violence. A similar rationale exists on the right. The vast majority of
Americans don’t believe either. You are indicating your support for a violent
revolution against the imperialists - so you accept the need for “direct
action” - I appreciate the candor."
I'm sorry it's taken so long to get back to you on this important question. As
part of the cheerleading team for direct action in the Twin Cities, I was busy
putting the Riverside edition of Southside Pride to bed. It goes to the
printer in a few minutes. We are proud to support the direct action of a
peaceful rally and demonstration against racist and corporate injustice to
coincide with the Superbowl. The front page of Monday's paper is attached.
Please join the Resistance on Sunday, Feb. 4.
I think John is right. I believe people have a right and responsibility to
defend themselves against violence and aggression. That was the essence of
Mao's statement in 1957. That's also the essence of the Florida law "Stand
your ground!" that rationalized the murder of Trayvon Martin--his crime was
that he was wearing a hoodie and didn't stop. George Zimmerman was acquitted
because it was deemed rational (not racist) to assume a young black kid with a
hoodie represented a mortal threat to life and property. Trayvon Martin's
crime, the color of his skin, was the same crime committed by Philando Castile,
Jamar Clark and Terrance Franklin. That is an outrage.
The reaction in the black and Native American communities in the 1970's to
police murders of Native and African-American young people by the police was
for AIM and Matt Eubanks and others in the black community in North Minneapolis
to organize Soul Patrols, cars with activists with guns following police cars
in their neighborhoods, to make sure there was no misconduct. It was "Stand
your ground!" forty years ago.
We have to judge those two distinctly different actions using the same
rationale of legitimate self-defense. I believe George Zimmerman acted as a
thug and a racist and his actions led to the death of an innocent child. I
know the actions of armed activists in South and North Minneapolis in the
1970's changed some attitudes in City Hall, and the MPD began hiring
minorities. The Soul Patrols were short-lived. They were a legitimate
response to institutionalized racism. It was a dangerous and risky strategy.
It was similar to the Deacons for Peace and Justice movement in the sixties who
said they would defend civil rights workers with the force of arms. I believe
that was a dangerous strategy. I don't know if I could have done it. But, was
it legitimate?
I believe it was patriotic and heroic.