Interview conducted by the Affinity Project in December 2005; Published in July 2008.
Part One Available Here
Part Three Available Here
*
There was a group - this was in the 70s, and this group was based in Rochester, New York and New Jersey. To me, this was probably the most revolutionary group I have ever interacted with. I never became a member. But they took it a step further than the Panthers in the sense they were called KNOW - Knowledge Needed to Organize Workers. Primarily African-Americans but it was also Latinos. They had, in Jersey, a gas station and a record shop. In Rochester, they had a grocery store, they had either a liquor club or a night club - something. But these were the things that brought in money. They were able to give each member a little stipend.
So, I remember I had all this time to really do some really great community organizing. But one of the things that happened with the group was that because they did well financially, you had those members who were so caught up into the financial part, that they kind of lost sight of what the purpose was. When the group kind of fell apart, it was around that struggle. But it was like - man, if they could have found a way to stay focused, they could have done great stuff.
That’s the thing I’m also concerned about - is how to keep people focused when you’re successful, especially in the financial area. Because we need to figure out ways. It’s bad that we’re always begging, in a sense., for money. But if we can figure out ways to produce our own, to make our own money, to finance some of the stuff we want to do - people just need to stay focused. I think we can. I don’t know how. But I think there’s enough other people who’ve done thinking on and who’ve got some practices in, that we can learn from. So, a lot of my concern is around - how can we really build movements? We talk about sustainability. How can we sustain without having to go to the non-profit industrial complex or some rich folks? I’m not saying we need to turn any of that down. But the way that we rely on it now is so bad. It’s so bad.
Interviewer: What do people think about it in groups that you work with? What’s the line of critique around Soros, and NGO-type organizing?
The people who I work with - they’re very critical of the life. Even Critical Resistance. We know that we’re dependent on it. We know we need to be off of it. But we ain’t worked out a strategy yet to do that. But we’re all very conscious of it.
There was that conference - was it last year or the year before? The revolution will not be funded - it was out in California, I think. They were dealing with that whole issue. But I guess they were also trying to propose ways that organizations can develop their own independent funding. I think a lot of the groups that we work with really do know that it’s bad that we’re so connected to the Soros types.
But I haven’t figure out ways. Some are working on ways to move away. One group I was telling you about - Sista II Sista. They actually, at one point, were getting money like that. But it really caused so much problems with the group that after about 2 years, they decided to come right off of it. They’ve been doing good. They’ve developed their own - I’m not quite sure what they do, how they develop their own funding. But they decided that they don’t want to mess with that money, rich foundation money anymore.
There’s some other groups - I guess they’re trying to do it either from the collective living and maybe the work programs from out of their living spaces. Some are doing that. That’s Urban Mana. I think that’s also the group Refugio, from out here in Brooklyn. A lot of it is around - you don’t want any other group calling the shots for your determining what your original goals are.
There’s one example of a group here in New York - I don’t want to name the group. But they do good work around immigrants coming in and being criminalized and stuff, right? They were getting money - the Soros money and stuff like that. Then, there was a split in the group. Some of them - at least one of the members, formed his own group, dealing with the same issues. It got to the point where individuals from the original group were actually actively trying to sabotage the new group’s attempt to get funding, by going to the fundraiser and saying, "they did this or they’re doing that." Fighting. Man, this is crazy that groups are fighting over this non-profit industrial complex money.
It made you look at a lot of other groups whose language even changed once they started getting this funding. Like groups that talk about revolutionary activism. Then, with the funding, after a couple of years, they’re no longer talking about social justice. You don’t even hear that kind of revolutionary language anymore. The language is now being shaped to the language that you know your funders would want. That’s disheartening, because there’s a lot of good activists who came in, really motivated. Now, they’re becoming a part of this new thing. Then, they fight each other for financial resources. How did we get in this position? Now, for me, because of my background too - the Black Panther Party never took any government money or foundation money. But some rich individuals, they gave. But a lot of the money came from newspapers, donations and all this other stuff. Then, at a later point, maybe after the split, there was that element of the underground. When there was money needed, the underground took care of it.
Now, I don't have a problem with money coming from expropriations, because you’re saying that you’re that dedicated to keeping control over what you do. You’re trying to make something happen here; always abiding by the law just keeps you trapped in terms of what you’re really trying to do. So, I have no problem with that. But I think we’ve just got to get better at many different ways of sustaining ourselves. Especially when it comes to money.
Interviewer: When the expropriations stuff was going on, was it known that that was happening? Or was that the worst kept secret?
I don’t know. Maybe a little of both. I think that once the government, once the FBI and them knew - for example, especially with the Black Liberation Army, when they got to armoured cars, I think that they knew where some of that money was turning up, just by what was going on with the groups. All of a sudden, there’s brand new vans. People are driving brand new vans and people have got money to do other things. I would also think that the underground was always trying to figure out ways of funnelling money, so it doesn’t just show up. That way, maybe the government can’t fuck with it.
Interviewer: But that would be a prime concern, that they were doing similar things ...
Yeah. You can’t be open with that. But you’ve got to figure out ways at least to get it to them. Some of that was even to families. It was different if it was given to families of members that had maybe went underground or somebody’s family really needed money and stuff - you could just give it direct. But if it was to organizations, you’ve got to figure out a way to do it where the F.B.I., the I.R.S. don't find out. For me, it’s important because it gives me a sense of the realism of the activists involved. If you can’t even imagine that you may have to do that, I question just how real you’re being. It doesn’t mean that it’s for everybody. But do not think that you can make change through your legal confines, without breaking the law. The other thing is - I’m not saying that people can’t learn how to work foundations and stuff better. I just think that one needs not to make that your primary source of funding.
Interviewer: Then, they could shut you down.
Easily.
Interviewer: Just turn the tap off and you’re done.
That’s it. Which is generally what happens. Let’s be real.
Interviewer: When Reagan came in and gutted it; then the Democrats never really restored it. It seems to me, maybe in the last 10 years, this is a new attempt to create some sort of free-floating, non-governmental but also very corporate control of grassroots movements. I don’t know whether you can see that a lot. Or whether that makes sense to you... so, what kind of steps do you see funding / resources being valuable, within the kind of stuff you’re working on? Where do you see it being necessary where it isn’t right now? Where it is in the system?
Where I need to see money going? For example, this is back to Critical Resistance. Not so much the harm-free zone. The whole thing around getting rid of prison industrial complex, on prison abolition. We would tell people that our goal is to create a society without prisons. Of course, people would see that, in general, as something very crazy. What are you going to do with the rapists, the murderers, etc.? What we try to get people to think about is where resources in societies from the system really go. What’s the point in building more prisons, hiring more cops and guards, feeding the construction industry - all that, right? Our thing is - why don’t they really express concern? Why don’t they give resources to communities? It's because communities can use them to build their own infrastructures.
One of the things I tell people is - when you start talking about so-called crime, there’s a lot of groups, if you’re dealing with drug addictions and things like that. For example, drug addictions - there are a lot of groups in the community that have tried to provide programs around helping drug addicts or getting rid of addictions. They have never been able to get funding, or maybe got it for a couple of years or a couple of terms and then, it’s cut. What if that was the priority? We were able to raise money so programs like this could exist, as an alternative to incarceration. I also think all these rich celebrities, if they really want to give their money - give it to programs that have been trying to provide some really good service but can’t get it from government or corporations. Or can we figure out how the community can do it? So, it’s things like that.
There’s one group we work - La Casita, which is the womens' drug rehab residential program. What if there were more things like that in the community? Then, women would have places to go and they could bring their children. It’s a real need. It’s practical. It does much more in helping to maintain communities. But that’s going to interfere.There’s people that are trying to provide stuff for young folks - the areas they’re living, there’s no more community centres. So, what if we were able to do stuff? Can we maybe buy a building or something that we can open up some community centres? To provide some really good services. Or even just free spaces for young people to do their thing. Let them explore their creativity.
I think of things like that that just helps us to deal with survival needs and at the same time, to help people to develop their organizations necessary to be able to resist. And finally, to just cut off the power of the system over us. So that we can finally create something new. There’s a lot of programs. I find all these programs, all across the country and some other countries, that people are doing. So many examples of some really concrete things people could do. If we had the funding, the money and the resources to do them. If we can’t get it from the foundations, then why can’t we look to ourselves?
I just tend to think - if we can provide a service in the community that the community really sees as valuable and something that works, the community will give up their dimes, their nickels and their dollars to support it. If we really do integrate with that community and interact with people. Maybe that’s just faith. But why wouldn’t they if it really served their need? If it keeps their kids out of going to jail. If it keeps their husbands out of liquor stores. Or whatever the deal is.
I think people are going to support it. But we’ve got to at least get to the point and put it out there. Right now, we don’t do it. It’s the thing I tell people I miss from the 60s - the interaction with people was just the thing that really made the big difference. For years, you’ve been raised to think that people will never get together. Then, when you see that people can and you’re a part of it, there’s nothing more motivating than that. Now, we talk to each other. I’m so tired of going to a political prisoner program and seeing the same people. It could even be anarchist stuff too. It doesn’t matter, you’re seeing the same people. If we’re not seeing different people, it’s an indication that we’re becoming insular. Same folks. Not expanding.
Interviewer: You’ve been talking about that for a few years. Do you think it’s had an impact? Do you think that people are listening to that? Do you think anybody’s changing? It’s not just you, there are a number of people saying the same thing. I don’t know whether you see it or not.
I don’t think I’m seeing enough. That’s why I say: I just want us to use spaces now to be able to put our stuff out there amongst different people. Not the same faces. Let’s put ourselves in places that we can have some dialogue with folks. Our ideas are good. We have every right to put it out there. Let’s have dialogue. Let’s let people know what we’re about. There’s no reason why we can’t do that. But we just need to not be elitist and arrogant about it. I just think that if we did, we would find a lot more interested people than we assume. Then, it’s going to be trying to figure out ways of doing something with all of this new interest, in ways that don’t shut people down.
Right now, with Critical Resistance - I think it’s one of our challenges. The idea is good. But if you were to come to a meeting, if you’re not familiar with politics and come to a meeting - you may not want to come to anymore meetings. It's the way that we do meetings. The language, the length, it's crazy. Can we figure out some other ways to do it where just a regular person could come in and really feel like, 'I can come back to this. I’ve got something out of it.'
Interviewer: I saw this movie once and I have no real idea of this group. My guess is it’s a gang - Latin Kings?
Latin Kings. Still trying. They’re still on that kind of path.
Interviewer: How does that go down? It seemed to me that their meetings were more like what you’re talking about. People met, had conversations. It wasn’t all up and hyped sort of theoretical groundwork - really boring. It’s about real, tangible issues. People knew what was going on at the meeting. People were communicating.
It might be because they provide community for people who were part of the Latin Kings. I mean, regardless of what people think about it - the street organizations provide community; they have a sense of belonging. You don’t necessarily get that in the political groups and stuff. I definitely think it’s something that we lack. That’s why I’m really on this thing about community. Because I just think that we need to really get to know each other. We need to make it a place that people want to come back to. Something that's not not stiff, not sterile. That is full of fun, that is full of life. It’s not serious.
Interviewer: Not a religion?
This is a fun religion. I mean, I really take to heart Emma Goldman’s thing about - if you can’t dance, I don’t want to be a part of this. It has to be about life. It has to be life affirmative. It has to have a sense of humour. Why would anybody want to be stuck up with a bunch of people who were not lively?
I think we’re like Latin Kings. There’s another group, a street organization - la Nieta. They’re pretty political too. I think it’s the sense of community and belonging that comes with them that people get more. They’re very hierarchical, but they are trying. I think in the process of them becoming more political, they’re being exposed to some different things too. The women are being exposed to seeing women from organizations in a different role. That is, they may have originally been kind of quiet in the background, they see other women - these women take a lead. It’s good.
We would like to set up a special delegation for street organizations to go. I think it would be good. Same reason, right? To be in the space out of the United States. You’re going to be there with people from different organizations. You’re going to have a chance, even for the first time, to really explore some of the things that have kept you fighting. To see that bigger picture. Then, to see what the Zapatistas are doing. These people are building a new life. They are saying, 'fuck the government; fuck the police.' For real. It’s about taking our lives back. So, why we can’t do that?
I hope that we really try to make some concrete plans to do it this year. One of the special delegations this month is an all-women’s delegation for the first time. One is dealing with popular education. So, it’s almost like two things. Hopefully, one of them will be from here to California.
Interviewer: The street organizations played a major role in the Black Panthers …
Major.
Interviewer: So, what is that idea of a forest in black and gold? For the first time, people were really starting to talk about that again. I’m up in the boonies. What role do you see? Or what is the difficulty making bridges between pseudo-religious political groups? Is it possible? How has it gone down?
It’s definitely possible. I think if there’s a difficulty, it’s with people within the political organizations. Not developing the kind of skill, maybe some aspects of personality, to make that bridge happen.
Interviewer: What was the sticking point?
I think we’re really going to have to not get arrogant or elitist in the sense of saying, 'these street organizations really don’t have a sophisticated political organization and understanding like we do.' We might be turned off by their hierarchy. My thing is that we need to interact. We’re learning from each other. There are certain aspects of street organizations that are much more advanced than what we have. They're so...
Interviewer: Tight?
Yeah, they’re very tight. So, we might actually learn some things too. That’s why I stick to the whole thing with Marcos. You got to be willing or at least, to acknowledge that you can learn from people that you didn’t think you could. When we had the Black Panther collective - this was the early 90s.
Interviewer: What was that?
In ’89-’90, people from the original Black Panther party (west coast, east coast) actually communicating for the first time since the split. The split was 1971. Maybe it just took all of those years for us to decide that we needed to sit down. So, what we decided to do - one of the first things we wanted to do was put out the newspaper again. We started putting out the Black Panther newspaper. When we started selling this paper in New York, people were so happy to see this paper with the Black Panther on it. We would go to events and a lot of young people were excited to do something like that.
There was a lot of interest and we decided to do something with all the interest. We called people together, and pulled together. We called ourselves the Black Panther Collective. It was former members and all of these new people. Young folks from the black communities of Harlem, Brooklyn, Bronx. Really dynamic grassroots group. We started doing all kind of work: people were selling papers, they started a free food program, there were political education classes going on. They started a copwatch with a video camera and everything. Everything went quite well.
There were some differences and some internal conflicts. One of them was that there were some of the former members who were trying to recreate the old Black Panther Party. Then, there were some of us, former members, who wanted not to recreate but learn some of the lessons from the mistakes and do some things different. It created a problem and some of us ended up leaving. They kept on with their work for a while. The good thing about the group was that they were starting to build relationships with the Latin Kings, Nieta and Zulu Nation.
So, it was good. Because the individuals in the Panther collective had that kind of personality and they were developing the kind of political consciousness to be able to develop those relations. One of the things I say about personality - it does help when you’re from the streets. If you’re not from the streets, what helps is that you just be honest and upfront about who you are. What they basically respect is that you’re not fronting; you’re who you are. It helped. People were going to their meetings, and they started to attend some of our events. A relationship was developing. But the other reason, even after we left, was that some other contradictions happened within the collective. Maybe a year or two later, it folded.
Interviewer: Was that an anti-hierarchical type of endeavour? Or trying to be?
We were trying to make it anti-hierarchical, anti-sexist. We really wanted them to understand why it was important to be anti-sexist. We couldn’t do it; meetings got to be such a battle between those of us who were former members, over what we were trying to do versus what they were trying to do. So, we thought they were trying to recreate the Black Panther Party. They thought that we were taking this somewhere outside of what the original Black Panther Party was. There are people in the middle, which was a lot of these new people; they didn’t know what was going on. By a certain point, my partner at the time and I, we just thought it’s time to go. If the group wants to move in this direction, then let them do that.
They did good work. The potential - they had such great potential. Because they were not afraid to get in the streets, into communities, interact with people. They were learning this stuff, a lot of them, for the first time. Some of them had political experience. Because it was a group that would have been able to eventually move on any level, regardless of what it was. But it didn’t hold. Some of them - they’re still politically active today. We’ve still got good relations with them.
I’m still broken-hearted and angry, because it had such potential. For me, I wasn’t really trying to push my anarchism. But I was trying to push for the group to be more democratic, more conscious of the whole thing. My partner and I, around the sexism stuff. Some of them felt I was pushing anarchism. I wanted them to be more participatory. It hurt that I had to leave. But I was looking for that to be the first solidly anti-authoritarian black group in the United States that would have been willing to move on anything. They were all going to be really great organizers. It’s still my goal.
Interviewer: Do you feel that with APOC at all? As a possibility?
I think that APOC has great potential. A lot of folks that come to APOC are not necessarily grassroots, but they’ve got great potential. I think that some of them, more than others, are willing to take that big step into communities and start dialogue. I think that they can make it happen in a way that those who may be not quite there, are willing to engage in a way that they will learn. APOC gets some great individuals.
I think one of the things about APOC - it’s very strongly queer. There are queer folks who are willing to engage in the community around issues of queerness and homophobia, and challenge folks, which really, really needs to happen. I think we’ve got the kind of folks that are not afraid to do it. For me, that’s really important. We can’t just keep letting it go.
One of the things is that you’re not confronting regular folks so much, you’re confronting folks that have leadership positions or influence, who talk a lot of homophobic shit. Because we know too many folks in the community, regular folks, who are queer. I don’t care if they’re in the church; they’re in where you work or whatever. So, a lot of it is that we need to reach the folks who are not in leadership positions. I don’t care whether it’s in the church or it’s in some kind of liberal black organization or whatever. The potential is great. We just need to tap it. We need to be out there.
Interviewer: How do issues of homophobia get dealt with inside APOC?
APOC has been real good. I think because - from the beginning, there has been such a big queer contingent that I think we’ve been really good around it. One of the things is, it makes it that we’ve got to talk about it. It’ll definitely be there if it’s an issue. I think the next step is to be able to figure out good ways to talk about it outside of APOC circles. That’s going to be our challenge. I think that we’ve got the kind of people that we can do that, and not be afraid to do it. Even if they’re afraid, they’ve got enough backing from the group - let’s do it. When we go into these high schools and stuff like that, I think that we can do it. I think we can even do it in the churches if we went through some roleplays first. I really do. This is the time. This is one of the reasons why I want to see more than anarchism in the black community. I want us to challenge shit.
I think it’s a good opportunity. They may hear something on the news about the anarchists and stuff like that. They will have the same misconceptions as anybody else. But I just think it takes us to now, and let’s have the conversation. Let’s now go through some things. So that you can see that this is not what you think. But this is what it really means.
There are examples, one example that I love. It’s not so much anarchism but it’s around the word communism. Fred Hampton did this one speech. It was with a woman in the black community, because she had heard that the Black Panthers were communist. Fred was telling her about the free breakfast program. He took her through this conversation where we feed the kids, etc. What it led up to was, the woman said, ‘If that’s communism, then I think I’m a communist.’
It was simple; it dealt with real life shit. Where you’re taking care of your needs in a collective way, it's no different from what the church has been saying. No different from what you know from common sense. It just makes sense. We’re taking care of each other. Everyone is involved. We’re trying to create some equality.
I think it’s the same. I’m not afraid of the word. A lot of people don’t want to deal with the word anarchism. I like to deal with it. But if people don’t, I’m fine with that too. I just think that if they don’t, then I want to engage in a conversation, what do you think it means? I can share what I think it means. You might see that you probably are not going to have a real problem. But you can see why the government might have a problem. Why the corporations might have a problem. Or your boss. Or your minister. Or your parent, for that matter.
So, I want more creativity. I think it’s on us. One of the things - it has something to do with the news. If you deal with Malcolm X Grassroots Movement, I think that they would define themselves probably as more anti-authoritarian. I know that there’s hierarchy. But I think that the New York folks are probably more anti-authoritarian than some of the other branches.
My connection with them is because they have respect for me. I definitely have respect for them; I really respect them a lot. They’re younger folks. When I say younger now with these folks, I knew when they were in their early 20s; now, they’re in their early 30s. Some of them have kids. I think it’s because they know me and they know my politics, that some of them are willing to make a little extra effort to understand anarchism, right? So, with me, even working with them, that relationship becomes really beneficial. They’re willing to work with folks who are different. Before, I remember 10 years ago, they didn’t have a queer member in their organization. They wouldn’t have listened to anything about anarchism. Today, there are queer members in their organization. They’re at least willing to listen to some things around anarchism.
It’s kind of a natural relationship that works for people coming from different places, that they’d be open to where each other is coming from. They know I’m not necessarily down with the Republic of New Afrika idea. But I’m down with anybody that wants to create community. If they want to create community down south in certain areas where they’re at, they’ve got my support.
Interviewer: Right. That’s the solidarity thing....
Yeah, that’s solidarity. I want them to see that. That will necessarily mean that I want all of us to now pick up. But we can respect each other on that. They’re willing to work with organizations that I belong to. That we need to just have the respect that we have differences. But they’re not differences that prevent us from being able to work together.
Here in New York, we’re all going to work around police brutality. We’re all going to work around trying to empower our constituency, where we’re at. We’re going to work around political prisoners. Because we have certain histories around political prisoners. They’ve been consistently doing political prisoner work. Their organization was doing political prisoner work when I was a political prisoner. So, we had a connection.
Interviewer: What was that like for you when you were inside? The people, the support that you received from the outside ...?
We didn’t get a lot of support. Groups like MXG kind of came a little towards the end of my time. I was in from ’74 to the end of ’85, right? I think MXG probably came towards the end of that. Before that, it was just the Republic of New Afrika. It still is. But they were one of the few groups that had a close relationship to the Black Liberation Army. Then, you had people from the underground and their supporters who also supported us. Then, you had the nationalist groups who have seen the Black Liberation Army as their army. The left, in general, didn’t mess with us. We weren’t likely to get money, letters, all that stuff. Unless it came from those small groups of dedicated supporters.
Asatta, even. Asatta went to four, five trials before the last one just got convicted of the murder and all this. We could not get the left to support Asatta. It wasn’t until maybe the last trial, when the media started to put some attention on her and call her the Queen of the BLA or something. The Queen of something. They started. Then, some of the leftist groups started giving a little attention to it, but I'm not going to say support.
But other than that, we took care of each other. You had to always have that little solid group of dedicated supporters. That’s how it was. Even to this day, it’s still the same thing. Sadly, a lot of them are still the same solid group - who are in their 50s and 60s and some in their 70s, who are still doing the support work. The bad thing about it is that, a lot of their style is still the 60s and the 70s. It needs to change.
My thing is that young people have got to take over the leadership. Old folks, my peers now, need to step back. It doesn't mean that you’ve got to stop doing the work. But you turn this over to young people. Because we find they can't accept that our methods don’t work anymore. Our language doesn’t work anymore. Folks have been in prison now for 30, 35 years. Turn it over to young people who have a lot more new ideas, new energies and don’t work with you mainly because they never feel you respect them.
So, now my connection with MXG is that they tend to be the younger crew who does even political prisoner work a lot different. When they do events, they get young people.
Interviewer: So, have you heard about the Anarchist Black Cross ...
ABC. I’m not sure what they’re doing. I’m not even sure if there’s one in New York now. They used to be. There used to be ABC Bronx. Then later on, maybe about a couple of years ago, there were some other young anarchist folks doing one. But I don’t think they’re doing anything anymore.
Love and Rage was good at doing a lot, and putting a lot of attention on political prisoners. Supporting some of the national liberation movements, as they call them. Right now, there’s a lot of struggle still. I think it’s better - getting some of the main political prisoner groups like Jericho to accept that there are other political prisoners from Earth First, Animal Liberation, others.
Interviewer: They’re bringing up a lot of political prisoners recently ....
Oh, yes. I know. Very interesting. I hope that they can maintain because I think it’s going to scare a lot of them.
ABC has been doing a lot of good work. I think that right now there have been some problems, I’m sure. Now, you’ve got two different ABCs. Yeah. You’ve got ABC Federation, ABC Network. I’m happy that they have been doing a lot of work. Every city I went to to speak, a lot have got ABCs. We were maintaining connections, not only with the political prisoners, but with prisoners in general who were trying to develop a consciousness.
Interviewer: What’s the potential in that, in your opinion? That work, doing it around New York and from an anarchist perspective - what do you think the potential for working with prisoners are? Not just longterm lifers but shortterm sentences as well.
The potential is great. One of the reasons the potential is great is because it’s people like me who are connected to both kind of movements. Even now, there’s people like me who are connected to, not only ABC, but with individuals whose doing mainly support work around the Animal Liberation Front and Earth First. We are also building bridges. We’re trying to keep that kind of consciousness tied together. There’s always different political prisoners. We need to do work that takes all of that into effect.
The thing that worries a lot of the old school prisoner support groups is that the older political prisoners are going to get lost in the shuffle. That doesn’t necessarily have to be the case as long as we can talk, can figure out some strategies - so that doesn’t happen. That has been one of the longstanding reasons why a lot are very reluctant to include a lot of other newer political prisoners. That doesn’t have to happen.
Interviewer: What about prisoners? What is the potential of dealing with prisoners who are just locked down just because they may not be political on the outside, who are actually trying to talk about anarchism inside, for some reason? Just the general population ....
Well, there’s still the thing - I still fight on the whole definition thing. A lot of the old school political prisoner support workers, even a lot of old political prisoners, use the definition of Geneva. For us, they don’t get the right to define who is a political prisoner. We’ll do that. Look at George Jackson. George Jackson who did not come in as a revolutionary, became a revolutionary and became a political prisoner inside, because of what he was doing. Him and others, his whole crew the Attica Brothers. All these other people. Why doesn’t one look at them as political prisoners? It depends on who’s doing the defining.
So, for a lot of us it’s still a battle. Political prisoners are those who because of their political activism, whether it originates outside the prison or inside, are political prisoners. Then, there’s the other school that’s like all of them are political prisoners. Which has some economic validity. For me, it means let’s not just accept Geneva. Let’s come to the table and talk about it. Then, we can figure out some strategies that will make us work a lot different than what we’re used to. What happens is that you’ve got a certain group of political prisoners who become exclusive and they’re kind of put up here.
Interviewer: Martyrs.
Yeah. So, let’s see if we can get away from that.
Interviewer: Have you seen street organizations that have intense networks inside prisons as well? I always thought that would be an important part of any broader movement. Because people are always going to go jail, whether it’s economic crimes or doing political stuff and getting arrested for the work you’re doing ....
Yeah, that’s interesting. In Illinois, there’s a group called El Rukn. El Rukn came out of this street organization - the Black P. Stone Nation. The leader, Jeff Fort, what he did was at some point, he became more political, through Islam. He actually tried to lead the whole Black P. Stone Nation towards El Rukn. El Rukn was much more political. He was trying to change that whole dynamic.
They still got fucked with by the feds and others. But they ended up framing Jeff Fort, just the same as me, for some killings and all this other stuff. So, Jeff Fort is doing a thousand years in federal prison. But people from the old school of political prisoners have never recognized him and El Rukn.
*