From FTW/WTF

On February 28th, we participated in a “Day of Outrage” march in Bridgeton, New Jersey in response to the execution of Jerame Reid by Bridgeton police on December 30th, 2014 at a traffic stop. Police claimed he had a gun despite both his hands being visible to officers in the video (more details can be found here). This march gave us a snapshot of our movement’s strengths and weaknesses, as well a lesson in our enemies’ strategy. In the interest of advancing the struggle for a free society we offer this assessment of our actions, and some points on how to move forward.

What Happened

The march began at the memorial of Jerame Reid in Bridgeton, with local protesters joined by bus contingents from Newark and Philadelphia. The march was around 85% people of color, the vast majority Black. As speakers began to prepare the crowd — now 200 people — to march, we were flanked not only by local and county police, but most noticeably men in “Police Chaplain” jackets. The march proceeded in the streets until we were inexplicably blocked by the police. Their actions caused minor shoving matches between protesters and police, but despite this, protesters were able to remain in the streets and also take and hold a major intersection. As protesters shouted out names — “Jerame Reid! Brandon Tate-Brown! Kashad Ashford!” — we continued on to the local courthouse, occupying the courthouse steps as well as the street. We did so under the eyes of masked police in tactical gear including pepper spray, riot shields, and assault rifles. To say there was mixed messaging amongst the speakers — which included the mothers of Jerame Reid and Brandon Tate-Brown, Pam Africa from the MOVE organization, the Mayor of Bridgeton, and several other city councillors and community organizers — would be a severe understatement at best. While some recounted histories of police terrorism and openly called for revolution, others insisted that people to go out and vote. No one explained how “getting out the vote” would change anything, especially since the people calling for it were city councillors and the mayor of Bridgeton himself, those who presumably already have the power to hold the police accountable.

Almost as soon as Jerame Reid’s mother began speaking, the march changed dramatically. Barely seconds into her speech, she was interrupted by a police announcement that all protesters had to move to the sidewalk or “be in violation of the law.” The timing and tone of this ultimatum was obviously designed to infuriate the crowd as well as show extreme disrespect to a grieving mother. Instantly almost all the protestors on the sidewalk poured back into the street, shouting “Whose streets? Our streets!” Determined to hold the intersection, they faced down the police and the racist abuse hurled at them by drivers. One protester was clipped by a car, but the police used this as an excuse to move in to arrest the man who had been hit rather than stopping the aggressive driver, provoking more anger from the protesters. At this point a non-profit organizer took the mic and began calling for the rally to comply with the police and move to the sidewalk. The organizer claimed that moving was the way to show respect for Jerame Reid’s mother. His actions broke the unity of the crowd and effectively stifled its budding militancy. After some shoving by police the protesters moved to the sidewalk, defeated and demoralized. The rally continued as speakers went through the motions and then ended, leaving many participants with a sense of lingering anger overpowered by despondency.

In our view, the most critical lesson is the need for so-called leaders mired in respectability politics to step back. Thanks to the Black youth of Ferguson, the Black Lives Matter movement (BLM) has smashed through the old guard of “respectable” Black leadership and leapt forward into a new era. The dynamic marches, riots, looting, and occupations in Ferguson, New York, Oakland and practically every city in the country have gotten more results in six months than this “respectable” leadership has since the Black Power Movement was defeated in the 1970s. This march showed how the local Black leadership class is trying to recover their position of legitimacy. They are interested in promoting reform, rather than the militant revolution that the Black youth of this country are demanding through their words and deeds. Until the speaker urged people to leave the street, the crowd had been unified in its intention to remain in the street in defiance of the police. The people were getting what they wanted: a chance to stand up to their oppressor. By cynically linking moving to the sidewalk with respecting Jerame Reid’s mother, he was able to break this militancy and return the rally to official control, precluding any chance of empowerment or real change. Intentionally or not this did the job of the police for them, as it cleared the street and chastised the protesters.

What it Means

We must say as a preface to this section that it is extremely important for activists not to accuse anyone of being an informant or agent provocateur without hard evidence.  People must be judged by the results and content of their actions. However we maintain that it is the “respectable” leaders who, in the face of popular militancy (and reality), continue to effectively side with the police rather than the people, are the ones causing divisions in the movement. It was the spontaneous nature of the Ferguson riots and marches which propelled us to a higher level of struggle than we have seen in decades. The duty of so-called leaders in this new political moment is to make themselves unnecessary. They must stand aside to let the thousands of new leaders grow and develop. In addition, we must draw a clear line against any communication, cooperation, or collaboration between the movement and the police. We must make it impossible for self-styled leaders to set themselves up as the sole voice of the movement, or as the go-between for the movement and the police. In short, we must fight to keep the movement as democratic and horizontal as possible.

A major part of Obama’s “21st century policing” is co-opting movements and exploiting or creating divisions between key leaders and organizations within movements. A perfect example of this is the “Philly After Ferguson” panel, and the actions of the speaker at the Bridgeton rally. In the first case the police reached out to the more “moderate” side of the movement, and offered them engagement with the system. They plan to set these groups up as the legitimate voice of the movement, then they begin to maneuver these groups into direct conflict with the more radical side of the movement. When the radicals are forced out, the police dismiss the moderates, as the threat is contained and there is no longer any reason to engage with them. In the second case the Police try to identify and win over leaders by sending in “civil affairs” or police chaplains to establish dialogue. Once this dialogue is set up, the police manuever the “leaders” into the position of policing the march. If this fails to subdue a protest, the police provoke the people, then put the “official” leadership in charge of maintaining order, under threat of mass arrests and revocation of march permits. The brilliant part of these strategies is that neither requires active collaboration by movement people or even infiltration.

Since we saw the traditional “batons and bullets” side of U.S. policing at the Bridgeton march, we can reflect upon what we see in Philadelphia’s police strategy to contain and defeat the movement. As many of us know, Charles Ramsey has been chosen by Obama to co-chair his “21st century policing task force.”  However, Ramsey has long been a national figure in policing. He is the head of the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF), an organization designed to improve policing practices. Let’s be clear: when Ramsey says “improve”, he does not mean reduce police brutality or change the racist nature of the police force itself. He means to improve the image and effectiveness of the police. He wants to improve the ability of the police to defeat peoples’ movements before they even start. What we are up against in Philadelphia and nationally is a “soft” form of counterinsurgency, that seeks to defeat movements with words before they must be defeated with batons and bullets. This is why we haven’t seen riot shields and assault rifles in Philadelphia, but we saw them in Bridgeton.

Despite the contrast between the Philly and Bridgeton police strategies, they must be met with the same response. Our movement must be a democratic space where different opinions and actions can be welcomed, but we must always present a united front against the police. We must always defend our comrades both physically and politically. This means defending and validating the anger of the people, even when it takes the form of rioting or violence. It means refusing to allow the co-optation of marches by “respectable” leadership. We must act as if the police are our enemies because that is how they are acting towards us. Despite its “soft” side, modern policing sees entire populations as enemies in rebellion and is acting accordingly.

Faced with this police strategy, we must become rebels.

 

FURTHER READING/VIEWING