Black Activism Surveillance Aff/Neg
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Black Activism Surveillance Aff/Neg 1AC Surveillance is the means through which the expendable objects of anti-black violence are tracked- able to be disposed of at any time. To understand how this racist practice is foundational to America and its supremacy, we first look back in time. MOVE BOMBING Why have so many people forgotten about the MOVE bombing? May 18, 2015 Written by Gene Demby http://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2015/05/18/407665820/why-did-we-forget-the-move- bombing At first, we thought the knowledge gap might be generational. My Code Switch teammate Kat Chow, who was born years after the MOVE incident, had never heard of it. But another NPR colleague who's about a generation older hadn't either. Maybe it was regional. On Twitter, a few people told us the bombing never landed on their radars until they moved to the Philadelphia area. But even though Tasneem Raja, my editor on Code Switch, grew up 20 minutes north of Philly and attended a "hippie" (her words) Quaker high school where events like the Kent State shootings got a lot of airtime in class, she remembers hearing about MOVE only from her dad, never in school. I grew up in Philly during and after the bombing. My elementary school was the kind of place where we learned Afrocentric songs and teachers dressed in kente cloth, while my high school was overwhelmingly black. We never discussed it in class, either. What gives? It's seems incredible that so many people had never heard about the time American law enforcement bombed U.S. citizens on U.S. soil, which, on top of the deaths, left dozens of bystanders' homes destroyed in an uncontrolled fire that the police commissioner told firefighters not to put out right away. The details are so extreme, so over-the-top. How have we forgotten this? I put the question to Robin Wagner-Pacifici, who teaches at the New School and has written books on MOVE and other fringe militant groups involved in bloody government standoffs, including the Branch Davidians in Waco, Texas, and the Weaver family in Ruby Ridge, Idaho. She has noticed that while those groups identified with each other to a degree, referring to each other in their manifestos as fellow victims of the state, they don't seem to feel the same way about MOVE. "They created this kind of genealogy," she says, "but none of them mentioned MOVE." She thinks the reason was ideological: MOVE's quasi-Rastafarian, anti-technology, pro- animal-rights worldview doesn't neatly fit on any part of the political spectrum, while other militant groups she has studied had some degree of overlap. And you can't lump MOVE in with other black power movements of the time, either; black radical groups often bristled at their tactics. In the universe of violent fringe movements that ended in deadly mayhem, MOVE occupies a lonely branch. To some degree, maybe this helps explain why the story of MOVE isn't better known: If few people feel like your ideological kin, few people feel cause to carry your torch. Wagner-Pacifici also traces this relative obscurity back to the players involved. Unlike other fringe groups she has studied, MOVE's final confrontation wasn't with a big federal agency like the FBI or the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. They clashed with local Philly cops and some state police. So while the story of Ruby Ridge has been folded into the larger national debate on gun control and the limits of federal power, the political implications of MOVE were seen as more provincial and self- contained. And unsurprisingly, local politicians were all too eager to move on and leave those implications behind. Of course, Ferguson protesters faced off against local law enforcement, too, and Ferguson city cops would have loved if Michael Brown's death had stayed a hyperlocal affair. But technology has changed everything in the decades since May 13, 1985. If the MOVE bombing were to happen today, bystanders would be furiously uploading videos to YouTube, spawning Twitter hashtags and interconnected protests in cities around the country. CNN would be camped out in West Philly for weeks, to say nothing of the countless think-pieces. If MOVE happened today, it might be quickly folded into the classroom, as has happened with other recent incidents of police violence. Teachers have all the materials at their fingertips: clips from livestreams, links to mainstream news articles and personal blogs, embeddable tweets, and so on. Back in the mid-80s, you'd have to wait around for the inevitable Frontline documentary or for an academic to publish a book. History gets commodified and redistributed much more quickly today. The MOVE story faded into relative obscurity partly because no one connects with their cause today, and largely because the mechanisms to preserve the story weren't in place yet. But had it happened now, it would be much harder to forget. Surveillance is currently harming the Black community and even more specifically, it is hurting Black activists like us. Black Lives Matter Activists Interrupt Hillary Clinton at Private Event in South Carolina Fundraiser 02/24/2016 10:36 pm ET | http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/clinton-black-lives-matter-south- carolina_us_56ce53b1e4b03260bf7580ca Two Black Lives Matter activists interrupted a private Hillary Clinton fundraising event Wednesday night in Charleston, South Carolina. Youth activist Ashley Williams demanded that the Democratic presidential candidate account for inconsistencies in her record on race, specifically around comments she made about crime in 1996. Williams said she and a colleague, whom she did not identify, contributed $500 to attend the Clinton event, which was held at a private residence and was attended by around 100 guests. Williams said she and her colleague strategically placed themselves at the front of the crowd and waited until Clinton appeared. Speakers introducing Clinton around 9:30 p.m. Wednesday night discussed Walter Scott, the Charleston A.M.E. Church shooting and how Clinton had a strong record of racial justice. As Clinton spoke to the crowd, Williams stood to her side and held a sign quoting controversial statements Clinton made in 1996 in reference to at-risk youth, when she said “we have to bring them to heel.” Surveillance of Black activists inevitably turns into violence, even when activists are peaceful. http://www.theroot.com/articles/news/2016/03/trump_watch_young_black_woman_assaulted_at _kentucky_rally.html Trump Watch: Young Black Woman Assaulted at KY Rally TheRoot.com 2016 During his Super Tuesday rally, GOP presidential front-runner Donald Trump demanded that supporters get a young black protester out of there. Watch as they yell at, curse and push the woman out of the venue. It’s clear that Donald Trump and his followers are willing to resort to violence to “Make America great again.” During his Super Tuesday rally in Louisville, Ky., Trump stopped his speech to demand that a young black protester be thrown out. Not ones to ignore the calling of their commander, supporters of Trump began shouting at and pushing the young black woman, who can be seen telling them to stop touching her. REGARDLESS OF WHETHER YOU ARE CONSIDERED TO BE A STEREOTYPICAL ACTIVIST, BLACK WOMEN ARE SUBJECT TO HARMFUL, ONGOING SURVEILLANCE Harry 14 (Sydette Harry is a cultural critic, troublemaker and writer from NYC. Her next project is a decidedly low/high tech response to media, age and race, also grad school. She has been published in dissent, Salon and the blogs as @blackamazon. “Everyone Watches, Nobody Sees: How Black Women Disrupt Surveillance Theory” , https://modelviewculture.com/pieces/everyone-watches-nobody-sees-how-black-women-disrupt- surveillance-theory, October 6th, 2014 TAM) What the hell is you looking for? Can’t a young man get money anymore? It kind of pains me to call Mason Betha prophetic, but 17 years ago when “Looking at Me” hit the Billboard charts, the Harlem native pretty much described the current state of surveillance and tech in America. Especially for black people and doubly so for black women. Surveillance is based on a presumption of entitlement to access, by right or by force. More importantly, it hinges on the belief that those surveilled will not be able to reject surveillance — either due to the consequences of resisting, or the stealth of the observance. They either won’t say no, or they can’t. Discussions of stolen celebrity selfies often miss the “by force” aspect of the breeches, instead focusing on salacious details. Surveillance is part of the information age, but it has always been part of abusive dynamics. As opting into surveillance becomes increasingly mandatory to participate in societies and platforms, surveillance has been woven into the fabric of our lives in ways we can not readily reject. Being watched is not just an activity of Big Brother-style surveillance, but also fannish adulation and social enmeshment. As Black women have been historically denied the ability to consent to surveillance, modern discussion of watching and observing black women needs better historical context. When I’nasah Crockett points out how black women online have constantly been portrayed as “raving amazons,” one of the unspoken through lines is how easily media, even on the left, believes dissecting black women, tracking their online habits, consuming illegally obtained images of them, and demanding education is a “right”. Black women cannot say no, and do not need to be in any way respected or fully informed about how they will be studied or used. Media collects the data of black activity and media production as a weapon, without black participation.