|
Collected Summer Columns by Mumia Abu-Jamal
An Imperial Democracy "Somoza may be a son of a bitch, but he's our son of a bitch!" --
former
U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt on Nicaraguan dictator, Anastasio
Somoza There is something surreal about George W. Bush crowing to the world
about
"democracy," "freedom," and building a system "where every vote counts" in
socialist Cuba. There is a place, 90 miles closer than Cuba, where the heralded
"freedom" to
meaningfully participate in a "democracy .. where every vote counts" is an
illusion. We call that place -- Florida. For that deep southern state
smothered
"democracy" on Election day, as it used its armed state troopers, an
intentionally
defective computerized list, and obstructive election registrars, to
suppress, void
and scare off African-American, Haitian and liberal Jewish voters from
exercising
their "freedom" to vote. In light of the extraordinary lengths Jeb Bush's Florida went to to
insure the
state's electoral votes went to big brother George, there is every reason to
believe that the election was stolen. The present head of the U.S. empire is
there
because of the unwritten rules of dynastic blood succession, not because of
a
system "where every vote counts." Nor has the Bush administration (or any other U.S. presidential
administration,
come to think of it) ever given a tinker's damn about "democracy," at home
or
abroad. Consider, if you will, some of the prominent "allies" in the
U.S.-declared 'War
on Terrorism'; Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Pakistan, Jordan ...; any democracies
among
them? Can we expect the president to demand "free and open
elections," "freedom for
political prisoners," or creation of a system "where every vote counts" in
any of
these nations? I don't think so. For these nations, run by princes or by military rule, keep oil flowing
to U.S.
tanks, and where there is a choice between human rights and oil, oil always
triumphs. Any serious student of U.S. history must recognize that Roosevelt's
observation
about Nicaragua's dictator, Somoza, could be echoed by every U.S. president,
up to
the present president. There has not been a brutal dictator in the world who
did
not enjoy U.S. support, for they served U.S. interests when they suppressed
national democratic movements to bow to U.S. big business; Cuba's Batista,
Chile's
Pinochet, Peru's' Fujimori (and his U.S.-trained torture/intelligence chief,
Vladimiro Montesinos, who doubled as drug-lord), Zaire's Mobutu, the Shah of
Iran,
Angola's Savimbi, Indonesia's Suharto, Marcos of the Philippines, Trujillo
of the
Dominican Republic, Pretoria's Botha, ... you name 'em, the U.S. once
claimed 'em.
They were all, at one time, "our sons of bitches." "Freedom," "democracy," "free and fair elections" are just words that
have
little meaning to an empire built on bombs, bullets, and CIA terrorism. It
is but
an imperial democracy.
_____________
When News Isn't News Nothing is more amazing than the ability of the
American media to deep-six one story, while gang-banging another, ad
infinitum. In this post-modern age, when hundreds of media outlets have been
squished
together through mergers and acquisitions, and all of the heads of American
mass
media can meet together in a modest two-bedroom apt., news has become the
mouthpiece of the mighty, and an appendage to the people who wield corporate
power. This maddening merger-mania has spawned the recent spate of one-issue,
star/personality/sleaze-driven "stories" which have so inundated the media
that
they can be encapsulated in one name: O.J.; Monica; Chandra and the
like. The problem with this "all-O.J./Monica/Chandra, etc. - all-the-time" TV
is that
much of the world remains woefully uninformed about events that have
occurred that
may have a good deal more meaning than these sleazefests. Barely a paragraph broke through the new corporate media morass about a
jury
verdict in the police framing and bombing case involving the two Earth
First!
activists stemming from the early 1990s. The federal jury, after extended deliberations, found federal and local
cops
liable, and awarded over $4 million dollars in damages to the estate of the
late
Judi Bari and a severely-injured survivor of the bombing, Darryl
Cherney. When a bomb exploded in a Subaru holding Bari and Cherney, the FBI and
Oakland
police pointed the finger at the two environmentalists -- essentially
charging that
they bombed themselves! -- as they lay in serious and critical condition as
the
result of the blast. Twelve years later a U.S. jury found government
officials
liable for false arrest, illegal search, slander and conspiracy. Some of the
feds
involved in the case were veterans of the infamous COINTELPRO program, and
were
involved in the framing of Geronimo ji jaga (Pratt) and other former Black
Panthers. In a time when the FBI and other police agencies are being given loads of
new
monies as well as vast new powers over the people, isn't it important for
people to
know what they've done just 10-12 years ago? Isn't this arguably more
important to
the life of the nation than Britney's new love, or Hillary's new
hairdo? Isn't this
more important to the average American, especially in light of 9/11, when
some
evidence emerges that some government agencies had prior knowledge of the
events of
9/11? Two American citizens sat in their car on a nice, summer day in 1990, and
were
almost blown to bits. Judy Bari, to her dying day, argued, not only her
innocence,
but the guilt of the government agents, who miraculously appeared on the
scene,
within moments. A jury has vindicated her, in part. But, who tried to kill
them?
The lumber companies? The FBI? Why wasn't this story on every front page in
America?
____________
It's All the Rage Fashion, though Folly's child, and guide of fools, Rules e'en the wisest, and in learning rules. -- George Crabbe (1754-1832) 'The Library' One wonders, what rules the vast and impersonal machinery of the State,
its
punitive arm, the prison, which gobbles up millions into its bottomless
maw? Is it reason? Is it revenge? It is surely, one supposes, one of these
factors. Is it the result of learned studies by the deepest scholars in the land,
who
have pierced the dark veil of penology, and gleaned the keys to the hidden
kingdom? About a decade ago, the media joined with politicians to promote its
answer to
youth offenders: boot camps. The pitiless trend took off like wildfire all
across
the country, and tens of thousands of youths found themselves subjected to
all of
the trappings of military discipline; reveille, marches, officers barking in
the
faces of boys, and orders for push-ups when a rule was breached. As it gained in media and political popularity, this writer wrote words
critiquing the trend. To him, it seemed little more than a kind of legalized
child
abuse against the poor. Now, at least one state has acknowledged that its boot camp idea was a
bust.
According to the Boston Globe, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is
closing
its first boot camp at Bridgewater. The unit, which cost some $7.5 million
to open
some 10 years ago, was found to not have reduced recidivism among youths,
nor
opened up prison space. In short, it failed. It will be recycled into a drug
and
alcohol addiction treatment center. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that the very idea was
ridiculous in
the first place. A first-year psychology student could've demonstrated that
the
trappings and structure of boot camp applied to youthful offenders makes
very
little sense, for it ignores the fundamental purposes of boot camp, as well
as the
crucial factor of human motivation. Boot camp works because young men are conditioned and motivated to become
part
of something greater than themselves, for which they are reinforced and
rewarded in
their home communities. When's the last time you've seen a guy wearing a
sweatshirt
emblazoned with the name of the prison he was caged in? In military boot camp, men are encouraged to develop loyalty to their
unit; in
correctional boot camp, young men are discouraged from unit loyalties (for
prison
officials fear unity). Finally, after a decade, boot camp is an idea whose time has passed.
_____________
A Plan for Imperial Peace When an American president speaks, people listen. They listen because (to
borrow
a term from the French intelligentsia) the United States is a
"hyperpower," a
Superstate in a world with no serious state rival for global military or
economic
hegemony. They listen, but they don't necessarily agree. This is especially so when that American president is George W. Bush
(known to
some as H.I.M. George III), who has not the gift to read the writings of
others and
make the words sound his own, whose marble-mouthed syntax and malapropisms
makes
his handlers cringe when he's in range of an open microphone. And it is even more so, when Bush speaks, and it appears as if his speech
was
written for him by wags for the Israeli lobby. For, his early summer speech
on the
U.S. preconditions for support of an "interim" Palestinian state must have
caused
gleaming smiles in Tel Aviv and the settlements, while sparking grunts of
stunted
outrage in the besieged occupied territories, Gaza and the West Bank; "Peace requires a new and different Palestinian leadership, so that a
Palestinian state can be born." [G.W. Bush, 6/24/02] With these words, the Americans plunged the daggers into Yasir Arafat,
offering
a people under siege "help," if they but betray their own. It is not lost on the Palestinians that the offer comes, just as Israel
has
launched its second, mass military occupation of their lands, as a kind of
iron
fist to accompany U.S. words of honeyed diplomacy. This is a macabre kind of "Son of Oslo," a new diplomatic initiative that
amounts to a betrayal on the heels of a betrayal. For millions of Arabs,
Oslo was
not the glorious achievement that the corporate, pro-Western media portrayed
it as.
As Arab political science scholar As'ad Abu-Khalil notes: "[I]t is important to realize that the Oslo process, which was hailed as
a
victory by the U.S., was met with skepticism and hostility in much of the
Middle
East .... Arab public opinion, and even some Arab governments, considered
the Oslo
deal unfair to the Palestinians and faulted Yasir Arafat for squandering
decades of
Palestinian struggle to save his own political career .... [fr. Abu Khalil,
A.,
"Bin Laden, Islam and America's New "War on Terrorism" (Seven Stories/Open
Media,
2002), p. 36]. Bush, using words of "peace" and promises of support, gives a bright,
green
light to Israeli intransigence and military belligerence in the region. When
an
army kills, or represses a people, this is not seen as violence. The
Palestinians
have no right to security, and apparently no right to statehood, unless they
betray
their leaders. As for the American insistence on the establishment of a state that
doesn't have
roots in terrorism, Americans are insisting on a purity that it did not
possess at
its inception. The ruthless and monstrous genocide waged against indigenous
"Indian" nations, from Wounded Knee to Sand Creek, is a history of terrorism
that
has few parallels in the world. The same could be said for the racist
exploitation
of millions of Africans for centuries. Nor could Israel claim such a distinction at its inception slightly over
50
years ago, when Jewish armed militias drove the war-weary British from
Palestine,
as well as countless Arabs from their ancestral lands, by bombings of
hotels, and
massacres as in Deir Yassin. Terrorism apparently worked so well that at
least two
of the men whose faces graced British Wanted posters, Menachem Begin and
Yitzhak
Rabin, later became Prime Ministers of Israel. Is Israel, to quote George III, "compromised by terror?". Neither the U.S., nor Israel, wants "peace." They want the silence and
acquiescence of the oppressed, and the occupied. They want a Palestine that
is but
a state in name, a client state of the Americans, and a satrap of
Israel. This is Bush's "vision" of imperial democracy. Will the people of Palestine accept it?
____________
Portrait of an American Ally With the news that the American government has
insisted that the Oslo-born Palestinian Authority now proceed with the
democratic
electoral process, restructure its executive, judicial and security systems
to pass
U.S./Israeli muster (in order to be supported in their drive for
nationhood), one
is forced to examine how the U.S. has behaved in other aspects of the
international
arena, and if the principles of "democracy," "human rights," and an absence
of
corruption in government were guiding American foreign relations, or
something else
was at stake. Let us examine therefore, the U.S. role in the events occurring in her
neighbor
to the South, the Latin American nation of Peru. If we were to look at
Peru's last
two decades, would we see that the US has been on the side of "democracy",
"human
rights", or against state corruption? During the Fujimori years, the President engaged in many controversial,
and
questionable acts, but he is perhaps best-known, at least in Peruvian eyes,
for
what they have termed the "autogolpe" (or self-coup) of April 5,
1992, when
Alberto Fujimori suspended the Constitution, and dissolved the Peruvian
Congress.
When Fujimori did this, it was in the name of fighting "terrorism," the name
the
government and its media assigned to the indigenous Indian-led insurgency
emblemized by Sendero Luminoso ("Shining Path"). At the time, the bourgeois
press
lauded Fujimori, and American corporate, political and military leaders sang
his
praises. Today, the President (who is now a fugitive from Peruvian justice), his
top
advisor, Vladimiro Montesinos, and some 50 other top government and military
leaders from the Fujimori regime, are referred to by present government
leaders as
a "mafia," who used the Western financial trend towards "privatization" and
"globalism" to enrich themselves, and to impoverish the Peruvian working and
middle
classes. Peruvian government investigator Oscar Ugarteche, speaking in an
interview
published in the NACLA Report, outlined the target of his investigation: Fujimori and Montesinos were an integral part of a mafia which acted
together to
commit crimes; they protected themselves by passing unconstitutional
laws; this was
covered over with the language of modernization favored by international
agencies
and which served to dismantle a fragile state for the benefit of just a few
economic actors. We're also investigating the possibility that a criminal
mafia was
created and that what we had was a "narcostate," but it's premature to say
that
definitively. [NACLA Report, (Jan/Feb'02)] Ugarteche claims that over $1.8 billion of that privatization money was
funneled
back to Montesinos, as well as the former economics minister, and various
generals,
as part of a vast kickback scheme. Peru has set up the Investigative
Commission on
Economic Crimes to look into the scandal. But what about the role of the US? Does Ugarteche think the Americans
knew about
such widespread corruption?: "North American officials must have known about the corruption that was
happening because we Peruvians knew about it. We knew that the April 5, 1992
coup
[...] was linked to drug trafficking and arms trafficking. We all knew about
Montesinos' past links with this kind of thing. We all knew besides about
his
relations with the CIA since 1974. That's to say that if the State
Department
didn't know about it, it's because they didn't ask the CIA about it the
moment the
coup happened. This gives the impression that they did know about it and it
didn't
matter to them because Fujimori and Montesinos were going to stop inflation
and
terrorism and because they were, in the words of a U.S. president speaking
of a
dictator of the 1930s, 'our sons of bitches' -- as were Manuel Noreiga,
Saddam
Hussein and so many others who eventually ended up as enemies of the United
States." [NACLA Report, (Jan/Feb'02), pp. 42-43] In the name of "fighting terrorism", and in the interests of "global
modernization," the nation of Peru was dealt a severe blow, not from the
"terrorists," but from the government itself. The cancer of corruption has
tainted
every sector of the state, from the very highest levels. Tens of thousands
of
innocent people were cast into the nation's dungeons by hooded judges,
military
tribunals, and a suspension of the nation's Constitution (with the approval
of many
in the merchant, and media class!). Doubtless, many thousands of innocents
remain
there today. The very media that once lauded Fujimori's "bold" reforms now denounces
him as
part of a "mafia" that ravished the nation. And during that dark, tortured period in the life of a nation, where did
the
U.S. stand? In defense of democracy, for the rule of law, for the human
rights of
all Peruvians -- even against its own government? Or in defense of a
dictator? This government's approval and applause during Fujimori's ascent should
give one
pause as it presently poses as the defender of human rights, open
government, and
democracy when it comes to Palestine. Indeed, in light of the harrowing
similarities, it should give us all pause. Editorial note: The Stalinist Peruvian Communist Party (PCP-SL), known
as
Shining Path or Sendero Luminoso, used terror methods to try to impose its
policies
on working people. Shining Path considers all working class organizations
and
parties to be revisionist enemies and focused murderous operations against
them. As
more political space has been opened by the struggles of Peruvian workers
and
farmers (and since the imprisonment of the Sendero Luminoso cult leader),
the
organization has enormously declined. --SeeingRed.
____________
Politics and the Law To purists and legalists, who view the law as a kind of sacred
undertaking, and
its judges as latter-day priests, the last weeks of the last term of the US
Supreme
Court must have been mighty disconcerting. For it is a rare thing for a Court to reverse itself, to announce to the
nation
and the world, that they committed judicial error in the past. It is so
extraordinary, that when it occurs, one is compelled to address it. That rare occurrence can be seen in the Court's 6-3 decision in the
Atkins v.
Virginia case, where the Court held that the Eighth Amendment to the US
Constitution forbade the execution of the mentally retarded. The Atkins
decision
reversed the 1989 Penry v. Lynaugh decision, which held that there was no
"national
consensus" against the execution of the mentally ill, and that it therefore
did not
offend the Eighth Amendment to do so. What happened in the intervening 13 years between Atkins and Penry? What happened, in a word, is politics. In Penry, the Court looked to legislative judgments as "the clearest and
most
reliable objective evidence" of public, and indeed, political opinion. As
there
were few (if any) states that forbade the execution of the mentally
ill/retarded at
the same time Penry was decided, it wasn't unconstitutional (forget the
obvious
flaw in this reasoning, that it made the nation's highest court subservient
to
state legislators, for the determination of what violated the U.S.
Constitution!). In the interim period, over a dozen states outlawed the practice, and
this, in
addition to the bristling hostility of the international community to the
execution
of the mentally infirm, sufficed to move the court to reverse itself. This is indeed significant, for it instructs us in the power of the
political in
an area that was hotly contested -- the death penalty. The question isn't what a difference a decade makes, but what a
difference
organizing makes. Anti-death penalty groups from coast to coast, have
organized,
protested, and lobbied in state houses for state and regional bans on the
execution
of the mentally retarded, and that strategy has apparently paid off. The great Swedish-American socialist labor leader, Joe Hill (born
Hillstrom),
faced with the awful shadow of the hangman in Utah, told his friends, in no
uncertain terms, "Don't mourn for me. Organize!" That lesson, issued in the 19-teens, remains valuable today. Organize! If you are a labor leader, a church person, a butcher, baker, or
candle-stick
maker, it is not enough for people to simply accept what the courts of the
land
have said. Organize! If you are an anti-death penalty activist, learn this lesson
well: Organize! Reversals are indeed rare, but recent history teaches us that they are
not
impossible, if people remember to: Organize! The Court did not one day come to an epiphany that the execution of the
mentally
ill was a 'bad thing.' They saw the winds of change blowing. The winds from
Europe.
The winds from across America. The winds of people organizing. Blow on. Organize!
_____________
What's Good for Thee, Not Me! Rarely does an imperial power reveal how it
sees
itself vis-a-vis the rest of the world than in the present diplomatic
struggle over
whether the writ of the newly-formed International Criminal Court will run
to cases
involving centurions of the American Empire. Using its vast economic and military power, the Americans are threatening
the UN
with desertion from its peacekeeping efforts abroad if it doesn't issue an
exemption for American troops from the jurisdiction of the ICC. What an interesting concept! Why should the most powerful, heavily-armed military in the world be
worried
about being hauled into court for war crimes, if they're not involved in war
crimes? From the serial killers of Vietnam's My Lai, to the ethnic cleansers of
Korea's
No Gun Ri, America has some experience in war crimes, but little experience
in
punishing the perpetrators. The murderous baby killers of My Lai were
pardoned by
the US President, and No Gun Ri did not come to light until a half-century
after
the slaughter of Korean civilians. How telling that the nation that crows loudest about 'the rule of law,'
'democracy,' 'human rights,' and 'international law' cringes at the notion
of the
ICC, an institution erected to enforce international law, through a kind of
quasi-democracy of nations (with some, like members of the Security
Council), more
equal than others. For a Superpower, what is there to fear? The American Empire fears the spectacle of a Dr. Henry Kissinger in the
dock,
being examined on the imperial cold war crimes against Chilean democracy, or
barbarous excesses against Vietnam, Laos, or Cambodia. It fears Clinton being queried on Al-Shifa, the pharmaceutical plant
bombed into
oblivion in the Sudan, which caused death on the scene, and secondary death
and
suffering from the loss of affordable medicines that Al-Shifa provided. It fears a real examination of how Americans conducted themselves in
Mogadishu,
the capital of Somalia, which served as the cinematic backdrop of the
propaganda
film, "Black Hawk Down." It fears the world calling the US to book on its secret wars against
every
democracy on earth, by its saboteurs and agents of the CIA. It fears the judgment of the world that it has treated as its vassal, a
world
that it is accustomed to prosecuting with the weapons of war, words, or
wealth, and
never being the subject of prosecution. It fears real equality among nations, even in a structure where it is
*primus
inter pares* (Latin for 'first among equals') like the UN. Like ancient Rome, the American Empire admits of no power greater than
itself,
and no law superior to its own imperial whim. Like Rome, it is a law unto itself.
_____________
How White Media Manages Black Leaders For years Black leaders and activists have charged that there is a
conspiracy
against their number, one of the government. While that charge has largely been ignored, there is little question that
the
media has been the passionate enemy of Black leaders. One need look no
further than
the nearest tabloid. 'The media,' to paraphrase Marshall McLuhan, 'is more than the message.'
It is
the social and political entity that defines and affirms social
relationships and
protects the status quo. It is an essentially conservative institution that
opposes
that which is radical, and that which opposes the status quo. How could any thinking Black leader not be radically opposed to the
current
white supremacist system, which degrades, devalues and limits Black
life? When any Black leader or group emerges that advocates Black unity or
Black
Power, he or it is undoubtedly a media target. Former reporter and now
journalism
professor, Jack Lule writes: Critics long have argued that the news media miss or ignore matters of
race
because of the overwhelming white face of the nations newsrooms. Others
argue that
the news performs a more damaging role. They say that the news media, when
they do
report on race, foster stereotypes and predominantly offer negative images,
such as
the portrayal of young black males as criminals and drug users. Black
political
leaders in particular attract negative coverage, critics say. The news
degrades
black activists and situates moderate black leaders on more
"legitimate" middle
ground. From coverage of Malcolm X to that of the Black Panthers, of Louis
Farrakhan, and of Al Sharpton, stories of black leaders who espouse
controversial
views reflect a troubled relationship among the news, race and
politics. [Lule,
Jack. *Daily News, Eternal Stories* (N.Y.: Guilford Press, 2001),
p. 65.] (Interestingly, notice how neither Farrakhan nor Sharpton are usually
addressed
by their religious titles, Minister or Reverend. When is the last time you
read an
article that did not address the *Rev.* Billy Graham?) At the beginning of the 20th century there was considerable criticism of
"yellow
journalism," or the practice of sensational, exploitative reporting to hype
paper
sales. Yellow journalism has been surpassed by an insidious kind of "white
journalism,"
where the corporate press acts as a kind of super-manager of African
American
political, social, and cultural leadership. It disciplines them to "stay in
their
place," to be "responsible" instead of radical (God forbid,
revolutionary). They
perform this service to preserve white supremacy. Black leaders must recognize this assault, and resist it. Since when is it the job or responsibility of any predominantly white
institution to manage Black leaders? What is their expertise? In whose interest do they work? In whose interest have they ever worked? Black leadership, is for Black people to decide. And that's as it should be. For the corporate, white, majoritarian media
works
to preserve the status quo; a status quo that insures the continued
repression and
restriction that defines too much of Black life in America. And they wanna keep it that way.
_____________
In Memory of our Mothers In a land and in an age in which the
"bootylicious" is glorified, I am often amazed at what is ignored,
forgotten, and unknown. As I write this, a student of history, I often
surprise
myself with my ignorance, as in what I don't know about something that
should be
second nature. How many of us have heard the names Sojourner Truth and Harriet Tubman,
and
mixed them up in the mixer of the mind? Often, one has to concentrate
deeply, and
plunge into the thickets of memory to access certain facts that distinguish
one
from the other. What a gross disservice to both utterly remarkable women, who, in any
other
culture, in any truly humanistic age, would be remembered with the clarity
of
crystal, and honored in every hearth and home for their sterling courage,
integrity, and sheer wills to be free. It is necessary to repeat the obvious truth that these were two very
different
women, who other than their race, and social status, bore perhaps very
little
similarity. That is not true. Both were women of remarkable physical and mental strength. One was short, stocky, and born in the slave system of the South. The
other was
tall (at least six feet) and wiry, born into slavery in the rural, New York
state
North. But both had to flee from their captors for their freedom. One, (Harriet Tubman) was born into a traditional African-American family
of the
time. The other (Sojourner Truth) was born into a family owned by New York
Dutch,
and Dutch was her first language, which accented her speech for the rest of
her
life. Let us try to concentrate on the latter here. Born Isabella Baumfree,
around
1797, at the tender age of 9 years she was sold from her birth family for
$100, to
a Mr. John Nealy of Ulster County, New York. In her classic recounting of
that time
in the "Narrative of Sojourner Truth" (originally published in 1850), she
recalls
the time of her sale and bondage to the Nealy’s sharply, saying, "Now
the war
begun". As she spoke only Dutch, and they spoke only English, they
could
barely understand each other. They responded to the resultant confusion with
naked
cruelty, beating the child so severely with cords that the scars remained
all of
her life. Thus was she introduced to slavery. Years later, as an adult, she would fight back when her son was sold
South, in
violation of state law. Incredibly, she would recover him, after he had been
badly
beaten and exploited by the man he was sold to. She herself was exploited,
and
after a promise to free her went unfulfilled by her captor, she freed
herself. A deeply religious woman, she felt an inner, spiritual urging to leave
her
former life, and to embark upon a new one. The "Narrative" relates: Having made what preparations for leaving she deemed necessary,-- which
was, to
put up a few articles of clothing in a pillow case, all else being deemed an
unnecessary encumbrance,-- about an hour before she left, she informed Mrs.
Whiting, the woman of the house where she was stopping that her name was no
longer
Isabella, but SOJOURNER; and that she was going east. And to her inquiry,
'What are
you going east for?' her answer was, 'The Spirit calls me there, and I must
go.'
[p. 58] She moved from place to place, preaching and occasionally working, in an
age now
called a Great Awakening, when religious and social groups were plentiful in
the
nation. She went to Brooklyn, and into New York City, but she didn't care for the
hustle
and bustle, and money-frenzy of the town, which she later called the "second
Sodom." She is perhaps best known for her speech before a nervous Women’s
Convention, when she quieted hecklers with her stirring "Ain’t I a
Woman?" address, which has been reprinted and recounted countless
times. But the writer would like to briefly recount a lesser known occurrence,
at a
religious camp-meeting in Northampton, New York, when a group of rowdy young
men
began to cause a disturbance by "Hooting and yelling", and threatening to
burn the
place down (this was a tent meeting). Sojourner was terrified, and shrank
into the
shadows, thinking, "I am the only colored person here, and on me, probably,
their
wicked mischief will fall first, and perhaps fatally." And then, another
thought
struck her: "Shall I run away and hide from the Devil? Me, a servant of the living
God? Have
I not faith enough to go out and quell that mob, when I know it is written--
'One
shall chase a thousand, and two put ten thousand to flight'? I know there
are not a
thousand here; but I know that I am a servant of the living God. I'll go to
the
rescue, and the Lord shall go with and protect me." This thought gave her so much strength that she said she felt like she
had
*three hearts* in her body, so strong and so large "my body could hardly
hold
them!" She asked several of the others if they would join her in bringing order
to the
chaos around her, but all declined. So she walked alone, some distance, to a
small
rise on the ground, and sang "with all the strength of her most powerful
voice" a
spiritual hymn. As she began to sing, a throng of young men rushed at her, but before
they could
reach her, another group of men rushed to the scene, forming a circle around
her,
armed with sticks and clubs. She asked, "Why do you come about me with
clubs
and sticks? I am not doing harm to any one". Many voices responded,
"We
aren’t a going to hurt you, old woman; we came to hear you
sing!" Others
assured her that they were there to protect her, and they would "knock
down" anyone
who dared to offer her the "least indignity." She preached, and she sang, and her voice, and her reason, were like oil
upon
rolling waters, as they left that camp in peace. Why doesn’t every schoolchild in America know, not just her name,
but her
story? Why isn’t her glorious image shining from church window panes across
the
width and breadth of Black America? Why are we still so confused about who she was, and get her so mangled
with the
memory of Harriet Tubman? Why have we forgotten the glories of one of our mothers, who, in her life
and
her example, gave birth to a passionate freedom?
_____________
Johnny's Real Crime If one listens closely, a vast collective sigh
of
relief can be heard at the news that John Walker Lindh has pleaded guilty to
several charges stemming from his service in the military of the fallen
theocracy
of Afghanistan, the Taliban. According to published reports, the plea agreement exposes the 21-year
old
Californian to a 20-year bit in the federal pen. The government is happy,
and the
defense lawyers seem pleased with the deal. Perhaps the only disappointment can be found in the financial offices of
the
news networks, where it was hoped the Lindh trial could provide a ratings
boost
that broadcasters hadn't seen since the heady days of the O.J. trial. According to published accounts, Lindh pled guilty to providing support
to the
Taliban, and possession of explosives. His plea, if formally accepted by the
court,
would prove an evasion from charges that could've landed him in the brig for
life. This writer thinks the plea is incorrect for another reason: essentially,
Lindh
is guilty of serving in an army of a nation the U.S. government didn't like.
Period. There are hundreds, if not thousands of Americans, walking the streets
today,
who served as mercenaries (or soldiers for hire) in the former Rhodesia,
shooting,
bombing and killing Africans who were fighting against the racist
white-minority
government of Ian Smith. How many Israeli-Americans now serve in the Army of Occupation in
Palestinian
lands, shooting, bombing and killing in the name of a theocracy? Apparently, there is no crime in serving in the military of a nation that
the
U.S. government likes. It seems to not offend U.S. sensibilities to serve in the imperialist,
expansionist, white-supremacist wars out on the periphery of Europe. Then comes Lindh. A young, white, idealistic youth converts to a faith
that has
most of its adherents in the darker, poorer, Third World. He learns a
language,
changes his name, grows a full beard, and takes up arms to defend the
legitimate
government of the land where he lives. What's the crime? Should he have
thrown down
his rifle, and cast away his faith when George W. Bush declared war? (If he
had
done so, would he be alive today?) Remember, Taliban didn't attack the towers nor the Pentagon. According to
U.S.
accounts, a multinational group (Al Qaeda) did. "Johnny Taliban" is guilty -- of rejecting his white-skin
privilege, of
betraying his class, and of converting from Christianity to the Islamic
faith. He
is guilty of fleeing the richest empire on earth, to seek spiritual
solace
in the dusty, wretched backwaters of empire. He is guilty of looking
into
the eyes of wrinkled sheiks in Karachi, and seeing human beings instead of
caricatures. He is guilty -- of being a thinking, feeling human.
_____________
Harriet Tubman: Woman Warrior "I started with this idea in my head,
'There's two
things I've got a right to, death or liberty.'" -- Harriet Tubman Born into a family held in bondage in
Tidewater,
Maryland in (or around) the year 1821, a tiny, brown baby girl named
"Araminta"
didn't seem like one to shake up the world. The enslaved people on the farm called her 'Minta,' or 'Minty,' when she
was a
baby, but in the "peculiar institution" called slavery, childhood didn't
last
long. It was at the tender age of 5, when 'Minta' was rented out to a white
woman
nearby for "domestic work." On her first day, before breakfast, the child
was
lashed with a leather strap four times across her face. By the time she was
7 years
old she ran away, tired of her treatment. She was so tired, and so afraid of
being
caught that she fell into a pig-pen, and competed with pigs for scraps of
food.
When she returned to the house where she worked, some 4 days later, she was
beaten,
whipped by a man. Later, returned to her home farm, she was called Harriet, no longer house
slave,
but field slave. As a young woman, she made her way out of the house of bondage, and, not
content
with her own freedom, she resolved to return to the plantations to lead
others out
of bondage. She was so successful that she became a living legend to the
enslaved,
and a thorn in the side of the enslavers. The planters put out a bounty
totaling
$40,000 (in 1850 dollars) for her capture, dead or alive. In the hovels of the enslaved, a whisper of her name ("Moses") or the
humming of
a spiritual told of her presence and her mission -- freedom. She brought
over 300
souls north, and built a deep network of informants throughout slave
territory. She so incensed the slavers that they pushed through the federal Fugitive
Slave
Act which deputized all whites in the pursuit or capture of a former (or
escaped)
slave, anywhere in the United States. For Harriet, that meant slavery reached up to the Canadian border. So she
started taking people up there for a taste of freedom. She took her job dead seriously. When a captive, tired, scared, or
hungry,
wanted to turn back to the life he knew, he would find himself staring at a
pistol
in Harriet's hand, and an offer he couldn't refuse: "Go on with us, or
die." There
was no turning back. When Civil War broke out, she left her home in West Canada, and came back
down
to do whatever she could against the slaveocracy. With her deep contacts in
slave
country, she gave important intelligence data to the Union Army, and she
personally
led several raids against Confederate targets. One of the most famous was the Combahee River raid, in June 1863. Her
contacts
on the plantations on the South Carolina coast reported the placement of
floating
mines in the Combahee to block the Union Navy. Under her guidance, the mines were removed, railroads and bridges were
destroyed, and the Slaveocracy's most precious resource -- captives -- were
liberated from the very heart of the Confederacy. In fact, over 800 of the
enslaved
were given passage aboard Union ships. It delighted "Moses" to no end, as
she would
later recall: "I never saw such a scene. We laughed and laughed and laughed. Here you'd
see a
woman with a pail on her head, rice-a-smoking in it just as she'd taken it
from the
fire, young one hanging on behind... One woman brought two pigs, a white one
and a
black one; we took them all on board; named the white pig Beauregard [a
Southern
general], and the black one Jeff Davis [president of the
Confederacy]. Sometimes
the women would come with twins hanging around their necks; it appears I
never saw
so many twins in my life; ..." It seemed she loved few things more than the sight of her people,
free. She was
a soldier for freedom. Her words, fueled by a courageous heart, have echoed down the
centuries; "I had
seen their tears and sighs, and I heard their groans, and I would give every
drop
of blood in my veins to free them." _____________
Life In The Democracy Of Fear Fear does funny things to people. As a direct result of the national wave of fear flooding the U.S.,
hundreds (if
not thousands) of men are held virtually incommunicado in state, federal and
military jails; a national snitch program is being proposed, and
high-ranking
military officials are angling for control of the nation's interior,
including its
police powers, in the name of "national security." Although much of this is attributable to the events of 9/11, it is not
mere
coincidence that these efforts are taking place in the midst of rising
unemployment
and a widening economic recession. High-ranking government and military officials, always in search of more
power,
now wants even more. It wants Congress to repeal or seriously water down the
Posse
Comitatus Act, which restricts the military from domestic law
enforcement. History, especially in times of great national hysteria, teaches us
important
lessons about when the military runs things. When soldiers of the Japanese Empire struck Pearl Harbor on December 7,
1941, it
would not be long before the media, the military and the politicians
launched a
racist assault on people of Japanese ancestry -- even those who were born in
the
U.S., and were therefore, according to U.S. law, American citizens. John L. DeWitt, the West Coast army commander, said it plainly, "The
Japanese
race is an enemy race, and while many second and third generation Japanese
born on
United States soil, possessed of United States citizenship, have become
'Americanized,' the racial strains are undiluted." When it was raised to Gen. DeWitt that there was no evidence of Japanese
American "sabotage or espionage," the General saw this as proof of their
sneaky
nature, "The very fact that no sabotage has taken place to date is a
disturbing and
confirming indication that such action will be taken." [See "A People's
History of
the Supreme Court," by Peter Irons, p. 350.] When no proof becomes absolute proof, what is proof, but opinion? In Gen. DeWitt's words, "A Jap's a Jap." Period. The Supreme Court, in the infamous Korematsu and
Hirabayashi
cases, although they used more elegant words, agreed. Over 100,000 men, women and children were sent to U.S. concentration
camps, in
the nation's lifeless and desolate deserts, because they were guilty of
being
"Japs." A racist, sensationalist media, a power-hungry bigoted military
leadership, and
a craven corps of politicians and judges, -- voila! -- you have hundreds,
thousands, tens of thousands, and more, in concentration camps. For
years! Does this sound at all familiar? Look around you. What is now taking place in Cuba's Guantánamo Bay took place on
Indian
reservations 60 years ago. Progress? Or are we seeing the grim shadows of a repeat of U.S. history? Land of
the free
-- indeed.
_____________
The War against Women's Bodies It is difficult to objectively observe how
women are
treated in the world of modern medicine, and not come to the quiet
conclusion that
doctors don't really care very much about patients of the female
persuasion. That suspicion ripens into fuller bloom when one thinks about the recent
news
that the popular medical provision of estrogen-progestin pills (known as
hormone
replacement therapy, or HRT) to menopausal women threatens them with
increased risk
of heart disease, stroke and breast cancer. This, after the HRT regime has been marketed to approximately 40 million
women
as a kind of miracle drug that promises virtual eternal youth. What's wrong with this picture? Have millions of menopausal women been unwitting guinea pigs for the
pharmaceutical companies? Have hundreds of thousands of doctors been duped
by these
same companies? How can this happen? In a nation where capital accumulation is seen as the greatest good, how
could
it be otherwise? Medicine is big business. Doctors will call themselves scientists, who follow the scientific
method. This
suggests they will rigorously test powerful drugs (or test the validity of
other's
tests) before prescribing such items to their trusted patients. Apparently, they relied on the glowing articles in the media, or the
advertising
material sent to them by the drug companies. Do you know where pharmaceutical-grade estrogen comes from? Do you know
the
source of much of the hormone used in birth control pills? It is collected, dried horse urine. Seriously. The urine of pregnant mares is collected, stored and processed into
estrogen. Did you know there are plant sources that contain natural
estrogen? Several are
wild yam, and black cohosh. What is more important -- the health of people, or the money that can be
made by
exploiting their fears and hopes? The medical industry today is a wholely-owned subsidiary of the
multi-national
pharmaceuticals. They are a primary source of information to the average
physician. How many billions of dollars have been made off of American women in the
last 30
years? How many women have died since 1975 from breast cancer, heart disease or
stroke?
Many don't know and most don't care, much less the drug companies. Were it not for the Women's Health Initiative, no one would know about
the
serious risks posed by HRT. By treating menopause as a sickness, rather than a natural phase in the
life
cycle, and promising a magic pill that turns back time, the drug and medical
industries have created a market based on a false hope. Let us hope millions of women are now safer than yesterday.
_____________
This column may be reprinted and/or distributed by electronic means,
but only for non-commercial use, and only with the inclusion of the
following copyright information: Check www.mumia.org and its links
for
important action alerts. Mumia Abu-Jamal is the author of three books: Live from Death
Row, Death Blossoms, and All Things Censored.
_____________
home
|
subscribe
|
talk
|
help-about
|
back issues
|
resources
|