May-03-01, 04:02 AM (EST)
"questions & answers from the pages of CROSSROAD"
Q's and A's
Q: What is your definition of "Political Prisoner"?
A: We have to define Prisoners of War (POWs) as well as Political Prisoners (PPs), because the U.S. imprisons both categories of political activists; and, the politics underlying the struggles of POWs and PPs, while similar, are also distinct.
POWs are members of armed organizations/movements, whose imprisonment was a consequence of their beliefs or actions taken in the course of the struggle against U.S. oppression of their people (e.g., Leonard Peltier/Native Nation peoples; Oscar Lopez-Rivera/the Puerto Rican people; Sundiata Acoli/New Afrikan people). And, someone usually considered a non-national (e.g., Marilyn Buck) could also be a POW if they were members of armed groups under the command of a movement fighting for national liberation (e.g., the New Afrikan Independence Movement/NAIM). In other words: "A POW is a sanctioned national combatant or ally of an international armed conflict who is held in confinement for acts in support of a people struggling for freedom, self-determination, or independence from an oppressive, colonial, alien-dominated, or racist governmental regime or its policies." Political Prisoners are people who were imprisoned for their beliefs or actions in opposition to U.S. imperialism and domestic capitalist oppression (e.g., Ray Luc Levasseur, Tom Manning, Linda Evans, Debbie "Sims" Africa). Some (POWs and) PPs become politically conscious and active, and join organizations and/or movements, after their incarceration. In other words: "A PP is a person, sanctioned by the Movement, evolved in character and deeds, who is held in confinement for support of, or identity with, a people struggling for freedom from an oppressive government or against its oppressive policies."
Q: Is the U.S. government racist against PPs and POWs?
A: In our perspective, "race," per se, doesn't underly the persecution of PPs and POWs -- rather, the politics and actions of PPs and POWs, on behalf of oppressed peoples, and against the interest of the U.S.
However, if We look to factors other than politics (narrowly defined), We'd say that the nationality (of POWs, in particular), is more a factor than "race". The U.S. is an oppressor and exploiter of peoples and nations, most of which are "non-white".
Because the U.S. racializes (rationalizes) its oppression, We don't dismiss the reality of "race-based" discrimination in its pursuit and treatment of PPs and POWs. However, keep in mind that the PPs and POWs held by the U.S. are of various nationalities ("races"), and that the common and determining features shared by the captured comrades are their anti-imperialist, anti-capitalist, and pro-socialist, politics.
Q: Are PPs and POWs treated different from mere criminals? If so, how, and why?
A: Yes, even though the U.S. policy is to criminalize PPs and POWs in the public mind, they are not treated as mere criminals. They are usually isolated in prisons upon their arrival, permanently or temporarily. They are usually placed in prisons located long distances from family and supporters, and regularly moved from prison to prison, which disrupts communication (visits, phone, mail), which even under "normal" circumstances is monitored, kept to a minimum, and sometimes curtailed altogether. They receive longer sentences than mere criminals, and they're regularly denied parole on the basis of their political beliefs and affiliations.
At bottom, PPs and POWs receive different treatment precisely because of their political beliefs and affiliations. The U.S. sometimes offers better treatment -- even release, in some cases -- if the prisoners renounce their beliefs and affiliations. Underlying such tactics is the U.S. effort to break the will of PPs and POWs; to prevent their influence among other prisoners, and to minimize their symbolic and practical influence upon the outside forces.
* * *
Q: i recently attended a conference and heard Angela Davis say that the campaign to stop violence against women had become a "social service issue," and that women must become more militant. i've heard others use phrases like "social service" or "public service" in relation to issues that they considered to be reformist, and not worthy of their attention. What's the difference between a reformist issue and a revolutionary issue, or, the difference between "social/public service" and serving the people?
A: No issue, standing alone or objectively, can be characterized as reformist or as revolutionary. What determines the character of an issue is the political perspective that people bring to it; the class that leads the struggle around it; the class interest that the issue ultimately serves; whether the people become politically educated, develop revolutionary consciousness, and create revolutionary unity and institutions as they pursue the issue. This is probably why Angela Davis didn't urge the people at the conference to abandon the effort to stop violence against women, but rather to become more "militant" in their engagement.
To us, "social" refers to society -- to the people -- thus "social service" or "public service" means, to us, serving the people. However, some people may use phrases like "social service" or "public service" with reference to state initiated "social reform," where particular issues have been co-opted to serve the status quo. "Social reform" is a form of struggle (tactic) used by the state to give the appearance of resolving problems, to pacify the people w/out making fundamental change in the oppressive system, and to stifle and misdirect the revolutionary initiative of oppressed peoples and their movements.
"Reformism," strictly speaking, differs from "social reformism" in that the former is a trend that exists inside people's movements and organizations, promoting "integration" or "improvement" or other euphemistic characterizations of (class) collaboration with the enemy, the undermining of national and class consciousness, and the liquidation of revolutionary initiative. Reformism fundamentally denies and works against the need to overthrow capitalism, imperialism, and patriarchy, and to transfer all power to the people.
So, in one sense, the difference between a "reformist" issue and a revolutionary issue lies simply in the way that We approach it -- or, whether We approach it at all, since some among us label issues as "social/public service" simply to rationalize their failure to engage. Clearly, there's no reason why the people and their "leaders" shouldn't initiate struggles for "reforms" or, as We prefer to call them, struggles for democratic/human rights -- revolutionary democratic struggles -- necessary components of any & all rev. processes.
Many of our military-minded comrads have been surprised and bewildered upon learning that Che Guevara once said that, "the guerrilla is a social reformer." This has been interpreted to mean (by Regis Debray) that attention must be given to "a local and gradual improvement in the material living conditions of the masses in the area where the guerrillas are working." (We'd add that such attention is required not only in the initial stages, but throughout the rev. process, and the ever-upward development of society.) Debray also suggested that revs not disregard the comparative "pettiness" of local conditions and issues for the dizzying glitter of grand schemes, and to remember that 'cadres are the leaders and organizers of the life of the masses.'
Of course, We don't have to take a lead from Guevara, when We have our own experience, and our own voices: "In order to develop revolutionary consciousness, we must learn how can be raised to the highest point by stimuli from the vanguard elements... We must create new impetus and greater intellectual and physical energy..." (George Jackson)
Now, the "stimuli," the "new impetus and greater intellectual and physical energy" is really about finding ways to serve the people: "...'Going among the people, learning from the people, and serving the people' is really stating that we must find out exactly what the people need and organize them around these needs.... taking realistic, day-to-day issues like hunger, the need for clothing and housing, joblessness...."
The principal task is universal; the application differs only in the form of the practice based on the concrete conditions of a people's unique situation.
* * *
Q: What is a "New Afrikan" and, can a white person become a "New Afrikan"?
A: The Spear and Shield Collective recognizes "New Afrikan" as the term that specifies our national identity, or, our nationality.
We believe that our national identity has two elements: 1) a biological element ("original identity") and, 2) a sociological element ("actual identity"), and that the sociological element is the primary determinant of our national identity, or, of our nationality. (See the passage from Amilcar Cabral, on Identity, in this issue, p. ____)
For these reasons, and others, We also believe that "white" people, or, people who have other national origins, can become New Afrikans -- can embrace New Afrikan national identity -- and their New Afrikan nationality can be formally recognized through the process of naturalization.
In the propaganda of the NAIM, We say that all people of Afrikan descent in the U.S. are "New Afrikans," but in the real world We know this ain't the case. Being and becoming a New Afrikan is a matter of choice -- a matter of consciousness, practice, and political allegiance. This is why We distinguish "Conscious New Afrikans" from those with no allegiance to the NAIM, and who don't actively participate in its activities.
Moreover, from our perspective, We believe that a Conscious New Afrikan should: 1) be a "revolutionary nationalist," i.e., have a socialist orientation; 2) be anti-racist; 3) be anti-homophobic, and, 4) be anti-patriarchal.
* * *
Q: i don't agree with homosexuality, and i can't see how it fits into our struggle, or what role homosexuals would play in our struggle.
A: We wish that We could give this question more time and space, here, but We can't. We can, though, commit to giving this and related issues more space in future issues of CR, because they are critical, and don't get the attention they deserve from any sector of the movement.
One's sexual orientation is not among the criteria that SSC uses in determining one's right to be considered a legitimate and full member of our organization, our family, our community or society. When We say, "We," it includes all of our people. We can't speak for the entire NAIM on this issue, because despite stated principles (e.g., the New Afrikan Declaration of Independence) homophobia and sexism run rampant w/in the NAIM, effect its ability to recruit and retain righteous activists, and its ability to serve the people.
We won't say that you have to "agree with" homosexuality, but We will say that you have a duty to combat homophobia, within your self, and wherever you confront its expression in other individuals and institutions. We believe that you have the responsibility to treat other people as people, and to respect their right to their sexual orientation, free from any form of discrimination, oppression and exploitation. Moreover, We think that you have an obligation to investigate and study this issue, on which you are clearly misguided and misinformed.
Combatting homophobia 'fits into our struggle' because We struggle to end all forms of oppression and exploitation. Our perspective (SSC) connects all forms of sexual repression and patriarchy, and the struggles of all peoples to liberate themselves from capitalism and imperialism. Homophobia is really about (male) dominance -- and the dominance is about the creation and maintenance of a set of social relations that serve the ideological and material needs of patriarchal hegemony and capitalist exploitation.
Heterosexuality as a norm is an imposition of the social order that oppresses and exploits us, and that We struggle to overthrow. The only "roles" We're concerned with are those that can be practiced by any and all persons committed to social revolution. Homosexuals are men and women that are capable of doing anything you think you're capable of doing, in the revolutionary process, and as a social being.
CROSSROAD 9#3 (FALL 2000)