Podcast Episode 10: The Occupy Movement

Photo Credit: Jen Palacio 2011

On this episode of the There is No Spoon show, we discuss the Occupy movement, which has spread from Occupy Wall Street to hundreds of towns and cities across the United States and the world in the past 1.5 months. Topics include: our own experiences with Occupy, police brutality at the protests, the movement's messages, macro and micro level impacts, and discussions about the movement's next steps. Hosted by Fouad Pervez, the No Spoon team of Joe Soler, Reggie Miller, Junaid Ahmad (joining us from Lahore), and Shahid Buttar (joining us from Oakland on the night of extreme police violence) welcome guests Al Butler and Annabel Park to the episode. Al is the host of the "Al B! in the Afternoon" radio talk show on WURD in Philadelphia, and Annabel is a founder and coordinator of the Coffee Party, an alternative to the Tea Party.

Podcast Powered By Podbean

Download this episode (right click and save)

Follow us on Twitter: Al, Shahid, Fouad, and Reggie.

The MLK Memorial, the Occupy Movements, and Social Justice

I was watching/listening to some of the ceremony this morning at the dedication of the Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial here in Washington, DC. It was an interesting assortment of voices. Some reflected on the past, taking a stroll down memory lane. Others were grateful to see Dr. King being honored - even though the memorial may have been built with unpaid Chinese labor, something Dr. King would absolutely demonstrate against (not the Chinese part, but the unpaid part - remember, he was very pro-labor). Some tried to keep the message alive by pointing out that MLK was not some simple "can't we all just get along" man, and that he would be outraged by the growing economic and social disparities in American today. He'd also certainly be protesting the wars. In other words, the timing couldn't have been better, considering the massive October 15th protests the day before associated with the Occupy movement across the globe. MLK was not a docile spiritual leader who made this one famous speech on the National Mall in 1963, highlighted by four special words. He was a  tireless social justice fighter. We get our MLK watered down in America, so I wanted to repost something I wrote a while back about the good Doctor, with the hope that people realize, with the attention on MLK and his memorial, that he would have been out there marching the previous day. The Occupy movements are very much in line with the ideal Dr. King fought for, and ultimately died for. Let us not forget the real MLK in these hard times. Read More >>

Hero Worship - Redux

I got a chance to meet one of my heroes last night, John Carlos, and it got me thinking about hero worship again. Hence, this post. A few months back, we had a great discussion on our podcast, reflecting on our thoughts of Malcolm X in light of Manning Marable's new book on Malcolm. One of the main topics we discussed was hero worship  on that podcast. We talked about what it is to be a leader, and why it is problematic to engage in hero worship - not only is it not what our beloved leaders would want, but it is also potentially dangerous to the movements they seek to help. Hero worship, of course, has happened to many who we admire. The backlash to Marable's account of Malcolm was a prime example. Instead of recognizing Malcolm's flaws as a way to remind us that he was, indeed, human (which should have actually brought us closer to him), there was anger at the idea that Marable would tear down our hero from his exalted place in our hearts and minds. This, of course, had something to do with Haley's Autobiography, which wasn't entirely accurate and definitely separated Malcolm from us.

Podcast Episode 1: The Revolts in the Middle East

On this edition of the There is No Spoon show, we discuss the unrest in Egypt and how it relates to the region as a whole. We cover the Muslim Brotherhood, American foreign policy, authoritarian persistance, social movements, and political and economic roots of the uprisings. Our guest is Hesham Sallam, a PhD candidate at Georgetown who studies the persistance of authoritarian regimes, comparative Middle East politics, and is the co-editor of Jadaliyya, and online e-zine produced by the Arab Studies Institute - it is a great resource for analysis of the Middle East. Now that Mubarak has resigned, listen to the podcast and be informed about the issues that will develop in the coming days, weeks, and months.

Podcast Powered By Podbean

Download this episode (right click and save)

Episode 1 was recorded on February 8th, 2011 at 11pm EST.

How to Follow the Latest Developments in Egypt

Al Jazeera has kind of owned the coverage of the revolt in Egypt, though apparently their Cairo offices were just raided (according to Amy Goodman on Democracy Now this morning). If you're like many in the U.S. who don't get Al Jazeera on TV, you can stream their around-the-clock coverage online here. Another one of my favorite sources is Democracy Now's Sharif Abdel Kouddous, who has been on many news shows in the past few days, including the Rachel Maddow and Ed Schultz shows on MSNBC. Sharif has been one of the best sources on the ground in Cairo, and his tweets have gotten picked up by everyone. Follow him on Twitter by clicking here. Sharif's latest tweet, as of an hour ago: "Thousands continue to stream across Kasr El Nile bridge. Very festive atmosphere. What a contrast to Wednesday's govt-sponsored brutality."

This is what Democratization in the Middle East Looks Like - with Caveats

Wait a second...I though Arabs and Muslims and the Middle East region in general couldn't really handle democracy? That something about their culture explained that these people needed strong man running their states, not (real) popular electoral contests and a representative system of government. Well, I am shocked to see what is happening in the streets of Cairo right now. I am a bit surprised about what has happened in Tunisia, what is starting up in Yemen. Actually, I am a little alarmed by the level of repression used by the Mubarak regime in Egypt to try and silence the political dissent when it is clear the whole world is watching. But in terms of what is happening in the streets, this moment has been building for a long time. And no, Arabs, Muslims, and people in the Middle East are not predisposed to authoritarian rule. That's just the system that's been forced on them by force by some of their own elites and great powers abroad.

Ewoks, Warfare, Alliances, and Modern Parallels (or: Stop Hating on Return of the Jedi)

Okay, so let me begin by stating that this post is a bit wacky. Even for me. The title by itself probably has most of you wondering what the hell is going on. This past weekend was the 30th anniversary of the release of the brilliant Star Wars sequel, The Empire Strikes Back. I love that movie, but it got me thinking about the following one (as did the continuous showings of the trilogy on TV - I can watch parts of the original Star Wars trilogy anytime), The Return of the Jedi (RotJ). This is a much-maligned movie that I actually always liked (not as much as Empire, of course) much more than most people. One of the common criticisms of Jedi was the presence of the Ewoks. Among sci-fi nerds, movie buffs, and the rest of us, the common criticism was: they're too damn cute. Having these koala-like cuddly things in the movie just killed it - you can't take it too seriously, and it was all an effort by George Lucas to get the kiddie dollar at the theater, the video store, and the toy store. Now, there's some truth to that - no doubt the Ewoks helped get more money from younger audiences. But, I think there's something much deeper to it. The Ewoks were not "cute" in the classic definition of cute. The Ewoks were victims of power politics, and were pretty courageous guerrilla warriors. Yeah, that's right. I said it. Stop hating on RotJ because of the Ewoks!

Let's review this. The Empire lands on the moon of Endor, the Ewoks home. They intrude on them and run operations on the planet. The second Death Star was built there, and the deflector shield for the infrastructure was based on the planet. So, while they weren't quite subject to an occupation, the Ewoks did have a foreign force run operations on their home planet. In other words, their sovereignty was taken away. Enter the Rebels. Under most circumstances, the Ewoks probably had no dog in the fight. However, they had foreign troops on their soil. The alliance with the Rebels was seemingly the only way to get out of this precarious situation, as they couldn't not align with a side here, like the states in the Non-Alignment Movement did during the Cold War. The Empire already violated their sovereignty, and they couldn't get that back on their own, so they needed to join with the Rebels. Thus, they had to choose sides. This isn't unlike many of the alliances formed during the Cold War, though in this case, the Ewoks had more in common with their ally, the Rebels, than did many allies during the Cold War. But the larger point is, they, like many of those states, didn't have a lot of real options.

The Empire's role in the Ewok story is not dissimilar from the controversial U.S.-led drone attacks in Pakistan, or the presence of the Guantanamo Bay detention center in Cuba. Neither are occupations, but both cause some serious sovereignty issues. The Empire wasn't (as far as I know) calling the shots on Endor. They didn't install a puppet Ewok regime. Yes, I know, this is getting a bit silly, but stay with me. However, the Ewoks were no longer able to fully function in their homes. If the area they needed to get crops from was being used by the Empire for the deflector shield, its not like they could negotiate with them over that. Even though it was their home, another party was exerting its sovereignty over the land. Just like Pakistanis don't support the U.S. drone attacks that have killed many innocent civilians (ratios vary, but no matter what, many more civilians have been killed than militants in these attacks) on their own soil, they can't really do anything about it. The Pakistani government is actually probably in cahoots with the U.S. on these attacks, or is at least looking the other way, while using oppositional rhetoric to ensure that Pakistanis think they're on their side on this issue (when they probably aren't). Fidel is most certainly not down with Gitmo, nor are most Cubans, but the U.S. keeps the base, where it has held hundreds of people at a time in legal limbo, and in a world of torture and degradation. Castro can't do anything about it. Just like the Ewoks.

So, they basically had limited options and were dragged into the conflict. Power politics came into play to some degree, though so did ideology - the Empire was never their kind of bag, while the Rebels were. Now, they were fuzzy and cute. But that plays into the more impressive part of the story that apolitical people don't get - they battled like crazy. This was David and Goliath - a 2 foot tall koala taking on armed 30 foot tall AT-ST walkers. That they did it was impressive enough, and says something about courage to do the right thing. Many died in what should have been an easy fight for the Empire to win. Of course, the Empire didn't win. The Ewoks and the Rebels won. They won with primitive weapons. They won through guerrilla warfare, not dissimilar to tactics made popular by Che Guevara. Even when the odds looked very bad, they kept fighting, and triumphed in the end. These primitive, cute, fuzzy things beat a technologically-advanced, far more powerful Imperial force. In fact, this was a huge thing for Lucas. He created the Ewoks for RotJ specifically to show this story. It was also not that long after Vietnam. I don't know for sure, but I wouldn't doubt that helped him shape the story.

So, the "cute" factor is important in RotJ, but it's to show that these cute, primitive underdogs can be particularly courageous and fight a far-superior Empire. It's to show that these cuddly little things can mount a strong resistance to Imperial forces which have impeded on their home. It's to show that the massively under-armed and under-manned Ewoks can win. By creating such a ridiculous underdog, Lucas actually shows us that we can all be strong enough to stand up against injustice, and that we might actually succeed.

In summary...the Ewoks are cute, sure, but they're cute so as to show us to struggle against injustice in the world. Because, hell, if those cuddly little Ewoks did it and succeeded, what's our excuse? Cute in RotJ isn't about cute, it's about courage, resistance, willpower, and success. Couple that with the theme of redemption (Vader's turn back to the Force, even though it kills him), and you've got a great movie. Probably the most political of the three original Star Wars movies - as I've made clear, there are parallels between the Ewok situation and alliance issues during the Cold War, guerrilla warfare tactics, the Vietnam War (considering the timing, I have to believe that played a major role in how the script was written), and sovereignty problems (like the drone attacks in Pakistan, and the presence of Guantanamo Bay in Castro's Cuba). Is that to say RotJ is exactly like any of the above? Not exactly. But the fact that the Ewok subplot has so many similarities to these serious political issues says something. Namely, even though it may not be as good a movie as Empire, RotJ is a damn good movie, and particularly because of the Ewoks' struggles and eventual triumph. So stop hating!

Thank you, Howard

"Everything we do is important. Every little thing we do, every picket line we walk on, every letter we write, every act of civil disobedience we engage in, any recruiter that we talk to, any parent that we talk to, any GI that we talk to, any young person that we talk to, anything we do in class, outside of class, everything we do in the direction of a different world is important, even though at the moment they seem futile, because that’s how change comes about. Change comes about when millions of people do little things, which at certain points in history come together, and then something good and something important happens." - Howard Zinn, 1922-2010.

There are a lot of really beautiful and thoughtful tributes to the People's historian. We here at the Spoon just wanted to offer our profound thanks to Howard Zinn for everything he did. He taught us about empathy. He taught us about connecting to others, learning from them, and organizing with them for a more just world. He taught us how important each thing each one of us does is, since we never really know what actions end up causing major policy shifts.

On a personal level, I was fortunate enough to get to know him while in college, and it changed my life. I went from a science kid to a politics kid. I went from being (sort of) interested in biochemistry and physiology to organizing on welfare reform, poverty, Iraq sanctions, and eventually, health care policy and foreign policy. His friendship literally transformed my life, and his words have done the same for thousands, if not millions, of others. While many call him a "radical" or "leftist" historian, I dispute those terms - he simply offered the voices of those history had conveniently left out. As a former WWII bombadier, he learned to detest war, knowing that innocent civilians will always bear the brunt of any conflict. As a former shipyard laborer and professor at Spelman college during the Civil Rights movement, he found poverty and racism unacceptable and things worth fighting against at all times. Howard spoke for the marginalized at all times because he believed all people deserve the opportunity to participate in politics. There is nothing leftist or radical about that. As Bob Herbert said, Howard being veiwed as a radical reflected more about about our society than him.

I am very happy he got to see The People Speak finally make it to TV - he told a few of us his initial thoughts about turning A People's History of the United States into a documentary of sorts about a decade ago. The show got a lot of great reviews, and was seen by many, including scores of people who had never read or heard of Zinn before. Naomi Klein is right...there has been a revival of interest in Howard Zinn the past few years (he never really went out of fashion, but yeah, definitely increased interest lately). He has now left us, but so long as we keep fighting for the things he did, he'll always be close by. After all, he was one of us.

Rest in peace, my friend.

America's Tortuous History with Iran

(Note: I wrote most of this about a month ago, and have tried to update it) I've avoided posting something about all that is going on in Iran for a few reasons. One, I've got to finish up a paper soon! Two, others in the blogosphere have been posting great stuff thus far, and I'm not sure what exactly I'd contribute. Three...I'm a little confused as to what I should even say. I think the opposition party probably won the election (at the very least, the results were fishy), and I certainly don't support the use of violence against protesters, but I think some U.S. leaders are taking advantage of the situation to spew sentiments against the Iranian state, as well as their "pro-freedom" nonsense. Also, I know the history between America and Iran, and minus President Truman's ability to stop a U.S. led overthrow of Prime Minister Mossadegh (which eventually happened, under President Eisenhower), the U.S. seems to have done nothing good in regards to Iran...so, what does that say about American support for Mousavi?

Okay, so here's my contribution to the discussion. I want to focus on the complicated history of American involvement in Iran, why that has had a huge impact on what preceded, and how that should (and is) impacting what the U.S. does now.

So, the basics...Iran's monarchs were hardly stellar rulers. In a key moment in history, the Shah Mozzafar al-din Shah Qajar conceded an incredible amount of control of Iranian oil to the British in 1901 - this helped the Shah pay for his rather lavish lifestyle. The deal gave him 16% of all future oil profits, along with a lump sum payment. While 16% is a lot for a single person, it isn't much for a total nation, which is where the problem grew from. That oil contract ultimately led to the Anglo-Persian Oil Company (APOC), which later became the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC), which eventually turned into British Petroleum/Beyond Petroleum (BP), who probably have a gas station somewhere near where you live. Not only did Iran get a very minor share of the money (especially considering the fact that the oil was theirs in the first place), the British also had a bureacracy in place that made it nearly impossible for Iran to even know what APOC/AIOC profits were. Basically, they were getting ripped off.

The British made minor concessions, but ultimately, Iran still got a really short end of the stick. By the late 1940s, AIOC was making after-tax profits of around 40 million pounds...these are profits, mind you. And what was Iran's total share of money? Less than 10 million pounds. Not surprisingly, Iran wanted a fairer deal, using the US deal with Saudi Arabia (a 50-50 split) as the example. Britain refused, Iran nationalized, Britain pushed major sanctions on Iran, which ravaged their economy. The U.S. wanted the British to concede, but ultimately, the Dulles boys suceeded in framing Iranian Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh as a potential "communist", the U.S. opted to join British efforts and sponsor a coup in 1953 to overthrow the popular and democratically elected Mossadegh in favor of their client, Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. Britain's role faded, the U.S. became the dominant power in the region, and America backed the Shah, despite his massive repression in Iran. We sold him billions of dollars in weapons, provided him billions of dollars in economic and military aid, used the CIA to train the SAVAK (essentially the Shah's thought police), looked the other way when much of the globe was decrying his obvious human rights abuses...Jimmy Carter did this as well, even though many think Carter's "human rights" agenda actually spelled the fall of the Shah. It didn't - at every key moment when Carter could have pressed the Shah to loosen his iron grip, he didn't.

Not shockingly, the Shah's brutal authoritarian rule finally fell in the Iranian Revolution of 1979. Not surprisingly, the opposition took a strong anti-American slant. There is a lot of research that looks at post-revolution externalizing of threat i.e. in order to quiet trouble on the home front, politicians will focus their ire on the outside foe, and this clearly happened in Iran after the revolution - and, given the US role in keeping the Shah's brutal regime around, there was certainly a reason for Iranians to not be kosher with the U.S. Of course, post-revolution Iran didn't exactly turn out the way it was supposed to, either...Khomeini and the hardline clerics silenced their more liberal allies from the movement against the Shah and turned a secular authoritarian dictatorship to basically a religious authoritarian dictatorship. All the while, America remained a prime enemy.

It is a travesty that the mainstream media has not focused a decent amount of their discussion on what is happening in Iran on this past. This history matters pretty significantly, and explains some of the nuanced posturing by the Obama administration. In contrast to his policies on Pakistan and Afghanistan, I actually think Obama is doing okay on Iran. Unlike the Republicans (I don't mean all Republicans, actually, mostly the neocons, who shouldn't even count as Republicans because they are really descendants of the supposedly liberal Woodrow Wilson school of thought) who are clamoring for Obama to pick a fight with the regime in Iran over the elections, Obama seems to be taking the history into account. The second he takes a position openly supportive of Mousavi and the reformists, they are done. They suddenly become U.S. puppets (like the Shah), the resistance becomes U.S.-manufactured (like the "resistance" against Mossadegh), and Iranians will turn on them.

The reality is, this is an indigenous resistance to the regime that has been building for a long time. It isn't this sudden Twitter revolution that the U.S. media is making it out to be. Iranian scholars like Hamid Dabashi have been writing about it for years. It has absolutely nothing to do with America. Not a damn thing, okay? Obama's speech in Cairo did not inspire it in any way. The Bush administration's rhetoric about "spreading freedom" did not provide it any backbone. This is all Iran. Iranians have not been cool with their post-revolution state. They've had a hard time actually doing something about it because, yeah, its hard to get masses on the streets when you are in an authoritarian state that has few qualms with cracking some heads. This is why it was tough to mount a sustained opposition to the Shah...it was only when he went too far and pissed off too many people that things started happening. If this was an academic paper, I'd insert something about prospect theory here, but I'll leave that one alone for now. Anyway, same thing here...the election results seem very peculiar, and that may have been the straw that broke the camel's back, if you will. Thus, massive numbers in the streets. This was too much for them to take.

So, thinking America somehow has some kind of important role in all that is happening in Iran is absolutely incorrect. Interjecting ourselves into the equation will only cause more problems, because of the particular history of U.S. involvement in Iran. That's not to say we can't do anything, but it does limit (and I would argue, clarify) Obama's options. We can't openly back the opposition, because of 1953 and the Shah years. We can't take credit for what's happening because that is a disservice to Iranians and will show our incredible arrogance yet again (because, you know, America is totally the source of all dissent against enemies of freedom, or something like that...sounds like a Bush speech).

One thought I have is to use Obama's insistence on meeting with Iran without preconditions as proof of our interest in not intervening in order to maybe help the parties negotiate a solution. Obama can say, look, we're going to work with whoever is in charge (and it's going to be Ahmadinejad - I see no way Mousavi gets in power at all at this point), so that doesn't matter. Instead, we simply want a stable Iran, which means no violent crackdowns on protesters, an action that only further delegitimizes the regime. It also means, hey, lets limit the reasons for the massive protests, which is to say, let's work out a deal between the parties. That almost certainly means Ahmadinejad is going to be the President, but maybe Mousavi can be put in some key position and most importantly, some of his platform ideas can be implemented.

Truthfully, there isn't a massive difference between the two sides in terms of their political goals - Ahmadinejad wants to improve relations with the U.S., just like Mousavi. Both want Iran to continue pursuing the nuclear option. Ahmadinejad is obviously down with the current political system more than Mousavi, but again, that is something that can be discussed in negotiations. Many of the clerics are opposing the election results, and are not okay with the political involvement of Ayatollah Khamanei. Iranians are not protesting the entire system (which would be a revolution), but are protesting specific things - the results of the election, and maybe the role of the clerics [the Khamanei ones, though, not the ones in Qom, etc., who don't want the religious scholars to play politics]. Thus, its not that the entire Iranian system needs to be changed (something that would definitely not be a negotiable point if the U.S. tried to help settle things), but maybe it needs to be tinkered, as in, the clerics need to take a less political role.

I don't mean to dictate what needs to be negotiated, of course, and the U.S. should not do so, either. I'm just suggesting some options. What is important, of course, is that the U.S. maybe try to get all the sides together to help resolve the problem, with a commitment to not interfere. Iranians might be able to do this on their own, of course. But I'm just suggesting this as one of the only avenues of involvement Obama can really take in this case. Some U.S. political leaders who are pressing Obama to take a more active role are delusional, ignorant of the past, or both. Some, like Newt Gingrich, are now suggesting we sabotage Iran's oil and gas refineries to bring the nation to an economic crisis in order to bring down the Iranian regime. Seriously. I did not make that up. Um, Newt, so-called historian, do you know anything about what the British did to Iran in response to Mossadegh in the early 1950s? Try to destroy the Iranian economy through sanctions. You honestly think Iranians are somehow going to forget that episode, because the late 1940s and early 1950s aren't really that important in Iranian history or anything, and instead just be cool with your idea? Did you stop to think that it might, I don't know, elicit a massive level of nationalism that includes both reformers and conservatives? In fact, isn't this precisely what progressives Iranians who oppose the regime have been warning about for years? Newt, I am very happy a man with your level of insanity and your complete misreading (or, more likely, no reading) of context and history, isn't running America.

I'm not really sure what else we really can do in this case that would help the situation. It would be nice if, on their interviews, they were pressed more about this point ("Senator, I hear you, we obviously don't like the violence used by the state against the people in the streets, but aren't you aware of America's complicated past with Iran, and doesn't that history make the actions you are advocating more harmful for the Iranian state?"). More importantly, if we discussed the history more, it might show us how short-sighted and problematic interventions (like the 1953 coup, and backing the Shah when we knew he was a ruthless leader who was only inflaming Iranians) really tie our hands in the future. This is the most important lesson, in my view, to take from all this. We can't really do much with Iran right now because of our particular actions in the past. This should open a conversation into backing authoritarian regimes, relying on politicized intelligence, etc., a discussion that we crucially need to have in the open now. Iran today should be a key example of why we need to have that discussion today - but only if we start looking into our history of involvement in the country, something the media has largely ignored so far.

Honor Malcolm: Support Troy Davis and Fight Police Brutality

This post will not be a lofty tribute to Brother Malcolm, if you would like to see one like that, check it out here. This will be a call to action, because that is one of the things El Hajj Malik El Shabazz was about. Today is a National Day of Action to Stop the Execution of Troy Davis and today I saw a heinous video of a young teenager brutalized by the Police of Toledo. I do not doubt that Malcolm would have been disturbed to action by both. Let's honor him by doing the work!

Today is global day of action for Troy Davis who is set to be executed if we, that includes you, do not demand a retrial. You have probably seen Davis' name and maybe even read up on the case. Well there is plenty of material online but I'll summarize. Davis was convicted of shooting an off-duty police officer in 1989 in Savannah, Georgia at Burger King (there was also a shooting at a party earlier that evening). The scene of the shooting was a Burger King where Sylvester Coles got in an altercation with a homeless man. Coles and Davis are physically similar in size and the overlap in Davis and Coles' night is eerie. The State of Georgia put its resources into investigating Davis and little into properly investigating Coles. As a result they arrested Davis and convicted him on 9 eye-witness testimonies. Since conviction, Davis has maintained innocence. In 2001, 7 out of 9 "witnesses" re-canted their statements saying they were coerced into saying Davis was the shooter via improper police and legal procedures. Through a railroading and denial of a re-trial Troy Davis is scheduled to be executed in the near future. If you're in NYC, join us at Union Square from 6-8 for a National Day of Action for Troy Davis or find a local event or activity here



Davis' stays of execution and case have only gotten this far because everyday people are putting pressure on the State of Georgia, to be "fair" and not "final". Let's keep up the pressure and stop the loss of another innocent Black man's life.

As I was typing this post, I came across a video of police brutalizing a 14 year old boy, Trevor Casey, in Toledo, Ohio. The video footage (which is graphic) is here. While I do not know the circumstances leading up to his arrest, choke and bloodying, I do know that the young man's life would likely have been in even greater danger if this was not caught on tape. Police brutality is common in our communities, but seldom gets taken seriously, let's not let this be the case.



The reality is that our young Black youth everyday come in contact with a police force that fears them more than protects and serves them. It's all too often that I walk down the street in Harlem and see "undercovers" jump out, harrass youth, and then continue on with their patrol. Even more disturbing then these "stop and frisks" is the way that many of the young brothas and sistahs I see harrassed respond. They get searched, often illegally, and continue on with their day as if it has been or should be a routine occurence.

If we truly want to honor Malcolm, then we cannot let the State (of Georgia and Toledo) in these cases go unchecked. Troy Davis, like many on death row and those killed on death row, was railroaded and we cannot let his case go quietly. While we celebrate the arrival of a Black Attornery General, the real power to respond to judicial injustice must come from the people. Stand up, speak out! Trevor Casey was brutalized in front of his home and the community is crying out for help. The disease of racism and fear of young Black men runs deep, don't let his case be "investigated" (the Oscar Grant trial from Oakland is now happening) and dismissed as so many cases of brutality are. Stand up, speak out! Don't read about this stories and get sad, in fact, get angry. Because if Brother Malcolm taught us, "Usually when people are sad, they don't do anything. They just cry over their condition. But when they get angry, they bring about a change."

Making the Cynic Smile: The Movement Behind Obama and the Possibility of Change

Let me get this out of the way. I do not buy into the hype about Barack Obama. His grand, sweeping speeches each become less detailed than the prior ones, and this rhetoric will do little to change the conflicts in the Middle East, South Asia, the Caucuses, or improve our rapidly deflating economy. Much to the chagrin of many of his supporters, Obama has become more of a politician every day, from the populist progressive Illinois state senator in 2002 to the centrist US President in 2009. Yes, he is a brilliant man, an inspirational voice, and someone who has experienced a life filled with much more reality than most silver-spoon politicians. Given his progressive history (especially earlier in his political career), the tumultuous failure of the neoliberal and neoconservative agenda suggesting the need for serious political change, and the massive level of public support, it is not hard to see why many believe Obama could be the greatest US President in history. That still does not change the fact that he is ultimately part of a government structure that gravitates to the status-quo and punishes leaders who push for big-but-necessary change. He will undoubtedly be constrained. However, after experiencing inauguration with millions in DC just a few weeks back, I saw firsthand the greatest weapon Obama has to actually create the kind of change he promised in his campaign: a legitimate movement, united behind the notion that the Washington status-quo is no longer acceptable.

Did you see the photos of the Mall? Did you watch the overhead shots on TV? Were you out there? The sheer numbers out at the inauguration events were simply incredible. The level of positive energy and political engagement was remarkable. It felt like we were in a different world. People made pilgrimages from across the country to witness the end of the nightmare that has been the Bush administration. More importantly, they came to show America, the world, and President Obama that they were there to support a new, different, and better America. This was no ordinary occasion. It was a profound moment – profound because close to 3 million people from all walks of life came together to brave the weather and the crowds to proclaim their allegiance to ideas of justice, equity, and peace. In the end, the mass of people, more than Obama, is what made the days so remarkable, and what provided hope for a better future.

It wasn’t just that people came in large numbers, though. It was how they came. It was not a conglomeration of self-congratulatory people. Yes, some had the bumper-sticker attitude, that a black man becoming President would, by itself, somehow change everything. Some did naively believe that Obama’s election wiped the laundry list of American ruthlessness at home and abroad clean. However, the vast majority had no such illusions. They held close to the (albeit vague) policies Obama had promised changes on. They understood that actions spoke louder than words, particularly in these tough times, and were willing to be the voices that pushed the Obama administration to make the right decisions. This was not a group of people basking in yesterday’s glory; they were there to push for tomorrow’s redemption. This was indeed a movement, a massive and diverse one at that.

As such, the feeling of community amongst the sea of strangers was not surprising. People were joyous and peaceful. They spontaneously sang, danced, chanted, cried, and hugged everyone in sight. The spirit was infectious. They pulled you in and kept you with them without hesitation. This is what movements do, of course. People in movements find ways to connect to each other almost instantaneously; they share goals, dreams, and beliefs, which help create a kinship with others. Despite having to walk many miles, wait in lines for hours, and deal with bitterly cold temperatures, this movement converged in full force on the congested DC streets during inauguration week.

For me, it started on the 18th, the Sunday before inauguration. I planned to meet three separate groups of friends at the “We Are One” concert on the National Mall, but that soon proved to be impossible. Not only that, but cell phone lines were jammed, so it was virtually impossible to try coordinating anything down there. Like thousands of others, though, this proved to be no problem. People found new enclaves and groups of friends on the spot. I spent the entire show hanging out with a large group people, none of whom knew each other beforehand. We sang, clapped, and cheered together. In-between performances, we talked about our political views, our own stories and backgrounds, and our reasons for being in DC for inauguration. It was remarkable how much depth and overlap there was in their responses. Over the course of the concert, we all managed to connect on a deep level.

The same environment was in place the next day. Thousands of people flooded the streets, yet you could easily have long conversations with complete strangers anywhere. Spontaneous musical performances broke out everywhere, and crowds swarmed to sing and dance together immediately. Everyone wanted to connect with each other, tell their stories, hear your stories, and share thoughts about the future. The discussions were hardly superficial. People talked about the economic stimulus package, the rule of law, education, and US foreign policy – there was almost no conversations centered on vague ideas of “hope” or “change”. These millions were not blind followers at all. Even late into the night, the conversations persisted on substance. DJs were spinning Obama speech clips into their sets into the early morning hours – and not his standard cliché-filled clips, but ones with real passion and fire. People were energized and excited, even though we all had to wake up in just a few hours to get downtown for the inauguration.

The crowds on inauguration day were hard to describe. Despite severely mismanaged security that caused some ticket holders to be denied entry to the Mall, and many of us to wait hours only to be told they were changing our gate and we had to walk three miles to get to where we needed to be, despite the fact that most people had slept for only a few hours, and despite the fact that the temperature at dawn when most of us departed for downtown was in the teens, over two million people showed up. The Mall was packed, from the Capitol Building all the way back to the Lincoln Memorial. Like the previous two days, people were joyous, excited, and engaged. We ended up by the Washington Monument, where the wind gusts were quite brutal, leaving most of us numb after a few minutes. After introducing ourselves to each other, the group around me had a spirited discussion about the greatest crimes of the Bush administration and the most urgent policy matters for the Obama administration to address. Many of them were not overjoyed with some of Obama’s picks for key roles, and were willing to give him the benefit of the doubt for only a short period of time – again, these were not blind followers by any means. We even talked about what to do when Bush came on stage; a few wanted to stay quiet, but the vast majority were in favor of booing. People cheered and hugged when both Biden and Obama were sworn in, and everyone listened intently to Obama’s address. It was a powerful few hours, seriously reflecting on the political future of our country with millions of engaged people standing with you. In the end, there was a great sense of satisfaction in the crowd, not so much because Obama was in power, but more because we made connections to so many new people, and we felt all of us would play a role in shaping the direction America took under the Obama administration.

Later that night, at the Inaugural Peace Ball, Amy Goodman made the same point resoundingly clear. Even though many of us disagreed with some of Obama’s choices and decisions thus far, there was actually potential for a progressive agenda. She noted that Obama frequently stated that the public would have to do its part and force him to do the right thing, echoing Lyndon Johnson’s words to Martin Luther King, Jr. Barack Obama might play a centrist on TV, but it seems unlikely that he has actually internalized those norms and shifted from the openly progressive views he held until he began positioning himself for his presidential run. Unlike most politicians who talk about the other side of the tracks while having no idea what marginalized people’s lives are like, Obama actually came from, and worked to improve, those communities. He spoke out against US militarism when it was dangerous to do so. He was serious about alleviating poverty, providing affordable and quality health care to millions of uninsured, limiting the impact of lobbyists in Washington, and restoring the rule of law to the land. He may have shifted his public stance on these and other issues, but that may have been a response to the structural constraints of being a Washington politician. With widespread public pressure, something he seems better positioned to generate than any other US President, Goodman suggested that Obama might be able to transcend the restrictions of the Beltway and actually make the right calls from the Oval Office.

This is why the movement behind Obama is so crucial, and why inauguration week was such an inspiring moment. Washington is a town of extreme entrenchment. Ideological politicians, powerful lobby groups, and corporations make the status-quo a very difficult thing to overcome. Without major public pressure, it is hard to imagine President Obama being able to make many of the changes his masses of supporters want to see him enact. This was something many of us were wary of, the Obama supporters who mainly voted against Bush instead of for Obama, and those who aren’t critically engaged on issues and are unwilling to push the new President – the Obamamaniacs, if you will. If these camps comprised a large share of the population voting for Obama, we would probably be in trouble.

Admittedly, its just one sample, albeit a large one, and there certainly were people who I met who fell into either of these categories, but I would not categorize the vast majority of people who I crossed paths with during inauguration week in either of these camps. The diverse masses with whom I huddled in the freezing cold, waited in lines with, cheered with, danced with, and became friends with were well-versed on complicated political issues. And these weren’t all policy analysts, researchers, or other “intellectual” types. There was the middle-aged construction worker from Alabama who spoke to me in detail about why Obama needed to end the occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan immediately. There was the high school junior from Delaware who wanted to see President Obama push greater accountability in the TARP rescue plan. In fact, every person I met had at least one issue in mind that they thought Obama needed to change his policies on. This held true across race, class, gender, and geography – in fact, the Midwesterners and Southerners I met may have been more adamant about these issues than us northeasterners!

This was the most remarkable and hopeful part of those few days. The populace was not a flock of sheep in any way whatsoever. This meant a lot to me in particular, considering the fact that I had several near-altercations with people immediately after 9/11 over their complete ignorance about the impact of US foreign policy on the Arab and Muslim world, and their militarism and xenophobia. I couldn’t help but smile every time a stranger launched into a diatribe about some issue of importance to them. The norms of political engagement in America seemed to have changed dramatically – and not a minute too soon! Seeing this firsthand will be one of the most inspiring moments in my consciousness. I was not in the presence of millions of people. I was in the presence of a movement that was ready, willing, and able to push President Obama to do the right thing.

And make no mistake about it, President Obama is going to need this movement to be strong, to give him hell, and to make him pursue his campaign promises. He is no progressive superhero. While he has made some commendable moves in his first few weeks, he has also pursued some questionable policies. He launched a unilateral air strike in Pakistan [1], a move that was greeted with anger by the weak Pakistani government, and a strategy that may cause more harm than good.[2] The movement has work to do to push Obama towards a less-militaristic policy towards this increasingly important state, as the military option threatens to create major fissures in Pakistan. Obama has also remained relatively silent on the carnage in Gaza, continuing his policy of appeasing the Israeli-Right, something he started during his presidential campaign. Majorities in both Israel and Palestine, along with most people throughout the globe, support a 2-state solution, and the movement will need to pressure President Obama towards taking an even-handed approach to the conflict, something the US has not done for a long time. In perhaps an early indication that he might indeed opt for this kind of approach, he appointed George Mitchell as his Middle East envoy, as opposed to the usual suspects among Democratic Middle Eastern “experts”, none of whom are thought of as even-handed in any way.

There are also concerns that the President is trying to compromise too much with Republicans to pass the stimulus package, an issue considering the fact that their policies helped lead us into this economic mess we have right now.[3] There is rising alarm that the package that will eventually come out may sacrifice actual economic stimulus for bipartisanship.[4] This will be a crucial test for Obama’s leadership, illustrating whether he will side with the compromise, or push for the bigger stimulus package, something the movement behind him and top economists are calling for. In addition to pressuring the President, the Obama movement could also push Democrats and Republicans in Congress to abandon failed policies and opt for the most effective stimulus package, one with more spending and less tax cuts than the version circulating now that is causing panic. On the other hand, Obama does seem to be more in-line with the movement on this issue, evidenced by his strong comments the past few days about the need to avoid failed policies in order to gain Republican support. This is a positive sign.

Millions gathered and spontaneously formed communities on tiny segments of the National Mall, highly informed, passionate, and energized communities determined to see actual change and not just rhetoric. These communities, encompassing over 2 million Americans who gathered in the bitter cold to be part of the inauguration a few weeks ago, represent a movement that offers us greater hope than any president. On top of that, President Obama himself has offered us glimpses of passionate, fiery, progressive ideas in years past. At heart, he is probably still one of us. I remember being inspired by his strong words against the Iraq War in 2003, and do not believe the man in the Oval Office today is a fundamentally different person. His administration is also less ideological than the departed Bush administration, meaning that effective pressure from the populace could actually lead to policy changes.

This movement arose in response to war, militarism, widening gaps between the haves and have-nots, racism (Katrina, anyone?), and a lawless government. Given his own background, Obama was able to effortlessly tap into it. This explains the never-ending crowd that congregated on the National Mall. Obama’s success is due more to the people who latched onto him than it is to the President himself. The movement around him was the reason he pulled off an upset in Iowa last year. It toppled the mighty Clinton political machine and carried him to a huge win against McCain. Its members trekked to DC from all over the country, waited in long lines, braved freezing temperatures, walked for hours, and functioned on minimal sleep. This mass of people embraced those around them as their own family. They came with joy, with passion, with hope, and most importantly, with knowledge and determination. This was no ordinary group of people. This was a community, a movement the likes of which I’ve never seen. Any successes America achieves over the next four years will be due to their efforts. There will undoubtedly be trouble ahead, but they are ready to do their part and create pressure to force their leader to do the right thing. It is indeed a time to celebrate, because there is real potential for change in Washington. Using public pressure to make that change a reality will be the way to celebrate. That was the ultimate message I took from the movement during inauguration week, and it was enough to make a hardened cynic like myself smile the entire time they were around.

References:
1. “Deadly missiles strike Pakistan.” BBC World News, January 23, 2009. Available online: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7847423.stm.
2. Ahmad J, Pervez F. “The US War on Pakistan.” Left Turn Magazine, December 16, 2008. Available online: http://www.leftturn.org/?q=node/1272.
3. David Sirota and Thomas Frank on Bill Moyers’ Journal, January 23, 2009. Available online: http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/01232009/watch.html
4. Nichols J. “More Bipartisanship, Less Stimulus.” The Nation, February 7, 2009. Available online: http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat/406028?rel=hp_picks.