever before, every step of the Iraq War was subject to media scrutiny with many news outlets employing permanent correspondents and embedded reporters in key Iraqi locations. While news outlets struggled to remain neutral amid accusations of propaganda and censorship, Al-Jazeera was noted for being one of the few news outlets to portray Iraqi casualties and present to audiences a view of the devastation in Iraq.

As with the Second Intifada, the people in neighbouring Arab countries received these broadcasts and took to the streets in protest against the Iraqi War. The sentiment was increasingly anti-USA, anti-United Kingdom and anti-Israel with protests in Syria, Tehran, Cairo and later Baghdad and Basra in Iraq itself.

Once again, in the context of rising distrust and conflict following the 9/11 attacks, increasing reports of discrimination and Islamophobia, and war in both Israel and Iraq, Arab speaking people began to feel solidarity to one another and an identification with the Palestinian and Iraqi causes.

The New Scramble for Africa

Ambassador Michael Battle
Image source: fpc.state.gov

The US, African Union and new scramble for Africa

Source: ThoughtLeader

The past few years have seen a dramatic uptick in American diplomatic efforts in Africa, which has coincided with a decisive shift in political rhetoric about the continent. At first glance this might seem like a positive development, reflecting a more progressive attitude toward what has long been considered an unimportant global backwater. But a closer look reveals that American diplomacy in Africa is less about serving the good of African people than it is about securing the interests of private American capital. Nowhere has this been more flagrantly clear than on the lips of Michael Battle, the US ambassador to the AU.

First, a bit about Battle. He received a Masters degree in Divinity at Trinity College and a Ph.D in Ministry at Howard University, and served at the Interdenominational Theological Centre in Atlanta until he was nominated to his current post by President Obama in 2009.
Battle’s position at the AU is new and little known outside diplomatic circles. The US only established a dedicated ambassadorship to the AU during the Bush administration in 2006. This mission - known as USAU - is the first of its kind among non-African states, and is designed to facilitate US operations in Africa as a more ‘efficient’ and ‘effective’ alternative to bilateral relationships with individual African states.

This month I had the opportunity to attend a speech delivered by Battle during his visit to the Miller Centre of Public Affairs at the University of Virginia. I noticed a new diplomatic rhetoric right at the outset of his presentation. First, he referred to Africa as a continent of ‘great riches’ and ‘abundance’, flagging a notable departure from earlier, longstanding representations of Africa as ‘desolate’ and ‘impoverished’. Paralleling this point, Battle spoke at length about shifting US policy in Africa toward corporate ‘investment’ and ‘partnership’ and away from public ‘aid’ and ‘assistance’.

On the face of it this seemed like good news to me, but the rest of Battle’s speech disabused me of any rosy assumptions about his intentions, as the two primary objectives of the USAU rose quickly to the surface: security and trade.

In terms of security, Battle confirmed America’s dedication to working with the AU and the US Africa Command (AFRICOM) to militarise the continent’s coastlines. While he claimed that the goals of this mission include responding to increased maritime piracy and breaking cartels that traffic illegally in drugs and humans, he made it clear that the primary military objective is to protect US oil interests in the Gulf of Guinea, suppress local resistance movements like MEND in Nigeria, and secure a favourable climate for returns on investment for American corporations. When pressed, Battle justified his call for militarisation by invoking the vague and poorly substantiated spectre of ‘terrorism’.

In terms of trade, Battle spoke excitedly about the partnership between the US, the AU, and the Corporate Council on Africa (CCA) to integrate and liberalise the continent’s national economies. Battle’s explicit vision is to facilitate the efforts of US corporations such as Chevron, Delta, and GE (which he mentioned explicitly by name) to expand investments across multiple African nations by ‘harmonizing trade rules’ and ‘simplifying regulations’.
He praised the AU for developing ‘free trade’ across the continent at a faster rate than the EU was able to accomplish over a similar period of time, and hailed USAU’s vision for an Africa that is increasingly open for business to American companies.

None of this is particularly new, of course - the US has long used its diplomats to push for neoliberal economic policies. The real newness of Battle’s approach is that he no longer feels the need to hide America’s brash economic interests in Africa. While diplomats of earlier eras invoked the lofty rhetoric of development and democracy, Battle makes no such effort. Instead, he speaks plainly about using diplomacy to facilitate monopoly capitalism, and about paving the way for US corporations to - as he put it - ‘take advantage of Africa’s resources and exploit its tremendous market opportunities’. According to Battle, ‘If we don’t invest on the African continent now, we will find that China and India have absorbed its resources without us, and we will wake up and wonder what happened to our golden opportunity of investment.’ Battle couldn’t have been blunter - or more offensive - if he tried.

One can’t help but find Battle’s approach shockingly redolent of the 19th century ‘Scramble for Africa’, when European nations conspired to divide the continent among themselves, each claiming a share of its abundant resources, its cheap labour, and its untapped markets, all while committing to secure their claims with a military presence. The only thing that has changed today is that the actors are different, and the plunder is being conducted with the full support of the African political elite and the AU, which - not surprisingly - depends partially on funds from the US through USAID.

Before he left the auditorium, Battle agreed to field a few questions from the audience. One student asked him why he focused so much on capital investment and economic liberalisation, but never once discussed fairer labour standards or protective environmental policies or regulatory mechanisms designed to benefit the poor. Indeed, any astute observer of African affairs understands that poverty and instability arise not from too much regulation and too little foreign direct investment, but from too little regulation and foreign direct investment that plunders and exploits without meaningfully benefiting the public. What Africa needs is not investment for its own sake, but investment within a framework that will protect workers and the environment and ensure that common people receive a just share of the resources that are their birthright. But Battle refused to answer the question.

I also took a moment to pose a question to Battle. I asked him how it was that his job as a public functionary of the US government has become about securing the private interests of multinational corporations. I wasn’t surprised when he refused to answer me. But I was surprised that he made no effort to contradict me. Indeed, Battle was entirely prepared to defend his role as facilitator of American military intervention in the service of private American capital. And this without even the usual claims to altruism: he didn’t even gesture to the pressing problems of poverty, inequality, and exploitation in Africa. Given that Battle’s training in African affairs prior to his post at the AU amounts to almost zero, I suppose this shouldn’t be so shocking. Still, I expected more compassion and critical insight from a man trained in theology and educated at a historically black university.

As much as I want to criticise Battle for his lack of diplomatic decorum, I actually find myself grateful for it - grateful that he has spoken so bluntly about his gunboat diplomacy, grateful that he has exposed the market-oriented motives of the USAU, grateful that he has stripped away the romantic mystifications that usually shroud US foreign policy in Africa. Gone at last is the fig leaf of humanitarianism; Battle has given lie to any pretence that the Obama administration has the best interests of the beleaguered continent in mind. Indeed, Battle’s rhetoric represents nothing less than the formal inauguration of a New Scramble for Africa, and of a complicit AU that has been thoroughly co-opted by the US government and multinational capital.

Jason Hickel teaches courses in African studies at the University of Virginia while working on his doctoral dissertation in anthropology.

Reconsider Columbus Day

I don’t think it is ever ‘easy’ or ‘comfortable’ when people ask us to reconsider our national holidays. More so, perhaps, when those people are not a citizen of our country. But consider for a moment whether that national holiday honours all citizens of your country.

One of the major sources of contention when the Apartheid government of South Africa was replaced by the government of the African National Congress was that all of the national holidays were either changed or abolished and new ones were introduced.

The “Day of the Vow” on December 16th was no longer a day of thanksgiving to honour a promise made to God for helping the ‘pious’ Afrikaners defeat the ‘heathen’ Zulus at Blood River in 1838 (for this is how the events on that day were taught to us in school). Most of us ‘got’ why such a holiday might be offensive, most of us welcomed the change of name (and spirit) of the holiday to the “Day of Reconciliation” but there are still people who remember and honour the “Day of the Vow” each year. They dress up in 19th-century clothing, make pilgrimage to the Voortrekker Monument in Pretoria and generally hark back to the glory days of Apartheid.

Despite that minority, the majority of South Africans today observe a day of reconciliation, overcoming conflicts, forgiveness and nation building. Or they at least take a day off and don’t rub the Battle of Blood River in the face of the majority of the population.

When the time comes for your government to recognise that perhaps history needs to be reflected more accurately, are you going to embrace the change and work together on reconciliation, forgiveness and nation building? Or are you going to hold on to this holiday (and others) and all that it represents? What does Columbus Day mean to you?

Reconsider Columbus Day

Prom is For Everyone

One of the cognitive errors people often make is to assume that others are in agreement with them in terms of their morals and beliefs. I am guilty of that because when I read this story, I simply couldn’t believe that backwards people like this still existed in schools and campuses in the USA.

I’m sure many of you know about this story already, especially if you live in the US but I didn’t until I saw this banner on the blog Earth to Holly. So without further ado, here is the story…

Link: ACLU Sues Mississippi School That Canceled Prom Rather Than Let Lesbian Couple Attend [ACLU]

Link: Fulton, MS Prom Discrimination [ACLU]

Itawamba Agricultural High School in Fulton, Mississippi told a student that she could not enter the school prom with her girlfriend and that she could not wear a tuxedo. She was also told that if she arrived separately but slow-danced with her girlfriend, they might be thrown out.

The student, Constance McMillen, reported the matter to the ACLU and they issued a letter demanding that she be allowed to attend the prom with her girlfriend. The school board responded by saying that the prom was cancelled for all students and the ACLU then filed a suit against them. In the complaint, Constance McMillen v. Itawamba County School District, et al., the ACLU asked the school board to reinstate prom for all students and charged Itawamba County School District officials with violating Constance McMillen’s First Amendment right to freedom of expression. The hearing on the motion for a preliminary injunction will be held on this coming Monday 22 March.

You can support Constance on Facebook: Let Constance Take Her Girlfriend to Prom!

Book Review: The War Before by Safiya Bukhari

The War Before: The True Life Story of Becoming a Black Panther, Keeping the Faith in Prison and Fighting for Those Left Behind is a collection of interviews, speeches, pamphlets and essays written by late Black Panther Party activist Safiya Bukhari. With an introduction by Laura Whitehorn, a foreword by Angela Y. Davis and an afterword by Mumia Abu-Jamal, this is a well-produced book that serves to explain all the topics to novices such as myself while tackling some of the greatest issues faced by Black Power and revolutionary movements in the 1960s and 1970s.

Safiya Bukhari began her life as Bernice Jones. She had a middle-class, Christian upbringing and was expected to become a professional like her siblings. Bernice’s parents had taught their children higher education would bring them success in the world. Bernice decided to become a doctor and began studying premed at the New York City Community College in Brooklyn in 1968. She joined the only integrated sorority Eta Alpha Mu and began to seek ways to do volunteer work. It was Bernice that convinced her sorority sisters to concentrate their efforts in the local community rather than focusing on children abroad.

Along with her sorority sisters Yvonne and Wonda, Bernice volunteered at the Free Breakfasts for Children Program. This was a program organised by the Black Panther Party in the local communities to ensure that children did not go to school without breakfast. It was during one her her visits into the community that she saw police harassing a Black Panther member selling newspapers. She stood up for him and was thrown against a police car and arrested.

Her treatment during this process was inhumane and degrading to such an extent that she went straight home to tell her parents about the incident. She told her parents that she felt she had to stand up against such police brutality and her parents gave her their blessing, telling her to do what she thought was right. She went straight back to Harlem and joined the Black Panther Party*.

During her time in the Black Panther Party, Bernice became a Muslim and adopted the name Safiya Bukhari. She was arrested at the scene of a grocery store shooting in Norfolk, Virginia and charged with robbery and felony murder. Sentenced to forty years, she served nine years, much of it in solitary confinement.

On release from prison, Safiya became involved in fighting for the rights of political prisoners in the US and she campaigned on behalf of political prisoners right up until her death in 2003.

The works that make up The War Before were written from 1979 to 2002. They cover the experiences that lead to Safiya becoming an activist and member of the Black Panther Party and cover such issues as safety and security of Black people and party members; sexism within the party; Islam and activism; the plight of political prisoners in the US and finally, COINTELPRO and the efforts of the FBI to undermine the Black Power movement.

The book is fascinating and an eye opener. It is important to see the actions and beliefs of the Black Panther Party in the context of the late 1960s and 1970s where civil liberties were not guaranteed and Black people were often subjected to racism, prejudice and police brutality. That is not to say that such factors do not exist today but the Black Panther Party does not and hence a historical perspective is needed.

It is incredible to see the lengths the FBI went to in their counter-intelligence program and to learn of such events as the Church Committee which aimed to “expose, disrupt, misdirect, discredit, or otherwise neutralize” civil rights and other dissident political organisations. Documents opened by the Church Committee showed that the FBI achieved this by manufacturing and manipulating evidence and framing people. So it was that the Black Panther Party moved from community based projects to primarily defending court actions against its members, many of whom had been framed or manipulated.

The book raised as many questions for me as it answered and has certainly made me want to learn more about that period and the gains and losses of the civil rights and liberties movements.

The one thing the book does not offer is an objective perspective of the actions of the Black Panther Party or an acknowledgement of illegal acts or acts of sabotage that were committed by Safiya or people known to her. Organisations such the African National Congress in South Africa and Sinn Féin in Ireland have acknowledged the actions they took in order to fight for their respective causes. I imagine that in an atmosphere without the possibility of amnesty, where political prisoners remain behind bars or on death row, such a candid attitude may not have been possible and certainly not in Safiya’s lifetime.

The other factor which seemed to be missing from the introduction, foreword and afterword was an attempt to establish the book in the context of the current political context where an African American man is now president of the United States of America. Certainly, the struggle for better conditions, education, health care and freedom from prejudice, brutality and discrimination has not been won but I believe the book would have benefitted somewhat by an explicit attempt to make it relevant and significant today. While the plight of political prisoners certainly continues, it would have been interesting to read whether there were expectations now that the current administration would impact on any of the issues raised in the book.

Despite the questions left unanswered, I would recommend this book to those interested in history, social justice and civil liberties. While Safiya Bukhari was astounding at times in her insight and understanding, the essays and speeches in this collection are easy to follow for even the most uninitiated reader. I would go so far as to say that this is an important book and I do see the relevance of such a book in the political climate of today.

* The Black Panther Party was originally named Black Panther Party for Self-Defense and was initially started to help the community protect themselves from police brutality. The party was founded in 1966 and was a black consciousness movement. In addition to the Free Breakfasts for Children Program, the Black Panther Party served the community by providing free medical clinics, arranging for testing of sickle-cell disease, holding classes on economics and politics, giving lessons on self-defense and providing drug and alcohol rehabilitation. Divisions within the party and a campaign of infiltration and disruption on the part of the FBI’s counter intelligence program (COINTELPRO) eventually lead to the demise of the Black Panther Party in the mid-1970s.

Murder of Fred Hampton

fred hampton

The Murder of Fred Hampton and Mark Clark

There are many things we know today that they didn’t know back in 1969. For instance, we know the the FBI had a counter-intelligence program and that part of their program was to infiltrate, undermine and destroy civil rights, anti-war and black consciousness movements by any means necessary. The activities of what became known as COINTELPRO were exposed to the public by the Church Committee in 1975 and their findings are well documented. But this was not fully known or understood in 1969.

At the time that Fred Hampton and Mark Clark were murdered, it was said that they had opened fire at the police. As the case was investigated it emerged that of all the bullets that were fired that night, it was only possible that one of them was not fired by a police weapon.

The full story eventually emerged and was linked directly to COINTELPRO. FBI informant William O'Neal had provided agents with not only the whereabouts and plans of Fred Hampton and Mark Clark, but he had given them a detailed layout of Hampton’s apartment too. He had drugged Fred Hampton and so it was that all of the shots (but one) that were fired that evening were fired from police weapons, the majority of them were fired from outside of the apartment into the interior and Fred Hampton was murdered in his sleep.

The single shot that was fired by the Black Panthers was a reflexive shot fired by Mark Clark in the throes of death. He had been on security duty with a shot gun on his lap.

So Who Was Fred Hampton?

Fred Hampton was a very powerful, charismatic leader of the Black Panther Party. He was an excellent public speaker and he managed to broker a pact of non-aggression between the street gangs of Chicago. He believed that racial and ethnic conflict would only serve to keep people in poverty and he worked hard to alleviate conditions of people in Chicago. He worked with the Black Panther Party’s Free Breakfast Program, gave political education classes and often spoke at rallies and meetings.

Hampton was an outspoken critic of America’s treatment of Black and poor people and it was inevitable that he would eventually come to the attention of the FBI. He was just 21 when he was murdered on December 4, 1969.

You can view the film The Murder of Fred Hampton on YouTube.

The Black Panther Party

[Photo source]

The Black Panther Party originally began as the Black Panther Party for Self-Defense and their aim was to protect people from police brutality and to promote Black power and consciousness in the US. They originally began in Oakland, California where the police force was specifically and notoriously brutal against Black people.

I was really interested to read that they had a Ten-Point Program, eight points of attention and three main rules of discipline. To be honest, the rules and principles could have helped so much in liberation organisations around the world.

The Ten-Point Program of the Black Panther Party

[source]

WE WANT FREEDOM. WE WANT POWER TO DETERMINE THE DESTINY OF OUR BLACK AND OPPRESSED COMMUNITIES.
We believe that Black and oppressed people will not be free until we are able to determine our destinies in our own communities ourselves, by fully controlling all the institutions which exist in our communities.
WE WANT FULL EMPLOYMENT FOR OUR PEOPLE.
We believe that the federal government is responsible and obligated to give every person employment or a guaranteed income. We believe that if the American businessmen will not give full employment, then the technology and means of production should be taken from the businessmen and placed in the community so that the people of the community can organize and employ all of its people and give a high standard of living.
WE WANT AN END TO THE ROBBERY BY THE CAPITALISTS OF OUR BLACK AND OPPRESSED COMMUNITIES.
We believe that this racist government has robbed us and now we are demanding the overdue debt of forty acres and two mules. Forty acres and two mules were promised 100 years ago as restitution for slave labor and mass murder of Black people. We will accept the payment in currency which will be distributed to our many communities. The American racist has taken part in the slaughter of our fifty million Black people. Therefore, we feel this is a modest demand that we make.
WE WANT DECENT HOUSING, FIT FOR THE SHELTER OF HUMAN BEINGS.
We believe that if the landlords will not give decent housing to our Black and oppressed communities, then housing and the land should be made into cooperatives so that the people in our communities, with government aid, can build and make decent housing for the people.
WE WANT DECENT EDUCATION FOR OUR PEOPLE THAT EXPOSES THE TRUE NATURE OF THIS DECADENT AMERICAN SOCIETY. WE WANT EDUCATION THAT TEACHES US OUR TRUE HISTORY AND OUR ROLE IN THE PRESENT-DAY SOCIETY.
We believe in an educational system that will give to our people a knowledge of the self. If you do not have knowledge of yourself and your position in the society and in the world, then you will have little chance to know anything else.
WE WANT COMPLETELY FREE HEALTH CARE FOR All BLACK AND OPPRESSED PEOPLE.
We believe that the government must provide, free of charge, for the people, health facilities which will not only treat our illnesses, most of which have come about as a result of our oppression, but which will also develop preventive medical programs to guarantee our future survival. We believe that mass health education and research programs must be developed to give all Black and oppressed people access to advanced scientific and medical information, so we may provide our selves with proper medical attention and care.
WE WANT AN IMMEDIATE END TO POLICE BRUTALITY AND MURDER OF BLACK PEOPLE, OTHER PEOPLE OF COLOR, All OPPRESSED PEOPLE INSIDE THE UNITED STATES.
We believe that the racist and fascist government of the United States uses its domestic enforcement agencies to carry out its program of oppression against black people, other people of color and poor people inside the united States. We believe it is our right, therefore, to defend ourselves against such armed forces and that all Black and oppressed people should be armed for self defense of our homes and communities against these fascist police forces.
WE WANT AN IMMEDIATE END TO ALL WARS OF AGGRESSION.
We believe that the various conflicts which exist around the world stem directly from the aggressive desire of the United States ruling circle and government to force its domination upon the oppressed people of the world. We believe that if the United States government or its lackeys do not cease these aggressive wars it is the right of the people to defend themselves by any means necessary against their aggressors.
WE WANT FREEDOM FOR ALL BLACK AND OPPRESSED PEOPLE NOW HELD IN U. S. FEDERAL, STATE, COUNTY, CITY AND MILITARY PRISONS AND JAILS. WE WANT TRIALS BY A JURY OF PEERS FOR All PERSONS CHARGED WITH SO-CALLED CRIMES UNDER THE LAWS OF THIS COUNTRY.
We believe that the many Black and poor oppressed people now held in United States prisons and jails have not received fair and impartial trials under a racist and fascist judicial system and should be free from incarceration. We believe in the ultimate elimination of all wretched, inhuman penal institutions, because the masses of men and women imprisoned inside the United States or by the United States military are the victims of oppressive conditions which are the real cause of their imprisonment. We believe that when persons are brought to trial they must be guaranteed, by the United States, juries of their peers, attorneys of their choice and freedom from imprisonment while awaiting trial.
WE WANT LAND, BREAD, HOUSING, EDUCATION, CLOTHING, JUSTICE, PEACE AND PEOPLE'S COMMUNITY CONTROL OF MODERN TECHNOLOGY.
When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume, among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that, whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and, accordingly, all experience hath shown that mankind are most disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But, when a long train of abuses and usurpation, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.

8 Points of Attention

[source]

Speak politely.
Pay fairly for what you buy.
Return everything you borrow.
Pay for anything you damage.
Do not hit or swear at people.
Do not damage property or crops of the poor, oppressed masses.
Do not take liberties with women.
If we ever have to take captives do not ill-treat them.

3 Main Rules of Discipline

[source]

Obey orders in all your actions.
Do not take a single needle or piece of thread from the poor and oppressed masses.
Turn in everything captured from the attacking enemy.

The Black Panther Party also had several rules which can be found on the marxists.org website.

Break the Chains.org

Break the Chains.org is a:

“news and discussion forum for supporters of political prisoners, prisoners of war, politicized social prisoners, and victims of police and state intimidation” – breakthechains.org

I was quite surprised to learn that there were still political prisoners from various liberation movements in US prisons and over time we've come to learn that many of the convictions were obtained on falsified charges. Break the Chains.org tackles the issues of political prisoners both in the US and around the world.

It was on the Break the Chains.org that I discovered this video on the book The War Before by Safiya Bukhari.

Laura Whitehorn narrates this introduction to Safiya’s book. Laura was an activist in the 1960s and she took part in various civil rights and anti-war movements. She had been a part of Students for a Democratic Society and went on to become a member of The Weather Underground. Laura spent fourteen years in prison on charges of conspiracy, destruction of government property and fraud and was released in 1999.

Laura Whitehorn sounds as fascinating as Safiya Bukhari and i will certainly be reading up on her next.

Black consciousness week

I am reading a book on the Black Panther Party in the US at the moment. I knew very little about the Black power and Black consciousness movements in the US before and so in keeping with the spirit of this blog, I'll be posting various snippets of what I learn and research on the Internet while reading the book.

I'm barely 20 pages into the book The War Before by Safiya Bukhari and already I am fascinated. The links with the feminist struggle and the freedom struggle in South Africa are as clear as the unique difficulties and problems facing the Black Panther Party in the US and I'll keep you updated on what I learn.

Obama addresses the UN General Assembly

The 64th session of the United Nations General Assembly opened on 15 September 2009 and the General Debate opened today. During the General Debate, each member nation has the chance to address the General Assembly. Today's proceedings began with addresses by the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Mr Ban Ki-moon and the President of the General Assembly, Dr. Ali Abdussalam Treki of Libya.

President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva of Brazil was next to address the UN General Assembly followed by President Barack Obama of the United States of America.

I consider President Obama’s address to be one of the most important as the USA is an extremely powerful nation and the USA are one of the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council. I hope to concentrate on the speeches by the representatives of all five permanent members of the Security Council as well as the speech by President Jacob Zuma of South Africa as this holds specific interest to me personally (being that I am a South African expat).

My brief overview of the UN General Assembly and Security Council can be found here: The United Nations: an overview.

President Barack Obama addresses the 64th session of the United Nations General Assembly

A full transcript of this speech can be found at First Door on the Left.

Obama began by acknowledging that many have come to view America with distrust and scepticism but then went on to list many of the achievements that he has made during his first nine months as president, most notably being the prohibition of torture by the USA. It is interesting that he mentions in this paragraph his order to close Guantanamo Bay which is interesting because the future of the unit remains uncertain just four months away from the deadline as they struggle to make decisions on how to deal with the remaining detainees. I personally felt that this was going to be a broken promise but does Obama’s mention of it mean a renewed commitment or was he just hoping to gain mileage from the promise alone of closing it?

“We’ve also re-engaged the United Nations. We have paid our bills. We have joined the Human Rights Council. We have signed the Convention of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. We have fully embraced the Millennium Development Goals” – US President Barack Obama, address to UN General Assembly, 23 September 2009 [transcript]

I’m left incredibly uneasy by this later statement by Obama. I feel that I want to say something like, “what do you mean that the US wasn’t already part of the Human Rights Council, that they hadn’t already fully committed themselves to the Millennium Development Goals of the United Nations?”

There is so much that the United Nations is not achieving, so much that they feel powerless to do and yet they give permanent members of the Security Council the freedom to pick and choose which policies and programmes they will abide by? No, I am sorry. To me that is akin to not abiding by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights or the Geneva Convention.

“This is what we have already done. But this is just a beginning. Some of our actions have yielded progress. Some have laid the groundwork for progress in the future. But make no mistake: This cannot solely be America’s endeavour. Those who used to chastise America for acting alone in the world cannot now stand by and wait for America to solve the world’s problems alone. We have sought — in word and deed — a new era of engagement with the world. And now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges” – US President Barack Obama, address to UN General Assembly, 23 September 2009 [transcript]

I think this is a very interesting statement. On the one hand, there is a sense that nations look to the USA to solve all of their problems and provide monetary support. There seems to be a sentiment (especially in some British media) that the international and domestic financial crisis will not abate until the recession ends in the US, that improvements cannot be made until the US finds a solution. Obama is saying that nations need to start taking responsibility for their own political situations but he is also saying that nations need to communicate and cooperate in finding global solutions.

On the other hand, there is a extent to which the US has been involved directly in the evolution of certain situations, notably in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is one thing to declare war on a government but what of the people that have been affected by those wars? I’m not saying I have the answer to that but I certainly have many questions. There is also the question of aid and financial support. Aid is never a gift, is it? US aid always provides revenue that is streamed back into the US as American companies and personnel are utilised.

My personal feelings are completely incongruent and dichotomous. I feel that each country should be sovereign and should look after their own problems internally before getting involved in the affairs of others and in the same breath, I wonder what will become of the third world countries that were ravaged by slavery and colonisation if assistance is not provided. Mostly though, I feel that if a country signs an agreement or makes a promise such as the US and United Kingdom respectively did with Zimbabwe, then they should uphold those agreements or promises.

“The choice is ours. We can be remembered as a generation that chose to drag the arguments of the 20th century into the 21st; that put off hard choices, refused to look ahead, failed to keep pace because we defined ourselves by what we were against instead of what we were for. Or we can be a generation that chooses to see the shoreline beyond the rough waters ahead; that comes together to serve the common interests of human beings, and finally gives meaning to the promise embedded in the name given to this institution: the United Nations” – US President Barack Obama, address to UN General Assembly, 23 September 2009 [transcript]

It seems that Obama is calling for the United Nations to achieve what they originally set out to achieve, to ignore the politics and the spineless diplomacy that continues to allow genocide, war crimes and perpetual humanitarian crises. If so, I wholeheartedly agree with him. I wonder if this will be the generation to finally get the United Nations back on track?

Obama reiterated the notion that all nations have rights as well as responsibilities and then he introduced four pillars that he feels are fundamental for the future:

non-proliferation and disarmament;
the promotion of peace and security;
the preservation of our planet; and
a global economy that advances opportunity for all people

Obama’s words on nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation were powerful yet chilling as he promised to take action on Iran and North Korea if they continue to ignore international standards with respect to Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

"The world must stand together to demonstrate that international law is not an empty promise, and that treaties will be enforced. We must insist that the future does not belong to fear" – US President Barack Obama, address to UN General Assembly, 23 September 2009 [transcript]

Obama went on to discuss the promotion of peace and security and spent quite some time on the conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians to great applause from the General Assembly.

“The United States does Israel no favours when we fail to couple an unwavering commitment to its security with an insistence that Israel respect the legitimate claims and rights of the Palestinians. And — and nations within this body do the Palestinians no favours when they choose vitriolic attacks against Israel over constructive willingness to recognize Israel’s legitimacy and its right to exist in peace and security– US President Barack Obama, address to UN General Assembly, 23 September 2009 [transcript]

Obama then discussed climate change. It has been reported that China and India totally owned the US yesterday in the UN climate change debate as they promised ‘aggressive’ cuts in CO2 emissions compared with Obama’s simple acknowledgement of an historical failure to act and an undertaking to take action in the future.

Obama then discussed the global economy moving from the current financial crisis to a commitment to the Millennium Development Goals and a commitment to approach the 2010 summit with a concrete plan to make the goals a reality.

President Barack Obama is an excellent orator and I love to read his speeches as they fill me with hope and determination for the future. The problem is that words and excellent public speaking are not going to achieve real change but I do hope to be pleasantly surprised in the future and to witness Obama having made a real difference.