Monthly Archives: May 2009
When All the Lights Go Out – Anti-Flag
From their new album, due to be released June 9th.
One billion workers stand up from their chairs.
Their faces no longer struck with their fears.
Attack/Attack.
Stabbed in the back.
Disgraced/Disgraced.
Traitors trade face to face.
Revolution: the engine for history.
When all the lights go out.
When all the world is in doubt.
When all the goods cease to move.
I won’t be alone.
When all the swords become plows.
When all the fields are afoul.
When all the cogs cease to turn.
I won’t be alone.
Punching the clock, stabbing the boss.
We don’t need the CEO’s they need us.
Attack/Attack.
Outsourced for a hack.
Disgraced/Disgraced.
Displace and replace.
Proletarians of the world unite;
you have nothing to lose but your chains.
When all the lights go out.
When all the world is in doubt.
When all the goods cease to move.
I won’t be alone.
When all the swords become plows.
When all the fields are afoul.
When all the cogs cease to turn.
I won’t be alone
We are not numbers.
We are names.
We won’t be alone.
We are not crime reports.
We are history.
We won’t be alone.
No, we are not folklore.
We are culture.
We won’t be alone.
We are not human resources.
We are human beings.
I won’t be….We won’t be alone.
When all the lights go out…
When all the lights go out…
When all the lights go out.
When all the world is in doubt.
When all the goods cease to move.
I won’t be alone.
When all the swords become plows.
When all the fields are afoul.
When all the cogs cease to turn
I won’t be… We won’t be alone
Protests Erupt Over California Prop 8 Ruling
Elizabeth Schulte rounds up reports from around the country on demonstrations to protest the California Supreme Court’s decision to uphold a gay marriage ban. Respoted from Socialist Worker.
Some 15,000 people turned out in Los Angeles to show their anger with the court decision upholding Prop 8
THE MOOD was angry and defiant at protests throughout California and across the country May 26 after the state Supreme Court announced its decision to uphold the Proposition 8 ban on same-sex marriage.
In Los Angeles, where some 15,000 people took to the streets, chants of “Gay, straight, Black, white–same struggle, same fight!” and “No justice, no peace–equal rights now!” rang out into the early morning hours. Protesters held a rainbow flag with the words “These Colors Don’t Run, They Fight” written on it.
Thousands more turned out in other California cities–5,000 in San Francisco, 3,000 in San Diego–and across the country after the news emerged that the California Supreme Court had upheld the anti-gay referendum passed last November, even while deciding to recognize some 18,000 same-sex marriages that happened before the measure passed.
Robin Tyler and Diane Olson–two of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit decided by the California high court, who were married last year after 16 years together–were at protests in Los Angeles. Tyler, a founder of the Day of Decision Web site, which helped organize the protests nationwide, said in a statement:
Even though our marriage is preserved by today’s decision, we take no joy in the fact that marriage equality for almost everyone else has been removed from our state. The upholding of Proposition 8 by the court is a cowardly retreat from the pro-equality stance it took last year, and makes our state a laggard behind pro-equality states like Iowa and most New England states.
California should be following in the footsteps of states like Iowa, Maine and Vermont, which recognized equal marriage rights in the last few months, while the California Supreme Court was deliberating over Prop 8. Instead, the California justices voted 6-1 to uphold last November’s ballot initiative that denies same-sex couples the same rights as straight couples.
In May 2008, the same court ruled, in a 4-3 decision, that denying same-sex couples the right to marry amounted to state-sanctioned discrimination. Chief Justice Ronald George said that the court majority based its decision on a 1948 ruling that ended a California prohibition on interracial marriage–20 years before the U.S. Supreme Court did the same.
Last year, George wrote:
[I]n contrast to earlier times, our state now recognizes that an individual’s capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual’s sexual orientation, and, more generally, that an individual’s sexual orientation–like a person’s race or gender–does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights.
We therefore conclude that in view of the substance and significance of the fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship, the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples.
With the decision announced yesterday, George and the other California justices dodged this fundamental question of civil rights and hid behind a narrow legal question–whether Prop 8 is an amendment or a revision to the state constitution.
Under the California constitution’s equal protection clause, a majority of voters can’t revoke equal rights intended for everybody–a “revision” of that clause requires two-thirds approval in the legislature and then a popular vote. But the justices ruled that Prop 8′s language–defining marriage as a union “between a man and a woman”–was narrow enough to pass.
This is cold comfort to same-sex couples who are being told to accept separate-but-equal status. As the sole dissenting judge, Carlos Moreno, argued: “Granting same-sex couples all of the rights enjoyed by opposite-sex couples, except the right to call their officially recognized and protected family relationship a marriage, still denies them equal treatment.”
Prop 8 opponents also rightfully opposed the so-called “compromise” in the decision that sanctioned the 18,000 marriages of same-sex couples performed after the state Supreme Court overturned the previous ban and before Prop 8 passed last November. Plaintiff Diane Olson said that “half-measures accomplish nothing.”
- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - -
EQUAL MARRIAGE supporters have been organizing for Day of Decision demonstrations for months. More than 100 cities had scheduled responses by May 26–protests or celebrations, depending on the Supreme Court’s decision.
– In San Francisco, shouts of “Shame on you!” rang out from about 1,000 people gathered at City Hall to hear the court’s decision when it was released at 10 a.m. From there, protesters marched to the intersection of Grove and Van Ness, led by the group One Struggle One Fight (OSOF), where 150 people took part in a civil disobedience action–holding hands and sitting in a circle–with around 250 people supporting them.
OSOF activist Seth Fowler explained that the group organized civil disobedience “to peacefully and nonviolently elevate the issue of marriage rights into popular consciousness, and to push a civil rights narrative into the mainstream so that it is not seen as merely a narrow gay issue.”
Another protest organizer, Ashley Simmons, said, “We chose to have a nonviolent civil disobedience because civil rights struggles come from the bottom up.” Fowler added, “There is a place for legislative action, but it’s more than appropriate to use civil disobedience to stand up for our rights when the system fails us.”
Later in the evening, 5,000 people turned out to a rally and march organized by Equality California. The demonstrators marched from the Civic Center to Yerba Buena Gardens. When police started to arrest a woman, protesters gathered around, and another march through the streets began–as about 1,000 people headed toward the Castro. There, some 300-400 people took part in a sit-in at Castro and Market.
Marchers, many of them young, were angry and focused on organizing the next step in the fight for marriage rights. “Every negative can be turned into positive,” said one protester. “This can be fuel to enlarge the fire.”
“This is just a stumble in the fight for equality for all,” said a marcher named Danny. “We will continue to march until this battle is won.”
– In Los Angeles, several protests took place on the Day of Decision. A demonstration organized by the Latino Equality Alliance in East Los Angeles at the county clerk’s office turned out 200 people, most of them young and Latino. A favorite chant was “Gay, straight, Black, white, marriage was a civil right.”
Lt. Dan Choi, who is being dismissed from the National Guard under the federal government’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, spoke at the rally. “The time to ask for things is over,” Choi said. “It’s time to tell people what we want. Rosa Parks didn’t ask for civil rights. Dolores Huerta didn’t ask for labor rights.”
Organized labor was represented at the rally, with the LA County Federation of Labor’s Maria Elena Durazo featured as a speaker.
Later that evening, more than 15,000 people rallied and marched, the mood upbeat and angry. “I don’t get why Obama won’t come out for gay marriage,” said 17-year-old Rachelle. “What’s wrong with two people loving each other? The court decision is wrong. It makes me so angry. I brought my mom and little brothers and my aunt.”
Rachelle’s mother Norma added: “I’m here for equal rights. They can’t say 18,000 being married is okay, but not overturn Prop 8.”
– In San Diego, about 3,000 people marched and rallied. Protesters were in high spirits, chanting, “Justice won’t wait. Repeal prop 8!”
Demonstrators Michael and Brian said they planned to go to the county administration building tomorrow with supporters. “Hopefully, we’re going to get out marriage license,” they said. “If not, we’re going to have a sit-in. We’re not going to leave until they give it to us. Prop 8 is not the cause of the problem. We have to go deeper than Prop 8.”
– In Seattle, where opponents of equal marriage are trying to get an anti-gay marriage initiative on the state ballot, some 1,500 people rallied downtown. Outrage over the California court’s decision was clear from the handmade signs: “Separate is never equal” and “What’s next, Prop 9? Separate drinking fountains for str8′s and gays?”
Chris, a Highline Community College student, said, “I’m out here today because I hate being a second-class citizen, and I want to be part of a movement for LGBT equality.”
The protest was organized by Join the Impact, Equal Rights Washington, Pride at Work, Stonewall Democrats and Queer Ally Coalition (QAC). Afterward, 500 people joined an impromptu march to a park in the LGBT Capital Hill neighborhood for a meeting called by QAC to discuss the next steps in the fight for full liberation.
– On the other side of the country, in New York City, as many as 5,000 people answered California’s Supreme Court ruling with an angry and spirited march that started at Stonewall Inn, the site of a 1969 riot that helped spark the gay liberation struggle of the 1970s.
Most people had heard about the protest only hours before, or joined in along the march route, but they wanted to send a message to Californians that this is New York’s fight, too. With a gay marriage bill passed in the New York State Assembly, but awaiting approval in the Senate, the urgency to demonstrate could be felt in the streets.
The lesson many took from the ruling today was the need to take the fight to the national level and build a movement to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that bars the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages performed in states where they are legal. “If we want change,” said protester Ed Davis, “we must fight for it. We can’t just wait to be saved.”
The New York march ended in Union Square, where one organizer summed up the mood: “This [ruling] didn’t scare me. This galvanized me.” Corey, another march organizer, spoke about the lessons of the civil rights movement: “Civil rights never won with a piecemeal, state-by-state approach. We need to fight for a federal law.”
– New York City was hardly the only place where solidarity with the fight in California ran deep.
In Chicago, 1,200 people turned out to march in the rain. In Atlanta, 125 came out. Tom, who came all the way from Greensboro, N.C., said, “It’s exciting to see that a decision made all the way in California could bring so many out to the streets to stand up for justice for all.” Some 100 protested in Northampton, Mass., 100 in Providence, R.I., 40 in Rochester, N.Y., 80 in Champaign, Ill., and 30 in New Haven, Conn.–the list goes on and on.
- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - -
MANY EQUAL marriage activists in California are looking to further their own ballot measure as a next step. The California secretary of state has given the group Yes on Equality until August 17 to collect some 700,000 signatures needed to qualify an initiative repealing Prop 8 for the 2010 ballot. Another measure would strike the word “marriage” from all state laws.
Equal marriage forces have a wide range of views on what kind of measures are needed, and whether we need more, or less, time to prepare. Some activists say that 2010 is “too soon,” and some fear a contentious referendum fight would hurt the Democratic Party’s chances in the elections.
But there has been a sea change in opinion nationwide since the wafer-thin 52 percent win on Prop 8 in November. A Washington Post-ABC News poll released last month reported nearly half (49 percent) of all Americans said they were in favor of legal marriage for same-sex couples, an increase of 13 percentage points since June 2006.
It would be a crime to fritter away the momentum created by a wave of states recognizing equal marriage.
And equal marriage activists can’t worry about “hurting” Democrats at the polls. Our demands will only be taken seriously if we put them first and build a struggle that is independent of any political party.
We must also take this fight to the federal level and demand that Barack Obama repeal the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act and undo the discrimination the last Democratic president helped put in place.
Kwame Nkrumah: Pan-Africanist, Socialist and Revolutionary
In celebration of this years 51st African Liberation Day I am re-posting this biography of African revolutionary leader Kwame Nkrumah.
Kwame Nkrumah
Osagyefo Kwame Nkrumah, or simply Kwame Nkrumah was born September 21st, 1909. He would become one of the most influential pan-Africanists, socialists and revolutionaries in the world, as well as the first leader of independent Ghana, and before that, its predecessor state, the Gold Coast.
In 1909, Madam Nyaniba gave birth to Francis Nwia Kofi Ngonloma in Nkroful, Gold Coast, a British Colony in the west of Africa. Nkrumah graduated from the Achimota School in Accra in 1930, later studying for the Roman Catholic Seminary and teaching at the Catholic school in Axim. In 1935 he decided to leave Ghana for the United States. In the United States he received his BA from Lincoln University in 1939, where he was also pledged to the Mu Chapter of Phi Beta Sigma Fraternity. He continued his academic studies in 1942, receiving his STB (Bachelor of Sacred Theology). He also went on to earn a Master of Science in education from the University of Pennsylvania, also 1942, and a Master of Arts in philosophy the following year. While lecturing in political science at Lincoln he was elected president of the African Students Organization of America and Canada. As an undergraduate at Lincoln he participated in at least one student theater production and published an essay on European government in Africa in the student newspaper,The Lincolnian.
Over the course of his studies in the US, Nkrumah visited and preached in black Presbyterian Churches in Philadelphia and New York City, as well as read books on politics and divinity. It was during this time that he encountered the ideas of of pioneering pan-Africanist and black revolutionary Marcus Garvey. He also had a job tutoring fellow students in philosophy. Also at this time, in 1943, he met the Afro-Trinidadian Marxist and Trotskyist C.L.R. James. He would later describe how it was from James that he learnt how an underground movement worked.
Following his stint in the US he left for London, England, arriving in May 1945. He had intended to study at the London School of Economics, however, after meeting with George Padmore, another influential Afro-Trinidadian Marxist, he decided to help organize the Fifth Pan-African Congress in Manchester. After that he founded the West African National Secretariat to work for the decolonization of Africa. He also became Vice-President of the West African Students’ Union.
In February, 1948 the colonial police fired upon a protest being lead by ex-African servicemen. They were protesting the rapidly rising cost of living. The shooting itself went onto spur a series of riots across the capital of Accra, as well as Kumasi and elsewhere. The British authorities suspected the UGCC to have behind the protests and therefore took action by arresting Nkrumah and the other leading members of the movement. The imperialists soon realised their error, that the UGCC and Nkrumah had not been responsible for the riots, but it was already to late, for after his imprisonment by the colonial government, he emerged as the primary leader of the Ghanaian independence youth movement in 1948.
After his release from imperialist imprisonment, Nkrumah decided to journey around the country of his native country by way of hitch-hiking. In community after community that he visited he would proclaim that the Gold Coast needed self-government. On the basis of his community to community travels he was able to build a large base of support towards the cause of self-determination. Many rushed to his cause, such as the rural cocoa farmers who disagreed with British policy concerning the containment of swollen shoot disease. He also appealed greatly to women to become a part of the political process. This was at a time when women’s suffrage was new to, even to Western ‘Democracy’. His movement also found allies amongst working-class organisations, such as the unions. By 1949 he had coalesced these diverse groups into a new political party: The Convention People’s Party.
The British, who were making moves towards self-government for the Gold Coast, called for the drafting of a New Constitution that would grant local authorities some responsibility for policy decisions. The new constitution, which was drawn up under the influence of the Ghanaian national bourgeoisie, made wage and property requirements were the basis for suffrage. In opposition to this Nkrumah brought together his own “People’s Assembly” composed of representatives of party members, youth organizations, trade unions, farmers, and veterans. In contrast to the new bourgeoisie constitution, their proposals called for universal suffrage without property qualifications, a separate house of chiefs, and self-governing status under the Statute of Westminster. These amendments, known as the Constitutional Proposals of October 1949, were rejected by the colonial administration.
The colonial administration’s rejection of the People’s Assembly’s recommendations led directly to Nkrumah’s call for “Positive Action” in January 1950. His idea of Positive Action included civil disobedience, non-cooperation, boycotts, and strikes. In response the imperialist administration again arrested Nkrumah and many of his supporters in the CPP. Nkrumah was sentenced to three years in prison.
Under the ever increasing weight of both international protests and internal resistance, the British decided to pull out of the Gold Coast. They organized the first general election to be held in Africa under universal franchise; it was held on 5-10 February, 1951. Though in jail, Nkrumah won the election by a landslide, with the CPP taking 34 out of 38 elected seats in the Legislative Assembly.
On 12 February Nkrumah was released from prison, and on the 13th was summoned by the British Governor Charles Arden-Clarke and asked to form a government. On 20 February the new Legislative Assembly met, with Nkrumah as Leader of Government Business and E.C. Quist as President of the Assembly. A year later, on 10 March 1952, the constitution was amended to provide for a Prime Minister, and on 21 March Nkrumah was elected to that post by a secret ballot in the Assembly, 45 to 31, with eight abstentions. On 10 July 1953 he presented his “Motion of Destiny” to the Assembly, which approved it. The motion requested independence within the British Commonwealth “as soon as the necessary constitutional arrangements are made”.
As the leader of Ghana during the transition to independence he was faced with three major challenges: firstly he needed to learn the art of government on the job, secondly he needed to create a unified nation of Ghana from the four territories of the Gold Coast and finally he needed to win his nation’s independence.
On March 6, 1957, at 12 am, Nkrumah declared Ghana to be an independent nation. In celebration and in respect he was given the title of Osagyefo by the people, which translates roughly as “redeemer” or “the victorious one” in the Akan tongue.
On the same date three years later he introduced proposed constitutional changes, primarily that Ghana become a republic. In a truly revolutionary and internationalist move, the new set of proposals also called for the eventual surrender of Ghana’s sovereignty to a federal union of African states. On 19, 23, and 27 April 1960 a presidential election and plebiscite on the constitution were held. The constitution was ratified and Nkrumah elected president. Nkrumah was awarded the Lenin Peace Prize by the Soviet Union and Ghana also became a charter member of the Organization of African Unity in 1963.
While the Gold Coast was already one of the most wealthy and socially advanced territories in Africa, with schools, railways, hospitals, social security and an advanced economy. Under Nkrumah’s leadership, Ghana took steps towards a more socialist state. Nkrumah created a welfare system, started various community programs, and established schools. He ordered the construction of roads and bridges to further commerce and communication. In the interest of the nation’s health, he had tap water systems installed in the villages and ordered the construction of concrete drains for latrines.
In terms of his own personal politics, Nkrumah considered himself to be a non-aligned Marxist. He believed that the malign effects of capitalism and imperialism were going to stay with the newly independent states of Africa for a long time thereafter.
He was clear on distancing his Marxist socialism from the so-called “African socialism” of many of his contemporaries, such as Julius Nyerere of Tanzania and Ahmed Sékou Touré of Guinea. He argued that socialism was the system that would best accommodate the changes that capitalism had brought, while he still respected African values. His main piece articulating the differences between his Marxist socialism and African Socialism was “African Socialism Revisited”. In it he says:
“We know that the traditional African society was founded on principles of egalitarianism. In its actual workings, however, it had various shortcomings. Its humanist impulse, nevertheless, is something that continues to urge us towards our all-African socialist reconstruction. We postulate each man to be an end in himself, not merely a means; and we accept the necessity of guaranteeing each man equal opportunities for his development. The implications of this for socio-political practice have to be worked out scientifically, and the necessary social and economic policies pursued with resolution. Any meaningful humanism must begin from egalitarianism and must lead to objectively chosen policies for safeguarding and sustaining egalitarianism. Hence, socialism. Hence, also, scientific socialism.”
However, it is probably not for his socialism that he was best known, and best remembered for, but rather for being a pioneering advocate of pan-Africanism. He was inspired deeply by his interactions by his fore fathers in the field, people like Marcus Garvey, W.E.B. DuBois, George Padmore and C.L.R. James. Nkrumah would himself go onto inspire and encourage Pan-Africanist positions amongst a number of other African independence leaders and activists from the African diaspora, with perhaps Nkrumah’s biggest success in this area coming with his significant influence in the founding of the Organization of African Unity.
Towards this end he created the All-African People’s Revolutionary Party with the goal of creating and managing the political economic conditions necessary to the emergence of an All-African People’s Revolutionary Army. The A-APRA would the Africa-wide struggle against settler colonialism, Zionism, neo-colonialism, imperialism and all other forms of capitalist oppression and exploitation. The A-APRP still exists to this day, based out of Ghana, but with branches in many countries around Africa, the Caribbean, North America and Europe.
In February 1966 while he was away on a state visit to Vietnam, his government was overthrown in a CIA backed military coup. Following this, Nkrumah would never again return to Ghana, but nevertheless he continued to push for his vision of African unity from elsewhere. In particular he spent much of his exile in Conakry, Guinea, where he was the guest of Ahmed Sékou Touré, who made him honorary co-president of Guinea. He spent his time reading, writing, corresponding, gardening, and entertaining guests. Despite his retirement from public office, his fear of western intelligence agencies did not abate.
In August, 1971, with failing health he was medevaced to to Bucharest, Romania. In April, 1972 he passed away from skin cancer at the age of 62. He was buried in Ghana in a tomb (which is still present) at the village of his birth, Nkroful, but his remains were later transferred to a large national memorial tomb and park in Accra.
Today, Nkrumah is still one of the most respected leaders in African history. His legacy lives on today in the continued existence of the All-African People’s Revolutionary Party, still based out of his home of Ghana, but also in other radical pan-Africanists and socialists such as the African People’s Socialist Party and the International People’s Democratic Uhuru Movement, both of which are based out of the United States.
So on this 51st celebration of African Liberation Day, let us remember not just Osagyefo Kwame Nkrumah, but all the others who have struggled in Africa for liberation, and also those who have struggled around the world. Rest in Uhuru.
African Liberation Day – Forward to One Unified Socialist Africa
Today, May 25th, is celebrated by revolutionaries and radicals in Africa and the African diaspora, and by their allies from all racial and national backgrounds, as African Liberation Day. Last year marked the 50th anniversary of this important celebration and hopefully today marks the first of 50 more years of celebration. We all hope and struggle that by the time of the 100th celebration that the dream of a united, socialist Africa, and for that matter of a united, socialist Earth, has come to fruition. But that that dream will not be realized without active struggle on the part of all the oppressed peoples of the world.
This message comes from the All-African People’s Revolutionary Party.
African Liberation Day was first created in 1958 by Kwame Nkrumah on the occasion of the First Conference of Independent States held in Accra, Ghana and attended by eight independent African states. The 15th of April was declared “African Freedom Day,” to mark each year the onward progress of the liberation movement, and to symbolize the determination of the people of Africa to free themselves from foreign domination and exploitation.
In the years following the initial declaration, between 1958 and 1963 the nation/class struggle intensified in Africa and the world. Seventeen African nations won their independence and 1960 was proclaimed the “Year of Africa”. Further advances were made with the defeat of U.S. imperialism in Asia and the Caribbean. Imperialism responded to this tide of victories by assassinating revolutionary leaders and sending U.S. troops to Viet Nam. On the 25th of May 1963, thirty-one African Heads of state convened a summit meeting to found the Organization of African Unity (OAU). They renamed Africa Freedom Day “African Liberation Day” and changed its date to May 25th.
Since then, the world has witnessed the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Malcolm X, the overthrow of Kwame Nkrumah, the US invasion of Cuba, the US move to crush liberation movements in Asia, Egypt, Syria, and Jordan; the overthrow of the Democratic Party of Guinea, the US invasion of Grenada, the US bombing of Libya, and the overthrow of Thomas Sankara in Burkina Faso. This period had marked a temporary setback for the Pan-African movement and since 1966, was characterized by a lull in ALD activities. Neo-colonialism was imposed upon the people as the new stage of the capitalist, imperialist strategy in Africa.
Out of the intensification of the national and class struggle, a new generation of African youth emerged and reaffirmed their African personality, history and their Pan-African objectives. This youth was the product of Malcolm X, M’balia Camara, Patrice Lumumba, Frantz Fanon and the countless generations before them. Links were made and maintained with Kwame Nkrumah. Understanding the need for clear and precise ideological and organizational direction for the Pan-African movement, Nkrumah published Consciencism: Philosophy and Ideology for Decolonization (1963), Handbook of Revolutionary Warfare (1968), and Class Struggle in Africa (1970). The ideas of Nkrumah infused the Black Power Movement all over the world.
Nkrumah taught that, “The total liberation and unification of Africa under an All-African Socialist Government must be the primary objective of all Black revolutionaries throughout the world. It is an objective which, when achieved, will bring about the fulfillment of the aspirations of Africans and people of African descent everywhere. It will at the same time advance the triumph of the international socialist revolution.”
In 1970 the Pan-African Secretariat of Guyana made the call for the celebration of ALD in the western hemisphere. In response, a large demonstration was held in Georgetown, Guyana and smaller celebrations in the U.S., Canada, and Europe. The Pan-African movement was once again on the verge of taking a mass revolutionary character and educating and organizing the people. By 1971 Pan-Africanism had become the dominant discussion in every factory, home, school and church in the African world.
In the 1990s, as a result of the people’s struggle, we have witnessed the defeat of apartheid, the heroic decision of the OAU to break UN sanctions against Libya, and the Congo victory by pro-African forces over imperialist proxy forces, making an advance toward Nkrumah’s call for an African High Command and representing a healthy day in line with the African Union. The African Union, and Africa’s first continental holiday, “Africa Day,” are clear signs that the struggle for African Unity will not stop until victory is achieved.
Today African Liberation Day is a permanent mass institution in the world-wide Pan-African movement. As an institution, it is stronger today because the masses of African people are stronger and ALD is their day. As a day of work in the area of political education and organization, it reflects the fact that we have not obtained our freedom, and thus it is a day to reaffirm our commitment to Pan-Africanism, the total liberation and unification of Africa under scientific socialism. At ALD we also deepen our understanding of other just struggles and affirm our role in the world socialist revolution. ALD has but one direction, forward to a unified socialist Africa. It is growing as the level of awareness about Pan-Africanism and the primacy of Africa grows. It is growing as progressive and revolutionary organizations grow. And lastly, it is growing as the masses make increasing victories against capitalism, neo-colonialism, racism, and zionism.
Showdown in D.C. Over Marriage Equality
examine the battle over legislation passed by the Washington, D.C., City Council that would officially recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.
Demonstrating for LGBT rights
THE MOVEMENT for marriage equality took a much-anticipated step forward May 5 in the nation’s capitol. By a decisive 12-1 vote, the Washington, D.C., City Council approved a proposal for officially recognizing same-sex marriages performed in other states.
Mayor Adrian Fenty signed the bill as promised. But because of D.C.’s unique status of being subservient to the federal government, the measure could still be blocked by Congress.
This sets the stage for one of the biggest national debates on this civil rights issue since the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)–which bars the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages, even when performed in states where they are legal–was signed into law by Democratic President Bill Clinton in 1996.
Following a flurry of legal and legislative victories, gay marriage is now legal in five states–Massachusetts, Iowa, Vermont, Connecticut and Maine. But because of DOMA, other states aren’t required–as they are in the case of heterosexual marriages–to recognize same-sex marriages performed in these states, and the federal government is explicitly barred from doing so.
The D.C. law would be a crucial first step in breaking this legal exclusion. But due to the irony that the capital of the “world’s greatest democracy” still suffers “taxation without representation”–the issue that led to the American War for Independence–laws passed in D.C. go through a different process.
Once the mayor signs a bill, the legislation undergoes a 30-day review process in Congress, which determines whether a bill becomes city law. Thus, representatives from others state who disapprove of proposed laws can manipulate how the District is run.
In this case, Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) is vowing to fight the bill recognizing same-sex marriages from across the country. Apparently, when Chaffetz talked to CNN about his commitment “to get government out of people’s lives,” he doesn’t count members of the LGBT community–or, for that matter, citizens of Washington, D.C.–as “people.”
The legislation passed by the City Council doesn’t include a provision for performing gay marriages within the city; it only addresses the recognition of gay marriages performed out of state. But David Catania, one of two openly gay D.C. City Council members, has already talked about proposing a gay marriage bill by the end of this year if the current measure is approved by Congress.
- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - -
WHILE THE 12-1 vote demonstrates overwhelming support for recognizing gay marriage, most of the media attention went to the council member who cast the sole dissenting vote–former Mayor Marion Barry. The media used Barry’s vote to continue perpetuating the myth of a monolithic opposition to same-sex marriage in the Black community.
Barry originally voted for same-sex marriage recognition; however, within a few minutes, he claimed he didn’t know what he was voting on, and asked to revote. His reason for voting against the measure, according to the Washington Post, was a decision “to stand with the ‘ministers who stand on the moral compass of God.’” Barry went on to tell reporters that if the city council votes for a law later this year granting full marriage rights to same-sex couples, there may be “a civil war. The Black community is just adamant against this.”
From Barry’s recent appearance at a rally against gay marriage in D.C., it’s clear that he consulted a group of anti-gay clergymen from several local Black churches on this issue, who he apparently believes represent his constituency as a whole. But D.C.’s sizeable Black LGBT community was clearly overlooked in his sweeping generalization of African American opinion on this issue.
Opinion polls throughout the country show that support for gay marriage is going up–it would be wrong to assume that the views of African Americans aren’t shifting as well.
Ironically, Barry has long been a self-proclaimed supporter of gay rights. And as a former activist in the civil rights movement against Jim Crow segregation, he should know well that separate institutions for a minority population are by definition unequal–and that struggles against various forms of oppression are strongest when connected.
Even many single-issue LGBT political organizations have operated under the assumption that Black people are inherently conservative when it comes to LGBT rights.
It should go without saying that Blacks, like any other population, can have a wide variety of opinions on this and any other issue. While it is true that there are many conservative Black churches and individuals, that isn’t a justification for extrapolating to the assessment of the Black community as a whole.
Instead of buying into the falsehood that African Americans are inherently homophobic, perhaps mainstream LGBT organizations should critically examine the often rich-white-male face of their campaigns, challenge the stereotypes of who is and is not gay, and reach out to members of other oppressed groups.
At a May 13 panel hosted by the local organization D.C. for Marriage, over 50 people gathered to discuss the latest updates on legislation and how we can win marriage equality in D.C.
One of the most powerful comments during the forum came from the audience, when Pastor Robert Hardies of All Souls Unitarian Church spoke of connecting this issue with others that affect the working class.
Sharing his own experience of organizing a meeting of D.C. pastors around the issue of marriage equality, Hardies said of his Black brothers and sisters within the clergy: “I would not have had the chutzpah to ask them to stand with me on the issue of gay marriage had I not been working with them for years on issues of living wage, urban education, housing” and other economic inequalities affecting their communities. The most important aspect of any struggle, Hardies said, was “solidarity.”
As Hardies’ experience illustrates, winning marriage equality in D.C. and across the country will require our movement to link arms against efforts by the right wing to keep people divided–recognizing, first and foremost, that an injury to one is an injury to all.
The IDAHO Challenge, from Gays.com
Thanks to Punkpinks from over Punkpink is a Bandits Tip for publishing this piece first.
Help Fight Homophobia and Transphobia
The IDAHO Challenge is a community project by Gays.com to produce a user-generated video to be released on May 17, 2009, the International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia. While 67 countries have signed the new United Nations statement to decriminalise homosexuality worldwide, anti-gay discrimination remains a reality in many parts of the world. This year with your help Gays.com wants to create a video that sends out the message that gays, lesbians, bisexuals,and transgendered people are just like everyone else. We come from all over the world and we come in all shapes, sizes and colors. And we want to send out this message to the people of the world in every language that’s out there.
Deadline to submit your video is May 10. For more information go to: http://gays.com/idaho/
The video could be as simple as just saying “Hi, my name is,_______, I am lesbian, transgender,gay,bisexual,intersex, and my country is_______.
‘Battle for Whiteclay’ Highlights Struggle of Lakota on Pine Ridge by Nancy Mitchell
Film showings document struggle for self determination
On April 28, an overflow crowd packed a coffee shop screening of “Battle for Whiteclay,” hosted by the South Dakota ANSWER Coalition (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism). The film documents the struggle of the residents of the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in South Dakota and their allies to shut down four predatory liquor stores across the border in Whiteclay, Neb. It features Native American activists Frank LaMere, Duane Martin, Sr. and Russell Means.
Alcohol has been banned on Pine Ridge since the 1970s because of its crippling effect on residents of the reservation. Whiteclay is an unincorporated town of 14 people located just 200 feet from the reservation border and in walking distance from the reservation’s biggest town. The town as no public services, but four liquor stores there sell the equivalent of 4.5 million 12-ounce cans of beer annually, mainly to the Native American residents of Pine Ridge. That’s 12,500 cans per day.
Filmmaker Mark Vasina, who led the discussion at the film showing, told PSL, “Whitelay is important because it’s a glaring example, it’s the poster child, for exploitation of the reservation by border towns.”
Whiteclay is known as “the skid row of the prairie.” As the film documents, the misery of alcoholism is on display day and night in this small town, where public drunkenness is pervasive. The liquor establishments continually violate liquor license regulations by selling alcohol to minors, selling to visibly intoxicated people, allowing alcohol consumption on the premises and trading alcohol for sex.
Lyle Jack, Oglala Sioux Tribal Council member, describes the situation in the film: “They know alcohol is banned here, yet they set up right on the outskirts of the reservation. And they prey upon our people and their sicknesses, this disease that has affected them. They make millions of dollars off our people, yet they do not contribute anything back. … Unfortunately, for a lot of our people there’s no way out, because the tribe does not have the funding or the resources to set up our own treatment centers to help them.”
Citations of these violations could easily shut the liquor stores down, yet law enforcement is conspicuously lacking in the area. The liquor control commission has failed to act against the businesses, so they continue to operate freely, even though they are selling to people who have no legal place to consume the alcohol. The state of Nebraska receives sizable tax income from the Whiteclay liquor sales. Business interests, including the National Beverage Association, have rallied to thwart legislative efforts to address the problem.
The situation is a clear demonstration that there is one standard for the majority white population in Nebraska and another for Native Americans. “It’s a broader issue than the alcohol—it’s the disregard for health and safety and disrespect of the Native population on Pine Ridge. [Whiteclay] only operates with elected officials and law enforcement looking the other way, all along the chain of command from the local to the county to the state level,” said Vasina.
Conditions on Pine Ridge
Pine Ridge has a long history of oppression and struggle against oppression. It is home to the site of the 1890 Wounded Knee massacre, which was later the site of the American Indian Movement standoff with FBI agents, for which political prisoner Leonard Peltier is still being held.
A 2006 Special Resource Report by Stephanie Schwartz of the Native American Journalists Association reveals shocking statistics about the difficulty of life on Pine Ridge. The tribe estimates that 40,000 people live on Pine Ridge. Median income is between $2,600 and $3,500 per year, with 97 percent of the population living below the federal poverty level. The average family home has an estimated 17 people squeezed into it. Thirty-nine percent of the homes have no electricity, in a climate with extremes of cold and heat.
There is little industry or commercial infrastructure on the reservation, and as a result, the unemployment rate is soaring at 83-85 percent.
Life expectancy for men is 48 years and for women is 52. Infant mortality is the highest on the continent, 300 percent higher than the U.S. average. The school dropout rate is over 70 percent and the teenage suicide rate is 150 percent of the national average. Over half of the population over 40 suffers from diabetes, 800 percent higher than the U.S. average.
Alongside and as a result of these desperate conditions, alcoholism affects eight out of 10 families on Pine Ridge. The tribal leadership has banned alcohol from the reservation, but the town of Whiteclay has continued to fuel the problem.
United States breaks treaty
Pine Ridge reservation was originally part of the 60 million acres of land designated by the Fort Laramie Treaty of 1868 to belong to the Greater Lakota Nation. But in 1876, the U.S. government violated the treaty and opened up much of this land to homesteaders and private interests, including the sacred land of the Black Hills. What remained was divided up into several smaller reservations across South Dakota.
After illegal whiskey bootleggers from Nebraska preyed on the Pine Ridge reservation, the U.S. government established a 50-mile buffer zone south of the reservation for its protection. But in 1904, President Theodore Roosevelt effectively reversed this order, over the protests of the Oglala Lakota elders, and the border town of Whiteclay was born.
Struggle for self-determination
The land on which Whiteclay sits is still disputed by the tribe. The Oglala Lakota Nation and its allies have continued their fight, using various tactics to try to shut down the source of the alcohol that afflicts their people. The tribe has fought for increased law enforcement, not against their people but against the businesses that continue to violate liquor sale regulations on a regular basis. So far, they have managed to pass state legislation that would prohibit new liquor licenses from being approved, but they are still struggling to get the existing businesses shut down.
Starting in 2006, tribal members have attempted an annual road blockade to stop alcohol from entering the reservation. Protesters have marched on the capital and also picketed a Nebraska beer wholesaler that supplies Whiteclay. The film “Battle for Whiteclay” has raised controversy and awareness about the struggle across Nebraska. Filmmaker Vasina, who is an organizer with Nebraskans for Peace, said, “Whiteclay continues to operate for three reasons: money, racism and apathy.” The ANSWER coalition pledged to help raise awareness and build solidarity to help overcome these obstacles and win justice for the reservation. ANSWER will host a second screening next week.
For more information or to order a copy of the film, go to www.BattleforWhiteclay.org
International Day Against Homophobia
Check out this post by trdennels from the great site Punkpink is a Bandits Tip
International day Against Homophobia began several years ago in Europe as a day to protest the continuing repression against LGBT people around the world. May 17th was chosen as the date for the annual events as that’s the day back in 1992 when the World Health Organization removed homosexuality from its list of psychiatric disorders.
Over the past few weeks a renewed campaign to torture and execute lgbt people has exploded in the U.S-occupied Iraq, promoted both by Shi’ite clerics and by the Shi’ite-dominated government which is closely allied with the United States.
Back in 2005, the country’s leading Shi’ite cleric said that gays and lesbians should be “punished, in fact, killed” and the “these people should be killed in the worst, most severe way of killing.” After some protests this language was removed from the cleric’s website, and the anti-gay campaign appeared to subside.
However, over the past month, the campaign in Iraq to murder gays has ramped up again, with predictable results: at least dozens of gay killed in just the past few weeks, some of them horribly tortured before being murdered. According to the United Press International, “Sadr City’s Muslim clerics have reportedly urged the faithful to destroy homosexuality in Iraqi society and police have undertaken an effort to arrest and jail gay men.” The article from UPI.com “Gays In Iraq Face Killings, Cop Crackdowns,” can be found by clicking HERE.
Iraqi LGBT, the main support group for gays in Iraq (and those trying to flee), reports that some of the few hundred prisoners awaiting execution by the Iraqi government are there because of the “crime” of homosexuality. Despite these human rights violations by a close U.S. ally, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made no public protest about this situation during her visit to Baghdad a week ago.
Over the past two weeks there hae been protests in New York and San Francisco which got quite a bit of press about this situation, despite the small size of the protests.
(The GLN network is planing a protest on May 17th at 2pm near the Obama residence on Hyde Park Boulevard at 51st Street and Greenwood. (that’s the closest that security will allow the protest to get the the Obama home.) The protest will be held there to hopefully force the Obama administration to speak out about these human rights violations.
Read a first person account from a recent Gay Iraqi refugee HERE.
Leslie Feinberg published an article in the series Lavender and Red titled “Life Better For Gays and Lesbians Under Hussein” which can be found by clicking HERE.
Check out an article from Gays Without Borders, “Iraqi, The Gay and Lesbian Should Be Killed In the Worst, Most Severe Way,” by clicking HERE.
