[News] Ferguson Versus the Counter-Insurgency State
Anti-Imperialist News
news at freedomarchives.org
Wed Aug 20 15:50:21 EDT 2014
Ferguson Versus the Counter-Insurgency State
by BAR executive editor Glen Ford
*http://blackagendareport.com/node/14372*
Wed, 08/20/2014
"The domestic counterinsurgency army has been methodically
expanded by each successive administration."
The corporate media, reflecting their owners' anxiety at the failure of
Black people to revert to a state of passivity in Ferguson, Missouri,
have arrived at a general consensus on two counts: the need to
"demilitarize" the police (fewer bullets, smaller armored vehicles?)
and, more immediately, to re-establish some semblance of "calm" (as in
comatose) in the neighborhood and beyond. Corporate-attuned Black
powerbrokers and politicians deliver essentially the same message,
counseling (quiet) introspection and a search for "solutions"
(diversions) to the historical oppression in which they are deeply
complicit.
But first, tensions must be reduced, to diffuse the confrontation --
which, we are told, serves no one's interests but the "agitators and
instigators" (who, apparently, have millions of dollars in derivatives
wagers riding on urban chaos). Fortunately, the "street" ignores the
misleaders. If Ferguson had remained "calm" in the face of Michael
Brown's murder, nobody outside greater St. Louis would know the place
existed.
De-militarize the police? After 50 years of seamlessly integrating the
local constabulary into the National Security State and its War on
Drugs, War on Terror, myriad and unending foreign wars, and of funneling
millions of Black prisoners into the world's largest system of
incarceration, where would the process of demilitarization begin? What,
exactly, does it mean to be militarized? Is it defined by the equipment
the troops/cops carry? Or, by the mission they are assigned?
If the mission of police forces in the United States is to contain,
suppress, hyper-surveil and incarcerate huge numbers of Black people as
a matter of policy, then police departments require all the tools the
federal government has been giving them since President Lyndon Johnson
signed the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 -- a
cornerstone in the construction of a truly national, integrated
gendarmerie, which is defined as "a military force charged with police
duties among civilian populations." SWAT teams, first formed in
Philadelphia in 1964 and Los Angeles in 1967 as unabashed counter-Black
insurgency units, have proliferated to the far corners of the land, and
are now standard drill for warrant-serving cops. The domestic
counterinsurgency army has been methodically expanded by each successive
administration, first through the Law Enforcement Assistance
Administration, and ultimately drawing on the stocks of, not only the
Pentagon, but virtually every armed agency of the federal government.
President Obama, to whom idiots appeal to scale back police
militarization, is as hawkish as any of his predecessors in about
keeping America safe from Black inner city insurgency. The lead sentence
in an item in today's New York Times,
<http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/20/upshot/data-on-transfer-of-military-gear-to-police-departments.html?ref=us&abt=0002&abg=0>
blandly titled "Data on Transfer of Military Gear to Police Depatments,"
tells the tale, succinctly:
"Since President Obama took office, the Pentagon has
transferred to police departments tens of thousands of machine
guns; nearly 200,000 ammunition magazines; thousands of pieces
of camouflage and night-vision equipment; and hundreds of
silencers, armored cars and aircraft."
Clearly, the U.S. is at war with Black America.
"Where would the process of demilitarization begin?"
All the nation's police departments are following the same drill, with
the same tools and weapons, under the same mandate: keep the Blacks in
check; terrorize them as a matter of policy; provoke them, when it is
politically convenient; and keep them imprisoned at rates never
experienced over time by any group that was not formally enslaved.
This is not "mission creep," but the logical fulfillment of the mandate
handed down by the collective political leadership of the United States
in response to the Black Freedom Movement of the Sixties -- a movement
whose most militant sector was "militarily defeated," as Black Is Back
Coalition chairman Omali Yeshitela points out, by the U.S. gendarmerie's
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gendarmerie> counterinsurgency campaign of
assassination, disruption and mass arrests.
The U.S. government was not content to simply crush the organized
activists, but opted to put Black Americans as a group under a
militarized regime of mass incarceration. That's the regime that shot
Michael Brown six times, two Saturdays ago, and which has since sent
reinforcements in various uniforms to bolster the state's longstanding
policy of Black cmes ontainment.
That's why Al Sharpton statements on Ferguson are diversionary, at best:
"America as a nation, Missouri as a state, Ferguson as a city, is at a
defining moment on whether or not we know and are mature enough to
handle policing --- whether it goes over the line or not.... All
policemen are not bad; most policemen are not bad. But all of them are
not right all the time. And when they're wrong, they must pay for being
wrong just like citizens pay when they're wrong.... Looting is wrong. We
condemn the looters. But when will law enforcement condemn police who
shoot and kill our young people? We got to be honest on both sides of
this discussion."
We only quote Sharpton because his views are essentially representative
of the Black Misleadership Class, which has presided over nearly half a
century of mass Black incarceration and containment, yet continues to
counsel that African Americans are only a reform or two away from true
"freedom." Sharpton wants Black people and the police to understand each
other's perspectives, which is the common refrain of corporate media, as
well. Fortunately, the defiant activists in Ferguson understand all too
well where the police are coming from. This is not about bad, rogue
cops, but an entrenched system of Black oppression that the cops are
paid and trained to enforce.
"The election of Black city councilpersons and mayors did not
transform the fundamental relationship between the community
and the police."
It was understandable that previous generations of Black people, who
came to political consciousness in the late Fifties and Sixties, could
believe that growing police repression would surely be overcome by what
seemed like the inexorable rise of Black majorities and decisive voting
pluralities in the cities. But the election of Black city councilpersons
and mayors did not transform the fundamental relationship between the
community and the police, who were even more quickly being integrated
into a national gendarmerie that was sworn to impose what Michelle
Alexander calls The New Jim Crow. Meanwhile, the Black Misleadership
Class -- the beneficiaries of the limited, civil rights gains of the
Sixties -- spent most of their energies integrating themselves into the
Democratic Party and affiliated corporate structures, while accepting
every gift of guns and gear from the feds.
Black majority rule does not automatically transform the relationship
between cops and citizens. Newark, New Jersey, for example, has had
Black mayors since 1970. Yet, a U.S. Justice Department review shows
that cops violate the rights of residents in 75 percent of pedestrian
stops. There is nothing atypical about Newark among largely Black cities.
Back in the late Sixties, many believed that an influx of new, Black and
brown police would compel local departments to "protect and serve" the
people, rather than protect white privilege and serve the rich and
powerful. It does generally appear that Black cops are somewhat less
likely to kill or maim Black residents, but the repressive relationship
is not fundamentally altered by their increased presence on the force.
In New Orleans, which has had a number of Black police chiefs, about 40
percent of the department is Black. Nevertheless, the department's
conduct in Black neighborhoods is as savage and predatory as in any city
in the nation.
Back in 1969, it was not hopelessly naïve to believe that the
establishment of civilian review boards to oversee police departments
would make a huge difference in the lives of people at the other end of
the night stick. Today, there are plenty of such boards, with varied
levels of independence and power, but nowhere can it be said that review
boards have fundamentally altered Black-police relationships in
statistically significant ways.
If the people of Ferguson or anyplace else demand more Black police
officers or a civilian police review board, we should all support them.
But, we have the benefit of history to inform us that such reforms will
have only marginal impact on community-police relations as long as the
police mission is to contain and incarcerate Black people -- which is
the root of the militarized police state. The same "army/police" rules
everywhere in America.
There is no liberated territory -- not yet. But, that must be the goal.
BAR executive editor Glen Ford can be contacted at
Glen.Ford at BlackAgendaReport.com.
--
Freedom Archives 522 Valencia Street San Francisco, CA 94110 415
863.9977 www.freedomarchives.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://freedomarchives.org/pipermail/news_freedomarchives.org/attachments/20140820/1249c1be/attachment.htm>
More information about the News
mailing list