By Jaisal Noor
“Its a victory for hip-hop, immigrants’ rights movements, immigrant vendors, a victory for the South Bronx” - Rodstarz
The case against the South Bronx-based hip-hop artists Rodrigo and Gonzalo Venegas was were dropped June 18, exactly a year to the day after the brothers were aggressively arrested by NYPD while coming to the aid of a Hunts Point street vendor who they say was being harassed by police.
Judge Darcel Clark unexpectedly granted a motion to dismiss the brothers’ two misdemeanors charges of obstruction of justice and resisting arrest, citing their positive impact in the community. Rodrigo “RodStarz” and Gonzalo “G1” are part of the group Rebel Diaz, along with Teresita “Lah Tere” Ayala.
The incident occurred after Rodstarz and G1 offered to translate on behalf of the street vendor, who did not speak English. After asking for the officers’ badge numbers, they were violently arrested. The brothers were originally charged with assaulting a police officer, however, a friend caught the incident on video and was able to quickly put it on YouTube. Within hours, 150 community members had rallied at the local precinct. Prosecutors withdrew the assault charge but continued to pursue the two misdemeanor charges.
Leah Horowitz is an attorney with the Bronx Defenders and represented Rodstarz during the case. She filed the motion to dismiss in the interest of justice on March 2 though she thought it unlikely the court would grant the motion.
The motion was accompanied by letters from over thirty members of the South Bronx community as well as individuals and groups Rebel Diaz had worked with in the United States and around the world.
Horowitz told The Indypendent she credits Rebel Diaz’s community support, saying it “impressed a court system that isn’t easily impressed. And isn’t easily affected by those sorts of things. I think what it says is that organizing — which is what I’ve always known and believed in — is the way to go.”
She added, “It was obvious [the judge] thought very hard about it, and who they are, and the ridiculous nature of the case shone through,” adding, “She’s a good judge, she’s a tough judge, when she says something like that, it’s a tremendous sign of respect.”
”The church I represent is one of the churches that wrote letters of support” said Claudia De La Cruz, a resident of the South Bronx and pastor of San Romeros De Las Americas Church in Washington Heights. She added, “I was there in the court [for the decision] and I feel like it was a victory not just for Rebel Diaz, but a victory for our communities and so it was a happy moment because …justice was actually served.“
Rodstarz emphasized the importance of the letter writing campaign: “At the end of the day, if we hadn’t had those letters, I don’t think we would have had our case dismissed. People really took their time out of their day to write letters of support and it proved to work.”
The decision came as a surprise to Rebel Diaz’s lawyers, supporters and Rebel Diaz themselves. The judge’s parting words also came as somewhat of a shock. “The last words the judge left us with was “keep up the good work,” said G1. “I think it’s keep up the good fight, and that’s what we are doing. We left that courtroom with more conviction in what we do.”
Claudia De La Cruz was also impressed by the judge’s final words. She said, “I think it’s an affirmation and it’s interesting that it’s coming from a judge. I think it has a lot to do with that it was a black judge who said this … even though as a judge she represents the system that is systematically abusing our people, she was able to affirm herself as she affirmed the work that they do.”
Since they were arrested Rodstarz and G1 have emphasized that their case was part of a systemic problem. “The outcome of the case, it’s really easy to come to the conclusion that the system works,” said G1, adding “I would say it’s not so much that the system works, [but] that the system has cracks. As a community we have to exploit those cracks in the system. We need to find the small spaces of democracy that are left within this police state, whether through technology, through direct action through our communities, within our block.”
He added the community rallying around the case showed its resilience and defiance to the system, “In the process of fighting the case, we opened up a community center here in the South Bronx four blocks away from the precinct that locked us up,” said G1.
The Rebel Diaz Arts Collective opened in March. Located on 478 Austin Place in the South Bronx, the Collective includes “a performance space, a multimedia studio, and a computer lab art gallery… It’s all been made possible really by contributions from the members of the community,” G1 added.
Rebel Diaz not only organizes on a local level, but uses their music to fight injustice all over the world. On June 17th, the day before the decision, they took part in a concert fundraiser for George Galloway’s 2nd Viva Palestina Convoy trip to Gaza.
Rodstarz said, “I can’t sit here and fight against gentrification in the South Bronx and ignore the situation in Gaza. I can’t sit here and talk about police brutality in Brooklyn or Harlem and not talk about people being assassinated in Oaxaca, because they are being displaced too in Mexico. I can’t talk about Palestine and not talk about independence for Puerto Rico.“ He continued, “If we are not making those connections we are blind. We got to start talking about things in the real landscape; the world is under attack. There’s colonization going on worldwide and gentrification going on worldwide.”
Rodstarz told The Indypendent that the ordeal has left the group the group even more determined to make a difference, “More than anything we are going to keep up the struggle for immigrant rights, keep fighting youth incarceration, against police profiling young black and brown men in the South Bronx. We are going to keep calling out the powers that be.” He added, “There is gentrification going on in the South Bronx. That is the reason they are doing immigrant street vendor sweeps, that is the reason why they are arresting young people… We are going to keep fighting with more strength than ever.”
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
The Rhyme Is Mightier than the Sword
By Jaisal Noor
Innovation in mainstream rap means new ways to rhyme the same four-letter words, fresh ways to degrade women or the invention of new epithets to use against homosexuals. While so-called “conscious” hip-hop has proliferated in recent years, it often lacks raw emcee skills or production quality. This makes die-hard fans who are also politically progressive cringe and think twice before breaking the cellophane off the latest album.
Such fears are already buried by the time the intro track ends and “Vietnam,” the first song in The Narcicyst’s new self-titled album, begins. When the bass line kicks and the Narcicyst tears into the first verse you might have already forgotten the last dozen tracks you heard on the radio that nearly made you vomit. The horns and violins — which could have been recorded by Miri Ben Ari, hip-hop’s premier violinist — are mixed with a hard-hitting beat that you can’t keep your head from bumping to. The production is reminiscent of a mix between Kanye West and Jedi Mind Tricks’ producer Stoupe the Enemy of Mankind — two of hip-hop’s finest.
Palestinian singer Shadia Mansour’s exquisite voice graces the track “Hamdulilah” (Arabic for “Be Thankful to God, Thank you God”) and The Narcicyst, a.k.a. Yassin Alsalman, lays down smooth rhymes. In the track “P.H.A.T.W.A.” which has an accompanying music video, the Canadian-Iraqi Alsalman is racially profiled, detained and threatened at an airport while entering the United States. Yet he somehow manages to turn the experience into something humorous. It might even make you laugh before realizing that the song could be based on the rapper’s personal experiences (minus the hooded Guantánamo prisoners in orange jumpsuits doing the doo-wop while The Narcicyst gets interrogated). “Iraqi Prime Time News” and the track “Sumeria” with the hook: “My only love is the land of Sumeria/Where my grandma was buried in” gives insight to someone of Iraqi descent being a helpless observer to the destruction of their four thousand year old civilization.
Going farther than his previous releases, the album also tastefully delves into the rapper’s personal life, including the loss of loved ones and even his relationship with his wife. And yes, completely absent from the album are the word “bitch,” threats to homosexuals and promises to wipe out the residents of nearby neighborhoods. A practicing Muslim, Alsalman reveals himself as a peace advocate.
Lyrically, The Narcicyst holds down the entire album, flowing on beat while staying original and keeping his rhymes fresh. The Narcicyst is the rapper’s ninth album. His versatile rhymes match the diverse beats from his eight different producers (including himself). No two tracks sound alike. Some listeners may not appreciate the diversity and leave the album craving more bangers like “Vietnam,” but all will feel they’ve gotten their money’s worth: out of 19 tracks, there are at least a dozen quality songs. Some even remind you why you fell in love with hiphop all those years back.
ARTWORK: DAVID HOLLENBACH
ARTWORK: DAVID HOLLENBACH
Jaisal Noor of The Indypendent recently caught up with Yassin Alsalman to talk about music and politics:
Jaisal Noor: One of the major topics you cover in your music are conflicts in the Middle East. And you also talk about your personal experiences — the animosity that you face on a daily basis as someone of Arab descent. How do you turn that into something positive?
Yassin Alsalman: If I was to get violent, then I would be doing exactly what the system wants me to do and at the same time continuing a long legacy of mistakes on a human level. Hamdidillah, I have never been through war, but I have family members who have. So, the way I stay non-violent is by writing. As much as that doesn’t do that much to change things, it’s the least and the most I can do. As anyone else, if I got punched in the face I would try to punch someone back in the face. But I don’t believe violence is the answer against the system because the system will use that against you in the long run. As the Prophet said, the pen is mightier than the sword.
JN: You have several tracks that deal with the way society looks upon Arabs and people of Middle Eastern descent.
YA: [The story in the] My P.H.A.T.W.A. video really happened. I combined three different trips to the United States for the video. I have been held at borders for three hours and questioned; and they went through my computer and all my stuff and asked me to write down people’s names, why I am doing this, why my mother is a teacher, and why my father is an architect. They strip you of anything that you know and make you paranoid. I haven’t faced the worst of it, but with my artwork I would like to be able to shed light on these things that happen and show people how ridiculous this shit is. It’s so ridiculous to be profiled knowing that the white guy in front of me, the black guy behind me and the Mexican guy behind him didn’t have to go through what I just went through. It’s obvious that it’s a racist thing, but you are telling me it’s not a race thing. It’s just as ridiculous as a guy from Guantánamo doing the doo-wop behind you while you are being questioned. And that’s the exact reason. We put the doo-wop in the video, because it shows how ridiculous this situation is.
JN: You included several humiliating experiences at airports in your video, which is actually hilarious. Can you go through that process with us?
YA: I leave those situations drained but I almost can’t believe what just happened — that was a joke right? Because they will do all that shit and they’ll ask you ludicrous questions and fingerprint you and pat you down, and go through all your bags and then say, “You’re allowed into the States, no problem.” Initially when it happens, you are really vexed. But later on you realize how silly it was. I wanted to show people in the video that number one, despite all these things we go through, you can’t bring us down. You can’t make us feel like we aren’t anything, because we know what our worth is as human beings, and as a culture. And number two, [the video] is funny to the point of discomfort, like when the Israeli officer comes in the room and says, “Why don’t you tase him already?” and the guard says, “The Palestinian is in the other room bro.” When I premiered it, I’ve seen people laugh, but at the same time [they] experience this almost guilty discomfort for laughing. That’s exactly why we did this, because it’s really not a joke.
Innovation in mainstream rap means new ways to rhyme the same four-letter words, fresh ways to degrade women or the invention of new epithets to use against homosexuals. While so-called “conscious” hip-hop has proliferated in recent years, it often lacks raw emcee skills or production quality. This makes die-hard fans who are also politically progressive cringe and think twice before breaking the cellophane off the latest album.
Such fears are already buried by the time the intro track ends and “Vietnam,” the first song in The Narcicyst’s new self-titled album, begins. When the bass line kicks and the Narcicyst tears into the first verse you might have already forgotten the last dozen tracks you heard on the radio that nearly made you vomit. The horns and violins — which could have been recorded by Miri Ben Ari, hip-hop’s premier violinist — are mixed with a hard-hitting beat that you can’t keep your head from bumping to. The production is reminiscent of a mix between Kanye West and Jedi Mind Tricks’ producer Stoupe the Enemy of Mankind — two of hip-hop’s finest.
Palestinian singer Shadia Mansour’s exquisite voice graces the track “Hamdulilah” (Arabic for “Be Thankful to God, Thank you God”) and The Narcicyst, a.k.a. Yassin Alsalman, lays down smooth rhymes. In the track “P.H.A.T.W.A.” which has an accompanying music video, the Canadian-Iraqi Alsalman is racially profiled, detained and threatened at an airport while entering the United States. Yet he somehow manages to turn the experience into something humorous. It might even make you laugh before realizing that the song could be based on the rapper’s personal experiences (minus the hooded Guantánamo prisoners in orange jumpsuits doing the doo-wop while The Narcicyst gets interrogated). “Iraqi Prime Time News” and the track “Sumeria” with the hook: “My only love is the land of Sumeria/Where my grandma was buried in” gives insight to someone of Iraqi descent being a helpless observer to the destruction of their four thousand year old civilization.
Going farther than his previous releases, the album also tastefully delves into the rapper’s personal life, including the loss of loved ones and even his relationship with his wife. And yes, completely absent from the album are the word “bitch,” threats to homosexuals and promises to wipe out the residents of nearby neighborhoods. A practicing Muslim, Alsalman reveals himself as a peace advocate.
Lyrically, The Narcicyst holds down the entire album, flowing on beat while staying original and keeping his rhymes fresh. The Narcicyst is the rapper’s ninth album. His versatile rhymes match the diverse beats from his eight different producers (including himself). No two tracks sound alike. Some listeners may not appreciate the diversity and leave the album craving more bangers like “Vietnam,” but all will feel they’ve gotten their money’s worth: out of 19 tracks, there are at least a dozen quality songs. Some even remind you why you fell in love with hiphop all those years back.
ARTWORK: DAVID HOLLENBACH
ARTWORK: DAVID HOLLENBACH
Jaisal Noor of The Indypendent recently caught up with Yassin Alsalman to talk about music and politics:
Jaisal Noor: One of the major topics you cover in your music are conflicts in the Middle East. And you also talk about your personal experiences — the animosity that you face on a daily basis as someone of Arab descent. How do you turn that into something positive?
Yassin Alsalman: If I was to get violent, then I would be doing exactly what the system wants me to do and at the same time continuing a long legacy of mistakes on a human level. Hamdidillah, I have never been through war, but I have family members who have. So, the way I stay non-violent is by writing. As much as that doesn’t do that much to change things, it’s the least and the most I can do. As anyone else, if I got punched in the face I would try to punch someone back in the face. But I don’t believe violence is the answer against the system because the system will use that against you in the long run. As the Prophet said, the pen is mightier than the sword.
JN: You have several tracks that deal with the way society looks upon Arabs and people of Middle Eastern descent.
YA: [The story in the] My P.H.A.T.W.A. video really happened. I combined three different trips to the United States for the video. I have been held at borders for three hours and questioned; and they went through my computer and all my stuff and asked me to write down people’s names, why I am doing this, why my mother is a teacher, and why my father is an architect. They strip you of anything that you know and make you paranoid. I haven’t faced the worst of it, but with my artwork I would like to be able to shed light on these things that happen and show people how ridiculous this shit is. It’s so ridiculous to be profiled knowing that the white guy in front of me, the black guy behind me and the Mexican guy behind him didn’t have to go through what I just went through. It’s obvious that it’s a racist thing, but you are telling me it’s not a race thing. It’s just as ridiculous as a guy from Guantánamo doing the doo-wop behind you while you are being questioned. And that’s the exact reason. We put the doo-wop in the video, because it shows how ridiculous this situation is.
JN: You included several humiliating experiences at airports in your video, which is actually hilarious. Can you go through that process with us?
YA: I leave those situations drained but I almost can’t believe what just happened — that was a joke right? Because they will do all that shit and they’ll ask you ludicrous questions and fingerprint you and pat you down, and go through all your bags and then say, “You’re allowed into the States, no problem.” Initially when it happens, you are really vexed. But later on you realize how silly it was. I wanted to show people in the video that number one, despite all these things we go through, you can’t bring us down. You can’t make us feel like we aren’t anything, because we know what our worth is as human beings, and as a culture. And number two, [the video] is funny to the point of discomfort, like when the Israeli officer comes in the room and says, “Why don’t you tase him already?” and the guard says, “The Palestinian is in the other room bro.” When I premiered it, I’ve seen people laugh, but at the same time [they] experience this almost guilty discomfort for laughing. That’s exactly why we did this, because it’s really not a joke.
Reclaiming Einstein: New Book Reveals Famed Scientist as an Opponent of Israel
By Jaisal Noor
Einstein on Zionism and Israel: His Provocative Ideas About the Middle East
By Fred Jerome
St. Martin’s Press, May 2009
Countless books and articles have been written about the life of the great physicist and thinker Albert Einstein, and since his death in 1955, a near consensus has existed that Einstein was a staunch supporter of the state of Israel.
Veteran journalist Fred Jerome uses hundreds of pages of Einstein’s own letters, articles and interviews — many published for the first time — to refute this thesis.
It is well known that Einstein, a German Jew, witnessed European anti-Semitism firsthand and spoke out against both prejudice and Nazism. These experiences convinced Einstein to support Zionism and a Jewish homeland. After gaining immense fame for his scientific breakthroughs, he was offered the presidency of Israel in 1952 after the death of the country’s first president, Chaim Weizmann.
In reality, while Einstein was sympathetic to the Zionist cause, he repeatedly warned that a “narrow nationalism” may arise if a Jewish-only state was founded and peaceful co-existence with the Palestinians was not achieved. Instead, Einstein advocated Cultural Zionism — the creation of Jewish cultural and educational centers within a bi-national state with equal rights for both Arabs and Jews.
When Einstein was offered the Israeli presidency, Israeli Prime Minister David Ben Gurion stated, “I’ve had to offer him the post because it was impossible not to, but if he accepts we are in for trouble.” In a letter written in the same year, Einstein compared the Zionists’ project with that of the Pilgrims, noting, “how tyrannical, intolerant and aggressive [they] became after a short while.” And in Einstein’s last media interview, which ran in the New York Post a month before his death, he stated “We had great hopes for Israel at first. We thought it might be better than other nations, but it is no better.”
Jerome has authored two previous books about Einstein; The Einstein File: J. Edgar Hoover’s Secret War Against the World’s Most Famous Scientist and Einstein on Race and Racism, co-authored with Rodger Taylor. These books are essential to understanding Einstein, a self-described “revolutionary,” who publicly stated that he would use his fame and celebrity status to bring attention to the causes important to him. For example, Einstein on Race and Racism details for the first time Einstein’s 20-year friendship with Paul Robeson. While the first two books were aimed at filling a large gap in the knowledge about Einstein’s radical beliefs and political activism, Einstein on Zionism and Israel seeks to debunk the myth that Einstein was a supporter of Israel.
In the process, Jerome reveals much about the nature of mainstream propaganda. Einstein’s opposition to Israel was widely known and reported on during his life. In fact, the myth of Einstein’s support of Israel was born the day after Einstein’s death in his obituary in The New York Times, which shamelessly wrote that he “championed” the establishment of the Jewish state. This contradicted decades of reporting from the “Paper of Record.” Jerome provides some examples, including a 1930 article headlined “Einstein attacks British Zion Policy,” a 1938 article stating Einstein was “Against Palestine State” and a 1946 article stating Einstein “Bars Jewish State.”
The book ends with a quote from author and intellectual Gore Vidal, “The only question that really matters: Why?” Jerome follows with, “Why have we not known?”
The New York Society of Ethical Culture will host a reception to celebrate the release of Einstein on Zionism and Israel May 28, 6:30 p.m. 2 West 64th Street in Manhattan. The event is free.
The Indypendent’s Jaisal Noor sat down with author Fred Jerome to discuss why Albert Einstein is remembered for his physics and not his politics.
Jaisal Noor: Why did you decide to write this book on Einstein and his views on Israel and Zionism?
Fred Jerome: When Einstein met Paul Robeson in 1952, Einstein had just turned down the offer to be president of Israel. According to Lloyd Brown [who was present at that meeting] Einstein told Robeson why he had turned down the invitation: He didn’t agree with Israel, with the nationalism, the establishment of the state of Israel, and so on. In both my previous books, there was a brief discussion about Israel. In addition, it is so clearly one of the central issues of today’s world. We cannot ignore this issue and pretend to be concerned about the world or people in the world. It seemed logical to me that if I was going to be concerned about what was happening in Israel, particularly the Israeli oppression of the Palestinians … it would be a logical step to write more on what Einstein had to say. I contacted the Einstein Archives in Jerusalem, and they actually thought it would be a good idea and encouraged me and said that they could provide information that probably had never been published before.
JN: You started with the Einstein Archive in Jerusalem — where else did you go?
FJ: Einstein gave all his papers to the Hebrew University in Jerusalem because he actually helped to found the Hebrew University. As a Cultural Zionist, he was in favor of cultural centers, like universities, but opposed to a Jewish state or nation. I also tried to talk to as many people as possible who talked to Einstein, knew Einstein, who remember Einstein. The most important was [eminent Egyptian journalist] Mohammed Heikel in Cairo. I included this interview, which was certainly never mentioned in any of the more than 100 books on Einstein.
JN: Could you describe the reaction the press had to your previous works on Einstein and the reaction you expect from this one?
FJ: The press’s reaction to the first book, The Einstein File [2002], was one of very significant interest, maybe because J. Edgar Hoover had fallen out of favor with the media in the past 20 years. And so you have a bad guy versus a good guy, Einstein being the good guy. He had just been named Person of the Century by Time Magazine in the year 2000 when I was working on the first book, and I had come up with this file that no one else had — the entire file. So it was a combination of new information and kind of a sexy theme. Then The New York Times devoted a full page of its science section when the book first came out — that helped get the book covered by lots of other media outlets.
When the book Einstein on Race and Racism [2006] came out, there was virtually no coverage in the mainstream media. There was some coverage in the Black press, including the Amsterdam News, some of the websites and so on. Publisher’s Weekly did a review in which they said that it was a good book, was well written, well researched, no complaints, no criticisms. Einstein was a race man, but so what? Six months after the book came out The New York Times finally did do a review of the book, a very favorable review of the book, and published it only in the New Jersey edition, which has very few readers compared to their other editions.
So the contrast was striking. I think primarily because the mainstream media in America really don’t want to write about racism in America and certainly don’t want to identify Einstein with an anti racist position. The other reason the media have ignored this book is that part of the book is Einstein’s friendship with Paul Robeson and while they finally did put Paul Robeson on a postage stamp, after much struggle and protest, clearly the mainstream media and the corporate interests they represent are still afraid of Paul Robeson’s leftism, his socialism, activism, the resistance to them he represented. Outside of the mainstream media it has gotten a very positive reaction. [Co-author] Rodger Taylor and I are still getting invited to speak, five years after the book was published, by students and other groups around the country. But the media reaction was clearly “don’t touch it.”
And my anticipation for this book is that most of the mainstream media will have the same reaction to this book, because I think that their attitude on Israel-Palestine for the most part is well over 150 percent support for Washington’s total backing of the Israeli government. They have been saying in the mainstream media that Einstein was a big supporter of Israel, and they have been saying that since the day he died, over 60 years ago. They never said it while he was alive.
Einstein on Zionism and Israel: His Provocative Ideas About the Middle East
By Fred Jerome
St. Martin’s Press, May 2009
Countless books and articles have been written about the life of the great physicist and thinker Albert Einstein, and since his death in 1955, a near consensus has existed that Einstein was a staunch supporter of the state of Israel.
Veteran journalist Fred Jerome uses hundreds of pages of Einstein’s own letters, articles and interviews — many published for the first time — to refute this thesis.
It is well known that Einstein, a German Jew, witnessed European anti-Semitism firsthand and spoke out against both prejudice and Nazism. These experiences convinced Einstein to support Zionism and a Jewish homeland. After gaining immense fame for his scientific breakthroughs, he was offered the presidency of Israel in 1952 after the death of the country’s first president, Chaim Weizmann.
In reality, while Einstein was sympathetic to the Zionist cause, he repeatedly warned that a “narrow nationalism” may arise if a Jewish-only state was founded and peaceful co-existence with the Palestinians was not achieved. Instead, Einstein advocated Cultural Zionism — the creation of Jewish cultural and educational centers within a bi-national state with equal rights for both Arabs and Jews.
When Einstein was offered the Israeli presidency, Israeli Prime Minister David Ben Gurion stated, “I’ve had to offer him the post because it was impossible not to, but if he accepts we are in for trouble.” In a letter written in the same year, Einstein compared the Zionists’ project with that of the Pilgrims, noting, “how tyrannical, intolerant and aggressive [they] became after a short while.” And in Einstein’s last media interview, which ran in the New York Post a month before his death, he stated “We had great hopes for Israel at first. We thought it might be better than other nations, but it is no better.”
Jerome has authored two previous books about Einstein; The Einstein File: J. Edgar Hoover’s Secret War Against the World’s Most Famous Scientist and Einstein on Race and Racism, co-authored with Rodger Taylor. These books are essential to understanding Einstein, a self-described “revolutionary,” who publicly stated that he would use his fame and celebrity status to bring attention to the causes important to him. For example, Einstein on Race and Racism details for the first time Einstein’s 20-year friendship with Paul Robeson. While the first two books were aimed at filling a large gap in the knowledge about Einstein’s radical beliefs and political activism, Einstein on Zionism and Israel seeks to debunk the myth that Einstein was a supporter of Israel.
In the process, Jerome reveals much about the nature of mainstream propaganda. Einstein’s opposition to Israel was widely known and reported on during his life. In fact, the myth of Einstein’s support of Israel was born the day after Einstein’s death in his obituary in The New York Times, which shamelessly wrote that he “championed” the establishment of the Jewish state. This contradicted decades of reporting from the “Paper of Record.” Jerome provides some examples, including a 1930 article headlined “Einstein attacks British Zion Policy,” a 1938 article stating Einstein was “Against Palestine State” and a 1946 article stating Einstein “Bars Jewish State.”
The book ends with a quote from author and intellectual Gore Vidal, “The only question that really matters: Why?” Jerome follows with, “Why have we not known?”
The New York Society of Ethical Culture will host a reception to celebrate the release of Einstein on Zionism and Israel May 28, 6:30 p.m. 2 West 64th Street in Manhattan. The event is free.
The Indypendent’s Jaisal Noor sat down with author Fred Jerome to discuss why Albert Einstein is remembered for his physics and not his politics.
Jaisal Noor: Why did you decide to write this book on Einstein and his views on Israel and Zionism?
Fred Jerome: When Einstein met Paul Robeson in 1952, Einstein had just turned down the offer to be president of Israel. According to Lloyd Brown [who was present at that meeting] Einstein told Robeson why he had turned down the invitation: He didn’t agree with Israel, with the nationalism, the establishment of the state of Israel, and so on. In both my previous books, there was a brief discussion about Israel. In addition, it is so clearly one of the central issues of today’s world. We cannot ignore this issue and pretend to be concerned about the world or people in the world. It seemed logical to me that if I was going to be concerned about what was happening in Israel, particularly the Israeli oppression of the Palestinians … it would be a logical step to write more on what Einstein had to say. I contacted the Einstein Archives in Jerusalem, and they actually thought it would be a good idea and encouraged me and said that they could provide information that probably had never been published before.
JN: You started with the Einstein Archive in Jerusalem — where else did you go?
FJ: Einstein gave all his papers to the Hebrew University in Jerusalem because he actually helped to found the Hebrew University. As a Cultural Zionist, he was in favor of cultural centers, like universities, but opposed to a Jewish state or nation. I also tried to talk to as many people as possible who talked to Einstein, knew Einstein, who remember Einstein. The most important was [eminent Egyptian journalist] Mohammed Heikel in Cairo. I included this interview, which was certainly never mentioned in any of the more than 100 books on Einstein.
JN: Could you describe the reaction the press had to your previous works on Einstein and the reaction you expect from this one?
FJ: The press’s reaction to the first book, The Einstein File [2002], was one of very significant interest, maybe because J. Edgar Hoover had fallen out of favor with the media in the past 20 years. And so you have a bad guy versus a good guy, Einstein being the good guy. He had just been named Person of the Century by Time Magazine in the year 2000 when I was working on the first book, and I had come up with this file that no one else had — the entire file. So it was a combination of new information and kind of a sexy theme. Then The New York Times devoted a full page of its science section when the book first came out — that helped get the book covered by lots of other media outlets.
When the book Einstein on Race and Racism [2006] came out, there was virtually no coverage in the mainstream media. There was some coverage in the Black press, including the Amsterdam News, some of the websites and so on. Publisher’s Weekly did a review in which they said that it was a good book, was well written, well researched, no complaints, no criticisms. Einstein was a race man, but so what? Six months after the book came out The New York Times finally did do a review of the book, a very favorable review of the book, and published it only in the New Jersey edition, which has very few readers compared to their other editions.
So the contrast was striking. I think primarily because the mainstream media in America really don’t want to write about racism in America and certainly don’t want to identify Einstein with an anti racist position. The other reason the media have ignored this book is that part of the book is Einstein’s friendship with Paul Robeson and while they finally did put Paul Robeson on a postage stamp, after much struggle and protest, clearly the mainstream media and the corporate interests they represent are still afraid of Paul Robeson’s leftism, his socialism, activism, the resistance to them he represented. Outside of the mainstream media it has gotten a very positive reaction. [Co-author] Rodger Taylor and I are still getting invited to speak, five years after the book was published, by students and other groups around the country. But the media reaction was clearly “don’t touch it.”
And my anticipation for this book is that most of the mainstream media will have the same reaction to this book, because I think that their attitude on Israel-Palestine for the most part is well over 150 percent support for Washington’s total backing of the Israeli government. They have been saying in the mainstream media that Einstein was a big supporter of Israel, and they have been saying that since the day he died, over 60 years ago. They never said it while he was alive.
An Interview with George Galloway
By Jaisal Noor
The Indypendent recently caught up with British Parliamentarian and anti-war leader George Galloway who recently lead an aid convoy to the devastated Gaza strip and was subsequently prevented from entering Canada who accused him of providing financial support to Hamas
Q: What is your reaction to the swearing in of the new right-wing Israeli government on March 31?
A: After all, they had the option of re-electing the brutal killers of Gaza. But, they chose even more brutal, even more desperate killers in Netanyahu and Lieberman. And this poses a big question for the rest of us. Are we going to continue, absurdly, to treat the breakers of international law, the occupiers in defiance of international law, the people who are regularly launching brutal assaults, and very effective brutal assaults that kill, maim, orphan thousands, are we going to continue to give them the money, the weapons and diplomatic and political support to do that, while boycotting their victims. This is adding insult to injury. The people who are the victims of this are the ones who are called the terrorists, and the people who are perpetrating it are called the victim of terrorism.
So, I believe the rest of us have to say, we can no longer continue to fund, arm and support, for what 42 years now has been an illegal occupation, and we intend to hold Israel to the same standards that we would require of any other member of the international community, and if they don’t live up to them, they’ll have to be sanctioned, and boycotted, and divested from and shunned, as Apartheid South Africa was shunned. Instead of shunning their victims, we have to start shunning the perpetrators.
Q: The right wing gained popularity in the lead up to the election the Israeli offensive in Gaza did not go far enough. Netanyahu has called for the removal of Hamas from power in Gaza. What is your response?
A: As it happens, I am not a supporter of Hamas, but I am a supporter of democracy. And no body has the right to choose who speaks for the Palestinians except the Palestinians themselves. And has been established many many times, by such failed enterprises as the invasion of Lebanon two years ago, the attack on Gaza over Christmas/New Year, there is no military force that can uproot and destroy the resistance, because the resistance is the people themselves. You can kill a hundred, five hundred, five thousand, but they have sons, and brothers, and neighbors and friends, and this will keep coming back stronger and stronger, and all you are doing by creating more martyrs is creating more revenge.
Q: Recent report in Haaretz leaked database, leaked by Israeli group Peace Now, last year they had saw the greatest escalation of and creation of settlements on Palestinian land. That was under the ‘moderate-centrist’ Kadima part. Now what do you expect to see from the right wing coalition that has taken power?
A: First I have to challenge the characterization of as Kadima moderate or centrist. This is one of the things that bedevils this whole affair. Every time Israel moves right, we are invited to consider the previous the right the center and this march has lead all the way to Lieberman. The two-state solution envisioned in the Oslo agreement, which I supported as a supporter of the line of President Arafat, is dead. As a result of the ethnic cleansing of Jerusalem, the building of the apartheid wall, the growth of the settlements, the massacre of Gaza, and the absolute determination of at least 90% of Israelis never to allow the Palestinian refugees to return to their homes. So, I have a better idea. lets fight for a single, democratic and secular state, from the river to the sea, where all the Jews, where all the Muslims and all the Christians can live as equals before the law, with one man, one woman, one vote.
Q: Your response to the Canadian government turning you away from the border?
A: Its backfired you know. Its been a far bigger audience and a far greater interest for what I have to say as a result of this foolish ban. I don’t know why they did it. They did it at the behest of something called the Jewish Defense league, which certainly doesn’t speak for Jews and doesn’t have much to do with defense, which is regarded by the FBI here in the US as a dangerous groups of thugs. I don’t think the Canadian people want to be lead by such people. They pleased their friends in Likud with this ban, but they angered their own people left and right, whether they agreed with me or not. And it backfired. I am confident I will be back in Canada, but meanwhile I will be speaking to them via the internet. The idea that a 23- year member of British Parliament, who has toured Canada many times before, who is currently touring the United States of America, is a terrorist or a security risk, is simply laughable. And what they mean is that I took ambulances and medicine to Gaza, and gave it to the local authorities there. Well, you call that terrorism, you really are bankrupting the whole idea, you are leaving the word with no meaning, and that dangerous as well as foolish.
The Indypendent recently caught up with British Parliamentarian and anti-war leader George Galloway who recently lead an aid convoy to the devastated Gaza strip and was subsequently prevented from entering Canada who accused him of providing financial support to Hamas
Q: What is your reaction to the swearing in of the new right-wing Israeli government on March 31?
A: After all, they had the option of re-electing the brutal killers of Gaza. But, they chose even more brutal, even more desperate killers in Netanyahu and Lieberman. And this poses a big question for the rest of us. Are we going to continue, absurdly, to treat the breakers of international law, the occupiers in defiance of international law, the people who are regularly launching brutal assaults, and very effective brutal assaults that kill, maim, orphan thousands, are we going to continue to give them the money, the weapons and diplomatic and political support to do that, while boycotting their victims. This is adding insult to injury. The people who are the victims of this are the ones who are called the terrorists, and the people who are perpetrating it are called the victim of terrorism.
So, I believe the rest of us have to say, we can no longer continue to fund, arm and support, for what 42 years now has been an illegal occupation, and we intend to hold Israel to the same standards that we would require of any other member of the international community, and if they don’t live up to them, they’ll have to be sanctioned, and boycotted, and divested from and shunned, as Apartheid South Africa was shunned. Instead of shunning their victims, we have to start shunning the perpetrators.
Q: The right wing gained popularity in the lead up to the election the Israeli offensive in Gaza did not go far enough. Netanyahu has called for the removal of Hamas from power in Gaza. What is your response?
A: As it happens, I am not a supporter of Hamas, but I am a supporter of democracy. And no body has the right to choose who speaks for the Palestinians except the Palestinians themselves. And has been established many many times, by such failed enterprises as the invasion of Lebanon two years ago, the attack on Gaza over Christmas/New Year, there is no military force that can uproot and destroy the resistance, because the resistance is the people themselves. You can kill a hundred, five hundred, five thousand, but they have sons, and brothers, and neighbors and friends, and this will keep coming back stronger and stronger, and all you are doing by creating more martyrs is creating more revenge.
Q: Recent report in Haaretz leaked database, leaked by Israeli group Peace Now, last year they had saw the greatest escalation of and creation of settlements on Palestinian land. That was under the ‘moderate-centrist’ Kadima part. Now what do you expect to see from the right wing coalition that has taken power?
A: First I have to challenge the characterization of as Kadima moderate or centrist. This is one of the things that bedevils this whole affair. Every time Israel moves right, we are invited to consider the previous the right the center and this march has lead all the way to Lieberman. The two-state solution envisioned in the Oslo agreement, which I supported as a supporter of the line of President Arafat, is dead. As a result of the ethnic cleansing of Jerusalem, the building of the apartheid wall, the growth of the settlements, the massacre of Gaza, and the absolute determination of at least 90% of Israelis never to allow the Palestinian refugees to return to their homes. So, I have a better idea. lets fight for a single, democratic and secular state, from the river to the sea, where all the Jews, where all the Muslims and all the Christians can live as equals before the law, with one man, one woman, one vote.
Q: Your response to the Canadian government turning you away from the border?
A: Its backfired you know. Its been a far bigger audience and a far greater interest for what I have to say as a result of this foolish ban. I don’t know why they did it. They did it at the behest of something called the Jewish Defense league, which certainly doesn’t speak for Jews and doesn’t have much to do with defense, which is regarded by the FBI here in the US as a dangerous groups of thugs. I don’t think the Canadian people want to be lead by such people. They pleased their friends in Likud with this ban, but they angered their own people left and right, whether they agreed with me or not. And it backfired. I am confident I will be back in Canada, but meanwhile I will be speaking to them via the internet. The idea that a 23- year member of British Parliament, who has toured Canada many times before, who is currently touring the United States of America, is a terrorist or a security risk, is simply laughable. And what they mean is that I took ambulances and medicine to Gaza, and gave it to the local authorities there. Well, you call that terrorism, you really are bankrupting the whole idea, you are leaving the word with no meaning, and that dangerous as well as foolish.
A Glimpse From the Belly of the Beast: A Review of Mumia Abu-Jamal’s Latest Book
By Jaisal Noor
Jailhouse Lawyers: Prisoners Defending Prisoners V. the USA
By Mumia Abu-Jamal
City Lights, 2009
In Mumia Abu-Jamal’s latest book, the award-winning journalist, former Black Panther and current death row inmate introduces us to the world of jailhouse lawyers — inmates who, despite lacking formal legal education and sometimes even basic literacy at first, mount legal defenses for themselves and other prisoners. The need for jailhouse lawyers arises from a criminal justice system whose scales of justice have always been tipped against defendants from disenfranchised classes and especially African Americans.
Frustrated by inept court-appointed attorneys, many prisoners took it upon themselves to redress mistreatment in prison and even mount appeal cases; their work has led to the reform of statewide policies and has sometimes meant the difference between life and death.
Abu-Jamal has spent the last three decades behind bars — much of it on death row — and the book is largely based on his experiences helping other inmates. His legal work has earned him the recognition of the National Lawyers Guild, for whom he serves as a vice president of it’s co-jailhouse lawyer committee.
But the heart of the book is the stories Abu-Jamal tells of jailhouse lawyers who fought for creating legal protection for those engaged in the field. Legally-sanctioned punishment for jailhouse lawyering formally ended with the 1969 U.S. Supreme Court decision Johnson V. Avery. However, those engaged in the field continue to be targeted for their work. A 1991 study revealed that jailhouse lawyers were more likely to be reprimanded than any other prison population.
Bill Clinton’s 1996 Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), which sought to stop frivolous lawsuits against prisons, rolled back many of the protections that jailhouse lawyers and inmates had won over previous decades — the book makes a powerful case for its repeal. “Is it surprising,” Abu-Jamal asks, “that a nation that began its existence with Slave Codes, then continued for a century with an equally repressive set of Black Codes, would institute … Prison Codes? Such is the stuff American law is made of today.”
While much of the world was appalled by the revelations of torture and prisoner abuse at Guantánamo Bay and Abu Ghraib, those aware of the conditions inside U.S. prisons were not. The same tactics and abuses have long been carried out domestically, largely against African Americans and Latinos. Were Gitmo-level abuses exposed within a U.S. prison, explains Abu-Jamal, the PLRA would prevent the victim from seeking damages.
Abu-Jamal has long helped galvanize millions worldwide to not only protest the U.S. death penalty, but also rally against the prison-industrial complex. His latest work makes an invaluable contribution towards understanding those resisting it from behind bars; this book offers a rare glimpse into the hidden world and history of jailhouse lawyers.
Despite the U.S. Supreme Court’s rejection April 6 of Abu-Jamal’s appeal for a new trial, he continues to fight for his freedom. This would not have been possible without the support of millions worldwide. He reminds the reader of the more than two million Americans behind bars in similar situations to himself, and that those in the free world have a responsibility to those trapped “in the bowels of the slave ship, in the hidden dank dungeons of America.”
Jailhouse Lawyers: Prisoners Defending Prisoners V. the USA
By Mumia Abu-Jamal
City Lights, 2009
In Mumia Abu-Jamal’s latest book, the award-winning journalist, former Black Panther and current death row inmate introduces us to the world of jailhouse lawyers — inmates who, despite lacking formal legal education and sometimes even basic literacy at first, mount legal defenses for themselves and other prisoners. The need for jailhouse lawyers arises from a criminal justice system whose scales of justice have always been tipped against defendants from disenfranchised classes and especially African Americans.
Frustrated by inept court-appointed attorneys, many prisoners took it upon themselves to redress mistreatment in prison and even mount appeal cases; their work has led to the reform of statewide policies and has sometimes meant the difference between life and death.
Abu-Jamal has spent the last three decades behind bars — much of it on death row — and the book is largely based on his experiences helping other inmates. His legal work has earned him the recognition of the National Lawyers Guild, for whom he serves as a vice president of it’s co-jailhouse lawyer committee.
But the heart of the book is the stories Abu-Jamal tells of jailhouse lawyers who fought for creating legal protection for those engaged in the field. Legally-sanctioned punishment for jailhouse lawyering formally ended with the 1969 U.S. Supreme Court decision Johnson V. Avery. However, those engaged in the field continue to be targeted for their work. A 1991 study revealed that jailhouse lawyers were more likely to be reprimanded than any other prison population.
Bill Clinton’s 1996 Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), which sought to stop frivolous lawsuits against prisons, rolled back many of the protections that jailhouse lawyers and inmates had won over previous decades — the book makes a powerful case for its repeal. “Is it surprising,” Abu-Jamal asks, “that a nation that began its existence with Slave Codes, then continued for a century with an equally repressive set of Black Codes, would institute … Prison Codes? Such is the stuff American law is made of today.”
While much of the world was appalled by the revelations of torture and prisoner abuse at Guantánamo Bay and Abu Ghraib, those aware of the conditions inside U.S. prisons were not. The same tactics and abuses have long been carried out domestically, largely against African Americans and Latinos. Were Gitmo-level abuses exposed within a U.S. prison, explains Abu-Jamal, the PLRA would prevent the victim from seeking damages.
Abu-Jamal has long helped galvanize millions worldwide to not only protest the U.S. death penalty, but also rally against the prison-industrial complex. His latest work makes an invaluable contribution towards understanding those resisting it from behind bars; this book offers a rare glimpse into the hidden world and history of jailhouse lawyers.
Despite the U.S. Supreme Court’s rejection April 6 of Abu-Jamal’s appeal for a new trial, he continues to fight for his freedom. This would not have been possible without the support of millions worldwide. He reminds the reader of the more than two million Americans behind bars in similar situations to himself, and that those in the free world have a responsibility to those trapped “in the bowels of the slave ship, in the hidden dank dungeons of America.”
Carrying the White Man’s Burden: Obama Pulls U.S. Out of U.N. World Conference against Racism
By Jaisal Noor
After taking part in preparatory discussions, the Obama administration announced on Feb. 27 that it would boycott the U.N. World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance to be held in Geneva, Switzerland, April 20-24.
Also not participating are Canada, Italy and Israel, all close U.S. allies. Nonetheless, delegates from many nations are scheduled to meet in Geneva as a followup to the first conference, Durban I, held in Durban, South Africa, in September 2001.
The State Department said the United States was withdrawing because it objected to language affirming the Durban I conference call for reparations for slavery. The Department also stated that the conference “must not single out any one country or conflict.”
This statement is widely seen as referring to Israel. In 2001, the official U.S. delegation walked out of Durban I after a draft declaration included language referring to “ethnic cleansing of the Arab population in historic Palestine” and described Zionism as being “based on racial superiority.”
A revised draft was released on March 17 that removed references to Israel but as The Indypendent went to press the White House had not changed its position.
Lobbying against U.S. participation were pro-Israel groups, such as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, which said, “President Obama’s decision not to send U.S. representation to the April event is the right thing to do and underscores America’s unstinting commitment to combating intolerance and racism in all its forms and in all settings.”
Many observers were critical of the U.S. withdrawal, however. Jared Ball, who sought the Green Party presidential nomination in 2008, told The Indypendent that the White House’s refusal to participate “is another in a series of acts which demonstrate [Obama is] an appointee of the most elite elements of this nation to re-brand a weakening U.S. empire.”
Nora Barrows-Friedman, co-host of Flashpoints on Pacifica radio, commented, “It is not surprising that the Obama administration is taking steps to distance itself from criticism at the Durban conference.” She said the U.S. withdrawal is a reaction to the “growing global outrage in civil society against both the United States’ entrenchment of its lethal occupations and wars against Iraq and Afghanistan and Israel’s expanding projects of occupation and genocidal actions in Palestine.”
Barrows-Friedman added, “Israel’s systematic racism against the indigenous, occupied and dispossessed people of Palestine continues to have the full support of the U.S. government.”
Over the last four decades, the United States has vetoed scores of U.N. resolutions regarding Israel, and Israel is currently in violation of at least 28 Security Council resolutions.
Recently, the president of the Israeli Association for Civil Rights said, “Israeli society is reaching new heights of racism that damages freedom of expression and privacy,” and last year the group reported that Israel’s occupation is “reminiscent of the apartheid regime in South Africa.”
Ball argues that even with a Black president, the United States is unable to come to terms with the legacy of slavery, colonialism or modern-day racism. Obama’s boycott, he said, “is further evidence of the fact of his blackness having nothing to do with his politics and less to do with his ability to articulate, defend or advance the causes and struggles of African-descended people here or abroad.”
The U.S. withdrawal is of significant concern because it is happening at a time when there is “exponential growth in hate crimes, ethnic tensions and other manifestations of … racism,” according to journalist and analyst Roberto Lovato.
Within the United States, the Southern Poverty Law Center reports that the number of hate groups “continued to rise in 2008 and has grown by 54 percent since 2000 — an increase fueled last year by immigration fears, a failing economy and the successful campaign of Barack Obama.” The center also reports “a 40 percent growth in hate crimes against Latinos between 2003 and 2007.”
Another concern is racism within the U.S. prison system. One in every 31 adults, or 7.3 million people, are now in the US corrections system, and a disproportionate number are Latino and African-American. In a recent study titled “Decades of Disparity: Drug Arrests and Race in the United States,” Human Rights Watch documented the “structural racism” of the prison-industrial complex.
Ball asserts that because a “pro-Israeli lobby” was able to “influence a Black president out of a global conference against racism and out of an international discussion of reparations for enslavement … only wide-ranging and well-organized social movements can produce the ‘change we can believe in,’ not marketing campaigns and well-crafted speeches.”
After taking part in preparatory discussions, the Obama administration announced on Feb. 27 that it would boycott the U.N. World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance to be held in Geneva, Switzerland, April 20-24.
Also not participating are Canada, Italy and Israel, all close U.S. allies. Nonetheless, delegates from many nations are scheduled to meet in Geneva as a followup to the first conference, Durban I, held in Durban, South Africa, in September 2001.
The State Department said the United States was withdrawing because it objected to language affirming the Durban I conference call for reparations for slavery. The Department also stated that the conference “must not single out any one country or conflict.”
This statement is widely seen as referring to Israel. In 2001, the official U.S. delegation walked out of Durban I after a draft declaration included language referring to “ethnic cleansing of the Arab population in historic Palestine” and described Zionism as being “based on racial superiority.”
A revised draft was released on March 17 that removed references to Israel but as The Indypendent went to press the White House had not changed its position.
Lobbying against U.S. participation were pro-Israel groups, such as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, which said, “President Obama’s decision not to send U.S. representation to the April event is the right thing to do and underscores America’s unstinting commitment to combating intolerance and racism in all its forms and in all settings.”
Many observers were critical of the U.S. withdrawal, however. Jared Ball, who sought the Green Party presidential nomination in 2008, told The Indypendent that the White House’s refusal to participate “is another in a series of acts which demonstrate [Obama is] an appointee of the most elite elements of this nation to re-brand a weakening U.S. empire.”
Nora Barrows-Friedman, co-host of Flashpoints on Pacifica radio, commented, “It is not surprising that the Obama administration is taking steps to distance itself from criticism at the Durban conference.” She said the U.S. withdrawal is a reaction to the “growing global outrage in civil society against both the United States’ entrenchment of its lethal occupations and wars against Iraq and Afghanistan and Israel’s expanding projects of occupation and genocidal actions in Palestine.”
Barrows-Friedman added, “Israel’s systematic racism against the indigenous, occupied and dispossessed people of Palestine continues to have the full support of the U.S. government.”
Over the last four decades, the United States has vetoed scores of U.N. resolutions regarding Israel, and Israel is currently in violation of at least 28 Security Council resolutions.
Recently, the president of the Israeli Association for Civil Rights said, “Israeli society is reaching new heights of racism that damages freedom of expression and privacy,” and last year the group reported that Israel’s occupation is “reminiscent of the apartheid regime in South Africa.”
Ball argues that even with a Black president, the United States is unable to come to terms with the legacy of slavery, colonialism or modern-day racism. Obama’s boycott, he said, “is further evidence of the fact of his blackness having nothing to do with his politics and less to do with his ability to articulate, defend or advance the causes and struggles of African-descended people here or abroad.”
The U.S. withdrawal is of significant concern because it is happening at a time when there is “exponential growth in hate crimes, ethnic tensions and other manifestations of … racism,” according to journalist and analyst Roberto Lovato.
Within the United States, the Southern Poverty Law Center reports that the number of hate groups “continued to rise in 2008 and has grown by 54 percent since 2000 — an increase fueled last year by immigration fears, a failing economy and the successful campaign of Barack Obama.” The center also reports “a 40 percent growth in hate crimes against Latinos between 2003 and 2007.”
Another concern is racism within the U.S. prison system. One in every 31 adults, or 7.3 million people, are now in the US corrections system, and a disproportionate number are Latino and African-American. In a recent study titled “Decades of Disparity: Drug Arrests and Race in the United States,” Human Rights Watch documented the “structural racism” of the prison-industrial complex.
Ball asserts that because a “pro-Israeli lobby” was able to “influence a Black president out of a global conference against racism and out of an international discussion of reparations for enslavement … only wide-ranging and well-organized social movements can produce the ‘change we can believe in,’ not marketing campaigns and well-crafted speeches.”
NYPD’s Racist Tactics Exposed
By Jaisal Noor
Ten years after the shooting of Amadou Diallo and subsequent public outcry against racial profiling, the New York Police Department continues to disproportionately target blacks and Latinos.
According to the New York Civil Liberties Union and Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) report, the NYPD stopped 543,982 individuals in 2008, more than 80 percent of whom were black or Latino.
Whites, who make up 44 percent of the city’s population, made up only 10 percent of those stopped and questioned.
In the last year of the Mayor Rudolph Giuliani administration, police stopped 86,705 individuals in 2001. The 2008 total represents a 71,886-stop increase from the 2007 total of 472,096 stops and is 15 percent higher than the 2005 to 2007 average of 459,000 stops per year.
The report notes the disparity in frisking after stops: Between 2005 and June 2008, only 8 percent of whites stopped were also frisked, while 85 percent of blacks and Latinos who were stopped were also frisked.
The number of stops is on the rise despite the police’s own data that show that almost 90 percent of those stopped over the past three years were never charged with a crime. Only 2 percent of stops resulted in recovery of weapons or contraband. Furthermore, according to the CCR, “Police stops-and-frisks without reasonable suspicion violate the Fourth Amendment, and racial profiling is a violation of fundamental rights and protections of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Civil Rights Act of 1964.”
While the NYPD continues to deny allegations of profiling based on race, City Council member Charles Barron (D-East New York) told The Indypendent that the data “validates what activists have been saying now for decades: the police are out of control. This report is an important tool to make the case that the police … freely profile, harass and brutalize people. This is real, its not race-baiting that activists are making up.”
TEN YEARS AFTER THE DIALLO KILLING
The Feb. 4, 1999, shooting of Diallo — an unarmed West African immigrant who was killed outside his Bronx home in a barrage of 41 bullets fired by four undercover police officers — galvanized a wave of protests against police brutality of the Giuliani administration. More than 1,700 people, including many of the city’s elected black and Latino officials, were arrested for engaging in acts of civil disobedience.
A subsequent federal investigation concluded the NYPD’s Street Crimes Unit engaged in racial profiling. Public pressure forced the city to officially ban the practice. As part of a case filed by the CCR in response to the Diallo killing, the NYPD was required to keep stop-and-frisk data.
A new lawsuit, Floyd v. The City of New York, was filed in January 2008, and in September a federal judge ordered the police to release all of the past 10 years worth of stop-and-frisk data.
“The vast majority of stops are police initiated,” said CCR Staff Attorney Darius Charney. “Police are in certain neighborhoods and on their own initiative they decide to stop someone.” Charney also said that police data shows the least common reason for an NYPD stop was encountering an individual who fit a description of a suspect.
While Charney states that he doesn’t “want to assume bad intentions on the part of the police,” he argues that, “whatever the motivation, profiling is simply not an effective crime fighting strategy. And its continued use is building a lot of distrust in between police and community.”
Barron believes that the latest stop-and-frisk revelations highlight Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s failings as a city leader.
“Bloomberg has a protectionist policy,” Barron said. “It allows his commissioner to violate the law without reprimanding him or changing policies. The police have set up ‘impact zones’ and Bloomberg has allowed for police containment and harassment instead of job creation or economic development. He chooses to build more prisons and increase police presence while denying economic job creation — 40 to 50 percent of black men in New York City are unemployed.”
The CCR report recommends the NYPD enforce existing reporting requirements and that the city expand the power and the scope of the Civilian Complaint Review Board, which currently investigates complaints of police misconduct, but has no enforcement powers.
For the full CCR report, see ccrjustice.org/criminal-justiceand-mass-incarceration.
Ten years after the shooting of Amadou Diallo and subsequent public outcry against racial profiling, the New York Police Department continues to disproportionately target blacks and Latinos.
According to the New York Civil Liberties Union and Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) report, the NYPD stopped 543,982 individuals in 2008, more than 80 percent of whom were black or Latino.
Whites, who make up 44 percent of the city’s population, made up only 10 percent of those stopped and questioned.
In the last year of the Mayor Rudolph Giuliani administration, police stopped 86,705 individuals in 2001. The 2008 total represents a 71,886-stop increase from the 2007 total of 472,096 stops and is 15 percent higher than the 2005 to 2007 average of 459,000 stops per year.
The report notes the disparity in frisking after stops: Between 2005 and June 2008, only 8 percent of whites stopped were also frisked, while 85 percent of blacks and Latinos who were stopped were also frisked.
The number of stops is on the rise despite the police’s own data that show that almost 90 percent of those stopped over the past three years were never charged with a crime. Only 2 percent of stops resulted in recovery of weapons or contraband. Furthermore, according to the CCR, “Police stops-and-frisks without reasonable suspicion violate the Fourth Amendment, and racial profiling is a violation of fundamental rights and protections of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Civil Rights Act of 1964.”
While the NYPD continues to deny allegations of profiling based on race, City Council member Charles Barron (D-East New York) told The Indypendent that the data “validates what activists have been saying now for decades: the police are out of control. This report is an important tool to make the case that the police … freely profile, harass and brutalize people. This is real, its not race-baiting that activists are making up.”
TEN YEARS AFTER THE DIALLO KILLING
The Feb. 4, 1999, shooting of Diallo — an unarmed West African immigrant who was killed outside his Bronx home in a barrage of 41 bullets fired by four undercover police officers — galvanized a wave of protests against police brutality of the Giuliani administration. More than 1,700 people, including many of the city’s elected black and Latino officials, were arrested for engaging in acts of civil disobedience.
A subsequent federal investigation concluded the NYPD’s Street Crimes Unit engaged in racial profiling. Public pressure forced the city to officially ban the practice. As part of a case filed by the CCR in response to the Diallo killing, the NYPD was required to keep stop-and-frisk data.
A new lawsuit, Floyd v. The City of New York, was filed in January 2008, and in September a federal judge ordered the police to release all of the past 10 years worth of stop-and-frisk data.
“The vast majority of stops are police initiated,” said CCR Staff Attorney Darius Charney. “Police are in certain neighborhoods and on their own initiative they decide to stop someone.” Charney also said that police data shows the least common reason for an NYPD stop was encountering an individual who fit a description of a suspect.
While Charney states that he doesn’t “want to assume bad intentions on the part of the police,” he argues that, “whatever the motivation, profiling is simply not an effective crime fighting strategy. And its continued use is building a lot of distrust in between police and community.”
Barron believes that the latest stop-and-frisk revelations highlight Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s failings as a city leader.
“Bloomberg has a protectionist policy,” Barron said. “It allows his commissioner to violate the law without reprimanding him or changing policies. The police have set up ‘impact zones’ and Bloomberg has allowed for police containment and harassment instead of job creation or economic development. He chooses to build more prisons and increase police presence while denying economic job creation — 40 to 50 percent of black men in New York City are unemployed.”
The CCR report recommends the NYPD enforce existing reporting requirements and that the city expand the power and the scope of the Civilian Complaint Review Board, which currently investigates complaints of police misconduct, but has no enforcement powers.
For the full CCR report, see ccrjustice.org/criminal-justiceand-mass-incarceration.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)