EDITOR’s NOTE: The following was submitted by Ms. Heather Gray of Justice Initiative as a follow-up to her article on the 65th anniversary of the “We Charge Genocide” declaration to the United Nations.  In answer to an inquiry from a skeptical reader, she presented the following official United Nations policy on the definition of genocide.

JUSTICE INITIATIVE
What Is Genocide?
by Heather Gray, hmcgray@earthlink.net
Gray & Associates, PO Box 8048, Atlanta, GA 31106

Preface: On December 17, I sent out information about the 65th anniversary of the 1951 “We Charge Genocide” document submitted to the United Nations by many leading Black activists in the United States. One of the notes I received about “We Charge Genocide” was as follows that basically questions the accusation of “genocide”:

Hello, Heather,

Apart from dramatic flair, I don’t see what is gained by erasing the distinction between the mass murder sense of genocide and racism or colonialism and their associated. white supremacist ideologies. If the term has meaning, the African American people of the US (as opposed to Native Americans) have plainly not been the victims of genocide.

Some of those in the 1940s and 50s also questioned this accusation of genocide until they looked closely at the United Nations definition of “genocide” which is, importantly, inclusive of much of what Black America has experienced since Africans they were brought in chains to the American shores as slaves. So in the 1940s and 50s they developed the document “We Charge Genocide” along with evidence of genocide in the United States and, importantly,  delivered it to the United Nations in 1951. Below is the definition of “genocide” from the United Nations delineated in 1948.

Peace,
Heather Gray
hmcgray@earthlink.net
URL:  Justice Initiative International

OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL ADVISER ON THE PREVENTION OF GENOCIDE

What is genocide?

The 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (article 2) defines genocide as “any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group … “, including:

(a)  Killing members of the group;
(b)  Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c)  Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d)  Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e)  Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

The Convention confirms that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or war, is a crime under international law which parties to the Convention undertake “to prevent and to punish” (article 1). The primary responsibility to prevent and stop genocide lies with the State in which this crime takes place.

Genocide often occurs in societies in which different national, racial, ethnic or religious groups become locked in identity-related conflicts. However, it is not the differences in identity per se that generate conflict, but rather the gross inequalities associated with those differences in terms of access to power and resources, social services, development opportunities and the enjoyment of fundamental rights and freedoms. It is often the targeted group’s reactions to these inequalities, and counter-reactions by the dominant group, that generate conflict that can escalate to genocide.

The duty to prevent and halt genocide and mass atrocities lies first and fore- most with the State, but the international community has a role that cannot be blocked by the invocation of sovereignty. Sovereignty no longer exclusively protects States from foreign interference; it is a charge of responsibility where States are accountable for the welfare of their people. This principle is enshrined in article 1 of the Genocide Convention and embodied in the principle of “sovereignty as responsibility” and in the emergent concept of the responsibility to protect. The three pillars of the responsibility to protect, as stipulated in the Outcome Document of the 2005 United Nations World Summit, are:

    (1)  The State carries the primary responsibility for protecting populations from genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing, and their incitement;
    (2)  The international community has a responsibility to encourage and assist States in fulfilling this responsibility;
    (3)  The international community has a responsibility to use appropriate diplomatic, humanitarian and other means to protect populations from these crimes. If a State is manifestly failing to protect its populations, the international community must be prepared to take collective action to protect populations, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations. 

If the root causes of genocide revolve around inequalities between iden- tity groups, preventing genocide begins with ensuring that all groups within society enjoy the rights and dignity of belonging as equal citizens. Early prevention therefore becomes a challenge of good governance and equitable management of diversity. That means eliminating gross political and economic inequalities, and promoting a common sense of belonging on equal footing.

EDITOR’S NOTE: On this, the 65th anniversary of the historic “We Charge Genocide” declaration at the United Nations, we share the following article written by Ms. Heather Gray of the Atlanta, Georgia-based Justice Initiative.  Included is the actual declaration and several footnoted sources.  A companion piece discusses the topic “What Is Genocide?”.  We thank Ms. Gray and Justice Initiative for her continued contributions on behalf of truth and justice.

JUSTICE INITIATIVE
65th Anniversary of “We Charge Genocide!”
1951 American report to the United Nations
by Heather Gray
December 17, 2016
URL: Justice Initiative International
hmcgray@earthlink.net

Sixty-five years ago, on December 17, 1951, Paul Robeson and William L. Patterson presented to the United Nations a document entitled “We Charge Genocide: The Crime of Government Against the Negro People”. Below please find 2 reports:

(1) “We Charge Genocide!” from Liberty and Justice for All, that provides details about the document and its presentation to the  United Nations in the United States and Paris on December 17, 1951; and

(2) The beginning narrative of  “We Charge Genocide: The Historic Petition to the United Nations for Relief From a Crime of The United States Government Against the Negro People (1951)” from Black Past. (The entire document is 237 pages that includes examples of genocide in the United States.)

At the end of these 2 reports are also links to the entire 1951 “We Charge Genocide” petition to the United Nations from the incredibly valuable and resourceful website “Veterans of the Civil Rights Movement“.

This historic document present issues that are relevant today and given the ongoing atrocities in America, many are in agreement that an updated contemporary version of “We Charge Genocide” should presented to the United Nations. Below please find information about youth from Chicago doing precisely that by presenting  information about atrocities in Chicago to the UN during its “Convention Against Torture Committee Review of the U.S.” in 2014.

I am thankful to activists/journalists Marian Douglas-Ungaro and Ernest Dunkley for their advice and support of this call for action regarding presenting an update to the United Nations of “We Charge Genocide”. If you are also interested in this please send me an email at Heather Gray – hmcgray@earthlink.net.

We Charge Genocide!
Liberty and Justice for All

“We Charge Genocide: The Crime of Government Against the Negro People” is a paper accusing the United States government of genocide according to the UN Genocide Convention. This work was written by the Civil Rights Congress (CRC) and presented to the United Nations at meetings in Paris in December (17) 1951.

The document pointed out that the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide defined genocide as any acts committed with “intent to destroy” a group, “in whole or in part.” To build its case for black genocide, the document cited many instances of lynching in the United States, as well as legal discrimination, disenfranchisement of blacks in the South, a series of incidents of police brutality dating to the present, and systematic inequalities in health and quality of life. The central argument: the US government is both complicit with and responsible for a genocidal situation based on the UN’s own definition of genocide.

The document received international media attention and became caught up in Cold War politics, as the CRC was supported by the American communist party. Its many examples of shocking conditions for African Americans shaped beliefs about the United States in countries across the world. The American government and white press accused the CRC of exaggerating racial inequality in order to advance the cause of Communism. The US State Department forced CRC secretary William L. Patterson to surrender his passport after he presented the petition to a UN meeting in Paris.

Soon after the United Nations was created in 1945, it began to receive requests for assistance from peoples across the world. These came from the indigenous peoples of European colonies in Africa and Asia, but also from African Americans. The first group to petition the UN regarding African Americans was the National Negro Congress (NNC), which in 1946 delivered a statement on racial discrimination to the Secretary General. The next appeal, from the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) in 1947, was more than 100 pages in length. W. E. B. Du Bois presented it to the UN on 23 October 1947, over the objections of Eleanor Roosevelt, the widow of the late president and an American delegate to the UN. Du Bois, frustrated with the State Department’s opposition to the petitions, criticized president Walter White of the NAACP for accepting a position as consultant to the US delegation; White in turn pushed Du Bois out of the NAACP.

The petitions were praised by the international press and by Black press in the United States. America’s mainstream media, however, were ambivalent or hostile. Some agreed that there was some truth to the petitions, but suggested that ‘tattling’ to the UN would aid the cause of Communism. The Soviet Union did cite these documents as evidence of poor conditions in the United States.

The Civil Rights Congress (CRC), the successor to the International Labor Defense group and affiliated with the communist party, had begun to gain momentum domestically by defending Blacks sentenced to execution, such as Rosa Lee Ingram and the Trenton Six. The NNC joined forces with the CRC in 1947.

On 17 December 1951, the petition was presented to the United Nations by two separate venues: Paul Robeson, concert singer and activist, together with people who signed the petition, handed the document to a UN official in New York, while William L. Patterson, executive director of the Civil Rights Congress, delivered copies of the petition to a UN delegation in Paris. W. E. B. Du Bois, also slated to deliver the petition in Paris, had been classified by the US State Department as an “unregistered foreign agent” and was deterred from traveling. Du Bois had previously had an expensive legal battle against the Justice Department.

The 125 copies Patterson mailed to Paris did not arrive, allegedly intercepted by the US government. But Patterson distributed other copies, which he had shipped separately in small packages to individuals’ homes.

The document was signed by many leading activists and family of blacks who had suffered in the system, including:

• W. E. B. Du Bois, African-American sociologist, historian and Pan-Africanist activist
• George W. Crockett, Jr., African-American lawyer and politician
• Benjamin J. Davis, Jr., African-American lawyer and communist
• Ferdinand Smith, New York councilman
• Oakley C. Johnson, Communist activist
• Aubrey Grossman, labor and civil rights lawyer
• Claudia Jones, Communist and black nationalist activist
• Rosalie McGee, the widow of Willie McGee, who in 1951 was executed after being controversially convicted of rape by an all-white jury
• Josephine Grayson, the widow of Francis Grayson, one of the “Martinsville Seven”, who in 1951 were executed in Virginia after a much-publicized trial and conviction by an all-white jury
• Amy Mallard and Doris Mallard, remaining family of Robert Childs Mallard, lynched in 1948 for voting
• Paul Washington, veteran on death row in Louisiana
• Wesley R. Wells, prisoner in California facing execution for throwing a cuspidor (a spittoon) at a guard
• Horace Wilson, James Thorpe, Collis English, and Ralph Cooper, four of the Trenton Six

Patterson said he was ignored by US ambassador Ralph Bunche and delegate Channing Tobias, but that Edith Sampson would talk to him.

Patterson was ordered to surrender his passport at the United States embassy in France. When he refused, US agents said they would seize it at his hotel room. Patterson fled to Budapest, where through the newspaper Szabad Nép, he accused the US government of attempting to stifle the charges. The US government ordered Patterson to be detained when he passed through Britain and seized his passport when he returned to the United States. As Paul Robeson had been unable to obtain a passport at all, the difficulty these two men faced in traveling led some to accuse the American government of censorship.

Reception

“We Charge Genocide” was ignored by much of the mainstream American press, but the Chicago Tribune, which called it “shameful lies” (and evidence against the value of the Genocide Convention itself). I. F. Stone was the only white American journalist to write favorably of the document. The CRC had communist affiliations, and the document attracted international attention through the worldwide communist movement. Raphael Lemkin, who invented the term “genocide” and advocated for the Genocide Convention, disagreed with the petition because the African-American population was increasing in size. He accused its authors of wishing to distract attention from genocide in the Soviet Union, which had resulted in millions of deaths, because of their communist sympathies. Lemkin accused Patterson and Robeson of serving foreign powers. He published an op-ed in the New York Times arguing that Blacks did not experience the “destruction, death, annihilation” that would qualify their treatment as genocide.

The petition was particularly well received in Europe, where it received abundant press coverage. “We Charge Genocide” was popular almost everywhere in the world except in the United States. One American writer traveling India in 1952 found that many people had become familiar with the cases of the Martinsville Seven and Willie McGee through the document.

The American delegation heavily criticized the document. Eleanor Roosevelt called it “ridiculous”. Black delegates Edith Sampson and Channing Tobias spoke to European audiences about how the situation of African Americans was improving.

At the request of the State Department, the NAACP drafted a press release repudiating “We Charge Genocide”, calling it “a gross and subversive conspiracy”. However, upon hearing initial press reports of the petition and the expected NAACP response, Walter White decided against issuing the release. He and the board decided that the petition did reflect many of the NAACP views; for instance, the organization had long been publishing the toll of blacks who had been lynched. “How can we ‘blast’ a book that uses our records as source material?”, asked Roy Wilkins.

The CRC’s power was already declining due to accusations of Communism during the Red Scare, and it disbanded in 1956.

The United Nations did not acknowledge receiving the petition. Given the strength of US influence, it was not really expected to do so.

Legacy

The document has been credited with popularizing the term “genocide” among Black people for their treatment in the US. After renewed interest generated by Malcolm X and the Black Panther Party, We Charge Genocide was republished in 1970 by International Publishers. Allegations of genocide were renewed in relation to the disproportionate effects of crack cocaine and HIV/AIDS in the black communities in the United States. The National Black United Front petitioned the United Nations in 1996-1997, directly citing We Charge Genocide and using the same slogan….

During the UN Convention Against Torture Committee Review of the U.S. in November 2014, a group of eight young activists from Chicago, Illinois, (Breanna Champion, Page May, Monica Trinidad, Ethan Viets-VanLear, Asha Rosa , Ric Wilson, Todd St. Hill, and Malcolm London) submitted a shadow report using the name, We Charge Genocide. Their report addressed police brutality toward blacks in Chicago, the lack of police accountability, and the misuse of tasers by the Chicago Police Department.

On December 11th, the We Charge Genocide youth delegation spoke at a public report back on their experiences in Geneva, Switzerland to an audience of over 200 in Chicago The entire event was live-streamed and the video is available here.

We Charge Genocide: The Historic Petition to the United Nations for Relief From a Crime of The United States Government Against the Negro People (1951)
Black Past

Introduction:

Out of the inhuman black ghettos of American cities, out of the cotton plantations of the South, comes this record of mass slayings on the basis of race, of lives deliberately warped and distorted by the willful creation of conditions making for premature death, poverty and disease.,  It is a record that calls aloud for condemnation, for an end to these terrible injustices that constitute a daily and ever-increasing violation of the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

It is sometimes incorrectly thought that genocide means the complete and definitive destruction of a race or people.  The Genocide Convention, however, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on December 9, 1948, defines genocide as any killings on the basis of race, or, in it specific words, as “killing members of the group.”  Any intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, racial, ethnic or religious group is genocide, according to the Convention.  Thus, the Convention states, “causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group,” is genocide as well as “killing members of the group.”

We maintain, therefore, that the oppressed Negro citizens of the United States, segregated, discriminated against and long the target of violence, suffer from genocide as the result of the consistent, conscious, unified policies of every branch of government.

The Civil Rights Congress has prepared and submits this petition to the General Assembly of the United Nations on behalf of the Negro people in the interest of peace and democracy, charging the Government of the United States of America with violation of the Charter of the United Nations and the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

We believe that in issuing this document we are discharging an historic responsibility to the American people, as well as rendering a service of inestimable value to progressive mankind.  We speak of the American people because millions of white Americans in the ranks of labor and the middle class, and particularly those who live in the southern states and are often contemptuously called poor whites, are themselves suffering to an ever-greater degree from the consequences of the Jim Crow segregation policy of government in its relations with Negro citrines.  We speak of progressive mankind because a policy of discrimination at home must inevitably create racist commodities for export abroad-must inevitably tend toward war.

We have not dealt here with the cruel and inhuman policy of this government toward the people of Puerto Rico.  Impoverished and reduced to a semi-literate state through the wanton exploitation and oppression by gigantic American concerns, through the merciless frame-up and imprisonment of hundred of its sons and daughter, this colony of the  rulers of the United States reveals in all its stark nakedness the moral bankruptcy of this government and those who control its home and foreign policies.

History has shown that the racist theory of government of the U.S.A. is not the private affair of Americans, but the concern of mankind everywhere.

It is our hope, and we fervently believe that it was the hope and aspiration of every black American whose voice was silenced forever through premature death at the hands of racist-minded hooligans or Klan terrorists, that the truth recorded here will be made known to the world; that it will speak with a tongue of fire loosing an unquenchable moral crusade, the universal response to which will sound the death knell of all racist theories.

We have scrupulously kept within the purview of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide which is held to embrace those “acts committed with intent to destroy in whole or in part a national, ethical, racial or religious group as such.”

We particularly pray for the most careful reading of this material by those who have always regarded genocide as a term to be used only where the acts of terror evinced an intent to destroy a whole nation.  We further submit that this Convention on Genocide is, by virtue of our avowed acceptance of the Covenant of the United Nations, an inseparable part of the law of the United States of America.

According to international law, and according to our own law, the Genocide Convention, as well as the provisions of the United Nations Charter, supersedes, negates and displaces all discriminatory racist law on the books of the United States and the several states.

The Hitler crimes, of awful magnitude, beginning as they did against the heroic Jewish people, finally drenched the world in blood, and left a record of maimed and tortured bodies, and devastated areas such as mankind had never seen before.  Justice Robert H. Jackson, who now sits upon the United States Supreme Court bench, described this holocaust to the world in the powerful language with which he opened the Nuremberg trials of the Nazi leaders.  Every word he voiced against the monstrous Nazi beast applies with equal weight, we believe, to those who are guilty of the crimes herein set forth.

Here we present the documented crimes of federal, state and municipal governments in the United States of America, the dominant nation in the United Nations, against 15,000,000 of its own nationals-the Negro people of the United States.  These crimes are of the gravest concern to mankind.  The General Assembly of the United Nations, by reason of the United Nations Charter and the Genocide Convention, itself is invested with power to receive this indictment and act on it.

The proof of this face is its action upon the similar complaint of the Government of India against South Africa.

We call upon the United Nations to act and to call the government of the United States to account.

We believe that the test of the basic goals of a foreign policy is inherent in the manner in which a government treats its own nationals and is not to be found in the lofty platitudes that pervade so many treaties or constitutions.  The essence lies not in the form, but rather, in the substance.

The Civil Rights Congress is a defender of constitutional liberties, human rights, and of peace.  It is the implacable enemy of every creed, philosophy, social system or way of life that denies democratic rights or one iota of human dignity to any human being because of color, creed, nationality or political belief.

We ask all men and women of good will to unite to realize the objective set forth in the summary and prayer concluding this petition.  We believe that this program can go far toward ending the threat of a third world war.  We believe it can contribute to the establishment of a people’s democracy on a universal scale.

But may we add as a final note that the Negro people desire equality of opportunity in this land where their contributions to the economic, political and social developments have been of splendid proportions and in quality second to none.  They will accept nothing less, and continued efforts to force them into the category of second-class citizens through force and violence, through segregation, racist law and an institutionalized oppression, can only end in disaster for those responsible.

Respectfully submitted by the Civil Rights Congress as a service to the peoples of the world, and particularly to the lovers of peace and democracy in the United States of America

William L. Patterson
National Executive Secretary Civil Rights Congress

To the General Assembly of the United Nations:

The responsibility of being the first in history to charge the government of the United States of America with the crime of genocide is not one your petitioners take lightly.  The responsibility is particularly grave when citizens must charge their own government with mass murder of its own nationals, with institutionalized oppression and persistent slaughter of the Negro people in the United States on a basis of “race,” a crime abhorred by mankind and prohibited by the conscience of the world as expressed in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on December 9, 1948.

Genocide Leads to Fascism and to War

If our duty is unpleasant it is historically necessary both for the welfare of the American people and for the peace of the world.  We petition as American patriots, sufficiently anxious to save our countrymen and all mankind from the horrors of war to shoulder a task as painful as it is important.  We cannot forget Hitler’s demonstration that genocide at home can become wider massacre abroad, that domestic genocide develops into the larger genocide that is predatory war.  The wrongs of which we complain are so much the expression of predatory American reaction and its government that civilization cannot ignore them nor risk their continuance without courting its own destruction.  We agree with those members of the General Assembly who declared that genocide is a matter of world concern because its practice imperils world safety.

But if the responsibility of your petitioners is great, it is dwarfed by the responsibility of those guilty of the crime we charge.  Seldom in human annals has so iniquitous a conspiracy been so gilded with the trappings of respectability.  Seldom has mass murder on the score of “race” been so sanctified by law, so justified by those who demand free elections abroad even as they kill their fellow citizens who demand free elections at home.  Never have so many individuals been so ruthlessly destroyed amid many tributes to the sacredness of the individual.  The distinctive trait of this genocide is a cant that mouths aphorisms of Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence even as it kills.

The genocide of which we complain is as much a fact as gravity.  The whole world knows of it.  The proof is in every day’s newspapers, in every one’s sight and hearing in these United States.  In one form or another it has been practiced for more than three hundred years although never with such sinister implications for the welfare and peace of the world as at present.  Its very familiarity disguises its horror.  It is a crime so embedded in law, so explained away by specious rationale, so hidden by talk of liberty, that even the conscience of the tender minded is sometimes dulled.  Yet the conscience of mankind cannot be beguiled from its duty by the pious phrases and the deadly legal euphemisms with which its perpetrators seek to transform their guilt into high moral purpose.

Killing Members of the Group

Your petitioners will prove that the crime of which we complain is in fact genocide within the terms and meaning of the United Nations Convention providing for the prevention and punishment of this crime.  We shall submit evidence, tragically voluminous, of “acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethical, racial or religious group as such,” – in this case the 15,000,000 Negro people of the United States.

We shall submit evidence proving “killing members of the group,” in violation of Article II of the Convention.  We cite killings by police, killings by incited gangs, killings at night by masked men, killings always on the basis of “race,” killings by the Ku Klux Klan, that organization which is charted by the several states as a semi-official arm of government and even granted the tax exemptions of a benevolent society.

Our evidence concerns the thousands of Negroes who over the years have been beaten to death on chain gangs and in the back rooms of sheriff’s offices, in the cells of county jails, in precinct police stations  and on city streets, who have been framed and murdered by sham legal forms and by a legal bureaucracy.  It concerns those Negroes who have been killed, allegedly for failure to say “sir” or tip their hats or move aside quickly enough, or, more often, on trumped up charges of “rape,'” but in reality for trying to vote or otherwise demanding the legal and inalienable rights and privileges of United States citizenship formally guaranteed them by the Constitution of the United States, rights denied them on the basis of “race,” in violation of the Constitution of the United States, the United Nations Charter, and the Genocide Convention.

Economic Genocide

We shall offer proof of economic genocide, or in the words of the Convention, proof of “deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its destruction in whole or in part.”  We shall prove that such conditions so swell the infant and maternal death rate and the death rate from disease, that the American Negro is deprived, when compared with the remainder of the population of the United States, of eight years of life on the average.

Further we shall show a deliberate national oppression of these 15,000,000 Negro Americans on the basis of “race” to perpetuate these “conditions of life.”  Negroes are the last hired and the first fired.  They are forced into city ghettos or their rural equivalents.  They are segregated legally or through sanctioned violence into filthy, disease-bearing housing, and deprived by law of adequate medical care and education.  From birth to death, Negro Americans are humiliated and persecuted, in violation of the Charter and Convention.  They are forced by threat of violence and imprisonment into inferior, segregated accommodations, into jim crow busses, jim crow trains, jim crow hospitals, jim crow schools, jim crow theaters, jim crow restaurants, jim crow housing, and finally into jim crow cemeteries.

We shall prove that the object of this genocide, as of all genocide, is the perpetuation of economic and political power by the few through the destruction of political protest by the many.  Its method is to demoralize and divide an entire nation; its end is to increase the profits and unchallenged control by a reactionary clique.  We shall show that those responsible for this crime are not the humble but the so-called great, not the American people but their misleaders, not the convict but the robed judge, not the criminal but the police, not the spontaneous mob but organized terrorists licensed and approved by the state to incite to a Roman holiday.

We shall offer evidence that this genocide is not plotted in the dark but incited over the radio into the ears of millions, urged in the glare of public forums by Senators and Governors.  It is offered as an article of faith by powerful political organizations, such as the Dixiecrats, and defended by influential newspapers, all in violation of the Untied Nations charter and the Convention forbidding genocide.

This proof does not come from the enemies of the white supremacists but from their own mouths, their own writings, their political resolutions, their racist laws, and from photographs of their handiwork.  Neither Hitler nor Goebbels wrote obscurantist racial incitements more voluminously or viciously than do their American counterparts, nor did such incitements circulate in Nazi mails any more than they do in the mails of the United States.

Through this and other evidence we shall prove this crime of genocide is the result of a massive conspiracy, more deadly in that it is sometimes “understood” rather than expressed, a part of the mores of the ruling class often concealed by euphemisms, but always directed to oppressing the Negro people.  Its members are so well-drilled, so rehearsed over the generations, that they can carry out their parts automatically and with a minimum of spoken direction.  They have inherited their plot and their business is but to implement it daily so that it works daily.  This implementation is sufficiently expressed in decision and statute, in depressed wages, in robbing millions of the vote and millions more of the land, and in countless other political and economic facts, as to reveal definitively the existence of a conspiracy backed by reactionary interests in which are meshed all the organs of the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of government.  It is manifest that a people cannot be consistently killed over the years on the basis of “race” – and more than 10,000 Negroes have so suffered death – cannot be uniformly segregated, despoiled, impoverished, and denied equal protection before the law, unless it is the result of the deliberate, all-pervasive policy of government and those who control it.

Emasculation of Democracy

We shall show, more particularly, how terror, how “killing members of the group,” in violation of Article II of the Genocide Convention, has been used to prevent the Negro people from voting in huge and decisive areas of the United States in which they are the preponderant population, thus dividing the whole American people, emasculating mass movements for democracy and securing the grip of predatory reaction on the federal, state, county and city governments.  We shall prove that the crimes of genocide offered for your action and the world’s attention have in fact been incited, a punishable crime under Article III of the Convention, often by such officials as Governors, Senators, Judges and peace officers whose phrases about white supremacy and the necessity of maintaining inviolate a white electorate resulted in bloodshed as surely as more direct incitement.

We shall submit evidence showing the existence of a mass of American law, written as was Hitler’s law solely on the basis of “race,” providing for segregation and otherwise penalizing the Negro people, in violation not only of Articles II and III of the Convention but also in violation of the Charter of the United Nations.  Finally we shall offer proof that a conspiracy exists in which the Government of the United States, its Supreme Court, its Congress, it Executive branch, as well as the various state, county and municipal governments, consciously effectuate policies which result in the crime of genocide being consistently and constantly practiced against the Negro people of the United States.

The Negro Petitioners

Many of your petitioners are Negro citizens to whom the charges herein described are not mere words.  They are facts felt on our bodies, crimes inflicted on our dignity.  We struggle for deliverance, not without pride in our valor, but we warn mankind that our fate is theirs.  We solemnly declare that continuance of this American crime against the Negro people of the United States will strengthen those reactionary American forces driving towards World War III as certainly as the unrebuked Nazi genocide against the Jewish people strengthened Hitler in his successful drive to World War II.

We, Negro petitioners whose communities have been laid waste, whose homes have been burned and looted, whose children have been killed, whose women have been raped, have noted with peculiar horror that the genocidal doctrines and actions of the American white supremacists have already been exported to the colored peoples of Asia.  We solemnly warn that a nation which practices genocide against its own nationals may not be long deterred, if it has the power, from genocide elsewhere.  White supremacy at home makes for colored massacres abroad. Both reveal contempt for human life in a colored skin.  Jellied gasoline in Korea and the lynchers’ faggot at home are connected in more ways than that both result in death by fire.  The lyncher and the atom bomber are related.  The first cannot murder unpunished and unrebuked without so encouraging the latter that the peace of the world and the lives of millions are endangered.  Nor is this metaphysics.  The tie binding both is economic profit and political control.  It was not without significance that it was President Truman who spoke of the possibility of using the atom bomb on the colored peoples of Asia, that it is American statesmen who prate constantly of “Asiatic hordes.”

“Our Humanity Denied and Mocked”

We Negro petitioners protest this genocide as Negroes and we protest it as Americans, as patriots.  We know that no American can be truly free while 15,000,000 other Americans are persecuted on the grounds of “race,” that few Americans can be prosperous while 15,000,000 are deliberately pauperized.  Our country can never know true democracy while millions of its citizens are denied the vote on the basis of their color.

But above all we protest this genocide as human beings whose very humanity is denied and mocked.  We cannot forget that after Congressman Henderson Lovelace Lanham, of Rome, Georgia, speaking in the halls of Congress, called William L. Paterson, one of the leaders of the Negro people, “a God-damned black son-of-bitch,” he added, “We gotta keep the black apes down.”  We cannot forget it because this is the animating sentiment of the white supremacists, of a powerful segment of American life.  We cannot forget that in many American states it is a crime for a white person to marry a Negro on the racist theory that Negroes are “inherently inferior as an immutable fact of Nature.”  The whole institution of segregation, which is training for killing, education for genocide, is based on the Hitler-like theory of the “inherent inferiority of the Negro.”  The tragic fact of segregation is the basis for the statement, too often heard after murder, particularly in the South, “Why I think no more of killing a n—-r, than of killing a dog.”

We petition in the first instance because we are compelled to speak by the unending slaughter of Negroes.  The fact of our ethnic origin, of which we are proud-our ancestors were building the world’s first civilizations 3,000 years before our oppressors emerged from barbarism in the forests of western Europe-is daily made the signal for segregation and murder.  There is infinite variety in the cruelty we will catalogue, but each case has the common denominator of racism.  This opening statement is not the place to present our evidence in detail.  Still, in this summary of what is to be proved, we believe it necessary to show something of the crux of our case, something of the pattern of genocidal murder, the technique of incitement to genocide, and the methods of mass terror.

Our evidence begins with 1945 and continues to the present.  It gains in deadliness and in number of cases almost in direct ratio to the surge towards war.  We are compelled to hold to this six years span if this document is to be brought into manageable proportions.

The Evidence

There was a time when racist violence had its center in the South.  But as the Negro people spread to the north, east and west seeking to escape the southern hell, the violence, impelled in the first instance by economic motives, followed them, its cause also economic.  Once most of the violence against Negroes occurred in the countryside, but that was before the Negro emigrations of the twenties and thirties.  Now there is not a great American city from New York to Cleveland or Detroit, from Washington, the nation’s capital, to Chicago, from Memphis to Atlanta or Birmingham, from New Orleans to Los Angeles, that is not disgraced by the wanton killing of innocent Negroes.  It is no longer a sectional phenomenon.

Once the classic method of lynching was the rope. Now it is the policeman’s bullet.  To many an American the police are the government, certainly its most visible representative.  We submit that the evidence suggests that the killing of Negroes has become police policy in the United States and that police policy is the most practical expression of government policy.

Our evidence is admittedly incomplete.  It is our hope that the United Nations will complete it.  Much of the evidence, particularly of violence, was gained from the files of Negro newspapers, from the labor press, from the annual reports of Negro societies and established Negro year books.  A list is appended.

But by far the majority of Negro murders are never recorded, never known except to the perpetrators and the bereaved survivors of the victim.  Negro men and women leave their homes and are never seen alive again.  Sometimes weeks later their bodies, or bodies thought to be theirs and often horribly mutilated, are found in the woods or washed up on the shore of a river or lake.  This is a well known pattern of American culture. In many sections of the country police do not even bother to record the murder of Negroes.  Most white newspapers have a policy of not publishing anything concerning murders of Negroes or assaults upon them.  These unrecorded deaths are the rule rather than the exception-thus our evidence, though voluminous, is scanty when compared to the actuality.

Causes Celèbres

We Negro petitioners are anxious that the General Assembly know of our tragic causes celèbres, ignored by the American white press but known nevertheless the world over,  but we also wish to inform it of the virtually unknown killed almost casually, as an almost incidental aspect of institutionalized murder.

We want the General Assembly to know of Willie McGee, framed on perjured testimony and murdered in Mississippi because the Supreme Court of the United States refused even to examine vital new evidence proving his innocence.  But we also want it to know of the two Negro children, James Lewis, Jr., fourteen years old, and Charles Trudell, fifteen, of Natchez, Mississippi who were electrocuted in 1947, after the Supreme Court of the United States refused to intervene.

We want the General Assembly to know of the martyred Martinsville Seven, who died in Virginia’s electric chair for a rape they never committed, in a state that has never executed a white man for that offense.  But we want it to know, too, of the eight Negro prisoners who were shot down and murdered on July 11, 1947 at Brunswick, Georgia, because they refused to work in a snake-infested swamp without boots.

We shall inform the Assembly of the Trenton Six, of Paul Washington, the Daniels cousins, Jerry Newsom, Wesley Robert Wells, of Rosalee Ingram, of John Derrick, of Lieutenant Gilbert, of the Columbia, Tennessee destruction, the Freeport slaughter, the Monroe killings-all important cases I which Negroes have been framed on capital charges or have actually been killed.  But we want it also to know of the typical and less known-of William Brown, Louisiana farmer, shot in the back and killed when he was out hunting on July 19, 1947 by a white game warden who casually announced his unprovoked crime by saying, “I just shot a n—r.  Let his folks know.”  The game warden, one Charles Ventrill, was not even charged with the crime.

Sources:

(1) “Civil Rights Congress, We Charge Genocide: The Historic Petition to the United Nations for Relief From a Crime of The United States Government Against the Negro People (New York: Civil Rights Congress, 1951), pp xi-xiii, 3-10.

– See more at: http://www.blackpast.org/we-charge-genocide-historic-petition-united-nations-relief-crime-united-states-government-against#sthash.vSeM5EOr.dpuf

(2) Full text of “We Charge Genocide” petition from the Veterans of the Civil Rights Movement website listed below:

Copyright © Civil Rights Congress, 1951

Full Text (note that some of these PDF files are large):

We Charge Genocide: Cover & front matter
We Charge Genocide: Introduction
We Charge Genocide: The Opening Statement
We Charge Genocide: The Law and the Indictment
We Charge Genocide: The Evidence
We Charge Genocide: The Evidence (Continued)
We Charge Genocide: The Evidence (Continued)
We Charge Genocide: Summary and Prayer
We Charge Genocide: Appendix

###

New York Jericho Movement
Day of Mourning: Statement by Leonard Peltier

The following statement was made by American Indian Movement (AIM) Political Prisoner Leonard Peltier to the crowd that gathered on Thursday, November 24, 2016 at Plymouth, Massachusetts for the 47th National Day of Mourning, the annual American Indian protest of Thanksgiving.

Day of Mourning  November 24, 2016

Greetings my relatives,

Here we are again. This time the year is 2016. It has been more than 41 years since I last walked free and was able to see the sun rise and sit and feel the earth beneath my feet. I know there have been more changes then I can even imagine out there.

But I do know that there is a struggle taking place as to whether this country will move on to a more sustainable way of life. This is something we wanted to have happen back in the seventies.

I watch the events at Standing Rock with both pride and sorrow. Pride that our people and their allies are standing up and putting their lives on the line for the coming generations, not because they want to but because they have to. They are right to stand up in a peaceful way. It is the greatest gathering of our people in history and has made us more connected than ever before. We need to support each other as we make our way in these times.

Water IS life and we cannot leave this issue for our children and grandchildren to deal with when things are far worse for the natural world then they are now.

And Mother Earth is already in struggle.

And I feel sorrow for the water protectors at Standing Rock because these last few days have brought a much harsher response from the law enforcement agencies there and our people are suffering.

At least they are finally getting attention of the national media.

My home is in North Dakota. The Standing Rock people are my people. Sitting Bull lies in his grave there at Fort Yates. My home at Turtle Mountain is just a few hours north of Standing Rock, just south of Manitoba, Canada.  I have not seen my home since I was a boy, but I still hold out hope of returning there for whatever time I may have left. It is the land of my father and I would like to be able to live there again. And to die there.

I have a different feeling this year. The last time I felt this way was 16 years ago, when I last had a real chance for freedom. It is an uneasy feeling. An unsettling one. It is a hard thing to allow hope to creep into my heart and my spirit here in these cold buildings of stone and steel.

On one hand, to have hope is a joyful and wonderful feeling, but the downside of it for me can be cruel and bitter.

But today I will choose hope.

I pray that you will all enjoy good health and good feelings and I thank all of you from the bottom of my heart for all you have done and continue to do for me and for our Mother Earth.

Please keep me in your prayers and thoughts as these last days of 2016 slip away.

I send you my love and my respect for all of you who have gathered in the name of mother earth and our unborn generations. I stand with you there in spirit.

Doksha.

In the Spirit of Crazy Horse,

Leonard Peltier

• Call President Obama for Leonard Peltier: 202-456-1111 (White House Comment Line)  or 202-456-1414 (White House Switchboard); and send a text to these numbers if your cellphone provider allows for text-to-landline service (a fee may apply) .
• Email President Obama: http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/submit-questions-and-comments.
• Post a comment on Obama’s Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/potus/?fref=ts&hc_location=ufi or message him at https://www.facebook.com/whitehouse (or https://m.me/whitehouse).
• Send a tweet to President Obama: @POTUS or @WhiteHouse and use hastags #FREELEONARDPELTIER #LeonardPeltier and/or #FreePeltier.
• Write a letter: President Barack Obama, The White House, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20500.
• Watch the calls to action by our friends at the Human Rights Action Center. Then please urge President Obama to grant clemency.
• Also visit the 2016 clemency campaign for Leonard Peltier hosted by Amnesty International – USA and take action.
• The Office of the Pardon Attorney (OPA), DOJ, welcomes communications regarding clemency matters. Express your strong support of Leonard Peltier’s application for clemency in a letter, email and/or phone call to the OPA. Make reference to Leonard Peltier #89637-132 and his application for clemency dated February 17, 2016. Urge the OPA to recommend to President Obama that he grant clemency to Leonard Peltier:  Honorable Robert A. Zauzmer, Acting Pardon Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, DC  20530; Telephone: 202-616-6070; Email: USPardon.Attorney@usdoj.gov.

The reactions from the United States were mixed upon hearing of the transition of Cuba’s historic President Fidel Castro.  Cuban exiles and their families living in Miami celebrated his death as the final demise of a brutal dictator, and stated that their only regret was that his brother, current President Raul Castro, was still alive.  San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick, already the center of controversy for not standing during the national anthem at football games, was booed when his team traveled to Miami to play the Dolphins because of remarks he had made earlier which had praised Cuba’s free education and health care under Castro.

This attitude seems to echo the official stance of many in the US political establishment against Cuba because of its Communist leanings, and for its refusal to bow to Western pressure even after the demise of the Soviet Union.  US President-elect Donald Trump has threatened to reverse the progress of the Obama administration toward normalizing relations with Cuba, and many on the political right wing still seek the extradition of Assata Shakur from Cuba to the US, which both Castro brothers have steadfastly refused to allow. 

On the other hand, revolutionary activists on the political left mourned the loss, noting the Cuban leader’s struggle against the US-backed authoritarian regime of Fulgencio Batista, which had turned the country into a “playground” for the West’s well-to-do and enriched the island nation’s elite at the expense of the poor and Black citizens of Cuba.  They also lauded Castro’s accomplishments as Prime Minister and later President, instituting free education and health care for citizens and establishing one of the strongest cadres of medical doctors in the world, all this in the face of a crippling boycott and blockade of the island nation by the United States and its allies.  Cuba’s offer of medical assistance to the United States in the wake of the explosion of the AIDS epidemic, and later in the aftermath of the devastation of Hurricane Katrina, is also often noted, though the United States refused both offers of assistance, many say to the detriment of those who could have truly benefited from Cuba’s help.

Afrikan nations certainly have their own perspectives on Castro’s Cuba, especially since Cuban troops often fought on the side of Afrikan liberation movements against apartheid in South Africa, colonialism in Angola and in countries throughout the Mother Continent, while the United States stubbornly chose to take the side of the colonial oppressors in almost every Afrikan conflict.

There are numerous sources on the Web that will offer historical accounts of Castro’s life, some in favor and some vehemently opposed.  Here, we will offer one commentary from the Justice Initiative, which has agreed to allow us to post occasional articles, and an accompanying commentary by scholar Piero Gleijeses.  This may be only the first of many commentaries on the Cuban leader, so we will leave this particular commentary to Ms. Heather Gray of Justice Initiative and scholar Piero Gleijeses.  Rest in Power, Fidel Alejandro Castro Ruz.

— Bro. Cliff, KUUMBAReport.com

Cuban leader Fidel Castro, left, shares a laugh with South Africa President Nelson Mandela at the World Trade Organization held in Geneva Tuesday, May 19, 1998. Mandela and Castro said in separate speeches that the global trading system had failed to achieve its goals of bringing a higher standard of living to many developing countries. (AP Photo/PATRICK AVIOLAT)

Honoring Fidel Castro and the Cubans in African Liberation
by Heather Gray, Justice Initiative

Note: With the sad news of the passing of Fidel Castro I can’t help but be reminded of seeing him on the stage in Pretoria, South Africa at the inauguration of Nelson Mandela in 1994. I was blessed to be there for the event. What an honor and thrill that was. In combination with the African National Congress and South African liberation movement, it was the Cuban troops that demoralized and defeated the South African military that then, finally, led to the downfall of the apartheid state. Castro was remarkable and defiant throughout it all. Here is Mandela referring to this in 1991 while in Cuba:

“We come here with a sense of the great debt that is owed the people of Cuba … What other country can point to a record of greater selflessness than Cuba has displayed in its relations to Africa?” (Mandela – Global Learning)

Yes, countless South Africans wisely love him for his diligence and commitment in helping to end the painful apartheid system that oppressed the Southern African region altogether. Countless numbers of those of us involved in the anti-apartheid movement outside of South Africa also adore the great man. Not only did Cuba play a major role in the downfall of apartheid but in its aftermath, Cuba also assisted Africans in their advancement in education and in medicine.  Here is some information about this:

ELAM (Latin American School of Medicine) Cuba  Escuela Latinoamericana de Medicina (ELAM), formerly Escuela Latinoamericana de Ciencias Médicas (in Spanish; in English: Latin American School of Medicine (LASM), formerly Latin American School of Medical Sciences), is a major international medical school in Cuba and a prominent part of the Cuban healthcare system. 

Established in 1999 and operated by the Cuban government, ELAM has been described as possibly being the largest medical school in the world by enrollment with approximately 19,550 students from 110 countries reported as enrolled in 2013.[1] All those enrolled are international students from outside Cuba and mainly come from Latin America and the Caribbean as well as Africa and Asia. The school accepts students from the United States – 91 were reportedly enrolled as of January 2007. Tuition, accommodation and board are free, and a small stipend is provided for students …. 

Preference is given to applicants who are financially needy and/or people of color who show the most commitment to working in their poor communities.  (Wikipedia).    

Below is an article by scholar Piero Gleijeses about Cuba‘s important role in Africa.  Thank you Fidel Castro and the Cuban people – we honor you for your service to freedom and justice.  Peace, Heather Gray URL – Justice Initiative International 

Why South Africa Loves Cuba
Piero Gleijeses

Piero Gleijeses is a professor of American foreign policy at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies. All quotes from the article are drawn from his latest book: Visions of Freedom: Havana, Washington, Pretoria and the Struggle for Southern Africa, 1976-1991, The University of North Carolina Press, 2013. January 14, 2014 Global Learning      While the American news media recently focused on “the handshake” between President Obama and Raúl Castro, it is worth pondering why the organizers of Nelson Mandela’s memorial service invited Raúl Castro to be one of only six foreign leaders-of the ninety-one in attendance-to speak at the ceremony. Not only was Raúl Castro accorded that honor, but he also received by far the warmest introduction: “We now will get an address from a tiny island, an island of people who liberated us … the people of Cuba,” the chairperson of the African National Congress (ANC) said. Such words echo what Mandela himself said when he visited Cuba in 1991: “We come here with a sense of the great debt that is owed the people of Cuba … What other country can point to a record of greater selflessness than Cuba has displayed in its relations to Africa?”      Many factors led to the demise of apartheid. The white South African government was defeated not just by the power of Mandela, the courage of the South African people, or the worldwide movement to impose sanctions. It was also brought down by the defeat of the South African military in Angola. This explains the prominence of Raúl Castro at the memorial service: it was Cuban troops that humiliated the South African army. In the 1970s and 1980s, Cuba changed the course of history in southern Africa despite the best efforts of the United States to prevent it.      In October 1975, the South Africans, encouraged by the Gerald Ford administration, invaded Angola to crush the leftwing Popular Movement for the Liberation of Angola (MPLA). They would have succeeded had not 36,000 Cuban soldiers suddenly poured into Angola.  By April 1976, the Cubans had pushed the South Africans out.  As the CIA noted, Castro had not consulted Moscow before sending his troops (as is clear from later tense meetings with the Soviet leadership in the 1980s.) The Cubans, Kissinger confirmed in his memoirs, had confronted the Soviets with a fait accompli. Fidel Castro understood that the victory of Pretoria (with Washington in the wings) would have tightened the grip of white domination over the people of southern Africa. It was a defining moment: Castro sent troops to Angola because of his commitment to what he has called “the most beautiful cause,” the struggle against apartheid. As Kissinger observed later, Castro “was probably the most genuine revolutionary leader then in power.”      The tidal wave unleashed by the Cuban victory in Angola washed over South Africa. “Black Africa is riding the crest of a wave generated by the Cuban success in Angola,” noted the World, South Africa’s major black newspaper. “Black Africa is tasting the heady wine of the possibility of realizing the dream of total liberation.” Mandela later recalled hearing about the Cuban victory in Angola while he was incarcerated on Robben Island. “I was in prison when I first heard of the massive aid that the internationalist Cuban troops were giving to the people of Angola. … We in Africa are accustomed to being the victims of countries that want to grab our territory or subvert our sovereignty. In all the history of Africa this is the only time a foreign people has risen up to defend one of our countries.”      Pretoria, however, had not given up: even after retreating from the Cubans, it hoped to topple Angola’s MPLA government. Cuban troops remained in Angola to protect it from another South African invasion. Even the CIA conceded that they were “necessary to preserve Angolan independence.” In addition, the Cubans trained ANC guerrillas as well as SWAPO rebels, who were fighting for the independence of Namibia from the South Africans who illegally occupied it.  From 1981 to 1987, the South Africans launched bruising invasions of southern Angola. It was a stalemate-until November 1987, when Castro decided to push the South Africans out of the country once and for all. His decision was triggered by the fact that the South African army had cornered the best units of the Angolan army in the southern Angolan town of Cuito Cuanavale. And his decision was made possible by the Iran Contra scandal rocking Washington. Until the Iran-Contra scandal exploded in late 1986, weakening and distracting the Reagan administration, the Cubans had feared that the United States might launch an attack on their homeland. They had therefore been unwilling to deplete their stocks of weapons. But Iran Contra defanged Reagan, and freed Castro to send Cuba’s best planes, pilots, and antiaircraft weapons to Angola. His strategy was to break the South African offensive against Cuito Cuanavale in the southeast and then attack in the southwest, “like a boxer who with his left hand blocks the blow and with his right-strikes.”      On March 23, 1988, the South Africans launched their last major attack against Cuito Cuanavale. It was an abject failure. The US Joint Chiefs of Staff noted, “The war in Angola has taken a dramatic and-as far as the South Africans are concerned-an undesirable turn.”  The Cubans’ left hand had blocked the South African blow while their right hand was preparing to strike: powerful Cuban columns were moving towards the Namibian border, pushing the South Africans back. Cuban MIG-23s began to fly over northern Namibia. US and South African documents prove that the Cubans gained the upper hand in Angola. The Cubans demanded that Pretoria withdraw unconditionally from Angola and allow UN-supervised elections in Namibia. The US Joint Chiefs of Staff warned that if South Africa refused, the Cubans were in a position “to launch a well-supported offensive into Namibia.” The South Africans acknowledged their dilemma: if they refused the Cuban demands, they ran “the very real risk of becoming involved in a full-scale conventional war with the Cubans, the results of which are potentially disastrous.” The South African military was grim: “We must do the utmost to avoid a confrontation.”  Pretoria capitulated. It accepted the Cubans’ demands and withdrew unconditionally from Angola and agreed to UN supervised elections in Namibia, which SWAPO won.      The Cuban victory reverberated beyond Namibia and Angola. In the words of Nelson Mandela, the Cuban victory “destroyed the myth of the invincibility of the white oppressor … [and] inspired the fighting masses of South Africa … Cuito Cuanavale was the turning point for the liberation of our continent-and of my people-from the scourge of apartheid.”

Back in 2000, as Democrat Al Gore was facing off with Republican George W. Bush in the general election for the presidency of the United States, many in the African-American community were ambivalent.  Gore’s eight years as Bill Clinton’s vice president had been rather unremarkable, as vice presidents tend to be.  Earlier concerns regarding his perceived attitudes during the time of Rev. Jesse Jackson’s attempts at the presidency had been forgotten, and he was thus seen as a reasonable successor to the then-proclaimed “first Black president”.  Even Gore’s choice of conservative Democrat Joe Lieberman, while somewhat concerning, did not turn off African-American voters enough to consider George W. Bush, the Republican candidate and son of 41st president and Ronald Reagan successor George H. W. Bush.  “W”, or “Dubya”, as the son would soon be called, was the former Texas governor who had presided over more executions than any other governor in the country, many of them African-American men, yet he still called himself “the compassionate conservative”.

At a major march at the Lincoln Memorial shortly before the general election, Bishop George Stallings of the Imani Temple, an African-American Catholic church in Washington, DC, exhorted the crowd to oppose the Bush, pleading “Don’t let Texas become the United States!”  “We don’t need a miracle!  We’ll get our miracle when we elect Al Gore and Joe Lieberman,” he cried.

Others among us, unimpressed by the Democratic Party platform, dared America to elect Bush.  “Give us our worst fear,” they said.  “That will wake our people up and alert us that it’s time to organize.”

Of course, after a hotly contested election that came down to the last reporting state, Florida, the controversy erupted over the decision of the California Secretary of State, Catherine Harris, to throw out several ballots for reasons as varied as “hanging chads” and voters’ names having been deleted from the rolls due to (supposedly) criminal records and voter fraud, though these claims were later determined to be entirely baseless.  As a result, the presidency came down to a vote in the Supreme Court over whether or not to count these contested votes, a 5-4 decision in favor of throwing the votes out which won George W. Bush the state of Florida and its key electoral votes.  This directly led to the election of Bush as the 43rd US president.  This despite the fact that Gore had won the majority of the national popular vote.

Having been given “our worst fear”, what did many of our organizers do?  Did they mobilize in response as some of my good friends had expected?  No, many of our organizers chose to “lay low” because of fears that they might be targeted by the police state that was being mobilized in conjunction with the war machine of vice president Richard Cheney.  Unfettered by serious opposition, especially from organized Black groups, the US would walk out of the World Conference Against Racism (WCAR), terrorists would strike the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, and Bush would lead the US into one questionable war (Afghanistan) and one entirely improper and illegal one (Iraq) as the Geneva Conventions were being dismissed as “quaint” and unworthy of consideration.

Fast forward to today.  Donald Trump, a man even former  presidents George H. W  and George W. Bush would refuse to publicly endorse, has been elected president, again as a result of several states that decided the contest late in the night, giving Trump the key electoral votes he needed to clinch the presidency, and again in spite of the fact that his opponent, Hillary Rodham Clinton, seeking to become the first elected woman president in US history, earned more of the national popular vote. 

There has been much hand-wringing, commiserating and outright sobbing over this result.  The lost opportunity to break the “glass ceiling” for women and Clinton’s long list of qualifications (US Senator and Secretary of State after serving as First Lady during her husband’s eight years as president) obscured, for her supporters, the weaknesses of her candidacy.  The disrespect she has endured since she was First Lady can be explained in large part by the rampant sexism that still exists in the country, especially in political circles, and a rather effective 30-year smear campaign by Republicans that has in part caused her to be viewed as an untrustworthy, and even sinister, candidate.   Still, some of her “trust issues” were self-made, which included her initial support of the war in Iraq, her support of the war in Libya (which killed President Muammar Gadaffi at a time when he was being cooperative with the West and which has led to the financial crippling of the African Union) and her questionable use of a personal email server for government business, some of which appeared to include classified emails.  Her support as First Lady for her husband’s policies regarding Ayiti (Haiti), for which Bill Clinton has apologized but not fully atoned, earned her the ire of Ayiti activists, most notably Marguerite Laurent (“Ezili Danto”) of the Haitian Lawyers Leadership Network, and her cheerleading of Bill Clinton’s Omnibus Crime Bill by touting the myth of the young Black “super-predator” led to numerous protests at her rallies over the last year by, among others, Black Lives Matter activists.

Despite all this, she still won the large majority of the Black vote, primarily because of the fear of a Trump presidency more than any specific enthusiasm for Clinton or her platform, which had been forced to the left by the campaign of Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders.  It was the White vote which won Trump the presidency.  Apparently, a flawed candidate like Clinton was considered worse than a man whose own recorded remarks branded him as a sexist, racist xenophobe with a checkered business record littered with bankruptcies and lawsuits and little knowledge of world affairs or diplomacy.

So, now many Black people are upset about the election results.  And apparently many Whites are as well, judging by the protests which erupted in cities across the country almost immediately after the election results became official.  The terms most commonly used to describe people’s feelings, especially those of African-American citizens, Muslims and immigrants, tend to be some combination of fear, grief and anger.

My friends had dared America to elect another hard-right president with ties (in Trump’s case) to White nationalist right-wing groups, predicting that such a result would shake us out of the complacency we had willfully enjoyed (failing to pressure the most recent administration to deliver on the great promise of the last eight years) during the presidency of Barrack Obama.

When a similar situation had arisen in 2000, many of our activists failed to rise up and organize in opposition to the Bush-Cheney agenda.  Whites did more on a national scale with Occupy Wall Street and the anti-WTO protests that had been named the “Battle in Seattle” than we did to mobilize our community.  Of late, only Black Lives Matter (launched during the Obama Administration as a result of police–and police wannabe–killings of Black youth such as Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown) has reached the level of serious grassroots organizing among the Black community, and many of us have questioned BLM’s orientation toward gay rights and its alleged connections with George Soros.  Still, those critics have yet to birth a serious national Black movement of their own.

Meanwhile, the organization I belong to, the Sixth Region Diaspora Caucus (SRDC), a grassroots-oriented organization that seeks to galvanize and organize the aspirations as well as the needs and issues of people of Afrikan descent throughout the Pan-Afrikan Diaspora, has been struggling to light a spark in our community since 2006.  The effort has been going on in Maryland, where I live, since 2007.  SRDC and other organizations have been plugging away for years, searching for that spark that might ignite the fire of unity in our people.  Our search continues.  As of this writing, SRDC-Maryland is holding a Pan-Afrikan Town Hall on Saturday, November 12 at the Union Mill, 1500 Union Avenue in West Baltimore, and we hope to hold more such Town Hall Meetings to bring our community together, to craft a Pan-Afrikan Agenda that is developed by our grassroots community to champion at the national and international levels, and to build a Blackprint for us to follow to unite our many and varied “Pan-Afrikan Unity” organizations so we can help ourselves.

Will the ascendancy of Trump to the single most powerful political position on the planet serve as the spark for us to finally organize ourselves?  Or will many of our people once again retreat to the shadows, afraid of the repercussions of opposition to the latest Head of the Oppressor State?

Bro. Cliff
Editor, KUUMBAReport Online
Maryland State Facilitator, Sixth Region Diaspora Caucus (SRDC)
http://www.srdcinternational.org

The following commentary was re-posted from an email blast by the group Justice Initiative.

Today, similar criticisms have been leveled against Kaepernick, as those against Tommie Smith and John Carlos at the 1968 Summer Olympics, or those against Muhammad Ali. The Source

“I cannot stand and sing the anthem. I cannot salute the flag. I know that I am a black man in a white world.”

That’s not Colin Kaepernick, the San Francisco 49ers quarterback whose refusal to stand during the national anthem has invited criticism from all corners of the sports world.
 
That’s Jackie Robinson, beloved baseball pioneer and civil rights activist, writing in his 1972 autobiography, “I Never Had It Made.”
 
After Kaepernick was spotted sitting during the anthem preceding last Friday’s NFL preseason game, the struggling quarterback said he would not stand “to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color.”
 
It’s hard not to notice their words are almost perfectly aligned. But it shouldn’t be a surprise when you consider some historical context, namely, that the anthem actually contains a reference to slavery and Kaepernick is far from the first athlete to question its scope.
 
The national anthem’s forgotten lyrics
 
“The Star-Spangled Banner” was written by Francis Scott Key in 1814 about the American victory at the Battle of Fort McHenry. We only sing the first verse, but Key penned three more. This is the third verse: 

The mere mention of “slave” is not entirely remarkable; slavery was alive and well in the United States in 1814. Key himself owned slaves, was an anti-abolitionist and once called his African brethren “a distinct and inferior race of people.”
 
Some interpretations of these lyrics contend Key was in fact taking pleasure in the deaths of freed black slaves who had decided to fight with the British against the United States.
 
In order to bolster their numbers, British forces offered slaves their freedom in British territories if they would join their cause during the war. These black recruits formed the Colonial Marines, and were looked down upon by people like Key who saw their actions as treasonous.
 
As an anthem, “The Star-Spangled Banner” has never been a unanimous fit. Since it was officially designated as the national anthem in 1931, Americans have debated the suitability of its militaristic lyrics and difficult tune. (Some have offered up “God Bless America” and “America the Beautiful” as alternatives.)
 
Athletes and the American ritual
 
The American ritual of the national anthem has always been a crucible for patriotism and protest. It presents a particularly fraught dynamic for sports stars, since sports events are often so closely tied with the rhetoric of American pride. When a highly visible opinion comes up against a highly visible symbol, the result is always incendiary.
 
Around the same time Jackie Robinson was using his achievements to advance civil rights causes, two American Olympic runners, Tommie Smith and John Carlos, raised their fists in a black power salute during a medal ceremony at the 1968 Olympics in Mexico City as the anthem was playing.
 
The result was iconic. The reaction was ugly. Racial slurs were hurled at the pair and an article in Time called it a “public display of petulance.”
 
Today, similar criticisms have been leveled against Kaepernick, a biracial Super Bowl quarterback who was raised by white adoptive parents and made $13 million in 2014. He was called “spoiled.” He was called far worse in his Twitter mentions.
 
It’s a lot of ire for a gesture with a strong historical and rhetorical precedent.
 
One doesn’t even need to dip into iconic moments in history to follow the trend.
 
Former Cleveland Cavaliers player Dion Waiters refused to be on the court for the anthem in 2014. And Denver Nuggets player Mahmoud Abdul-Rauf courted criticism after he deliberately sat during the anthem in 1996.
 
In fact, Kaepernick didn’t stand for the first two preseason games of this year prior to Friday’s display. He wasn’t in uniform, so no one noticed. Or if they did, they didn’t care.
 

The protest that took place on top of the victory stand in Mexico City on the 16th October 1968, by US athletes Tommie Smith and John Carlos (supported by Australian Peter Norman) was one of the greatest moments in the history of the Olympics. Smith and Carlos did the unthinkable when they had the courage to make a stand against the grave injustice, impoverished conditions and societal mistreatment of their fellow humans, they stood on the podium and held up their raised gloved fists in unity and in protest of the continuing dehumanizing treatment of African Americans by the country they represented, and of the oppressed worldwide.(1968 Olympics The Black Power Salute).
 
“An Inspiring Act of Bravery. Willing to sacrifice ALL for justice”. Tommie Smith, Dr. John Carlos & Peter Norman. “We can change the world and make it a better place. It is in your hands to make a difference.” –Nelson Mandela
 
It was expected that Americans would dominate the track at the 1968 Summer Olympics in Mexico City. Indeed, when the men’s 200-meter began, American Tommie Smith led the pack, sprinting ahead to take gold. Heading into the home stretch, it looked as if teammate and world-record holder John Carlos would win silver, but Australian Peter Norman edged him out, bounding down the straightaway to take silver and leaving Carlos with bronze. But it’s what happened next that would make history.
 
Smith and Carlos stood on the podium wearing black socks without shoes to symbolize black poverty in the U.S. Carlos wore a strand of colorful beads to protest lynching. They bowed their heads as The Star Spangled Banner played, and raised their fists – clad in black leather gloves – in salutes to Black Power and unity. It was a gesture seen around the world, and an enduring symbol of political resistance.
 
… John Carlos accepted the Bronze medal at the Olympic podium wearing black socks and no shoes to represent impoverished people who had no shoes of their own, and raised a black-gloved fist crowning a bowed head to humbly reflect the strength of the human spirit. Headlines were made around the globe and the photograph of the three medalists standing peaceably in protest at the ceremonial podium instantaneously became a historical symbol of the fight for human rights.
 
“We owe it to our Ancestors and to the sacrifices that they made, to continue to achieve higher goals, while maintaining our identity. Stand Up! Stand OUT!“
 
This fleeting moment, though, came out of the deep-rooted struggle for racial equality gripping America. Smith and Carlos had been part of the Olympic Project for Human Rights, which, founded in 1967, had originally called upon black athletes to boycott the Summer Games.
 
The movement’s mission statement asked, “Why should we run in Mexico only to crawl home?” Ultimately the group decided against the boycott, but Smith and Carlos embodied their message of protest. Australian Peter Norman wore an OPHR patch on his jacket during the ceremony as a symbol of solidarity.
 
“I have fought against white domination, and I have fought against black domination. I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons live together in harmony and with equal opportunities. It is an ideal which I hope to live for and to achieve. But if needs be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die.” –Nelson Mandela
 
In a 2008 op-ed for the L.A. Times, basketball legend Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, who had been asked to try out for the ’68 Olympic basketball team, described what watching that moment meant. “Whites were outraged, blacks felt some rush of pride,” he wrote.
 
Carlos, who would go on to equal the world record in the 100-meter, win an NCAA championship title and even play a short stint in the NFL, spoke in Chicago this year. Speaking to an audience of young poets and activists, he said that now, when asked by photographers to raise his fist for the camera, he instead instructs them to find a young person to photograph. “Let some young man or woman raise their fist,” he said. “I want them to see that we’ve moved on to the next generation.”
 
* Jim Brown on Colin Kaepernick: ‘I am with him 100 percent’ by Pat McManamon, ESPN Staff Writer, August 30, 2016

I must admit, I was not always a fan of Colin Kaepernick. I have never been much for the copious tattoos and the image that was presented of him. When he led the San Francisco 49ers to the Super Bowl several years ago, I was rooting for the Baltimore Ravens, the National Football League team of the city where I currently live, in spite of Kaepernick’s Afrikan ancestry (which was not really discussed in the news or sports pages). And my desire to see 5-foot-9-inch Afrikan-American quarterback Russell Wilson of the Seattle Seahawks succeed led me to root for that team against Kaepernick’s 49ers, who competed in the same division (the NFC West).　

While I still may root for those teams when they face the 49ers, I now consider myself, on the strength of this young man’s great courage to stand up against racism and injustice and do so at the risk of his career and livelihood, a strong Colin Kaepernick fan.　

And the numbers of people who feel the same way is finally and thankfully growing, regardless of whether or not he ever regains the stardom he had achieved several years ago as the “next great revolutionary quarterback”. Perhaps he will now become revolutionary in another, much more relevant way.

To get one thing straight, Kaepernick has not said that he hates America.  He has not said anything about disrespecting the military.  In fact, he has begun to take a knee during the playing of the national anthem to demonstrate respect for those who sacrifice for their country.  He has not called for the murder of police, though the socks portraying pigs in police uniforms serve as a statement against brutal, corrupt and racist police officers.  He has made an important statement to awaken the conscience of a nation that currently risks careening headlong into the murky waters of white supremacy, hyper-nationalism, so-called “nativism” and xenophobia.  Rather than be condemned for his stance, he should be thanked for giving this country a chance to wake up before it’s too late.　

Professor William Small recently offered such a note of thanks to him in a commentary that was distributed by the group Justice Initiative (“Thanks to Colin Kaepernick And Those Who Can’t Stand Racial Injustice“) and which we have shared in a separate post here. Professor Small’s commentary informs, reinforces and echoes other commentaries which we link to below.

It says something hopeful about the American public that, after an initial barrage of ridicule, condemnation and even threats against Kaepernick for his stand against standing for the National Anthem before National Football League games (such as former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin urging all Americans to “sack this ungrateful punk”, http://www.mediaite.com/online/sarah-palin-urges-violence-against-ungrateful-punk-colin-kaepernick/), a number of people have since come to his defense and an important discussion about patriotism, racism and hypocrisy has (again) begun. On September 1, Jeremy Lane of the Seattle Seahawks expressed his solidarity with Kaepernick and began sitting himself as the anthem was played, and members of his own team have also expressed solidarity with (or at least respect for) his action, either for exercising his right to free speech or his in-your-face critique of ongoing institutional racism, specifically in the form of police brutality and murder against unarmed Afrikan-Americans such as Philando Castile, Freddie Gray, Eric Garner, Sandra Bland and Tamir Rice, among so many others. After an initial spate of public burnings of his football jersey by angry 49ers fans, the NFL Shop has recorded sales of that same jersey that topped those of all other players as of September 3.　

For those who may be wondering why this apparent reversal is happening and are unaware of the historical connection between the national anthem and the sordid past of the United States (which has influenced the angry, recalcitrant and grossly uninformed responses of those who defend the ongoing injustices of this country against its citizens of Afrikan, Latino and Indigenous descent), we would like to share some of what has come out about this most revered of American anthems in the days and weeks since Kaepernick first announced what had begun as a lonely, one-man protest, a protest that now seems to be nearing a level of critical mass to perhaps rival that of “Black Lives Matter”, a similarly-provocative call for introspection among Whites and those who call themselves “patriotic” and for a degree of unity and, dare I say it, Pan-Afrikanism from those of us who are of Afrikan descent.　

The Black Agenda Report shared two insightful articles about the “racist, imperial obsessions of Francis Scott Key” in a commentary that can be read in full at http://blackagendareport.com/blood-spangled_banner_anthem:

The Blood-Spangled Banner: An Anthem for Slavery, Genocide and Empire, Submitted by Sam Husseini on Tue, 08/30/2016 – 19:24　

The U.S. was born in slavery and genocide, so it is no wonder that its anthem puts to music its claim to stolen land on behalf of the “free” – as opposed to the slave and the vanquished native. But the U.S. was also conceived as a White Man’s Empire, primed for endless expansion. Thus, the same anthem celebrates the defeat of the “turban’d head” of Muslims in North Africa. Two articles address the racist, imperial obsessions of Francis Scott Key.　

Colin Kaepernick is Right: The National Anthem is a Celebration of Slavery by Jon Schwarz, which previously appeared in The Intercept, and The Anti-Muslim Origins of “The Star-Spangled Banner” by Sam Husseini, which originally appeared on Sam Husseini’s blog, PostHaven.　

Elder Sadiki Olugbala (“Bro. Shep”) of the Universal Zulu Nation out of New York City offered a commentary, which we share in full below, that highlights the hypocrisy of standing for freedom while also standing for a “white supremacist Amerikkkan theme song”:　

THE STAR SPANGLED BANNER IS A RACIST & GENOCIDAL SONG
Tuesday, Black August 30, 2016

Universal Zulu Nation Factology: From Panther-Zulu King Bro. Shep　

The 1st and 2nd Verses of the United States National Anthem are no doubt known for their glorification of the rockets, bombs and war of free Colonial American “white” men to bring about independence from the political rule of free British “white” men underneath the triumphant waving flag of the racist & genocidal “Star Spangled Banner.” But when one reads the lesser known 3rd and 4th Verses then it becomes clear that Black, Native & Latino people should NEVER STAND when this white supremacist Amerikkkan theme song is being played & “Right On” to San Francisco 49ers Quarterback Colin Kaepernick to sit when it’s played.　

The below 3rd Verse of the United States National Anthem clearly states that escaped Black Slaves

who sought to find freedom during the war were nothing more than a band of doomed, foul smelling subhumans who should be hunted down, killed & sent to their blood graves by free “white” men underneath the triumphant waving flag of the racist and genocidal “Star Spangled Banner.” 　

“And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
That the havoc of war and the battle’s confusion
A home and a country should leave us no more?
Their blood has wiped out their foul footstep’s pollution.
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave:
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave.”　

The below 4th and final Verse of the United States National Anthem clearly states that it is with God’s & Heavens blessing, praise, power that First Nation peoples be killed, conquered and that their so called “Indian” lands be taken over, preserved and forever forcefully ruled by free “white” men underneath the triumphant waving flag of the racist and genocidal “Star Spangled Banner.” 　

“Oh! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved homes and the war’s desolation!
Blest with victory and peace, may the heaven-rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: “In God is our trust.”
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave!”　

Nuff Said… 　

Shawn King of the New York Daily News wrote a piece (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/king-stand-star-spangled-banner-article-1.2770075) entitled Why I’ll never stand again for ‘The Star-Spangled Banner’, which we offer an excerpt of below:

Shawn King
NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
Monday, August 29, 2016, 1:02 PM　

Now that I have learned the truth about our national anthem and its author, I’ll never stand up for it again.　

First off, the song, which was originally written as a poem, didn’t become our national anthem until 1931 — which was 117 years after Key wrote it. Most of us have no true idea what in the hell we’ve been hearing or singing all these years, but as it turns out, Key’s full poem actually has a third stanza which few of us have ever heard. In it, he openly celebrates the murder of slaves. Yes, really.　

It goes like this:　

No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight or the gloom of the grave,
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave.　

While it has always been known that the song was written during American slavery and that when those words about this nation being the “land of the free” didn’t apply to the millions who had been held in bondage, few of us had any idea that the song itself was rooted in the celebration of slavery and the murder of Africans in America, who were being hired by the British military to give them strength not only in the War of 1812, but in the Battle of Fort McHenry of 1814. These black men were called the Corps of Colonial Marines and they served valiantly for the British military. Key despised them. He was glad to see them experience terror and death in war — to the point that he wrote a poem about it. That poem is now our national anthem.　

While I fundamentally reject the notion that anyone who owned other human beings was either good, moral, or decent, Francis Scott Key left absolutely no doubt that he was a stone cold bigot. He came from generations of plantation owning bigots. They got wealthy off of it. Key, as District Attorney of Washington, fought for slavery and against abolitionists every chance he got. Even when Africans in D.C. were injured or murdered, he stood strong against justice for them. He openly spoke racist words against Africans in America. Key said that they were “a distinct and inferior race of people, which all experience proves to be the greatest evil that afflicts a community.”　

While San Francisco 49ers quarter back Colin Kaepernick has refused to stand for the national anthem because of the overflowing abundance of modern day injustice in America, he has helped bring to light the fact that this song and its author are deeply rooted in violent white supremacy. …　

Like Kaepernick, I’ve had enough of injustice in America and I’ve had enough of anthems written by bigots. Colin Kaepernick has provided a spark.　

“The Star-Spangled Banner” should’ve never been made into our national anthem. That President Woodrow Wilson, widely thought to be one of the most bigoted presidents ever elected, chose it as our national anthem, is painfully telling as well. We must do away with it like South Africans did away with their monument to Cecil Rhodes. We must do away with it like South Carolina did with the Confederate Flag over their state house.　

Of course, removing the culture of white supremacy does not necessarily remove its effects, but we must simultaneously and passionately address both. I’m joining Colin Kaepernick, who joined in with the spirit of Rosa Parks, by standing up for our rights by sitting down. I hope you join us.　

And no less than legend of song and screen and human rights icon Harry Belafonte has come to Kaepernick’s defense in an interview with Roland Martin of News One Now.　

http://www.eurweb.com/2016/09/harry-belafonte-calls-on-hundreds-of-black-athletes-to-stand-with-colin-kaepernick/
Harry Belafonte Calls on ‘Hundreds’ of Black Athletes to Stand with Colin Kaepernick　

… Belafonte said that as an American civil rights activist who also had a strong and influential platform to voice his opinions about America’s treatment of African-Americans, he is very proud of Kaepernick protest.　

“To mute the slave has always been to the best interest of the slave owner,” said Belafonte. “I think that when a Black voice is raised in protest to oppression, those who are comfortable with our oppression are the first to criticize us for daring to speak out against it. I think that it’s a noble thing that he [Kaepernick} has done. I think that speaking out and making people aware of the fact that you are paying homage to an anthem that also has a constituency that by the millions suffer – it’s a righteous thing to do. The fact that these people are having these ‘how dare you speak out against lynching out of all of the things’ that racism stands for, or the conclusion to racist acts a permit, I think is a statement about America.”　

Belafonte’s stance was reinforced in a Washington Post Commentary (https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/08/30/insulting-colin-kaepernick-says-more-about-our-patriotism-than-his/?utm_term=.7058b99e52b4)on August 31 by no less than NBA legend and human rights activist Kareem Abdul-Jabbar:

Insulting Colin Kaepernick says more about our patriotism than his
The Washington Post
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar

During the Olympics in Rio a couple weeks ago, Army Reserve second lieutenant Sam Kendricks was sprinting intently in the middle of his pole vaulting attempt when he heard the national anthem playing. He immediately dropped his pole and stood at attention, a spontaneous expression of heartfelt patriotism that elicited more praise than his eventual bronze medal. Last Thursday, San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick chose not to stand with his teammates during the national anthem. To some, Kendricks embodies traditional All-American Forrest Gump values of patriotism, while Kaepernick represents the entitled brattish behavior of a wealthy athlete ungrateful to a country who has given him so much.　

In truth, both men, in their own ways, behaved in a highly patriotic manner that should make all Americans proud. …　

One of the ironies of the way some people express their patriotism is to brag about our freedoms, especially freedom of speech, but then brand as unpatriotic those who exercise this freedom to express dissatisfaction with the government’s record in upholding the Constitution. Colin Kaepernick explained why he will not stand during the national anthem: “There are a lot of things that are going on that are unjust [that] people aren’t being held accountable for. And that’s something that needs to change. That’s something that this country stands for — freedom, liberty, justice for all. And it’s not happening for all right now.”　

What makes an act truly patriotic and not just lip-service is when it involves personal risk or sacrifice. Both Kendricks and Kaepernick chose to express their patriotism publicly because they felt that inspiring others was more important than the personal cost. Yes, Kendricks is a world-record pole-vaulter, but every athlete knows that breaking focus and concentration during a high-pressure competition can be devastating to the athlete’s performance. The Olympics was filled with favorites who faltered because of loss of focus. Halting his run in order to honor the national anthem could have cost Kendricks his medal. He was willing to take that chance.　

Likewise, Kaepernick’s choice not to stand during the national anthem could create a public backlash that might cost him millions in future endorsements and affect his value as a player on his team, reducing salary earnings or even jeopardizing his job. If team ticket sales seriously dipped as a result, he would pay for his stance.　

We should admire those who risk personal gain in the service of promoting the values of their country. Both athletes are in fine company of others who have shown their patriotism in unconventional ways. In 1989, when a federal law prohibiting flag desecration went into effect, Vietnam Veterans burned the American flag as a protest to a law curbing the First Amendment. Their argument was that they fought for the freedoms in the Constitution, not a piece of cloth, and to curtail those freedoms was an insult to their sacrifice. Ironically, the original purpose of flag desecration laws between 1897 and 1932 wasn’t to prevent political dissent, but to prevent the use of flag imagery for political campaigns and in advertising. …　

What should horrify Americans is not Kaepernick’s choice to remain seated during the national anthem, but that nearly 50 years after Ali was banned from boxing for his stance and Tommie Smith and John Carlos’ raised fists caused public ostracization and numerous death threats, we still need to call attention to the same racial inequities. Failure to fix this problem is what’s really un-American here.　

Certainly, more will be said about Karpernick, his stand (or, rather, his decision not to stand) and what it means to defend the truth in the face of the blitz of blind patriotism. Perhaps one day soon, people will begin to realize that without truth, patriotism is empty, and that the real patriotism is the kind that requires our “sacred institutions” to measure themselves against the scales of truth. We in the Afrikan-centered Pan-Afrikan community call this principle, or set of principles, by the name given to it by our Ancient Afrikan Ancestors: the moral code of Ma’at.  Then, when a person’s patriotism is more consistent with real morality, justice and truth, it becomes truly honorable, and worthy of song.

by William Small, Jr.
September 1, 2016

Reposted by JUSTICE INITIATIVE　

The presence of Sport in American society has always lived under the long shadow of racism. Black men while being held in captivity were compelled to fight each other for the profit and glory of their “owners” and the plantations on which they lived. Black jockeys were an integral part of the sport of horse racing until they were forced from the ranks of stardom by racist owners, unfair employment practices and often jockeys with inferior riding skills. Black athletes were participants in professional baseball and football before” Jim Crow” and segregation turned those sports into segregated money makers.　

Black athletes were there in the beginning, but as profit and financial success became increasingly important, the Black presence began to fade due to causes that were as inevitable as they were unnatural. Today, Black athletes are present again and dominant in some sports. Their presence affirms the adage that “truth crushed to earth shall rise again”. They outlasted scientific myths about the physical and mental inferiority of Black people. They outlasted myths about ability based on a notion of fast twitch and slow twitch muscles. They also outlasted the earlier forms of raw bigotry and violence that Black folks in America were expected to endure as a condition of simply existing.　

In spite of this sordid and distorted historical record, the world of Sport still manages to project itself as an institution that is above politics where homogeneity and ethics prevail. A place where the playing field is level and the most talented are predestined to be the winners. Sport projects the impression that the athletes, on game day, are colorless. It is all about the team and the only colors that matter are the team colors and the red, white and blue that inspires the singing of the national anthem at the beginning of the contest. In the Olympic contest we proudly recite the medal totals and project them with attractive charts and graphs. However, it is always the countries that have the most money who score best in the overall medal count.　

It is not just Black jockeys and pre modern era athletes who could tell stories of the hardship and discrimination encountered as they endeavored to find a respectable place under the “Sport Big Top”. The storied careers of Jack Johnson, Jessie Owens, Jackie Robinson, Satchel Page, Curt Flood, Ray Robinson, Joe Louis, Emlen Tunnell, Buddy Young, John Carlos, Tommy Smith, Muhammad Ali and others graphically depict the true story. That story says that at any given time, Sport is the vehicle that either projects the best or hides the worst characteristics of the society that embraces it. There is very little purity in its passion or volatility. There is, however, the enduring potential for Sport to supply a “well spring” of irrationality and emotion that mirrors the racial schizophrenia of society.　

The unspoken and often unexpressed tensions generated by issues of race, politics, power and profit that exist in the world of Sport are now becoming increasingly visible. For some years the political voice of the Black athlete, like the proverbial Genie, had been put back into the bottle. Big salaries, hopes of professional careers and lucrative endorsements served as a pretty good “stopper” to insure that not much came out of that bottle. Things are beginning to change. Recently we have seen college athletes, professional basketball players – male and female – tennis celebrities and an increasing number of entertainers adopting political positions and taking stands on important social justice principles. Generally speaking, these voices are seemingly speaking louder than the voice of our traditional civil rights organizations. 　

Most recently, Colin Kaepernick’s refusal to stand for the national anthem has rekindled the issue “of the voice of the athlete”. Interestingly, much of the negative reaction to his decision has been linked to conversations about love of country and patriotism, instead of issues of constitutional freedom and individual liberty. It is also interesting, but not surprising to me, that the recent delegation of Olympic swimmers in Rio, who acted like juveniles, lied about their behavior and lied on Brazilian officials to the embarrassment of themselves and America, have experienced no similar expression of public disapproval. The best known member of that group, I am advised, will soon be in America’s living room “dancing with the stars”. Cha-cha-cha. Similarly, when celebrated basketball coach Bobby Knight, put on an embarrassing display of immature behavior at a tournament in an overseas venue, and virtually had to sneak out of “the country”, he was still Bobby Knight – just a passionate good old Indiana boy.　

I eagerly and proudly lend my voice to the expanding chorus of those who support Colin Kaepernick in his decision to publicly protest police brutality and racial injustice. I admire his courage in not shrinking from his decision or from the exercise of what he sees and declares to be his responsibility as a man and as a leader. He has declared that some things are more important than football and the perquisites that accompany athletic stardom. He has put his money where his mouth is; and he had the courage to take that stand by, in fact, sitting. In adopting those behaviors, he symbolically took a seat on the bus next to Rosa Parks; or sat at the lunch counter knowing that the question asked would not be “what will you have today Sir”? Nevertheless, the answer given to the world was “I will just have a little First Amendment Freedom”.　

On this issue, Brother Kaepernick has answered the question and has earned his “A”. Significantly, we too must answer the question. The real test that remains to be taken, is for the rest of us who criticize our athletes and entertainers for “not giving back”, “for not doing enough”, “for being too aloof”. The test question, is whether we can circle the wagons to support and give protection to those who rise to speak truth to power on our collective behalf? What does Black leadership have to say about this attack on the career of a young man who puts service to the cause of racial justice above his career and professional security? Silence is not an adequate comment.　

Speaking personally, I say to Colin “thank you a thousand times for the example set and for the moral courage and leadership displayed”. Beyond that, all I can say is that someone did a heck of a job of raising that young man.　

Dr. William Small, Jr. is a retired educator and a former Trustee and Board Chairman at South Carolina State University.

US Department of Justice Releases Report on Baltimore City Police

On August 9, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) released what was called a “scathing”, “damning” report on the conduct of the Baltimore City Police Department.  According to the report’s Execitive Summary:

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Today, we announce the outcome of the Department of Justice’s investigation of the Baltimore City Police Department (BPD). After engaging in a thorough investigation, initiated at the request of the City of Baltimore and BPD, the Department of Justice concludes that there is reasonable cause to believe that BPD engages in a pattern or practice of conduct that violates the Constitution or federal law. BPD engages in a pattern or practice of:

(1) making unconstitutional stops, searches, and arrests;
(2) using enforcement strategies that produce severe and unjustified disparities in the rates of stops, searches and arrests of African Americans;
(3) using excessive force; and
(4) retaliating against people engaging in constitutionally-protected expression.

This pattern or practice is driven by systemic deficiencies in BPD’s policies, training, supervision, and accountability structures that fail to equip officers with the tools they need to police effectively and within the bounds of the federal law.

We recognize the challenges faced by police officers in Baltimore and other communities around the country. Every day, police officers risk their lives to uphold the law and keep our communities safe. Investigatory stops, arrests, and force—including, at times, deadly force—are all necessary tools used by BPD officers to do their jobs and protect the safety of themselves and others. Providing policing services in many parts of Baltimore is particularly challenging, where officers regularly confront complex social problems rooted in poverty, racial segregation and deficient educational, employment and housing opportunities. Still, most BPD officers work hard to provide vital services to the community.

The pattern or practice occurs as a result of systemic deficiencies at BPD. The agency fails to provide officers with sufficient policy guidance and training; fails to collect and analyze data regarding officers’ activities; and fails to hold officers accountable for misconduct. BPD also fails to equip officers with the necessary equipment and resources they need to police safely, constitutionally, and effectively. Each of these systemic deficiencies contributes to the constitutional and statutory violations we observed.

Throughout our investigation, we received the full cooperation and assistance of BPD and the City of Baltimore. We interviewed current and former City leaders, including current BPD Commissioner Kevin Davis and former commissioners. We also interviewed current and former officers throughout the BPD command structure. We participated in ride-alongs in each district, interviewed numerous current and former officers individually, and met with the leadership of the Baltimore City Lodge No. 3 of the Fraternal Order of Police, which represents all sworn BPD officers. We also heard from hundreds of people in the broader Baltimore community who shared information with our investigation. We met with religious organizations, advocacy groups, community support organizations, neighborhood associations, and countless individuals who provided valuable information about their experiences with BPD. We thank everyone for sharing their experiences and insights with us.

In addition to these interviews, we reviewed hundreds of thousands of pages of documents, including all relevant policies and training materials used by the Department since 2010; BPD’s database of internal affairs files from January 2010 through March 2016; BPD’s data on pedestrian stops, vehicle stops, and arrests from January 2010 to May 2015; incident reports describing stops, searches, arrests, and officers’ use of non-deadly force from 2010 to 2015; all files on deadly force incidents since 2010 that BPD was able to produce to us through May 1, 2016; and investigative files on sexual assault cases from 2013 to 2015. We were assisted by a dozen current and former law enforcement leaders and experts with experience on the issues we investigated, and we retained statistical experts to analyze BPD’s data on its enforcement activities.

In the course of our investigation, we learned there is widespread agreement that BPD needs reform. Almost everyone who spoke to us—from current and former City leaders, BPD officers and command staff during ride-alongs and interviews, community members throughout the many neighborhoods of Baltimore, union representatives of all levels of officers in BPD, advocacy groups, and civic and religious leaders—agrees that BPD has significant problems that have undermined its efforts to police constitutionally and effectively. As we note in this report, many of these people and groups have documented those problems in the past, and although they may disagree about the nature, scope, and solutions to the challenges, many have also made efforts to address them. Nevertheless, work remains, in part because of the profound lack of trust among these groups, and in particular, between BPD and certain communities in Baltimore. The road to meaningful and lasting reform is a long one, but it can be taken. This investigation is intended to help Baltimore take a large step down this path. Recent events highlight the critical importance of mutual trust and cooperation between law enforcement officers and the people they serve. A commitment to constitutional policing builds trust that enhances crime fighting efforts and officer safety. Conversely, frayed community relationships inhibit effective policing by denying officers important sources of information and placing them more frequently in dangerous, adversarial encounters. We found these principles in stark relief in Baltimore, where law enforcement officers confront a long history of social and economic challenges that impact much of the City, including the perception that there are “two Baltimores:” one wealthy and largely white, the second impoverished and predominantly black. Community members living in the City’s wealthier and largely white neighborhoods told us that officers tend to be respectful and responsive to their needs, while many individuals living in the City’s largely African-American communities informed us that officers tend to be disrespectful and do not respond promptly to their calls for service. Members of these largely African-American communities often felt they were subjected to unjustified stops, searches, and arrests, as well as excessive force. These challenges amplify the importance of using policing methods that build community partnerships and ensure fair and effective enforcement without regard for affluence or race through robust training, close supervision, data collection and analysis, and accountability for misconduct.

Starting in at least the late 1990s, however, City and BPD leadership responded to the City’s challenges by encouraging “zero tolerance” street enforcement that prioritized officers making large numbers of stops, searches, and arrests—and often resorting to force—with minimal training and insufficient oversight from supervisors or through other accountability structures. These practices led to repeated violations of the constitutional and statutory rights, further eroding the community’s trust in the police.

Proactive policing does not have to lead to these consequences. On the contrary, constitutional, community-oriented policing is proactive policing, but it is fundamentally different from the tactics employed in Baltimore for many years. Community policing depends on building relationships with all of the communities that a police department serves, and then jointly solving problems to ensure public safety. We encourage BPD to be proactive, to get to know Baltimore’s communities more deeply, build trust, and reduce crime together with the communities it serves.

Fortunately, the current leadership of the City and the BPD already have taken laudable steps to reverse this course, including by revising BPD’s use of force policies, taking steps toward enhancing accountability and transparency throughout the Department by, for example, beginning to equip officers with body worn cameras, and taking steps toward improving and expanding its community outreach to better engage its officers with the community they serve. Still, significant challenges remain.

Unconstitutional Stops, Searches, and Arrests

BPD’s legacy of zero tolerance enforcement continues to drive its policing in certain Baltimore neighborhoods and leads to unconstitutional stops, searches, and arrests. Many BPD supervisors instruct officers to make frequent stops and arrests—even for minor offenses and with minimal or no suspicion—without sufficient consideration of whether this enforcement strategy promotes public safety and community trust or conforms to constitutional standards. These instructions, coupled with minimal supervision and accountability for misconduct, lead to constitutional violations.

Stops. BPD officers recorded over 300,000 pedestrian stops from January 2010–May 2015, and the true number of BPD’s stops during this period is likely far higher due to under-reporting. These stops are concentrated in predominantly African-American neighborhoods and often lack reasonable suspicion.

• BPD’s pedestrian stops are concentrated on a small portion of Baltimore residents. BPD made roughly 44 percent of its stops in two small, predominantly African-American districts that contain only 11 percent of the City’s population. Consequently, hundreds of individuals—nearly all of them African American—were stopped on at least 10 separate occasions from 2010– 2015. Indeed, seven African-American men were stopped more than 30 times during this period. 
• BPD’s stops often lack reasonable suspicion. Our review of incident reports and interviews with officers and community members found that officers regularly approach individuals standing or walking on City sidewalks to detain and question them and check for outstanding warrants, despite lacking reasonable suspicion to do so. Only 3.7 percent of pedestrian stops resulted in officers issuing a citation or making an arrest. And, as noted below, many of those arrested based upon pedestrian stops had their charges dismissed upon initial review by either supervisors at BPD’s Central Booking or local prosecutors.

Searches. During stops, BPD officers frequently pat-down or frisk individuals as a matter of course, without identifying necessary grounds to believe that the person is armed and dangerous. And even where an initial frisk is justified, we found that officers often violate the Constitution by exceeding the frisk’s permissible scope. We likewise found many instances in which officers strip search individuals without legal justification. In some cases, officers performed degrading strip searches in public, prior to making an arrest, and without grounds to believe that the searched individuals were concealing contraband on their bodies.

Arrests. We identified two categories of common unconstitutional arrests by BPD officers: (1) officers make warrantless arrests without probable cause; and (2) officers make arrests for misdemeanor offenses, such as loitering and trespassing, without providing the constitutionally-required notice that the arrested person was engaged in unlawful activity.

• Arrests without probable cause: from 2010–2015, supervisors at Baltimore’s Central Booking and local prosecutors rejected over 11,000 charges made by BPD officers because they lacked probable cause or otherwise did not merit prosecution. Our review of incident reports describing warrantless arrests likewise found many examples of officers making unjustified arrests. In addition, officers extend stops without justification to search for evidence that would justify an arrest. These detentions—many of which last more than an hour— constitute unconstitutional arrests. 
• Misdemeanor arrests without notice: BPD officers arrest individuals standing lawfully on public sidewalks for “loitering,” “trespassing,” or other misdemeanor offenses without providing adequate notice that the individuals were engaged in unlawful activity. Indeed, officers frequently invert the constitutional notice requirement. While the Constitution requires individuals to receive pre-arrest notice of the specific conduct prohibited as loitering or trespassing, BPD officers approach individuals standing lawfully on sidewalks in front of public housing complexes or private businesses and arrest them unless the individuals are able to “justify” their presence to the officers’ satisfaction.

Discrimination against African Americans

BPD’s targeted policing of certain Baltimore neighborhoods with minimal oversight or accountability disproportionately harms African-American residents. Racially disparate impact is present at every stage of BPD’s enforcement actions, from the initial decision to stop individuals on Baltimore streets to searches, arrests, and uses of force. These racial disparities, along with evidence suggesting intentional discrimination, erode the community trust that is critical to effective policing.

• BPD disproportionately stops African-American pedestrians. Citywide, BPD stopped African-American residents three times as often as white residents after controlling for the population of the area in which the stops occurred. In each of BPD’s nine police districts, African Americans accounted for a greater share of BPD’s stops than the population living in the district. And BPD is far more likely to subject individual African Americans to multiple stops in short periods of time. In the five and a half years of data we examined, African Americans accounted for 95 percent of the 410 individuals BPD stopped at least 10 times. One African American man in his mid-fifties was stopped 30 times in less than 4 years. Despite these repeated intrusions, none of the 30 stops resulted in a citation or criminal charge.
  
• BPD also stops African American drivers at disproportionate rates. African Americans accounted for 82 percent of all BPD vehicle stops, compared to only 60 percent of the driving age population in the City and 27 percent of the driving age population in the greater metropolitan area.
  
• BPD disproportionately searches African Americans during stops. BPD searched African Americans more frequently during pedestrian and vehicle stops, even though searches of African Americans were less likely to discover contraband. Indeed, BPD officers found contraband twice as often when searching white individuals compared to African Americans during vehicle stops and 50 percent more often during pedestrian stops.

• African Americans similarly accounted for 86 percent of all criminal offenses charged by BPD officers despite making up only 63 percent of Baltimore

• Racial disparities in BPD’s arrests are most pronounced for highly discretionary offenses: African Americans accounted for 91 percent of the 1,800 people charged solely with “failure to obey” or “trespassing”; 89 percent of the 1,350 charges for making a false statement to an officer; and 84 percent of the 6,500 people arrested for “disorderly conduct.” Moreover, booking officials and prosecutors decline charges brought against African Americans at significantly higher rates than charges against people of other races, indicating that officers’ standards for making arrests differ by the race of the person arrested.
  
• We also found large racial disparities in BPD’s arrests for drug possession. While survey data shows that African Americans use drugs at rates similar to or slightly exceeding other population groups, BPD arrested African Americans for drug possession at five times the rate of others.

BPD deployed a policing strategy that, by its design, led to differential enforcement in African-American communities. But BPD failed to use adequate policy, training and accountability mechanisms to prevent discrimination, despite longstanding notice of concerns about how it polices African-American communities in the City. BPD has conducted virtually no analysis of its own data to ensure that its enforcement activities are non-discriminatory, and the Department misclassifies or otherwise fails to investigate specific complaints of racial bias. Nor has the Department held officers accountable for using racial slurs or making other statements exhibiting racial bias. In some cases, BPD supervisors have ordered officers to specifically target African Americans for stops and arrests. These failures contribute to the large racial disparities in BPD’s enforcement that undermine the community’s trust in the fairness of the police. BPD leadership has acknowledged that this lack of trust inhibits their ability to forge important community partnerships.

Use of Constitutionally Excessive Force

Our review of investigative files for all deadly force cases from 2010 until May 1, 2016, and a random sample of over eight hundred non-deadly force cases reveals that BPD engages in a pattern or practice of excessive force. Deficiencies in BPD’s policies, training, and oversight of officers’ force incidents have led to the pattern or practice of excessive force that we observed. We identified several recurring issues with BPD’s use of force:

• First, BPD uses overly aggressive tactics that unnecessarily escalate encounters, increase tensions, and lead to unnecessary force, and fails to de-escalate encounters when it would be reasonable to do so. Officers frequently resort to physical force when a subject does not immediately respond to verbal commands, even where the subject poses no imminent threat to the officer or others. These tactics result from BPD’s training and guidance.

• Second, BPD uses excessive force against individuals with mental health disabilities or in crisis. Due to a lack of training and improper tactics, BPD officers end up in unnecessarily violent confrontations with these vulnerable individuals. BPD provides less effective services to people with mental illness and intellectual disabilities by failing to account for these disabilities in officers’ law enforcement actions, leading to unnecessary and excessive force being used against them. BPD has failed to make reasonable modifications in its policies, practices, and procedures to avoid discriminating against people with mental illness and intellectual disabilities.

• Third, BPD uses unreasonable force against juveniles. These incidents arise from BPD’s failure to use widely-accepted tactics for communicating and interacting with youth. Instead, officers interacting with youth rely on the same aggressive tactics they use with adults, leading to unnecessary conflict.
  
• Fourth, BPD uses unreasonable force against people who present little or no threat to officers or others. Specifically, BPD uses excessive force against (1) individuals who are already restrained and under officers’ control and (2) individuals who are fleeing from officers and are not suspected of serious criminal offenses.
  
• Force used on restrained individuals: we found many examples of BPD officers using unreasonable force on individuals who were restrained and no longer posed a threat to officers or the public.

• Force used on fleeing suspects: BPD officers frequently engage in foot pursuits of individuals, even where the fleeing individuals are not suspected of violent crimes. BPD’s foot pursuit tactics endanger officers and the community, and frequently lead to officers using excessive force on fleeing suspects who pose minimal threat. BPD’s aggressive approach to foot pursuits extends to flight in vehicles.

We also examined BPD’s transportation of detainees, but were unable to make a finding due to a lack of available data. We were unable to secure reliable records from either BPD or the jail regarding injuries sustained during transport or any recordings. Nonetheless, we found evidence that BPD: (1) routinely fails to properly secure arrestees in transport vehicles; (2) needs to continue to update its transport equipment to protect arrestees during transport; (3) fails to keep necessary records; and (4) must implement more robust auditing and monitoring systems to ensure that its transport policies and training are followed.

• Our concerns about BPD’s use of excessive force are compounded by BPD’s ineffective oversight of its use of force. Of the 2,818 force incidents that BPD recorded in the nearly six-year period we reviewed, BPD investigated only ten incidents based on concerns identified through its internal review. Of these ten cases, BPD found only one use of force to be excessive.

Retaliation for Activities Protected by the First Amendment

BPD violates the First Amendment by retaliating against individuals engaged in constitutionally protected activities. Officers frequently detain and arrest members of the public for engaging in speech the officers perceive to be critical or disrespectful. And BPD officers use force against members of the public who are engaging in protected speech. BPD has failed to provide officers with sufficient guidance and oversight regarding their interactions with individuals that implicate First Amendment protections, leading to the violations we observed.

Indications of Gender Bias in Sexual Assault Investigations

Although we do not, at this time, find reasonable cause to believe that BPD engages in gender-biased policing in violation of federal law, the allegations we received during the investigation, along with our review of BPD files, suggests that gender bias may be affecting BPD’s handling of sexual assault cases. We found indications that officers fail to meaningfully investigate reports of sexual assault, particularly for assaults involving women with additional vulnerabilities, such as those who are involved in the sex trade. Detectives fail to develop and resolve preliminary investigations; fail to identify and collect evidence to corroborate victims’ accounts; inadequately document their investigative steps; fail to collect and assess data, and report and classify reports of sexual assault; and lack supervisory review. We also have concerns that officers’ interactions with women victims of sexual assault and with transgender individuals display unlawful gender bias.

Deficient Policies, Training, Supervision, and Accountability

BPD’s systemic constitutional and statutory violations are rooted in structural failures. BPD fails to use adequate policies, training, supervision, data collection, analysis, and accountability systems, has not engaged adequately with the community it polices, and does not provide its officers with the tools needed to police effectively.

• BPD lacks meaningful accountability systems to deter misconduct. The Department does not consistently classify, investigate, adjudicate, and document complaints of misconduct according to its own policies and accepted law enforcement standards. Instead, we found that BPD personnel discourage complaints from being filed, misclassify complaints to minimize their apparent severity, and conduct little or no investigation. As a result, a resistance to accountability persists throughout much of BPD, and many officers are reluctant to report misconduct for fear that doing so is fruitless and may provoke retaliation. The Department also lacks adequate civilian oversight—its Civilian Review Board is hampered by inadequate resources, and the agency’s internal affairs and disciplinary process lacks transparency.
  
• Nor does BPD employ effective community policing strategies. The Department’s current relationship with certain Baltimore communities is broken. As noted above, some community members believe that the Department operates as if there are “two Baltimores” in which the affluent sections of the City receive better services than its impoverished and minority neighborhoods. This fractured relationship exists in part because of the Department’s legacy of zero tolerance enforcement, the failure of many BPD officers to implement community policing principles, and the Department’s lack of vision for engaging with the community.
  
• BPD fails to adequately supervise officers through policy guidance and training. Until recently, BPD lacked sufficient policy guidance in critical areas, such as bias-free policing and officers’ use of batons and tasers. In other areas, such as its policy governing “stop and frisk,” BPD policy conflicts with constitutional requirements. The Department likewise lacks effective training on important areas, such as scenario-based training for use of force, an adequate Field Training program; and supervisory or leadership training.

BPD also fails to collect data on a range of law enforcement actions, and even when it collects data, fails to store it in systems that are capable of effective tracking and analysis.

Partly as a result, the BPD does not use an effective early intervention system to detect officers who may benefit from additional training or guidance to ensure that they do not commit constitutional and statutory violations.

• In addition, BPD fails to adequately support its officers with adequate staffing and material resources. The Department lacks effective strategies for staffing, recruitment and retention, forcing officers to work overtime after long shifts, lowering morale, and leading to officers working with deteriorated decision-making skills. Moreover, BPD lacks adequate technology infrastructure and tools that are common in many similar-sized law enforcement agencies, such as in-car computers. These technology deficits create inefficiencies for officers and inhibit effective data collection and supervision. The City must invest in its police department to ensure that officers have the tools they need to properly serve the people of Baltimore.

***

Notwithstanding our findings, we are heartened by the support for police reform throughout BPD the City, and the broader Baltimore community. Based on the cooperation and spirit of engagement we witnessed throughout our investigation, we are optimistic that we will be able to work with the City, BPD, and the diverse communities of Baltimore to address the issues described in our findings and forge a court-enforceable agreement to develop enduring remedies to the constitutional and statutory violations we found. Indeed, although much work remains, BPD has already begun laying the foundation for reform by self-initiating changes to its policies, training, data management, and accountability systems.

To that end, the Department of Justice and the City have entered into an Agreement in Principle that identifies categories of reforms the parties agree must be taken to remedy the violations of the Constitution and federal law described in this report. Both the Justice Department and the City seek input from all communities in Baltimore on the reforms that should be included in a comprehensive, court-enforceable consent decree to be negotiated by the Justice Department and the City in the coming months, and then entered as a federal court order.

As we have seen in jurisdictions across America, it is possible for law enforcement agencies to enhance their effectiveness by promoting constitutional policing and restoring community partnerships. Strengthening community trust in BPD will not only increase the effectiveness of BPD’s law enforcement efforts, it will advance officer and public safety in a manner that serves the entire Baltimore community. Together with City officials and the people of Baltimore, we will work to make this a reality.

Read the Full Report here.

Perhaps this no longer needs any introduction. The incidents of police brutality against primarily people of Afrikan Descent has apparently not abated.  As of this writing, Chicago, Houston, Baltimore County and Milwaukee have been the most recent flashpoints.

Chicago, Illinois

Paul O’Neal

At 7:30 pm, July 28, 2016, Paul O’Neal was driving a Jaguar convertible that was allegedly stolen in the South shore neighborhood of Chicago, Illinois.  Police encountered him and attempted to apprehend him, but he fled, crashing into police cars as he drove at high speed through the streets.  Police shot at the car 15 times, in violation of police procedures that prohibit firing upon a fleeing motorist when the lives of officers and others are not in immediate jeopardy.  After ramming one police car, Paul O’Neal left the car and ran.  As police officers pursued him, one of them shot him in the back.  The fatal shot to the back was not recorded on the body camera of the officer who shot him.  As O’Neal was being handcuffed while bleeding to death, police officers asked each other if they had been shot at and speculated about possible 30-day suspensions.  The Chicago police chief has stated that the officers violated procedure by firing at the car, but so far no statement has been released pertaining to the fatal shot to the back or the failure to render critical medical aid as their suspect was laying face down in an expanding pool of his own blood.

Laquan McDonald

This summary comes from Wikipedia website:

“The shooting of Laquan McDonald occurred on October 20, 2014, in Chicago, Illinois. McDonald, a 17-year-old boy armed with a 3 inch knife was shot 16 times in 13 seconds by Chicago Police officer Jason Van Dyke. On November 24, 2015, Van Dyke was charged with first degree murder. He turned himself in to authorities and was ordered held without bail.”

Video of the shooting sparked ourtrage across the country. This case currently awaits a trial.

The Sins of Detective Jon Burge

Chicago has an unfortunate and rather long history with regard to police racism, brutality and misconduct.  In case some historical context would be helpful, this historical account comes from the Wikipedia website:

“Jon Graham Burge (born December 20, 1947) is a convicted felon and former Chicago Police Department detective and commander who gained notoriety for torturing more than 200 criminal suspects between 1972 and 1991 in order to force confessions. A decorated United States Army veteran, Burge served tours in South Korea and Vietnam and continued as an enlisted United States Army Reserve soldier where he served in the military police. He then returned to the South Side of Chicago and began his career as a police officer. Allegations were made about the methods of Burge and those under his command. Eventually, hundreds of similar reports resulted in a decision by Illinois Governor George Ryan to declare a moratorium on death penalty executions in Illinois in 2000 and to clear the state’s death row in 2003.

“The most controversial arrests began in February 1982, in the midst of a series of shootings of Chicago law enforcement officials in Police Area 2, whose detective squad Burge commanded. Some of the people who confessed to murder were later granted new trials and a few were acquitted or pardoned. Burge was acquitted of police brutality charges in 1989 after a first trial resulted in a hung jury. He was suspended from the Chicago Police Department in 1991 and fired in 1993 after the Police Department Review Board ruled that he had used torture.

“After Burge was fired, there was a groundswell of support to investigate convictions for which he provided evidence. In 2002, a special prosecutor began investigating the accusations. The review, which cost $17 million, revealed improprieties that resulted in no action due to the statute of limitations. Several convictions were reversed, remanded, or overturned. All Illinois death row inmates received reductions in their sentences. Four of Burge’s victims were pardoned by then-Governor Ryan and subsequently filed a consolidated suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against the City of Chicago, various police officers, Cook County and various State’s Attorneys. A $19.8 million settlement was reached in December 2007, with the “city defendants”. Cases against Cook County and the other current/former county prosecutors continue as of July 2008. In October 2008, Patrick Fitzgerald had Burge arrested on charges of obstruction of justice and perjury in relation to a civil suit regarding the torture allegations against him. On April 1, 2010, Judge Joan Lefkow postponed the trial, for the fourth time, to May 24, 2010. Burge was convicted on all counts on June 28, 2010. He was sentenced to four-and-one-half years in federal prison on January 21, 2011 and was released in October 2014.”

Houston, Texas

Earledreka White

March 31, 2016

Earledreka White was stopped on March 31 for allegedly crossing a double white line in a parking lot. She called 911 to request additional officers because she feared abuse from the officer.  The officer then arrested her, pinning her arms behind her back as she sobbed and begged for him to stop.  The Houston police department reviewed the incident and indicated proper procedure was followed.

Milwaukee, Wisconsin

Sylville Smith

August 13, 2016

Sylville Smith, 23, was shot during an altercation with police during which he reportedly refused to drop the gun he was carrying as he ran away from the officers. Protests broke out in the north side of Milwaukee that resulted in the burning of several businesses and a number of arrests.  The protests have illuminated a situation in Milwaukee that City Alderman Khalif Rainey referred to as a “powder keg”; “What happened tonight may not have been right and I am not justifying that but no one can deny the fact that there are problems, racial problems in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, that need to be not [just] examined but rectified. … This community of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, has become the worst place to live for African-Americans in the entire country. … The Black people of Milwaukee are tired; they are tired of living under this oppression, this is their life.”  Details about this case are still coming out as we go to press.

Baltimore County, Maryland

Korryn Gaines

August 1, 2016

This first account is from Post Nation (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/08/02/korryn-gaines-is-the-ninth-black-woman-shot-and-killed-by-police-this-year/?utm_term=.a9a0c95eb443):

Korryn Gaines, cradling child and shotgun, is fatally shot by police

Three officers with the Baltimore County police arrived at Korryn Gaines’s apartment around 9:20 a.m. on Monday to serve warrants to her as well as a man who also resided there.

The man was wanted on an assault charge, while Gaines, 23, had an arrest warrant for failing to appear in court after a traffic violation in March.

According to police, no one responded to 10 minutes of door knocking, even though they could hear several people inside. When officers obtained a key to the apartment, they found Gaines sitting on the floor — her 5-year-old son was wrapped in one of her arms. In her other hand was a shotgun.

Around 3 p.m., after several hours of negotiation, police say Gaines raised the gun at officers and told them that she would kill them if they did not leave. The officers opened fire.

“Perceiving not only her actions, but the words she used, we discharged one round at her, in turn she fired several rounds back at us,” Police Chief Jim Johnson said during a news conference on Monday night. “We fired again at her, striking and killing her. Tragically in this circumstance, the child that was also in the dwelling was struck by a round.”

The man being sought fled the home with a 1-year-old child, but was later taken into custody, police said.

According to Johnson, it is unclear if there is any body camera footage of the incident (the department’s body camera program is just several weeks old).

The shooting of Gaines and her son — who police say had non-life-threatening injuries — quickly prompted national outrage among activists who have protested police killings in recent years.

The recent shootings of Alton Sterling and Philando Castile, followed by targeted slayings of police officers in Dallas and Baton Rouge, renewed the national discussion of police use of force and community distrust that has for two years been propelled by the national Movement for Black Lives (often referred to as the Black Lives Matter movement).

Protests have also been organized under the “Say Her Name” banner, a subsidiary that seeks to bring attention to black women who have been killed by police, who activists say are less likely to receive the national media attention of black men who have been killed.

On August 5, activist Charlene Carruthers wrote a commentary, In Defense of Korryn Gaines, Black Women and Children [Opinion]:

America’s investment in policing and prisons prevents our ability to create systems of safety and protection for Black families. Given this, we must question the means Black parents have to protect their children. 

The execution of Korryn Gaines at the hands of the Baltimore County Police Department (BCoPD) requires a national call-to-action to defend Black women. Gaines’ story shows us the inextricable links between the struggles to secure Black liberation and reproductive justice in America. In this moment, everyone who believes that Black lives do indeed matter is needed to build a defense of Gaines and all Black women (transgender and cisgender) who are victims of state-sanctioned violence.

The full story of what happened to Gaines and her 5-year old son on August 1, 2016 continues to emerge. What we know for sure is that police came to Gaines’ home at about 9:40 a.m. to execute a “failure to appear” bench warrant connected to a March traffic stop, and about five hours later the 23-year-old, who had a legally registered shotgun, was shot dead and her son wounded.

Speculations about Gaines’ mental state based on a possible history of lead poisoning and her behavior in Instagram video footage she took of the traffic stop and another interaction at the police station should lead us to ask more questions—not further pathologize her choices as a person and mother.

After officers kicked down the door to enter Gaines’ apartment, she made the rare choice to take agency over her life and the life of her son in the moments before her death.

The uncomfortable truth is that Gaines was not a passive or perfect victim. And in a society that teaches us that Black motherhood is inherently inferior, it is tempting to pass judgment against her ability to be a good mother and make smart decisions for her child. Black women live with the harsh reality of not having full control over the ability to 1) choose to parent, 2) choose to not parent, and to 3) parent the children they have in safe and well-resourced environments. These three tenets are the core of what reproductive justice must look like. The failure of politics in America to provide leadership on supporting reproductive justice and the dismantling of policing institutions prohibits the protection of human rights for all.

The connection between policing and reproductive justice is not new. However, this moment tells us that there is more work to be done to protect Black women and children. America’s investment in policing and prisons prevents our ability to create systems of safety and protection for Black families. Given this, we must question the means Black parents have to protect their children. Countless events of Black people attempting to exercise the right to bear arms show us that the right to bear arms is not extended us (regardless of citizenship status).

Gaines legally owned the gun police say she used to threaten the police officers who entered her home. Her right to own and yield her weapon in self defense is not only in question in this moment, it is being completely invalidated by a public jury. Like Gaines, Black women often find themselves trying to defend our bodies and our children—both of which are deemed as indefensible throughout society.

BCoPD officers used Gaines actions to justify their escalation in tactics. Officers behaved as though Gaines held her son hostage, and presented themselves as actors able to keep her son safe. Painfully, Black mothers like Gaines live in a country where the same institutions claiming to create safety and stability show themselves to be the exact opposite in moments when a child is involved.  The promise of citizenship, full human rights and safety have never been fully extended to Black people in America. Gaines understood this and decided to bear arms in defense of herself and her son. Her actions demonstrate an aspect of self-defense far too many pontificate about, yet fail to ever do themselves. 

Be it Korryn Gaines, CeCe McDonald, or Marissa Alexander – society tells us that Black women have “no selves to defend.”  This imperative increases every hour as the media and BCoPD develops its own story about Gaines and the events surrounding her death. In this moment, we are all called to make a choice to defend Gaines, Black womanhood and motherhood. If we choose to not connect our work to end the crisis of police with ending the crisis of reproductive justice, we will fail Gaines, her children and our people.

As we witness the growth of our movement and celebrate the release of the “Vision of Black Lives: Policy Demands for Black Power, Freedom and Justice,” created by the Movement for Black Lives, we must take stock of our collective responsibility and response to all Black women who experience state-sanctioned violence.  Black women consistently place our bodies on the line for our families, communities and this movement. Now is the time for our issues to be placed on the frontlines and not on the margins.

Charlene Carruthers is national director of the Black Youth Project 100 (BYP100) and a writer with over 10 years of experience in feminist, queer and racial-justice organizing work. She currently serves as a board member of the SisterSong Women of Color Reproductive Justice Collective.

Baltimore City

Did Nothing Come from the Freddie Gray Trials?

After the trial of Officer William Porter ended in a mistrial in December of last year, community activists began to smell what was coming in the cases against the six Baltimore Police Officers who had been charged in the April 2015 arrest and subsequent death of Freddie Gray. Much fanfare had accompanied the announcement last summer by State’s Attorney Marilyn Mosby that insisted that the six officers would not escape justice as so many had before, and many citizens of the City, who had their own tales to tell about police abuse, surely felt they were going to be vindicated as individuals and as a community.  Meanwhile, the Fraternal Order of Police had, predictably, accused Mosby of initiating a “witch-hunt” in a “rush to judgement”.  Mosby was subjected to occasional death threats for prosecuting police from one side and questions concerning her integrity for failing to aggressively pursue prior police-brutality cases from the other. 

Still, the trials commenced in late 2015, but the first trial, of Porter, ended in a mistrial in December. The subsequent acquittals of Officer Edward Nero, Officer Caesar Goodson and Lt. Brian Rice, which seemed to occur in rapid-fire frequency in May and June of this year, made it clear that presiding Judge Barry Williams was not convinced by the evidence presented by prosecutors.  On Wednesday, July 27, State’s Attorney Marilyn Mosby concluded that pursuing the trials against Sgt. Alicia White and Officer Garrett Miller and the retrial of Officer Porter would be futile, especially since the presiding judge would be the same one who acquitted Nero, Goodson and Rice. 

US Department of Justice Releases Report on Baltimore City Police

Then, on August 9, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) released what was called a “scathing”, “damning” report on the conduct of the Naltimore City Police Department, one that directly charged the Baltimore Police Department with a number of civil rights violations.  According to the report’s Execitive Summary, the Baltimore Police Department “engages in a pattern or practice of:

(1) making unconstitutional stops, searches, and arrests;
(2) using enforcement strategies that produce severe and unjustified disparities in the rates of stops, searches and arrests of African Americans;
(3) using excessive force; and
(4) retaliating against people engaging in constitutionally-protected expression.”

The report continued, “This pattern or practice is driven by systemic deficiencies in BPD’s policies, training, supervision, and accountability structures that fail to equip officers with the tools they need to police effectively and within the bounds of the federal law.”

We’ve included the full Executive Summary here. To read the full 164-page report in PDF format, click here.

Initial Response to the DOJ Report

The local chapter of the Fraternal Otfer of Police has stated its support for police reform, but that police officers are being ordered to patrol the streets in such a way as to countermand the reforms that they say must be made. This is a curious statement from a police organization that has routinely sought to cover for violent and racist police, that has called for the execution of any defendant who is charged with killing a police officer – even in cases where evidence was seen to have been fabricated – and has supported the infamous Maryland Law Enforcement Officers’ Bill of Rights (LEOBR), which allows for a nine-day period during which a police officer accused of brutality can evade public scrutiny and can even delay reporting to authorities for indictment, a provision that activists say allows officers to “get their story straight” before they are required to account for their actions.

Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake has stated that reforms to policing in Baltimore are already underway with the assistance of Police Commissioner Kevin Davis. These reforms are already expected to cost tens of millions of dollars which will come from the City’s General Fund, this depriving money from other needs such as infrastructure and education.  It seems that, once again, the people will be forced to pay for the removal of the onerous vestiges of an institution that has oppressed them, despite the calls of people such as Charlene Carruthers of BYP100 for a restructuring of the budget that would stop funding oppressive institutions and instead funnel that money into life-affirming institutions such as education, jobs and health care.  Instead, not only will more money go to the “colonial police force”, it will be taken away from those areas that desperately need funds to help lift people from poverty and struggle, the very issues that would bring real healing to the City and lead to a safer Baltimore, one where such an aggressive police force will not be needed.

Here is Baltimore City Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake’s statement on the DOJ Report, from August 10, 2016:

“Today marks an important step on our path to reform. With the release of its Findings Report, the Department of Justice is sharing with the community, the City government, and our Police Department the conclusions of its fourteen-month investigation, an inquiry that I asked for last May. The findings are challenging to hear. The report identifies significant problems in the Department. But the transparency the Report offers is crucial if we are going to improve.

Policing issues have taken on a new urgency in the national discussion in light of the tragic shootings in recent weeks as well as recent developments in our own City. It is so very important that we get this right. This Report’s assessment and the follow-up to it will help us heal the relationship between our police and our community.

“We have not been standing by while this inquiry was underway. Indeed, some of these reforms began before I asked the DOJ to investigate the Department. The City has taken the first steps in a long path to reform, and has begun to see real benefits: Our Police Department is already making significant changes. The community is providing valuable insights. Officers and citizens are working together to improve our communities and the policing in them. We have a long journey ahead of us, but I am grateful that we could begin the process for change while I was Mayor.

“In consultation with policing experts and stakeholders in the community, we have revised twenty-six key policies, including the Department’s important Use of Force policy. We are now training all officers on these new policies, and we have held additional trainings on key issues that Justice has identified.

“We are revamping our approach to officer accountability, including the way that the use of force by officers is reviewed and how officers are disciplined. A number of initiatives are underway to improve the Police Department’s transparency and to encourage officers to actively engage with the community. Ways to explore and implement constructive citizen “inclusion” in the Department’s disciplinary process remain under active discussion. Finally, we are investing in technology and infrastructure to modernize the Police Department. The BPD has begun retrofitting transport vans to improve safety for occupants and officers as well as installing recording cameras inside the vans. We have completed a body-worn cameras pilot program and will roll out cameras for all officers within the next two years.

“Much remains to be done. Change will not happen overnight. But our efforts have started the necessary process of change. They re-affirm this City’s commitment to a Police Department that both protects our citizens and respects their rights.

“In this hope and expectation, I know that I am joined by the City Council and particularly its President, Jack Young, who have supported our work with the Department of Justice to improve our Police Department.

“I thank Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Gupta for the Justice Department’s recognition of our reform efforts. And, I appreciate her acknowledgement of our extraordinary cooperation with the Department as it conducted its investigation. We are very pleased that, as a result of our work together, this investigation has been completed in fourteen months, a very rapid pace for these investigations for a police department of this size. We committed ourselves to working collaboratively with the Department of Justice and are grateful to have earned its trust.

“Our Police Commissioner, Kevin Davis, and his command staff and officers at every level, have worked tirelessly to steer the Police Department on the path to reform. I am confident that, with the Findings Report as a blueprint and the partnership of the Department of Justice, the Baltimore City Police Department will become a model Police Department.

“I want to thank the Department of Justice team, the Police Department, my staff, and our counsel for their hard work through this process. We will continue to work together so that Baltimore can move as quickly as possible toward full-scale implementation of the recommended reforms.

“Over the next few months, we will put in place a concrete plan for change and a new culture — for the good of the City, the Police Department and the people it protects.”

Baltimore Activists Respond to the DOJ Report

As the Fraternal Order of Police opened its Convention at the Hyatt Regency in Downtown Baltimore on Sunday, August 14, protesters greeted them with pickets and shouts. A dozen people were arrested the first day, apparently for blocking commerce, which is, of course, a sin in today’s society, one which is inexcusable by such trivial things as fighting for justice.

It would seem that the FOP sees nothing wrong in continuing with the status quo, as long as the ones being killed are not police. This seems to be the only explanation for the multitudes of citizens killed by police, usually unarmed, often either complying with orders (Philando Castile, Oscar Grant), harmlessly playing (Tamir Rice), peacefully but verbally protesting (Eric Garner), walking down the street (Laquan McDonald) or running away (Paul O’Neal, Walter Scott, Freddie Gray) evincing not even a tear of sympathy from the FOP, but the actions of the shooters in Dallas and Baton Rouge provoking cries of “Open Season on Cops”, a “War on Cops” and an “escalation on anti-police violence” despite the fact that fewer police have died this year than in any recent year.  Meanwhile, the DOJ Report, which has been criticized, predictably, by many in the police community, has begun to inspire comment from journalists, legal practitioners, community activists and ordinary citizens.

Lawyer Billy Murphy, the lead attorney for the Gray Family, spoke on the day of the DOJ Report’s release.  His public statement decried the “widespread human cancers” that have been allowed to fester and grow in the city’s police department, and that “these human tumors must be promptly and surgically removed before they spread their human cancer any further,” and that the City of Baltimore faces “a law enforcement emergency that requires prompt and thorough action.”

The Baltimore Sun published a piece titled “Baltimore reacts to searing Justice Department report: ‘The stories were always true’” (Kevin Rector, August 10, 2016, http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/baltimore-city/doj-report/bs-md-ci-doj-reaction-20160810-story.html), in which a number of citizens, police officers and City officials were interviewed.

On a more basic level, of course, people have their own private concerns and critiques. Here are just a few.  We hope to share more in the days and weeks to follow.

Baba Ademola Ekulona, a Community Elder and Yoruba Spiritual Leader, expressed his concerns:

“I am most concerned about the hidden impact of corrupt policing on the entire community. What about all those men and women who were looped in to the Criminal justice System based on illicit actions by Baltimore City police?  The imbalance and unfairness, the pre-programmed advantages given to police actions and testimony became brutally clear in the bench trials of the police persons accused of criminal behavior in the killing of Freddie Gray.  An African American judge – doing his duty – was compelled to find the officers not guilty because the system is arranged for them to be found faultless in their actions against citizens.

“This is further proof that the struggle is against a system. They can reform the police but who will correct the consequences of their previous and current illicit behavior?  It also points out the futility of Black participation in the System.  We can elect people who will go along.  We can support appointment of Black judges who will then be compelled to support the System.  Who will support the thousands of children whose parents are arrested, locked up, and criminally labeled so that they are economically marginalized for the rest of their lives?  Why continue to go along with this system?

“It will be good to get back to Nationalist Organizing here in Tubman City. Peace & Blessings.”

Ademola Ekulona is a father of six and grandfather to four.  He has worked in television, education, and human development for nearly fifty years.  As a long-time African Cultural community activist in Baltimore, Baba Ademola now works with emerging adult (19 to 25-years old) African American young men in the Kujichagulia Center, an anti-violence-through-Workforce-Readiness program housed at Sinai Hospital.

One friend of mine expressed typical skepticism about the expected response to the DOJ report, as well as with the current state of political activism and its ability to bring real change to the situation:

“What on earth will be done with the findings by the US Department of Justice about the Baltimore City Police Department?  Not a damn thing.  What also annoys me is the slogan Black Lives Matter because they do not especially because we have no respect for each other.  We, also, knew that the police officers in the Freddie Gray would not be found guilty.  I often think about my family members who visit here. Whether they are safe.”

So … Once Again, What Do We Do?

Contrary to the sometimes-pessimistic expectations of many of our suffering people in the community, there are groups out there that are working to make a positive difference, and not just in the area of making law-and-order more effective at controlling us or in making them obey the “rules of engagement” when it comes to imposing force against us. There are organized responses to this crisis, and many of them have been ongoing since before Freddie Gray was arrested.  Others are new efforts to better unite organizations and activists that have been engaged in this struggle for many years.

Leaders of a Beautiful Struggle (LBS) has been at the forefront of efforts to repeal the Law Enforcement Officers Bill Of Rights (LEOBR), which gives police in Maryland near-unprecedented leeway in how they respond to community complaints and seems to shield them from accountability in too many cases.  Pastor Heber Brown of Pleasant Hope Baptist Church has also been involved, along with other organizations too numerous to mention without forgetting several of them, in organizing community energy behind this and similar causes.

The coalition organization BlackMen Unifying BlackMen held a press conference at the Historic Judah Worship Center in West Baltimore on the morning of Friday, August 12 to discuss their concerns about the DOJ Report and the ongoing situation in the City between the BPD and the people.  They are working to heal the divides between many of the City’s activists and organizations and to begin to build cooperation between them.

Revolutionary Pan-Afrikan Nationalist organizations such as the Pan-Afrikan Liberation Movement (PLM) and Working-Organizing-Making-A-Nation (WOMAN) have been working for years to bui;d Pan-Afrikan awareness in our communities.  PLN will be sponsoring their annual Pan-Afrikan Day of Solidarity on September 10 at the Towanda Community Center in Central Baltimore.  Watch our Events Calendar for more information on that event as we receive it.

Later this fall, probably in mid-October to early-November, the Pan-Afrikan grassroots organization Sixth Region Diaspora Caucus (SRDC) (http://www.srdcinternational.org) will gold a Pan-Afrikan Community Town Hall to seek to further that work, as well as bring out and galvanize the collective grassroots voice of the Afrikan Descendant populations of Baltimore and the surrounding areas, and not just so they can listen to us, but so we can listen to them. We will certainly announce the date of this Pan-Afrikan Town Hall when it is scheduled.

I share the concern and cynicism of my friends, my fellow activists and the citizens of Baltimore City concerning the likelihood of real on-the-ground solutions coming from the DOJ report.  We’ve been here before, after all.  There have been settlements in years past in cases where people were maimed or even killed as a result of riding in police vans.  According to the DOJ report, there are concerns that the changes that BPD is making to their police vans, including cameras and more secure holding cells, will prove to be inadequate.  And all this presupposes that the real cause of Freddie Gray’s grievous injuries was indeed the “rough ride” in the van, an assertion which is not wholly supported by the video footage that shows that Gray was already seriously hurt before he was carried, like a rag doll, crying out in pain, into the police van immediately after his (unwarranted) arrest.  The fact that he was suffering from far more graphic injuries by the time he was taken to the Baltimore Shock Trauma Unit is only an indication that the “rough ride” could have resulted in the aggravation of injuries he had already received during his initial chase and apprehension, and those graphic injuries could have simply been the outward manifestation of injuries he could have received prior to the ride.  The fact that this possibility was apparently never even seriously considered should be cause for some concern.

As for the insistence that the police will “reform” their procedures, equipment and training, the fact is that any “reforms” will take years, will come at a heavy cost to other important needs (like jobs, education, health care and other community essentials) so police get improved training, equipment and service (the “elite of the elite” as Elijah Cummings put it) and may make no difference in the end because the underlying attitude of law enforcement ( its historic “slave catcher” roots in particular) were never acknowledged, much less addressed.

Meanwhile, my primary concern with Black Lives Matter is not with the slogan or with the organization’s tactics and commitment, all of which I feel are deserving of respect and support, but with the allegation by some BLM critics that they are backed by billionaire George Soros who may have his own intentions; otherwise, they do serve an important purpose by concentrating on and publicly critiquing “official” abuses of Black people by the power of the State, and by getting young people interested in activism and struggle again. They can’t address all of our problems (like “Black-on-Black” crime; why does no one talk about “White-on-White” crime, by the way, since Whites commit 81% of their crime against each other?).  There are other Black organizations who do try to address what we do to ourselves (though they don’t always succeed).  Hopefully, the current efforts to organize and unify Afrikan people, from Black Lives Matter to BlackMen Unifying BlackMen to Pan-Afrikan organizations such as PLM, WOMAN, SRDC and others, can finally begin to forge a Pan-Afrikan Cooperative Coalition that will foster a spirit of self-respect and cooperation among us so we will begin to organize together.  This has been the prescription we have needed for decades, but just like strong medicine, the amount of often-thankless work, unfunded projects and occasionally-dangerous interactions required of this work can sometimes be difficult to swallow.  It is, however, the strong medicine that we have for too long refused to take, and it is the medicine that actually does stand a chance of finally healing our suffering and broken community.