In Support of Baltimore: Or; Smashing Police Cars Is Logical Political Strategy
Rioters near Camden Yards in Baltimore smashing the windows and windshields of police cars.
As a nation, we fail to comprehend Black political strategy in much the same way we fail to recognize the value of Black life.
We see ghettos and crime and absent parents where we should see communities actively struggling against mental health crises and premeditated economic exploitation. And when we see police cars being smashed and corporate property being destroyed, we should see reasonable responses to generations of extreme state violence, and logical decisions about what kind of actions yield the desired political results.
I’m overwhelmed by the pervasive slandering of protesters in Baltimore this weekend for not remaining peaceful. The bad-apple rhetoric would have us believe that most Baltimore protesters are demonstrating the right way—as is their constitutional right—and only a few are disrupting the peace, giving the movement a bad name.
This spin should be disregarded, first because of the virtual media blackout of any of the action happening on the ground, particularly over the weekend. Equally, it makes no sense to cite the Constitution in any demonstration for Black civil rights (that document was not written about us, remember?), but certainly not one organized specifically to call attention to the fact that the state breaks its own laws with regard to the oppressed on a nearly constant basis.
But there is an even bigger problem. Referring to Black Lives Matter protests, as well as organic responses to police and state violence as “non-violent” or “peaceful” erases the actual climate in which these movements are acting, the militant strategies that have rendered them effective, and the long history of riots and direct action on which they are built.
I do not advocate non-violence—particularly in a moment like the one we currently face. In the spirit and words of militant Black and Brown feminist movements from around the globe, I believe it is crucial that we see non-violence as a tactic, not a philosophy.
Non-violence is a type of political performance designed to raise awareness and win over sympathy of those with privilege. When those on the outside of struggle—the white, the wealthy, the straight, the able-bodied, the masculine—have demonstrated repeatedly that they do not care, are not invested, are not going to step in the line of fire to defend the oppressed, this is a futile political strategy. It not only fails to meet the needs of the community, but actually puts oppressed people in further danger of violence.
Militance is about direct action which defends our communities from violence. It is about responses which meet the political goals of our communities in the moment, and deal with the repercussions as they come. It is about saying no, firmly drawing and holding boundaries, demanding the return of stolen resources. And from Queer Liberation and Black Power to centuries-old movements for Native sovereignty and anti-colonialism, it is how virtually all of our oppressed movements were sparked, and has arguably gained us the only real political victories we’ve had under the rule of empire.
We need to clarify what we mean by terms like “violence” and “peaceful.” Because, to be clear, violence is beating, harassing, tazing, assaulting and shooting Black, trans, immigrant, women, and queer people, and that is the reality many of us are dealing with daily. Telling someone to be peaceful and shaming their militance not only lacks a nuanced and historical political understanding, it is literally a deadly and irresponsible demand.
The political goals of rioters in Baltimore are not unclear—just as they were not unclear when poor, Black people rioted in Ferguson last fall. When the free market, real estate, the elected government, the legal system have all shown you they are not going to protect you—in fact, that they are the sources of the greatest violence you face—then political action becomes about stopping the machine that is trying to kill you, even if only for a moment, getting the boot off your neck, even if it only allows you a second of air. This is exactly what blocking off streets, disrupting white consumerism, and destroying state property are designed to do.
Black people know this, and have employed these tactics for a very, very long time. Calling them uncivilized, and encouraging them to mind the Constitution is racist, and as an argument fails to ground itself not only in the violent political reality in which Black people find themselves, but also in our centuries-long tradition of resistance, one that has taught effective strategies for militance and direct action to virtually every other current movement for justice.
And while I don’t believe that every protester involved in attacking police cars and corporate storefronts had the same philosophy, did what they did for the same reasons, it cannot be discounted that when there is a larger national outcry in defense of plate-glass windows and car doors than for Black young people, a point is being made; When there is more concern for white sports fans in the vicinity of a riot than the Black people facing off with police, there is mounting justification for the rage and pain of Black communities in this country.
Acknowledging all of this, I do think events this weekend in Baltimore raise important questions for future direct and militant action in all of our movements. In addition to articulating our goals, crafting our messaging and type of action, we need to think carefully about what the longer term results of militant action might potentially be. Strategies I might suggest, and important questions I think we should try and answer as we plan or find ourselves involved in political actions are these:
- Are we harming state and private property, or are we harming people, communities and natural resources? Is the result of our action disrupting state and corporate violence, or creating collateral damage that more oppressed people will have to deal with (i.e., Black families and business owners, cleaning staff, etc.)? Are we mimicking state violence by harming people and the environment, or are we harming state property in ways that can stop or slow violence? Are we demonizing systems or people?
- Who is in the vicinity? Are we doing harm to people around us as we act? Is there a possibility of violence for those who are not the intended targets of our action? Are we forcing people to be involved in an action who many not want to be, or who are not ready?
- Who is involved in the action? Are people involved in our action consensually, or simply because they are in the vicinity? Have we created ways for people of all abilities who may not want to be present to leave? Are we being strategic about location and placement of bodies? If there are violent repercussions for our actions, who will be facing them?
We should attempt to answer as many of these questions as possible before action occurs, in the planning stages if possible. We also need backup plans and options for changing our actions in the moment if any of the agreed-upon conditions are not the same when it comes time to act.
I rolled my eyes when inquiries in Ferguson “shockingly” revealed racist emails sent throughout local government, including higher-ups in the Police Department. I think many of us knew the inquiry of virtually any police department would yield almost identical findings. The riots in Baltimore have many drawing parallels between policy and conduct in both cities now. What kind of action brought to light for the less affected what Black people have always known? What kinds of actions will it take to make it widely understood that all policing is racist terror, and justice can only come with its permanent abolition?
Black power, Queer power, power to Baltimore, and to all oppressed people who know what time it is.
Great article. Sometimes a riot is the most rational thing that can happen in a situation. And rational, philosophical violence might be the only language they understand.
I respectfully but wholeheartedly disagree with this article. Violence only spreads more hate, discrimination, and violence. While I know that the government and our society has never allowed blacks and other minorities to be equal, militant action will never accomplish the goal of getting this equality. By law African Americans are equal, Martin Luther King and the Civil Rights Act accomplished that in 1968 through a campaign of peaceful protests, but it is clear in action and practice this is still not true (police brutality, incarceration, drug laws, open housing laws, employment, income…etc.) African Americans have lost faith in our government, our society and the system and I can see why. Militant groups emerged because they know the Civil Rights Movement did not achieve the ultimate goal. I can see why this is a knee jerk reaction for many and there is a lot of anger and resentment built up over a history of discrimination. However this kind of protesting will never accomplish the goal. The argument: “centuries-old movements for Native sovereignty and anti-colonialism, it is how virtually all of our oppressed movements were sparked, and has arguably gained us the only real political victories we’ve had under the rule of empire.” is completely false, unless the writer of this piece wants to try and create a separate African American nation and go to war with the United States. The United States is not colonized Africa and Asia of the 20th century and violence is not the answer. Violence will only bring about more violence, further escalation and will definitely not bring about political and more importantly ,at this point, social change in the minds of all Americans. Violence will only solidify racial thought. Well thought out symbolic peaceful protests and movements show how ridiculous inequality is today and pushes politicians and everyday Americans to rethink their lives, the government, and our society’s collective conscious about race. Change is needed in the hearts and minds of every American to bring about true equality and violence will not change the heart and it wont change the mind.
This, a thousand times. Yes.
Here is a piece that made many similar related points, and got a lot of attention from the right: http://www.maskmagazine.com/the-substance-issue/struggle/step-back-with-the-riot-shaming
Another thing to consider is that the Finance Insurance and Real Estate sectors extract far more capital from the community, on a regular basis, than a fleeting small scale riot. Just wanted to underscore that is an ongoing process, and if people could see the relative scale of damage from this sector more easily, political reactions in the ‘mainstream’ would hopefully shift in a more constructive direction.
Yes, thank you for your contributions and for sharing! A great article by Michael Gould-Wartofsky that dispels that myth is linked to above, but I’ll repost it here:
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/01/when-rioting-is-rational-ferguson/
And another one by Ta-nehisi Coates that does an amazing job of documenting the historic abuse by real estate and public policy of Black folks on the South Side in Chicago is this:
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/03/the-ghetto-is-public-policy/274147/
another good one:
http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/12/26/the-poor-persons-defense-of-riots/
“Because, to be clear, violence is beating, harassing, tazing, assaulting and shooting Black, trans, immigrant, women, and queer people…”
I have been having a great many arguments with people here in Florida, where I am living these days, about the race-baiting going on in the media surrounding police violence. While it cannot be denied that blacks suffer an inordinate share of these abuses they are still a small minority (18%) of the total and population and remain a minority of police abuses and killings. The way these things are covered gives a casual observer the idea that blacks are the only ones being abused which: A) makes the black community feel under siege and hostile to poor whites who can be targeted for revenge without fear of reprisal by the authorities, and: B) enrages poor whites because these kinds of atrocities against them are ignored and when they attempt to call any attention to it they are called racists and lectured on their “white privilege,” usually by rich whites. I have been arguing myself horse trying to tell my neighbors and family that the rich and their enforcers are the enemy, not the black community.
The quote above from this article makes me wonder if I am wasting my breath however. I can’t help but wonder if maybe I SHOULD regard all blacks as my enemies when they come out and say that I am inferior, the embodiment of all that is evil, and that acts of violence against me and my family do not even count as violence at all. I regard the oligarchs and their servants as my enemies and I will not flinch for an instant as using whatever means I must to protect myself from them and their depravations. I would prefer to be allied with the black community but if blacks want to do me harm I will hold them in the same regard I do the police. There are still more of us than them in this country and if they really insist on a race war I’m game.
It is precisely because Black people represent such a small portion of the population that our over representation in prisons, police killings and any number of forms of state sanction violence is so alarming and infuriating. Acknowledging this need not and should not be about making invisible all the people who suffer at the hands of the state. This is one reason why lists of those targeted can be so long: Black, Brown, poor, queer, trans, women, immigrant, mentally ill, and on. Each category is distinct, yet we know we can not speak of them separately because so many of us belong to more than one. We know we cannot fight our battles separately because they are not separate battles. Segregation exists for the sole purpose of keeping oppressed communities from uniting to pose a real threat to the classes which oppress us.
War is state violence. Militant movements should seek to end war, not instigate it with one another, and I see this value as core to the protests happening around the county and world. Each one of us holds privilege in some areas of our lives and oppression in others. Each one of us is capable of perpetuating violence, or of recognizing the systems that are our real enemies, and working collectively to dismantle them.
I think indigenous lives should be mentioned explicitly in this conversation
Anyone who would make a statement like “war is state violence” is completely clueless and unfit to comment on matters of politics and conflict.
My thoughts on that quote are very much along the same lines.
Why is violence only defined as being against certain demographics? Isn’t violence something that everyone can experience regardless of the color of their skin, their gender, their religion, their sexuality, etc.? I don’t like that as this article tries to bring discrimination to light, it perpetuates it in the same way.
The point is that violence against people and violence against property are not the same thing. Violence against people, community and environment are always heinous, and are the primary tools of the state and private enterprise. Destruction of property does not perpetuate the same cycle, but may actually interrupt it. Read carefully.
“When those on the outside of struggle—the white, the wealthy, the straight, the able-bodied, the masculine—have demonstrated repeatedly that they do not care, are not invested, are not going to step in the line of fire to defend the oppressed, this is a futile political strategy.”
I wish that everyone in a demographic could be represented equally. I do. But the truth is that it really only takes one bad egg to ruin a reputation for the whole. I don’t think that all white men are quick to turn a cold shoulder for those in need, nor do I think all black men are criminals. But we have those prejudices and by thinking in these terms, we continually perpetuate that way of thinking.
I said in my post, “I don’t like that as this article tries to bring discrimination to light, it perpetuates it in the same way.” Even though you may not have meant that violence only happens to certain people, you did continue blaming a demographic for the mistreatment of the underprivileged and therefore, my comment still stands.
Read carefully.
“when they come out and say that I am inferior, the embodiment of all that is evil, and that acts of violence against me and my family do not even count as violence at all.”
A) who even says that?
B) why that person’s words make you feel differently about a bunch of other people who didn’t utter them?
Wowl This is a great post.
Can you email me?
I would like to repost this on our blog https://medium.com/theology-of-ferguson would that work? Id love to connect
Reblogged this on The Magic Mulatto.
Hey, great blog and great post. In case you don’t already know, here’s a blog run by radical black woman out in CA: http://chaka85.wordpress.com/
The most recent piece got some circulation for supporting property destruction against white supremacy after the non-indictment of Darren Wilson, but you might be interested in reading deeper into the archives. Peace!
“Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe.”
― Frederick Douglass
“We’ll stop breaking your cars when you stop shooting our unarmed teenagers” strikes me as a more-than-fair offer.
Great article
“When there is more concern for white sports fans in the vicinity of a riot than the Black people facing off with police, there is mounting justification for the rage and pain of Black communities in this country.”
Of course their is! When the mob is attacking White people and throwing things at them, that is a hate crime! Go watch the videos! Never going to spend money in Baltimore again!
Agreed…attacking innocent whites is counter productive and pointless
The only videos I’ve seen show white people shouting at and taunting protesters and generally looking for a fight. It’s not exactly open season on all white people. Before you say I’ve been watching the wrong videos, the ones I’ve seen were used by people trying to make the same point. Do you have a single video showing white people being attacked without harassing protesters first?
Are the white people not allowed to express their anger with their city being vandalized? Should they just sit there quietly to let the protesters loot and break windows?
“Are the white people not allowed to express their anger with their city being vandalized? Should they just sit there quietly to let the protesters loot and break windows?”
They sat quietly when black children were being shot by the police. They sat quietly when black men were being incarcerated at a sickening rate. They sat quietly when black women were being sexually assaulted by the police. So yeah, maybe they should keep their outrage about broken windows to themselves.
Ask yourself: “What stores did people loot from?” That’s an important distinction. Sure, some buildings probably got attacked that should have been left alone, but CVS, 7-11, Target; those are places that already exploit the downtrodden and expect them to be happy because “jobs”. So you’re going to get mad that these places of exploitation get attacked by the population they exploit?
And don’t forget to remember that people came out in droves this morning in order to clean up. The above statement paints the picture as white people “taking back their city” while (black) protestors destroy it. That idea doesn’t take into account the protests in downtown Baltimore at all.
Beautifully written article. I agree with some points; and don’t to others. Selma, though it turned out violent, it was COMPLETELY from the police and magnified to the world where the problem was. It was ugly and brutal; changes had to be made and the government could no longer justify it’s atrocities. In other words, to answer police brutality with MORE brutality doesn’t work….js.
I and my friends stand by you’ll from India. More power! Fuck the state!
This article is my everything. I will probably read it 10 more times and frame it. Beautifully explained.
I would only add a definition of violence that, having read, has been mine for decades.
Resourcelessness. As per the noted witch/philosopher Starhawk.
When all options are exhausted, when every other avenue has been tried, when you are without further resources- violence is whats left.
Heresy, young man. I approve.
You make an excellent case for why violence is justified, but I’d be curious to hear your argument for why it’s effective. You say violent resistance has “arguably gained us the only real political victories we’ve had under the rule of empire”? What are they? I can think of a lot of setbacks.
The black/civil rights movement could achieve so much more if they just reached out to white people as a whole. If they just said something like “hey, I’m your brother/sister, and I need your help to make lives better for my community. unarmed black men are being killed and the police are getting away with it. will you cross racial lines and stand with me against this travesty?” That would make a HUGE difference, and it would get white people involved.
Instead, the militant stance and “let’s break things” creates a very uncomfortable feeling in whites because why would you help someone who hates you? Combined with the militant rhetoric, many whites feel like the anger isn’t pointed at inequality, but directly at whites. It’s this “white people are privileged, racist and they oppress us…why won’t they help us?” If you accuse someone of being a d-bag, why would that person help you? “Hey, your life is so much better, because you’re white. Everything you achieved…well, it’s not that big a deal, because you’re white and it was easy for you since you’re so privileged. Now, why won’t you help me? I’m going to break things now, because you’re not taking my struggles seriously.”
Forget civil rights, would that type of stance work in a romantic relationship or a friendship? If you want someone to be your friend, and to build a beautiful future together, do you think that person would be open to working for your rights if you keep telling them how much better their life is and that they need to treat you better? That they need to take you seriously, or else… And then you start breaking things in the house…Would that person want to be your friend and invest time and energy to make your and your children’s lives better, when you’re making it pretty clear that you don’t like them?
And what should white people do? We keep being told that we’re all racist and privileged (thank you so much for lumping us into one bucket – because all white people are indeed the same, and we all have money and a special phone number we call when we need something). The only message whites really hear is “you have it way better, you’re privileged.”
Why would whites help someone who doesn’t like them? Someone who likely won’t even say “thank you” at the end of it all and will instead say “well, finally you’ve done something about inequality, it’s about time.” So when articles like this pop up, about how violence is the only answer – it’s just kind of stupid. Violence is the EASY answer. Reaching out to whites and building bridges with them, extending that hand of love and saying “hey, I’m your brother/sister, I don’t hate you, but look at how bad things are for our communities,” that could bring about very rapid change.
After all, whites have made significant sacrifices for blacks before. Starting with helping black slaves run away – Harriet Tubman didn’t do it all on her own – to hundreds of thousands of white soldiers dying in the Civil War for black freedom. Not to mention the countless white legislators and judges who have helped move black rights forward in this country. Many whites who would go out of their way to help black communities, if only the black rights movement extended to them a hand of love and genuine warmth, and also, please stop lumping us into one big group.
Alexander, great point but one that will fall on many deaf ears
“why would whites help someone who doesn’t like them?” Oh I don’t know, having basic humanity I guess?
If you can only bring yourself to fight against injustice if people are ~*nice to you*~ that is a problem.
hear hear
Speak for yourself. As a white person, nothing about this makes me uncomfortable. I don’t understand white people who get all defensive the minute institutional racism is pointed out. (Actually, I do understand them— I believe it’s been recently termed “fragile white” syndrome.) I don’t need someone to “reach out to me” in order to stand with them against injustice. Get a grip.
@Aster, you misread my comment. There is no discomfort about institutional racism. It’s very well understood by many whites who try to avoid being bigoted. But the author is saying that violence is completely ok, when others are standing on the sidelines. What I’m saying is that violence is the easy answer, and completely alienates certain groups of people. Logically, how often does the easy answer lead to anything? Looting, breaking cars and windows? Will that really help? Did that really help during the 1994 LA riots? Nope, it didn’t fix much. You can’t riot, and then say why are these other people not joining in. But if you reach out instead and try to build genuinely better relations, that will have a much better effect with way more positive change.
There’s plenty of black liberals doing almost exactly what you propose. People complain about them “playing the race card” and other stupid things.
Politics and friendship are not comparable.
The Civil War was not fought for “Black freedom”. It was fought to keep the south in the US. And either way, there were violent slave revolts which clearly didn’t prevent the abolition of slavery.
And the North could have just as easily kept the South in the US by allowing them to maintain slavery. But they didn’t. They sent hundreds of thousands of their sons to their death instead.
Additionally, in the Civil War, the North was motivated by wealthy white industrialists supported by the political establishment who were keen to secure a source of low-wage labor in order overtake Southern commerce and accumulate profit for themselves. Read Howard Zinn for more detail.
“if only the black rights movement extended to them a hand of love and genuine warmth”
How is it in any way reasonable to expect this of people who have been abused by us for hundreds of years? Why must they put all of that aside in the hopes that the very people that abuse them might show them some support? No, it is up to whites to prove that we have changed. White people need to suck up those poor uncomfortable feels and do the right thing without requiring someone to hold their hand through the process.
Please…the mayor is a reflection of an up and coming presidency of another buffoon type.
Willow, I assume you help other people a lot? I assume you donate time and money to help the economic development of villages in third-world nations, where there is no law, no clean drinking water, no rights, no opportunity at all – all because of your basic humanity. Honestly, how much of your paycheck and time have you devoted to helping other people outside of your race, who have a much worse life than you?
This question doesn’t make your point. If they don’t help people in the third world or whatever, it isn’t because those people were “too violent” or something.
It does make a point. It’s easy to talk about fairness and how those on the “outside” are not doing anything to help, when you feel that the situation is unfair toward YOU. When it’s reversed, and someone else’s life is way worse than yours, but you’re not doing anything to help them, then all of a sudden there’s a justification.
Reblogged this on Authentically Angie .
(I’m going to preface this with the fact that I’m a gay white male) But most white people in the United States are racist, have racist tendencies and/or, in the least and even the most enlightened, have benefited from racism. It was built into the foundation of our country and still effects black people today from housing to education to voting to employment to police enforcement and on. If you want black/civil rights leaders to come to the table to negotiate you have to do some of the work too and learn more about on the issues.
White people are not the victim in this. This is about social justice and fair treatment for all Americans. Personally, I believe in non-violence. But I do not shame anyone for their actions when they have been systemically denied justice based on their race.
At the same time, there are white people who are poor, LGBT, etc. We all balance and operate through multiple positions of power and need to learn about the privilege that comes from that.
The minority group should not have to wait for the majority group to have sympathy for their struggle. They should not have to ask for help. As human beings, they already have the same dignity and rights as everyone. It’s a shame that this is ignored. And also black/civil rights leaders have been doing this but white people keep ignoring it. And then we get surprised every time something like Baltimore (Ferguson, L.A., New York, any time sometime racist occurs) happens.
What can you do as a white person? Acknowledge racism in yourself and in society. Work to end it. Call it out. Teach other white people to recognize it, too. Join an anti-racist group in your local area or start one. We can move forward but we need to address the root issues sooner than later.
hear hear
<3
I’m not one to say whether there should or should not be violence in the resistance against the grievous injustices being done to the black community. But I do disagree that, “Non-violence is a type of political performance designed to raise awareness and win over sympathy of those with privilege”. I think it is much deeper than that:
From On Nonviolent Resistance by Mohandas K. Gandhi
There are two ways of countering injustice. One way is to smash the head of the man who perpetrates injustice and to get your own head smashed in the process. All strong people in the world adopt this course. Everywhere wars are fought and millions of people are killed. The consequence is not the progress of a nation but its decline…Pride makes a victorious nation bad-tempered. It falls into luxurious ways of living. Then for a time, it may be conceded, peace prevails. But after a short while, it comes more and more to be realized that the seeds of war have not been destroyed but have become a thousand times more nourished and mighty. No country has ever become, or will ever become, happy through victory in war. A nation does not rise that way; it only falls further. In fact, what comes to it is defeat, not victory. And if, perchance, either our act or our purpose was ill-conceived, it brings disaster to both belligerents.
But through the other method of combating injustice, we alone suffer the consequences of our mistakes, and the other side is wholly spared. This other method is satyagraha. One who resorts to it does not have to break another’s head; he may merely have his own head broken. He has to be prepared to die himself suffering all the pain. In opposing the atrocious laws of the Government of South Africa, it was this method that we adopted. We made it clear to the said Government that we would never bow to its outrageous laws. No clapping is possible without two hands to do it, and no quarrel without two persons to make it. Similarly, no State is possible without two entities, the rulers and the ruled. You are our sovereign, our Government, only so long as we consider ourselves your subjects. When we are not subjects, you are not the sovereign either. So long as it is your endeavor to control us with justice and love we will let you do so. But if you wish to strike at us from behind we cannot permit it. Whatever you do in other matters, you will have to ask our opinion about the laws that concern us. If you make laws to keep us suppressed in a wrongful manner and without taking us into confidence, these laws will merely adorn the statute books. We will never obey them. Award us for what punishment you like, we will put up with it. Send us to prison and we will live there as in a paradise. Ask us to mount the scaffold and we will do so laughing. Shower what sufferings you like upon us; we will calmly endure all and not hurt a hair of your body. We will gladly die and will not so much as touch you. But so long as there is yet life in these our bones, we will never comply with your arbitrary laws.
To quote Gandhi in such a way is to ignore the entire context in which he existed. Manufacturing plants, farm land, mills, and police stations were occupied or sabotaged in order to fight the colonialists. This militant struggle fit in with Gandhi’s notion of non-violent resistance. Read Gandhi’s ‘Hind Swaraj or Indian Home Rule’ for more detail.
Violence always leads to more violence. Justify, crucify, rationalize… all ways to die
What i don’t understand is why black people don’t move back to Africa? And i’m talking as a brown person. If the feeling express here is that intense, one place they will not be discriminated will be Africa. It is very easy to immigrate too.
Because they are not Africans. They’re Americans – their ancestors did help build and shape this country. Why give up your legacy?
They would be discriminated against there. Many black Africans look down upon black Americans. Things would not be any better for them then.
this idea of moving “back to Africa” assumes a few ignorant things:
1: that the black people you speak of came from Africa. they didn’t. they came from North America. born and raised, lived there for as many generations as the whites, for the most part. why not ask the whites to move back to Europe? after all, without them, this issue would not exist. (if we’re going to think like this, let’s go there.)
2. that Africa has not been colonized with the same type of anti-black racism that North America has been colonized with and, therefore, is an oasis of black unity and love and acceptance. please up your global awareness. i’m not saying Africa is a horrible place, i’m saying educate yourself. Africa exists in the same world we are living in.
3. that people being oppressed should leave rather than fight for what they have, had, want. while i, personally, strive for non-violence and am politically non-violent (i believe that violence against oppressors signifies that i have taken on the mental framework of said oppressors and i refuse to allow oppressors to dominate my humanity aka loving nature in that manner these days), i recognize one’s inherent right to choose for one’s self which path one will take. to fight against those who would harm you, rather than run away, is not inherently worse than any other option.
i don’t know you, but i have encountered the “go back to Africa” sentiment enough to address is when i see it. i am not from Africa. i am from North America. i am of African, Comanche, and Cherokee ancestry. i have been told to go back to Africa, as if the whites here came with the land. they didn’t. my peoples were here first and we will always be here. i “look black” to white people. and i’m perfectly fine with that. i love my ancestry. all of it. but if anyone needs to go back where they came from, it’s not us.
namaste
That is silly answer and you know it.
Most of the countries don’t give citizenship by birth.. even generations being born there.. whole middle east, Germany, uk..
Citizenship is not birthright. It is privilege granted by those in power to those not in power.
Whites are not complaining about power structure or discrimination. If they don’t want have that high degree to complain or nationalism like some Irish and Italians had during IRA war and world war 2 they did and they should move back.
Black or partial blacks will be million times less discriminated in Africa compared to here.. So many people from all over world come here to American, brown, black and yellow and also white, they leave their citizen ship to take new ones. Why not immigrate Africa? I plan to do it myself. Not because i’m black but i love Africa. Why not same?
Rest of your construct is a normative framework which crumbles in the absence of moral society like South Africa (where they killing black immigrants) or Russia or Germany or rest of the world. Moral society is outcome of affluence and splendid isolation of American, it is not normal.
You just have to accept the very basic fact, you want to be part of affluent society, it is about money. You will be million times better off in discriminated American then million times less discriminated Africa.
Fantastic article. Great perspective e and explanation .
Reblogged this on CoyoteStyle.
Since the only things police in this country seem to relate to are violence and acts of terror, it’s starting to make sense that people are beginning to wake up and bring a bit of it back to them. Peaceful protests are getting nowhere.
Reblogged this on Decolonize Indigenous Generations and commented:
Non-violence is a type of political performance designed to raise awareness and win over sympathy of those with privilege. When those on the outside of struggle—the white, the wealthy, the straight, the able-bodied, the masculine—have demonstrated repeatedly that they do not care, are not invested, are not going to step in the line of fire to defend the oppressed, this is a futile political strategy. It not only fails to meet the needs of the community, but actually puts oppressed people in further danger of violence.
It’s a very romanticized view of what is happening. I read the article and it sounds like these protests are very organized and only targeting specific buildings. We all know that isn’t true and that saying damaging property doesn’t hurt people is ignorant. When you hurt someones livelihood you hurt them and to clam you didn’t because it isn’t physical is the kind of mindset you are fighting against. Also there are people being hurt in these riots and unless they wanted that then you whole we are not hurting people claim is false. Then to claim anyone who objects to what you are doing is raciest is very close minded, I can object to a riot for reasons that don’t involve the race of the people doing it. You have created a very us against them mindset and all that is going to do is keep you from gaining any ground because at the end of the day you are not going to destroy the system.
Violence can be a means for change but when it is the first tool you just to then you’re just taking more steps back.
Are you serious? Have you spoken to the people rioting? There’s a very heavy tendency in this article to almost romanticize what these people are doing to Baltimore. Most of the rioters are youth that are out to “purge” for fun, out of boredom, and what have you. I completely agree that people have a right to be angry, but violence in this case will get you absolutely nothing except the opportunity to destroy the houses and businesses that people have worked years to build. The consequences of this will be catastrophic, and some of these places may or may not be rebuilt, many people tomorrow (many of them hourly workers), may or may not get to go to work, therein making the poor poorer and further fueling the cycle. Students that are already behind are missing out on school because of these riots, and Baltimore has basically cemented its status in the eyes of the nation as the city that’s portrayed on “The Wire.”
I agree that, in this sort of situation, violence is sometimes the only way to get the state to pay attention, but in response to the second article Anita linked to, I’m not sure how effective it will be in bringing about political change. The mainstream media isn’t framing this as an issue about black lives mattering right now; CNN’s headline on it (http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/28/us/baltimore-riots/index.html) doesn’t directly mention race or police brutality at any point, and doesn’t quote a single protester (just the authorities denouncing them). So yes, the use of violence has gotten CNN to pay attention to the protesters, but not to the issues they are rioting for, but rather just to the fact that they are rioting. I think that part of the problem lies in the fact that violence is being used indiscriminately as opposed to judiciously. I can understand that actions such as smashing police car windows can have a political aim that could potentially justify the harm that is done through them, but actions such as looting businesses and burning down buildings do not seem to have as direct of a political aim and cause great harm primarily to individuals rather than to authorities. Violence is a powerful tool, and we need to be careful that its use does not do more harm than good. In this case, the harm that it is doing is that, in addition to the direct destruction it is causing, it is also providing opportunities for authorities to highlight that destruction and to use it as a way of demonizing protesters rather than engaging with their demands. The only significant good that I see that it is doing is providing rioters an outlet for their repressed emotions. Although it is tragic that oppression has resulted in those emotions, I don’t think that indiscriminate violence can be justified solely as an emotional outlet.
The writer lives in a fantasy world. These neighborhoods aren’t just made up of bums, drug dealers, and other oppressed people who have no choice but to do these things because of a racist system. There are good people down there who work their asses off, take care of their homes, and otherwise are stuck these awful neighborhoods. When you defend rioting, destroying police cars, and setting fire to places like CVS, you’re insulting them. Stop defending acting like an animal and setting low expectations of West Baltimore. They rioted yesterday because they wanted to break shit and steal. That’s it. No one throwing a rock at the police after school let out gives a shit about Freddie Gray. Every year those same rioters kill about 200 other Freddie Gray’s on their own without any help from the police (Of Baltimore’s 212 murders in 2014, 188 were black men).
Let me answer those questions for you: You are harming people, everyone who lives there is in the vicinity, and a bunch of scumbags and thugs are involved in this. This isn’t some WTO protest where a bunch of 19 year old college student anarchists break out the glass at Starbucks while a bunch of peaceful protestors yell “Peace! Peace! Peace!”. Real life isn’t some HD version of Do The Right Thing for you to casually muse about.
So just how do we fix this problem? Seriously. Both sides need to accept responsibility. When business are destroyed, both large corporate type and small mom and pop type…where is the benefit? When the large won’t rebuild and the small can’t. Now there are more abandoned areas, even fewer local jobs, and nothing is truly changed.
Defining “violence” to suit your purposes is a fools errand and counterproductive. Violence is violence. Those in power attempt to control definitions in the same way. Cops say their killings are “justifiable use of force.” Guess who is going to win this argument in the broader society? If someone believes that committing criminal destructive acts is for some higher purpose, then at least admit the acts are criminal and destructive. Don’t try to hide behind psuedo-intellectual sophistry and clever redefinitions of words with plain and clear meaning. Trying to redefine words with plain meanings is a tactic used by tyrants in all ages. Ghandi and MLK did not choose non violence as a mere tactic. They chose it to preserve their own dignity and dignity of their movements. They realized that they would become no better than their oppressors if they descended to their moral level. The harm caused by the rioters will take years to repair.
I agree with so much of the sentiment behind this article. One absolute truth is that the way the media has covered the last four days in Baltimore has been divisive, disgusting, and dangerous. It is even more appalling to see the reaction of a country, that as this author points out, care more about broken police car windows then lives of the people living in the deplorable oppression of racisms and capitalism in Baltimore and around our country.
All that said, I must strongly disagree with one very important aspect of this article. That is the role of non-violence. To be honest I’m note sure I think the author full understand what true non-violent dissent can look like. It has been a long time since we as country have seen it in action, but it is powerful and it is essential.
The author suggests that non-violence is not a philosophy but is used as “a type of political performance designed to raise awareness and win over sympathy of those with privilege.” While militancy the author defines this way: “Militance is about direct action which defends our communities from violence.”
It’s true that non-violence is often used as a political performance, but it has so much more power then that. Whenever I hear people calling for non-violence because to act violently or to riot “hurt how people see the cause” I cringe. It is clear those people have forgotten the real reason to use non-violence. It’s because violence hurts people; because violence is a form of oppression. It is because no true revolution can happen using the same methods as the oppressors and no true revolution has ever happened with violence at its base. To use violence is to allow the oppressor to win and to draw you into the darkness. Violence can only perpetuate more violence.
But that is not to say that non-violence must be restricted to silently walking down a street in large numbers. I believe in marches, they have their place as important part of protest. But to suggest that non-violence limits us to just that is to fail to see the weight of what non-violence can be.
To be clear in my definition of violence, I do not include the intentional destruction of property when done in a way to protect the safety of ALL people.
So what’s perhaps most concerning about this article to me is the suggestion that direct action can only happen when we forsake non-violence.
On May 17, 1968 nine people entered a draft board site in Catonsville Maryland, a part of Baltimore county and adjacent to Baltimore City. Those nine people were calm, orderly, firm but polite. Without hurting a single person or putting them in danger, they took hundreds of draft cards out of their files, into the parking lot, and set them on fire with homemade napalm. They did over $22, 000 in damage and destroyed the only copies of those draft records. It was direct action, it has symbolism, but it also meant that for those hundreds of draftees, many of whom were young black men living in Baltimore, they would never be drafted. It directly changed those people lives. It directly destroyed a small fraction of the state and its oppression. It also started a nationwide movement of draft board raids. It also was non-violent.
This is just one example of hundreds, if not thousands, of uses of non-violence as direct action. Because we can directly oppose the machines of war, racism, poverty caused by capitalism, privilege, violence, without becoming part of those machines. We can be angry, we can act from that anger without being violent.
The author of this article also defends the young people acting out their anger in Baltimore last night. I agree that they need defense as the media has completely destroyed and ignored the truth of their story. They are justly angry, they are acting with the only tools they have ever been given or shown. It asks a lot from someone to act with restraint and respect when they have never been shown that respect. If the Baltimore police and government had spent half as much time getting to know these young people, working with them in their communities as they have chasing them and villainizing them over the last four decades, then this weekend would have looked very different. But just because we understand where these young people are coming from doesn’t mean we have to condone their behavior. Condone and condemn are not our only two options. The author of this article lays out some important questions that need to be asked, and I agree with them. But underlying them is the sense that if the violence could be controlled to just the targets, i.e. the state and police, then it would be acceptable.
I don’t believe it would be. The state and police are made up of people. While I oppose all they stand for, while I know they are ruthless and do not care that we, on the ground, that black men, and queer women, are people too, I still must care that they are people. It is still not ok to put them in physical danger. And as we have seen with these riots, you can’t control violence. It’s why we hear the phrase collateral damage in warfare. Because no matter how sophisticated you are, how in control you are, how well informed you are, violence is part of the chaos. And when you embrace violence you slowly allow more and more chaos to creep in. The more you embrace violence the more ok you are with the pain of people, the destruction of people. As you become ok with it you become cold and calculated. You become the oppressor.
When I see the young people in Baltimore rioting, I see the pain and anger they feel. I think how much more could we achieve if that pain and anger was give a proactive outlet. If they could make change with that anger instead of falling victim to the trap of violence that the privileged oppressors have set up for them. We need to be telling the young people in Baltimore, and around our country, that they should not be using violence. But that doesn’t mean we should be telling them to go home at night or be silent. Be in the street. Be loud. Be heard. But be together. Talk, plan, and know that you are stronger when you act as one unified, controlled, non-violent body enacting the change you deserve. Embrace the power of non-violence and end the oppression.
My heart goes to everyone in Baltimore. I do not judge tonight, your anger is the voice of a people oppressed to long, but I pray for you tonight. I pray you will all be moved to let that anger and that voice be changed into the power of a song and movement.
PS. As a disclaimer, I am a young adult white female who is born and raised in DC and has ties to the Baltimore community.
I am vehemently opposed to oppressive policing, and I’m with you on issues of social and economic justice. HOWEVER
I realize you wrote this essay on the 26th. Hopefully by now, in the aftermath of the 27th, you realize how dangerous this point of view is, although I doubt it.
The writer presents an incredibly privileged point of view. Try actually listening to the BLACK citizens of Baltimore. Seek out the interviews with the Baltimore Bloods gang members who are condemning the violence, or any of the actual people that live on the streets that you suggest be burned.
The people condoning riots are almost always either A) white, or B) don’t live in Baltimore.
My black neighbors (I live in a poor neighborhood in Baltimore) are not happy that the CVS where their mother has her prescriptions on file is now burned down.
They aren’t happy that the senior center that took years to plan and implement has now burned down.
Civil disobedience? Yes. Torch your own neighborhood? The only people excited about that are those who don’t live in the community. Talk to the people living in Watts– you think they are happy with the legacy of those riots? That it was a good idea at the time?
Why don’t YOU go out and burn down the closest store to you, RadFag?
I won’t take the time to disprove every lie and bit of historical ignorance in this article but a few things warrant pointing out.
“all policing is terror”
If you believe all policing is terror, then you believe all police are terrorists; even the black ones. That is simply not true and is as ignorant as saying all black people are (insert your choice of derogatory terms here).
You want to live in real terror? Move to a country with no effective police force.
“the white, the wealthy, the straight, the able-bodied, the masculine—have demonstrated repeatedly that they do not care, are not invested, are not going to step in the line of fire to defend the oppressed”
Just search Google images for freedom marches. White people were there marching and standing up for black rights in the face of dogs and fire hoses.
Not good enough? Of the more than 4,700 documented lynchings that took place in the US 1882-1968 almost 30% were of white people who helped blacks or were against lynching.
Lastly, black people in the last 40 years have been exploited politically as badly or worse than they have been economically.
But don’t take my word for it.
If people want to shake up the white establishment and advance black political interests, they should listen to Steven A. Smith and not some radical violent blogger.
http://ftw.usatoday.com/…/stephen-a-smith-espn-black…
I understood what the message of the article was stating, that sometimes a targeted disruption towards those who are oppressing a group/culture/belief ect is can spark change. This is important to bring about change when peace and negotiations seem to bring about little to no change.
But at the end, this quote lost it for me “What kinds of actions will it take to make it widely understood that all policing is racist terror, and justice can only come with its permanent abolition.”
Are you stating that we need to remove all police to enforce the law? That we ourselves can be good and well intentioned and will not have to police ourselves (as all policing is a racist terror)?
I do agree that the media is focusing on the negative (property damage to uninvolved civilians and businesses) but do you honestly think that those who were harmed are going to believe that this protest was in the best intention for the progression of civil rights? Of course the media will show what will have the most impact on the viewer, they are in the business to gain viewers. More people will be moved by someones personal property damage (for good or bad) and they will want to watch that bit of “news”.
I tend to take any media coverage with a grain of salt, as they don’t properly cover all the purpose of an event without bias and truth. I also don’t listen to extremest views as they are just as bad as the media. The unfortunate reality is that if you want the answers, you really have to dig deep and find the sources.
I think that a good portion of the protesters were laser focused (targeted destruction of police equipment and time), putting all their effort to show the correct group that they will not stand for such behaviors. Unfortunately the spot lite seems to be taken over by those who are equivalent to a light bulb and not a laser, thus scattering the anger they feel in all directions harming whomever the light shines on (bystanders, businesses, personal property, uninvolved government entity). I also think (this applies to all groups of people mind you) that some people are just not well intentioned and will just use this upheaval of societal norms as an excuse to do whatever they impulsively feel like doing.
Some sort of change needs to happen, to both groups. If both groups do not act out in an illegal/violet/immoral way, will the other group need to retaliate in such a manner? Balance is what we are trying to accomplish, but what we seem to be trying to balance out is on two different scales. Thus when one side pushes, the main action of that force is directed at another entity and misses the point.
If one side becomes more respectable and less troublesome, that does not mean the other side has to or even will follow suit. It will take an effort on both sides to fix the problem, a balance to create equality and understanding on both ends. What I see is a war, and from what I know, a wars outcome is dependent upon who is the victor. This is a win lose situation and will not create good feelings in the end. Both sides need to find that balance and true understanding, only then will, I think, the pain, suffering and anger be relieved. The only problems I see getting in the way of this is personal revenge, desire, and willingness to continue.
I agree with the questions you posed as necessary for a productive and educated protest, but understanding riots means acknowledging the sociological phenomenon that triggers unconscious reaction to behavior around us; we simply act as a pack or a heard–not much thinking is involved when emotions are this high.
As an old white guy I understand that I cannot tell anybody how to respond to oppression, but I can tell anybody how gravity works.
Nothing falls up. And violence doesn’t work.
First, violence is wrong. Whacking another person, a being made in the image of God, is wrong. It doesn’t matter if they whacked you first, or if you were raised in an oppressive whacking-based society, what you did at that moment was wrong and you need to deal with that fact.
Second, violence is the tool of the powerful. You are not going to be able to dish out more violence than the United States government. This is their game and they will win because maintaining a monopoly on the use of force is their whole reason for being. If you don’t have a lot of tanks and helicopter gunships, you are playing a fools game.
Third, violence justifies your enemies and alienates most everybody else. Notice that the media has stopped talking about Freddy Gray and is now all about looters and punks. This is not a conspiracy, it is a natural result of what interests people, chaos is scary and attracts attention, long term social justice not so much. Racists trying to justify the death of an unarmed black man sound ridiculous, racists decrying arson and looting sound reasonable.
Fourth, while property damage per se is a grey area, and disrupting the white consumerist reality is a good thing, even this sort of violence must be a strategy not a reflex. Burning down your local drugstore is not a strategy. What happened in Baltimore was a spasm that damaged the lives and property of oppressed people without affecting the bottom line of the (insured) corporate masters. If you want to blowup the power structure take a thousand Sandtown residents down to the inner harbor for a street-fair/teach-in at the height of the tourist season.
Lastly, you can’t threaten someone with what has already happened. If the police declare that no officers were at fault in the death of Freddy Gray,what are you going to do …riot? If throwing rocks get the boot off your neck for the moment, how will you get air tomorrow? It is easy and gratifying to respond emotionally now but change comes when you respond thoughtfully and strategically over the long haul.