DEI (diversity, equity, inclusion) doesn’t affect me.
I’ve got a job.
I’m not an immigrant.
Addressing the question “if it doesn’t affect me directly, why should I care?”, it’s crucial to understand the broader impact of community organizations. Understanding and evaluating community organizations requires a multifaceted approach. By considering their effectiveness, transparency, coalition-building efforts, and legitimacy indicators, you can make informed decisions about which organizations to support and engage with. Remember that while an organization’s impact may not always be immediately apparent to you personally, their work often contributes to broader societal improvements that can benefit everyone in the long term.
Over the last hundred years, music has played a pivotal role in inspiring and motivating social change. From labor movements to civil rights, anti-war protests to environmental activism, songs have served as powerful tools for communication, mobilization, and solidarity. Let’s explore some of the most influential songs and artists that have shaped social movements across different eras.
1920s-1950s: Labor Movements and Early Civil Rights
During this period, protest music primarily focused on labor rights and the emerging civil rights movement.
“Which Side Are You On” by Florence Reece (1931) This song emerged during the Harlan County War, a series of coal miner strikes in Kentucky. Written by Florence Reece, the wife of a union organizer, it became an anthem for the labor movement and was widely covered by artists like Pete Seeger [1].
“Strange Fruit” by Billie Holiday (1939) Originally a poem by Abel Meeropol, this haunting song protested the lynching of African Americans and became a powerful anthem for the civil rights movement. Its impact was significant in raising awareness about racial violence and injustice in America [2]. Billie Holiday’s emotional delivery made it one of the most significant protest songs of the era [3].
“Ol’ Man River” by Paul Robeson (1927) Originally written for the Broadway musical “Show Boat,” this song was transformed by Paul Robeson into a powerful statement on racial injustice. Robeson altered the lyrics to reflect the struggles of black Americans, making it a civil rights anthem [4].
1960s-1970s: Counterculture and Civil Rights Movements
The 1960s and 1970s saw an explosion of protest music, addressing issues from civil rights to the Vietnam War.
“Blowin’ in the Wind” by Bob Dylan (1962) This song became synonymous with the civil rights movement, asking poignant questions about peace and freedom. It was adopted by various social movements, highlighting its versatility and enduring appeal [5].
“We Shall Overcome” This song became the unofficial anthem of the civil rights movement. It was sung at protests and rallies, providing hope and unity among activists. Martin Luther King Jr. noted its power in inspiring courage and a sense of community [6].
“What’s Going On” by Marvin Gaye (1971) This song addressed issues of war, poverty, and racial injustice, becoming a timeless call for social change and reflection [7].
“Respect” by Aretha Franklin (1967) Originally written by Otis Redding, Franklin’s version became a powerful anthem for both the feminist and civil rights movements, demanding respect and equality.
“Fortunate Son” by Creedence Clearwater Revival (1969) This song became an anthem of the anti-Vietnam War movement, critiquing the disparity between those who were drafted and those who were not.
The 1960s was a fertile era for the genre, especially with the rise of the Civil Rights Movement, the ascendency of counterculture groups such as “hippies” and the New Left, and the escalation of the …
1980s-2000s: Anti-Apartheid and Social Justice Movements
This era saw a focus on global issues, particularly the anti-apartheid movement in South Africa.
“Free Nelson Mandela” by The Special A.K.A. (1984) This song became an anthem for the anti-apartheid movement, calling for the release of Nelson Mandela and drawing global attention to the injustices of apartheid in South Africa [8].
“Biko” by Peter Gabriel (1980) This song is a tribute to Steve Biko, an anti-apartheid activist who died in police custody. Gabriel’s song brought international attention to the apartheid regime’s brutality and became a rallying cry for the movement.
“Sun City” by Artists United Against Apartheid (1985) This collaborative protest song, featuring artists like Bruce Springsteen and Bono, was part of a campaign against apartheid in South Africa. It raised awareness and funds, contributing to the global anti-apartheid movement.
“Beds Are Burning” by Midnight Oil (1987) This song by the Australian band Midnight Oil highlighted the need for land rights and justice for Indigenous Australians. It became a powerful anthem for environmental and social justice, calling for action to return land to its rightful owners [9].
2000s-2020s: Contemporary Social Activism
In recent years, protest music has addressed issues such as racial justice, climate change, and other social movements.
“Alright” by Kendrick Lamar (2015) Adopted by the Black Lives Matter movement, this song became an anthem of hope and resilience in the face of racial injustice. Its impact is seen in its widespread use during protests and demonstrations.
“This Is America” by Childish Gambino (2018) The song and its accompanying video critique gun violence and racism in America. It became a cultural phenomenon, sparking discussions about the contradictions of Black life in the U.S. [10].
“The Bigger Picture” by Lil Baby (2020) Released shortly after the killing of George Floyd, this song became an anthem for the Black Lives Matter movement. Lil Baby’s lyrics address systemic racism and police brutality, resonating with the widespread protests that followed Floyd’s death [11].
“The 1975” by The 1975 featuring Greta Thunberg (2020) This track features a spoken word piece by climate activist Greta Thunberg, calling for immediate action against climate change and critiquing the status quo [12].
Throughout the last hundred years, these songs and artists have not only reflected the social and political climate of their times but have also inspired and motivated change. They have provided a voice for the marginalized, united diverse groups under common causes, and continue to resonate with new generations, demonstrating the enduring power of music as a tool for social change.
When the choice is tyranny or revolution, to keep your head in the sand is to choose tyranny. If you choose revolution the question is nonviolent or violent.
THE SCENARIO
A presidential candidate has won the election and gained control over all branches of government.
The new administration refuses to follow court rulings and historical norms.
Democratic processes and checks and balances have broken down.
The leadership style is modeled after authoritarian regimes like Russia, North Korea, and China.
This situation represents a significant threat to democratic institutions and the rule of law, which are fundamental to a functioning democracy
Can We Trust This Man?
OPTIONS FOR GRASSROOTS MOVEMENTS
Thorough preparation—medical waivers, property checklists, legal contacts—minimizes harm and maximizes impact…….Organized, pre-notified actions are safer and more effective than spur-of-the-moment protests.
In such a scenario, grassroots movements and civil society organizations face a critical decision: whether to accept the new regime or to resist. Based on historical examples and research on civil resistance, there are several potential courses of action:
Nonviolent Revolution
Historically, nonviolent revolutions have been more successful and led to more stable democratic outcomes than violent uprisings. Research by Erica Chenoweth and Maria J. Stephan has shown that nonviolent campaigns are twice as likely to succeed as violent ones.
Strategies for nonviolent revolution could include:
a) Mass Mobilization: Organizing large-scale protests, strikes, and boycotts to demonstrate widespread opposition to the regime. This was effectively used in the Philippines People Power Revolution (1986) and the U.S. Civil Rights Movement (1950s-1960s).
b) Civil Disobedience: Engaging in coordinated acts of nonviolent resistance, such as sit-ins, blockades, or refusal to pay taxes. The Indian Independence Movement led by Mahatma Gandhi successfully employed these tactics.
c) Alternative Institutions: Creating parallel governance structures or “shadow governments” to challenge the legitimacy of the regime and provide essential services to the population.
d) International Solidarity: Appealing to international organizations and foreign governments for support and sanctions against the regime. This strategy was crucial in the South African Anti-Apartheid Movement.
Civic Engagement and Grassroots Organizing
Even in challenging political environments, there are legal and peaceful methods to resist authoritarianism:
a) Stakeholder Engagement: Identifying and mobilizing key stakeholders who can influence the political process.
b) Effective Communication: Using clear, consistent messaging to articulate grievances and demands.
c) Technology and Social Media: Leveraging digital platforms for organizing, information sharing, and mobilizing support.
d) Educational Interventions: Implementing programs to promote civic engagement and democratic values.
e) Building Trust and Relationships: Establishing networks of trust within communities to strengthen resistance efforts.
Seeking International Support
Grassroots movements can appeal to international democratic support systems and diplomatic channels:
a) International Organizations: Engaging with bodies like the UN, OSCE, and International IDEA to highlight democratic backsliding and seek support.
b) Foreign Diplomatic Pressure: Encouraging democratic nations to exert diplomatic pressure on the regime, similar to Sweden’s “Drive for Democracy” initiative.
c) NGO Partnerships: Collaborating with international NGOs like Freedom House to document and publicize human rights violations and democratic erosion.
Violent Revolution as a Last Resort
While violent revolution might seem like an option, it’s important to note that:
Violent uprisings are statistically less likely to succeed than nonviolent movements.
They often lead to prolonged conflict and instability.
Violent revolutions can delegitimize the movement in the eyes of both domestic and international observers.
They may provide justification for increased repression by the regime.
Related thoughts for your consideration from a Facebook reel:
Conclusion
In the face of democratic breakdown and the rise of authoritarianism, grassroots movements have historically been most successful when employing nonviolent strategies. These strategies, combined with effective civic engagement and international support, offer the best chance for restoring democratic norms and institutions.
The choice between accepting tyranny and forming a revolution is a complex one, with significant consequences. However, the historical record suggests that nonviolent revolutions, when well-organized and widely supported, can be effective in challenging even the most entrenched authoritarian regimes.
It’s crucial for grassroots movements to carefully consider their options, build broad coalitions, and maintain a commitment to nonviolent tactics to maximize their chances of success and minimize the risk of further destabilization or violence.
By Robert Lloyd
When the choice is tyranny or revolution, to keep your head in the sand is to choose tyranny. If you choose revolution the question is nonviolent or violent.
The Scenario
A presidential candidate has won the election and gained control over all branches of government.
The new administration refuses to follow court rulings and historical norms.
Democratic processes and checks and balances have broken down.
The leadership style is modeled after authoritarian regimes like Russia, North Korea, and China.
This situation represents a significant threat to democratic institutions and the rule of law, which are fundamental to a functioning democracy.
Options for Grassroots Movements
In such a scenario, grassroots movements and civil society organizations face a critical decision: whether to accept the new regime or to resist. Based on historical examples and research on civil resistance, there are several potential courses of action:
Nonviolent Revolution
Historically, nonviolent revolutions have been more successful and led to more stable democratic outcomes than violent uprisings. Research by Erica Chenoweth and Maria J. Stephan has shown that nonviolent campaigns are twice as likely to succeed as violent ones.
Strategies for nonviolent revolution could include:
a) Mass Mobilization: Organizing large-scale protests, strikes, and boycotts to demonstrate widespread opposition to the regime. This was effectively used in the Philippines People Power Revolution (1986) and the U.S. Civil Rights Movement (1950s-1960s).
b) Civil Disobedience: Engaging in coordinated acts of nonviolent resistance, such as sit-ins, blockades, or refusal to pay taxes. The Indian Independence Movement led by Mahatma Gandhi successfully employed these tactics.
c) Alternative Institutions: Creating parallel governance structures or “shadow governments” to challenge the legitimacy of the regime and provide essential services to the population.
d) International Solidarity: Appealing to international organizations and foreign governments for support and sanctions against the regime. This strategy was crucial in the South African Anti-Apartheid Movement.
Civic Engagement and Grassroots Organizing
Even in challenging political environments, there are legal and peaceful methods to resist authoritarianism:
a) Stakeholder Engagement: Identifying and mobilizing key stakeholders who can influence the political process.
b) Effective Communication: Using clear, consistent messaging to articulate grievances and demands.
c) Technology and Social Media: Leveraging digital platforms for organizing, information sharing, and mobilizing support.
d) Educational Interventions: Implementing programs to promote civic engagement and democratic values.
e) Building Trust and Relationships: Establishing networks of trust within communities to strengthen resistance efforts.
Seeking International Support
Grassroots movements can appeal to international democratic support systems and diplomatic channels:
a) International Organizations: Engaging with bodies like the UN, OSCE, and International IDEA to highlight democratic backsliding and seek support.
b) Foreign Diplomatic Pressure: Encouraging democratic nations to exert diplomatic pressure on the regime, similar to Sweden’s “Drive for Democracy” initiative.
c) NGO Partnerships: Collaborating with international NGOs like Freedom House to document and publicize human rights violations and democratic erosion.
Violent Revolution as a Last Resort
While violent revolution might seem like an option, it’s important to note that:
Violent uprisings are statistically less likely to succeed than nonviolent movements.
They often lead to prolonged conflict and instability.
Violent revolutions can delegitimize the movement in the eyes of both domestic and international observers.
They may provide justification for increased repression by the regime.
Conclusion
In the face of democratic breakdown and the rise of authoritarianism, grassroots movements have historically been most successful when employing nonviolent strategies. These strategies, combined with effective civic engagement and international support, offer the best chance for restoring democratic norms and institutions.
The choice between accepting tyranny and forming a revolution is a complex one, with significant consequences. However, the historical record suggests that nonviolent revolutions, when well-organized and widely supported, can be effective in challenging even the most entrenched authoritarian regimes.
It’s crucial for grassroots movements to carefully consider their options, build broad coalitions, and maintain a commitment to nonviolent tactics to maximize their chances of success and minimize the risk of further destabilization or violence.
When tyranny and revolution appear to be the choices, which do you think we ought to choose? The choice should be made with deep thought. If you keep your head in the sand and refuse to recognize the current conditions, you have chosen tyranny.
By Robert Lloyd
When the choice is tyranny or revolution, to keep your head in the sand is to choose tyranny. If you choose revolution the question is nonviolent or violent.
The Scenario
A presidential candidate has won the election and gained control over all branches of government.
The new administration refuses to follow court rulings and historical norms.
Democratic processes and checks and balances have broken down.
The leadership style is modeled after authoritarian regimes like Russia, North Korea, and China.
This situation represents a significant threat to democratic institutions and the rule of law, which are fundamental to a functioning democracy.
Options for Grassroots Movements
In such a scenario, grassroots movements and civil society organizations face a critical decision: whether to accept the new regime or to resist. Based on historical examples and research on civil resistance, there are several potential courses of action:
Nonviolent Revolution
Historically, nonviolent revolutions have been more successful and led to more stable democratic outcomes than violent uprisings. Research by Erica Chenoweth and Maria J. Stephan has shown that nonviolent campaigns are twice as likely to succeed as violent ones.
Strategies for nonviolent revolution could include:
a) Mass Mobilization: Organizing large-scale protests, strikes, and boycotts to demonstrate widespread opposition to the regime. This was effectively used in the Philippines People Power Revolution (1986) and the U.S. Civil Rights Movement (1950s-1960s).
b) Civil Disobedience: Engaging in coordinated acts of nonviolent resistance, such as sit-ins, blockades, or refusal to pay taxes. The Indian Independence Movement led by Mahatma Gandhi successfully employed these tactics.
c) Alternative Institutions: Creating parallel governance structures or “shadow governments” to challenge the legitimacy of the regime and provide essential services to the population.
d) International Solidarity: Appealing to international organizations and foreign governments for support and sanctions against the regime. This strategy was crucial in the South African Anti-Apartheid Movement.
Civic Engagement and Grassroots Organizing
Even in challenging political environments, there are legal and peaceful methods to resist authoritarianism:
a) Stakeholder Engagement: Identifying and mobilizing key stakeholders who can influence the political process.
b) Effective Communication: Using clear, consistent messaging to articulate grievances and demands.
c) Technology and Social Media: Leveraging digital platforms for organizing, information sharing, and mobilizing support.
d) Educational Interventions: Implementing programs to promote civic engagement and democratic values.
e) Building Trust and Relationships: Establishing networks of trust within communities to strengthen resistance efforts.
Seeking International Support
Grassroots movements can appeal to international democratic support systems and diplomatic channels:
a) International Organizations: Engaging with bodies like the UN, OSCE, and International IDEA to highlight democratic backsliding and seek support.
b) Foreign Diplomatic Pressure: Encouraging democratic nations to exert diplomatic pressure on the regime, similar to Sweden’s “Drive for Democracy” initiative.
c) NGO Partnerships: Collaborating with international NGOs like Freedom House to document and publicize human rights violations and democratic erosion.
Violent Revolution as a Last Resort
While violent revolution might seem like an option, it’s important to note that:
Violent uprisings are statistically less likely to succeed than nonviolent movements.
They often lead to prolonged conflict and instability.
Violent revolutions can delegitimize the movement in the eyes of both domestic and international observers.
In the face of democratic breakdown and the rise of authoritarianism, grassroots movements have historically been most successful when employing nonviolent strategies. These strategies, combined with effective civic engagement and international support, offer the best chance for restoring democratic norms and institutions.
The choice between accepting tyranny and forming a revolution is a complex one, with significant consequences. However, the historical record suggests that nonviolent revolutions, when well-organized and widely supported, can be effective in challenging even the most entrenched authoritarian regimes.
It’s crucial for grassroots movements to carefully consider their options, build broad coalitions, and maintain a commitment to nonviolent tactics to maximize their chances of success and minimize the risk of further destabilization or violence.
When tyranny and revolution appear to be the choices, which do you think we ought to choose? The choice should be made with deep thought. If you keep your head in the sand and refuse to recognize the current conditions, you have chosen tyranny.
But if you choose revolution the question is nonviolent or violent.
Visit the Empowerment page. It provides examples of how you can be empowered. Feel free to look around 4comculture.com. Please also do research outside of the site.
Friday June 19, 2020 at 12:15 at The Spokane Tribal Gathering Place (outside City Hall), SCAR and its partner organizations unveiled their full Platform for Change..
PLATFORM FOR CHANGE— RESPONDING TO THIS MOMENT
RELEASED: June 19, 2020
Spokane Community Against Racism (SCAR) and Asian Pacific Islander Coalition (APIC) – Spokane Chapter, Eastern Washington Progressives, Faith Leaders and Leaders of Conscience, FUSE Washington, Greater Spokane Progress, Hispanic Business/Professional Association, MAC Movement, Muslims for Community Action And Support, Peace and Justice Action League of Spokane (PJALS), Planned Parenthood Advocates of Greater Washington and North Idaho, Progressives of Spokane County, RAIZ of Planned Parenthood, Red Skirt Society, SHAWL Society, Smart Justice Spokane, Spectrum Center Spokane, Spokane Alliance, Spokane Ministers’ Fellowship, Tenants Union of Washington State, demand transformational change.
Spokane has a problem.
American policing tactics are rooted in white supremacy, fear, and violence. Spokane is not exempt from this, even though our mayor, police chief, county commissioners, and sheriff refuse to admit the true nature of the problem. In fact, Spokane has the 5th deadliest police force in the nation. We must end the cycle of fear and violence in our community and seize the opportunity during this tumultuous time to enact structural changes.
Death at the hands of police is not the only measure of racial violence. Here in Spokane, Black and Native Americans are disproportionately arrested, receive higher bail amounts, and are more likely to die in jail than whites. Our city and county officials know this. They have hired several consultants for millions of dollars to tell them so, yet they continue to ignore the good advice we all paid for.
We don’t trust them to understand, because they keep proving they are not listening.
At the invitation of the city and county, community members have spent thousands of hours sharing their testimony and lived experience in the name of community engagement. Yet elected officials have failed to honor this engagement by fulfilling their promises to decarcerate and advance racial equity.The residents of Spokane have fought officials numerous times to avoid building a new jail. Still—despite the wishes of the community—the County Commissioners and the Sheriff’s office continue to pursue a new, larger jail without first enacting the totality of humane, cost effective reforms which have been recommended to them over the past decade.
Sheriff Ozzie Knezovich continues to defend bringing the creator of “Killology,” a method of police training that teaches officers how to “…overcome the powerful reluctance to kill…” to train his deputies. He has doubled down on his support for killology training despite receiving thousands of petition signatures calling for the two-day seminar and workshop to be canceled. Spokane demands transformation. The unwillingness of the Mayor, Police Chief, County Commissioners, Sheriff, and other elected officials to heed expert advice and community lived experience, their stubborn insistence on expanding incarceration and entrenched racist systems, and their failure to listen to the community, convinces us that the elected leadership of Spokane does not grasp—or is not willing to meet—the needs of our community. We do not need more studies, consultants, conversations, forums, or media stunts. We are not interested in incremental change, but in drastic action.
To that end, we present the following Platform for Change. While we cannot hope to provide every comprehensive detail of necessary policy, we know the shape that change must take. This is the product of ongoing work within our community and around the country and is meant to serve as a mandate—it’s up to our leaders to help us all live up to its intent.
PLATFORM FOR CHANGE
DEFUND THE POLICE: INVEST IN COMMUNITY
SCAR rejects the idea that the only way to increase public safety is to increase policing. The power of state-sanctioned force and threat of lethal violence wielded by police is often inappropriate and inadequate to address the diversity of situations they are sent to resolve. Police are frequently tasked with handling homelessness, addiction, mental health, intimate partner violence, and other conditions in which they have no formal expertise; the result is often harm, injury, or even death for those whom the police are supposed to protect. The weight of these injuries and deaths falls most heavily upon people with medical or mental health conditions, people of color—particularly Black and indigenous people—and people with disabilities. This is not a problem that can be solved with more training. Expanding the power or authoritative scope of police in our communities will not make us safer.
Instead, SCAR embraces a holistic vision of public safety, one that accounts for the root causes of crime, and recognizes that shared prosperity and community care are at the heart of a safe and healthy society. When people’s basic needs are met, and experts are empowered to work within their expertise, communities are free to flourish. The City of Spokane and Spokane County will be safer when our leaders follow the advice of their expensive consultants, and the best practices indicated by decades of research in this and other cities. We demand investment in historically underserved communities to create a vibrant and healthy environment where all families can thrive:
Addiction and Mental Health Services
We demand public investment in culturally appropriate chemical addiction treatment and mental health services and diversion programs. These services should include crisis care, long-term in-patient, and out-patient care. Police are not mental health professionals and incarceration should not be a stopgap for healthcare or an underfunded social safety net.
We acknowledge and support the recently passed Public School Resolution Supporting the SPS Student Community Related to Racial Equity, and we believe this resolution represents a promising beginning to the work of racial equity and inclusion in Spokane Public Schools (SPS). In the interest of continuing this work, we demand an end to the contract between the Spokane Police Department and Spokane Public Schools.
SPS has the largest school policing budget in Washington State at $2.2 Million. That’s $2.2 Million spent to support the School-to-Prison Pipeline, a system which disproportionately funnels children of color from educational settings into the criminal justice system. Using police to address student behavior positions students as potential criminals who require management through the threat of legal and physical force, instead of recognizing them as children who are learning to manage conflict and their emotions.
We demand investment in school counselors, restorative conflict resolution practices, and activity programming which provides youth with constructive outlets and interpersonal learning environments. The ACLU of Washington has been at the forefront of this issue, listen to them.
CHANGE POLICE CULTURE
Public trust in the SPD is broken. It’s the 5th deadliest police force in the nation, and officers have been using the same knee-on-neck restraint that killed George Floyd until June 8th, 2020. We believe it is necessary to start fresh.
Disband the Police
Disband the police department, and hire a smaller group of officers to carry out narrowly defined, law-enforcement duties. In 2016, the Police Leadership Advisory Committee (PLAC) put together recommendations for the hiring of a new police chief. These recommendations, which could have helped revolutionize the culture of the SPD, were ignored. We believe these recommendations should be applied to all officers hired to work in the City of Spokane. PJALS has been deeply involved in this work, listen to them.
De-escalation Training for SPD and County Forces
While we do not believe the fundamental problems with American policing can be trained away, we support the will of Washington State Voters who voted decisively in favor of Initiative 940. Passed in 2018, Initiative 940 requires police receive training in de-escalation and mental health, and enforces the duty of all police officers to render first aid. It is our hope that with these tools police will be less likely to use lethal force, and that when they do, that force is less likely to result in death.
De-escalation and mental health training have the potential to not only act as positive tools in the current policing toolbelt, but to provide an additional standard to which police can be held accountable.
Demilitarize the Police
Our city is not a warzone, and weapons of war should not be used on our streets. This includes tear gas—a chemical weapon which is banned by the Geneva convention—and all repurposed military surplus equipment. Military uniforms, vehicles, and weaponry communicate to the residents of Spokane that the police view them as enemy combatants. Furthermore, militarized uniforms encourage a “warrior” mindset in police, which emphasizes readiness for violent conflict over the relationship-based work of building community trust. Spokane does not need street warriors, Spokane needs public servants we can trust; from their uniforms to their equipment, police should be equipped for the job that is needed.
POLICE OVERSIGHT
Independent Oversight with Investigative Power is a necessity at the Spokane Police Department and the Spokane County Sheriff’s Office.
No Contract without Office of Police Ombudsman Independence
We demand that the Office of Police Ombudsman (OPO) be empowered to conduct independent investigations and publish public closing reports. We demand that the OPO be free to conduct these independent investigations without fear of reprisal by the Police Guild.
A poison pill amendment to the Police Guild’s contract with the City of Spokane, which is still being negotiated, would allow the Police Guild to preemptively file a grievance against an Ombudsman candidate in an effort to prevent their appointment. It further empowers the Guild to attempt to have the Ombudsman or an OPO Commission Member removed for “exceeding their authority under the collective bargaining agreement.” Police cannot control the fate of the body that oversees them. We demand that the Spokane City Council reject any contract that fails to protect OPO independence.
NO CONTRACT without independent investigative power and public closing report. NO CONTRACT with police guild oversight of the OPO.
Mandatory body cameras for SPD and County Forces
Body cameras should be mandatory for every SPD officer and County deputy as a tool for reviewing police encounters with Spokane residents. Body cameras do not prevent violence, but they can be valuable for holding the police accountable. Turning off a body camera should come with an automatic charge of destroying evidence.
JUSTICE REFORMS
We urgently need to adopt effective, restorative policy solutions that are driven by the needs of those impacted by our justice system.
Jail Reforms
We demand divestment from the prison industrial complex: NO NEW JAIL; end policies that criminalize poverty, homelessness, and addiction; end cash bail; and end draconian drug charging decisions by the County Prosecutor’s office.
Instead, the city and county should invest in racial equity tools throughout our justice system; release criminal justice system demographic data; and adopt least-restrictive alternatives to jail with fully funded pretrial services. Smart Justice Spokane has been leading on these issues, and we demand our government listen to and collaborate with them.
Judicial Accountability
Impartial judges are the ideal, but we know that their decisions are vulnerable to the forces of systematic oppression and unconscious bias. For this reason we demand that the county, in cooperation with the courts, release sentencing data dis-aggregated by judge and defendant’s demographic information, including race and gender. With this data, voters—and the community groups who help keep them informed—will be empowered to identify racial sentencing disparities, and if necessary, right them at the ballot box.
Establish an Office of Civil Rights
The City of Spokane needs a fully funded and staffed Office of Civil Rights. This office would work within the City government to advance civil rights and end barriers to equity. It would regularly assess the city’s approach to racial equity, and provide education and training to government and local entities. The Office of Civil rights would receive civil rights complaints from the residents of Spokane, address hate crimes, and ensure that laws against illegal discrimination in employment, housing, public accommodations, and contracting within Spokane city limits are equitably enforced. The Office of Civil Rights Exploratory Committee and Greater Spokane Progress are already working on the structure of this office. Listen to and collaborate with them.
These are just some of the changes that Spokane needs. These demands are rooted in the data-backed reality, and the spiritual conviction, that a punitive approach to public safety has never, and will never, yield a free and equitable society.
Policing can no longer be the bandaid we affix to every social wound. Instead, we must build a Spokane where everyone is free to thrive. The time for incrementalism and half measures is past. This community demands transformation, and will continue to do so in statements, in public meetings, at the ballot box, and in the streets. It is up to our leadership to listen, and to do the jobs for which they were elected. The people are watching.
There are mobilizers and there are organizers. The demonstrations you have seen and participated in for George Floyd here and across the globe have been successful mobilization events. What is needed now is grassroot organization.
The map on the left are the communities in Spokane where this discussion needs to take place. Suggestions of what you can do in your community are at this link: Mobilizing to Organizing
Sunday June 7, 2020 started off at 10:30 am with meditation and yoga exercises at the Red Wagon. At 2:00 pm the NAACP had one of the largest outside rallies in Spokane’s history. The tone of this rally was set by Kurtis Robinson, Kiantha Duncan, and Le’Taxione. Kurtis Robinson welcomed a large standing crowd at the Lilac Bowl. Kiantha Duncan followed asking everyone to sit down on the grass and center themselves. She had three messages that she wanted to deliver to three groups of people. She thanked all who showed up to nonviolently express their outrage and disappointment with police brutality throughout the country. If there were those who came looking for trouble with signs with hateful speech, she wanted them to take those signs and sit on them. Then she called upon all law enforcement agents to obey the law and treat all demonstrators with respect and human dignity. My observation was that there were no visible signs of law enforcement. Le’Taxione told the audience that he was not speaking to make anybody feel good, he was there to express his strong objections to brutality and the status quo. But he made it quite clear he and the youth he brought would not allow anybody to hijack this peaceful demonstration. If so, they would be escorted out of town. These photographs bear witness to the unified desire that everyone should receive equal justice.
After your demonstrations at the Red Wagon or City Hall you could:
Ask 5 of your new or trusted friends for their email addresses and mobile phone numbers so you can set up a meeting regularly via Zoom to discuss strategies and planned measurable actions. Assign someone to send information about the measurable actions you plan to info@4comculture.com so they can be shared at the website 4comculture.com. Hopefully when the city opens up and you can have meetings in public places such as coffee shops you will be able to have these discussions face-to-face.
If you can find 4 people that will accompany you to an arterial in your neighborhood each could stand on a corner displaying their signs for an hour or more
Walk up and down the block or cul-de-sac where you live with your sign and handout sharing why you march and what others can do to help. This is something you can do alone.
Stand in front of the house you live in with your sign and have a discussion about why you march with anybody that will join you. Have two socially distant chairs nearby.
Being Black I am always visible! I am asking you to shed your invisibility.
History Lesson On Organizing
Kwame Ture: Converting the Unconscious to Conscious
Robert Lloyd, Spokane Civic Activist, May 30, 2020
What do you want?
By now we’ve all seen what’s happening in Minneapolis, Detroit, Louisville, Atlanta, New York, Washington DC, Phoenix, Denver, Columbus, Dallas, Chicago, Memphis, Bakersfield, Albuquerque, Los Vegas, Oakland, San Jose, Los Angeles, Portland, Seattle and more – twenty plus and growing – due to the killing of Floyd. The question is why and who benefits from these protests. We all know the why – systemic racism and injustice for people of color and the poor. But who benefits?
We have all seen this before – be it Martin Luther King’s death Memphis, be it the Rodney King beating in Los Angeles, the Chicago fire truck killing, be it Ferguson, Trayvon Martin in Florida, Eric Garner in New York, Freddie Gray in Baltimore, Orlando Castile in Minnesota. The lists goes on. The question is “Who benefits?”.
All of these demonstrations had three components. There are those who want to mourn. The parents and loved ones will bring flowers, teddy bears and pictures of the person lost.
There are those who will hold non-violent protests. The politicians, the ministers and the status quo organizations will express their dissatisfaction with articulate speeches and venting rhetoric.
Here are some of those who on Sunday May 31 between 2 and 4 pm non-violently protested the killing of George Floyd by Minneapolis police officers. They met at 2 pm at Spokane’s Riverfront Park and marched to the Spokane County Courthouse and Spokane City Courthouse/Jail. I asked those pictured here to tell us in their own words WHY THEY MARCHED.
And then there are those who will co-opt your non-violent protests. The extreme left and right, the anarchists and those who would like to destroy your community, institutions and trust with violence and chaos and destruction. Sometime after 5 pm and late into the evening groups like this looted downtown Spokane stores, broke windows and had confrontations with police that resulted in their use of flash bangs, bean bags, rubber bullets, and tear gas canisters.
After demonstrations like this people will go back home to cynicism, apathy, complacency, self-medication and risky behavior, and party and bull shit and party and bull shit. And there will be no change. The question should be what is it that you want and what is the price you are willing to pay and how do you go about getting it.
Will you build a grass root organization?
If so form small groups of 5 – 10 people. Get to know and vet who your people are. Are they actors, allies or accomplices? Are they people who will sit down and meet regularly to discuss strategies and planned actions? Meet in a public place or Zoom. Let us know what your results are at 4comculture.com. Email info to: info@4comculture.com
I’d suggest that you make this message go viral through your social media outlets. I’d suggest that you print this out on your home printer and distribute it at upcoming non-violent protests. You can become a civic activist and work between horrific events and elections.
Sometimes we can’t wait on the cavalry! Let’s put the wagons in a circle. The battle has begun! We are under attack, we must do the best we can with what we have. The creative will have the best chance for survival. It’s good to be prepared and independent but in times like this we need to be inter-dependent.
What does it mean to be a brotha? Is that a term based upon skin color or ethnicity or is it an understanding of common goals? We are in a war that’s being fought on two levels. One is the immediate problem with COVID-19. The other is the systemic problems that lead to a disproportionate number of deaths among people of color and the poor.
If we are brothas we need to support each other in this war at both levels. We need to support each other in measurable ways, not just throw around cultural symbols. We need to start by asking little things of each other.
If you are a friend you will wear a mask because it protects you from me and me from you.
We need to believe in and support the idea of one justice indivisible. If you don’t know what I am talking about a starting point would be The 14 Principles listed at 4comculture.com.
The Spokane School District Board of Education wants to name several new school buildings. It would be nice if two of those schools were named after people of color. You can nominate someone: Nomination Link. I have nominated Frances Scott and Ruben Trejo.
It would be good to let us know your personal level of commitment: Ally, Actor or Accomplice. See page at 4comculture.com.
You need to have an online presence. You need to let your other brothas know what it is you stand for. One simple way to do this is to participate in online posting and messaging at Facebook.
Let’s become civic activists. Participate in local social justice organizations or engage in new methods of non-violent action that include physical, virtual and hybrid actions.
We each need to develop a social justice budget. It would be nice if you would donate on a regular basis to the things that you believe in. Let me suggest that you make a donation to anybody or any group that you choose, but do it in the name of Spokane Brothas. The reason I suggest doing that is to build a power base that would be respected. I would suggest a budget that would express your volunteer time as well as your cash contributions. For example a budget of $100 a month could include:
Volunteering: 7 hours a month at the national minimum wage of $7.25 per hour would be about a $50 in-kind contribution. What if you showed up to volunteer in a Brothas T-shirt?
Send a check to the Black Lens. About $4.00 a month buys a subscription.
Contribute to an informational issue campaign. For example about $16 pays for a MailChimp service that will send your message to a mailing list of thousands that you have built. In times of quarantine and isolation you have to find ways other than community meetings to deliver information about your issues. You could buy a yard sign with your message or issue or candidate.
Give $20 to local and/or regional progressive organizations or blue political parties – to the same organization/s every month so they can feel your presence.
Give $10 to national progressive organizations or blue political parties – to the same organization/s every month so they can feel your presence.
If we only had 14 brothas contributing at this level this would be $1400 per month or $16,800 per year. Imagine what would happen if we had 100 brothas.
Your comments are welcome. If I haven’t heard from you by June 12, I will assume you are not interested.
