On Nonviolence

I wrote this essay in response to liberal notions of nonviolence, which tend to be irritatingly sentimental and shallow. In the wake of this nation’s imprisonment system’s failure to indict Darren Wilson and Daniel Panteleo, the two police officers responsible for the murders of Michael Brown and Eric Garner, respectively, much debate has been sparked about the nature of the rebellions, both peaceful and retaliatory, which have taken place across the country. Although not written in response to this particular series of tragedies, I believe the insights I offer in this piece shed light upon the necessity of transforming systemic manifestations of violence rather than condemning those groups and individuals who choose retaliatory tactics in response to the brutality they, and their community members, are subjected to.  

micahel-brown-ferguson-police-and-protestor-1

Protest in Ferguson…

There is a force in our society, one that has come to manifest itself in countless forms, that many people are hesitant to name as a detriment to their lives. Most who dare to speak against this force, to utter the word that names it, are waved away as sentimental dunces, are charged with promoting lofty idealisms and are thereafter banished to society’s dim margins. Very few wish to acknowledge the hideous commonness of this force in its many manifestations.

That force’s name, that persistent presence, that scourge of pain, and fear, and shame, is ‘violence’. When most people hear the word ‘violence’, memories of physical brutality may replay in their minds. A vicious swat by an older sibling, a sailing fist cracked across a jaw, a bloodcurdling assault by an anonymous assailant. Although many are quick to decry the most intimate aspects of physical violence where it rears its head, the majority of those are also unwilling, or incapable, to enact healing work against those lingering traumas associated with having one’s body ravaged at another’s hands. Of course, they themselves are not to blame.

Ours is a society that seeks to, at every turn, devalue the significance of its citizens interior lives. We are encouraged to neglect our inner lives; religious practices are derided as narrow-minded and uncouth within increasingly secularizing cultural spheres, those who seek out therapists are snickered at in secret, and all who deeply ponder about human nature are handled with suspicion and apprehension. For most people, extended silences and solitude allow sinister things to bubble up to their conscious, and no one has taught them to be at peace with these haunts. Too many flee their demons by embracing addictions. Too many lack skills that would disallow past traumas to rend their spirits. Too many have been coaxed into allowing their interior lives to decay.

Yet, the state of people’s interior lives can never be divorced from the surrounding sociopolitical and sociocultural environments in which they’ve developed. Is it not violence when ours is a society that devalues the humanity of female-bodied people to no more than their sexual organs, their bodies violated time and time again, their appeals for justice ignored just as often? When young children, of all colors, point to dolls of darker skin and Afro-features as inherently nefarious? When indigenous voices of various tones seeking sovereignty over ancestral lands are constantly ignored and, instead, have the miniscule wedges of Earth they’ve been murdered onto bombarded with toxic wastes? When people of all races lacking in economic resources must either subsist on foodstuffs that poison their bodies, or nothing? What world do we inhabit where these realities often go acknowledged and, yet, unmanaged; where the suffering of another is commonly associated with a character flaw on the individual’s part and not symptomatic of systems of domination our society was built, and tragically thrives, upon?

Any path toward nonviolence that fails to acknowledge and work against physical, non-physical, and structural manifestations of violence is inherently lacking in depth. Any paths toward nonviolence lacking in strategies for justice and healing are underdeveloped. We are past the era where the division between mind, body, and spirit can be justifiably imposed upon the masses. We are past the point of presenting the populace with sparkling words in hopes that they will suffice for the arduous labor of transforming our world into one where harmony reigns.

Comprehensive nonviolent ideologies must offer tactics and solutions to address the historical roots and contemporary manifestations of evil, blatant and insidious. Nonviolence is only authentic when the livelihoods of all persons are accounted for, when voices resounding at the margins become centered and their requests heeded. Ultimately, the nonviolent path is one that aims for peace. However, peace will never exist without justice. Justice for everyone.

Revolution in Burkina Faso and the Downfall of Blaise Compmaore

Cross-Posted from Sociable Susan
Written by Susan Majek

The community of social activists of the Washington, DC Metropolitan area organizes a panel discussion about the significance of the ongoing Burkina Faso Revolution characterized by the modern day African youth movement.
BurkinaFasoFlyer
The new phase of the Burkinabe Revolution, nurtured and fueled with Thomas Sankara’s Spirit and Energy, coined “Compaore Must Go Movement” ended the 27 year rule of President Blaise Compaore on October 31, 2014. The former president of Burkina Faso sought to change the Constitution to extend his time in power. The people of Burkina took to the streets and took their destiny in their hands against a western-backed leader.

The conference will analyze the insurgency, contingencies, development, and impact of the “Compaore Must Go Movement” on panafricanism, on Africa and on the world. The conference will also critically discuss the repercussion of the Burkina Faso people movement and power on other African countries namely Benin, Burundi, Congo Brazzaville, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and Rwanda. The respective leaders of these countries, after more than a decade of rule, plan to maintain themselves in power through constitutional changes.

Prior to the discussion, the conference will feature a powerhouse of the Burkinabe Revolution, Hip Hop Singer and founding member of Le Balai Citoyen (Civic Broom), Smockey. He will give a 10 minute phone recount of the popular uprising that put an end to Compaore’s rule.

The Conference is organized and endorsed by Revival of Panafricanism Forum, Friends of the Congo, All-African Revolutionary Party, Le Balai Citoyen-USA, Mouvement du Peuple pour le Progres-USA, Institute for Policy Studies, Socialist Workers Party, Answer Coalition, Party for Socialism and Liberation.

Susan MajekSusan Majek is a freelance writer & journalist who has worked with various media houses, covering many events & personalities. She has written for Glory International Magazine, The Women’s International Perspective website (The WIP), Africa News and several newspapers. She also covers events for corporate organizations/individuals.

Protests Against Climate Change in Washington, DC

On September 21, 2014 over 300,000 people swarmed Manhattan in mass protest against global climate change. With indigenous peoples and people of color leading the charge , the largest protest against climate change in history took place in New York City.

On September 23, Rising Tide DC (RTDC), the local chapter of the international, grassroots climate justice network Rising Tide North America, and the National Campaign for Nonviolent Resistance (NCNR), an organization dedicated to peace and nonviolent resistance, both staged acts of protests against climate change in solidarity with the march in NYC within the nation’s capitol.

NCNR gathered on Pennsylvania Ave. before stopping in front of the White House, and spoke out against the Pentagon’s usage of fossil fuels and similar military practices. Refusing to leave without meeting a person in power, five NCNR protesters were arrested for refusing to step away from the gates surrounding the White House.


While these events were taking place, RTDC led a march through downtown DC opposing the practices of large corporations, such as TD Bank, which cause global human and environmental suffering.

A Rundown of Everything You Need to Know About the DC Statehood Movement

What is the District of Columbia (DC) statehood movement?

The DC statehood movement is a grassroots, organizational and political campaign to change DC from a federal district with limited political power into a state with full voting, representation and local governance rights for its citizens.

Screen Shot 2014-08-06 at 3.12.41 PMWho supports DC statehood?

According to a 2005 poll conducted by KRC research, 78 percent of Americans wrongly believed that District residents already had full equal voting rights and representation enjoyed by their nearby state resident counterparts. When told that they were incorrect, 82 percent of those surveyed supported District residents gaining full equal voting rights and representation.

However, findings vary on how pollers ask the DC statehood question and context of the present. Right before the government shutdown, Rasmussen Reports published a poll of 1,000 voters that found only 25 percent of Americans wanted DC statehood. Critics and supporters of DC statehood felt this poll was misleading, and encouraged the myths and false facts surrounding the DC Statehood argument.

When the facts are set straight, support for DC voting rights and representation generally increases.

How will statehood impact the lives of District residents politically?

Right now, District residents can vote for President and elect a non-voting Delegate to Congress. Residents also vote for Mayor as well both the at-large members of the Council of the District of Columbia and their respective neighborhood Ward member of the Council.

However, it wasn’t until 1961 that the 23rd Constitutional Amendment was ratified, which granted District residents the right to vote in Presidential elections, and not until 1973 when Congress passed the District of Columbia Home Rule Act, which granted District residents limited power to govern their own city government with a Mayor and City Council.

If DC becomes a state, District constituents would be entitled to full voting rights and congressional representation, meaning they will be able to elect at least one representative to the House of Representatives and two senators to the Senate.

The House of Representatives initiates all legislative matters related to the country’s budget, funding and spending, while the Senate has the power to impact international diplomatic treaties between countries and confirm presidential appointments, such as Supreme Court nominations. Right now, DC citizens have no say on these matters because their non-voting delegate is not allowed to vote on any pieces of legislation.

What political power do local elected officials in DC have right now?

Home rule, which refers to the ability and opportunity for DC residents to have full say and control over their local affairs, is limited. Congress has the power to overturn any local District law and compared to the rest of the country, exercises an unprecedented right to oversee and control the District.

Even now, the Mayor’s Office and City Council can be dissolved at the leisure of Congress, and DC’s budget (mandated to always have to balance) is subject to Congressional approval.

Traditionally, and even today, the committees of Congress assigned to oversee the District are viewed as lacking both prestige and importance by Congressional members.

Currently the District is overseen by the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform plus its Subcommittee on Health Care, District of Columbia, Census and National Archives. DC deserves to have elected officials with legislative authority who are fully invested in its residents, rather than out-of-touch members of Congress more concerned with the happiness of their own respective states and districts.

Isn’t it constitutionally illegal for DC to become a state?

No, actually it’s not. The only real limit set forward by the Constitution is that DC cannot exceed a 100 square miles area, but there’s no instructions regarding how small D.C. can be. The District could be theoretically downsized into a non-residential area that includes federal and military office buildings, with the rest of the residential parts of the District being incorporated into a state with full voting rights.

Wouldn’t the process to make DC a state be tedious and difficult?

States have actually been created 85 percent as many times as we have elected a president. Since the original 13 states joined the Union by their ratification of the Constitution in 1789, the U.S. has added approximately one new state every 6 years.

Screen Shot 2014-08-06 at 3.14.15 PM

There isn’t enough people for the District to be a state.

The 2012 Census estimated that the District had 632,323 residents, placing it ahead of Vermont’s 626,011 and Wyoming’s 576,412. In addition, there are more district residents that are military personnel than in 31 of the other states in the country. These men and women in military service, although able to vote for their military commander-in-chief, are unable to have a say in electing the members of the body of that actually determines whether or not to declare war.

What’s the political hold-up?

Politically, some opponents of District statehood inevitably worry how full representation would change the numbers make-up of Congress in an era of gridlock and hyper-partisanship. DC is overwhelmingly Democratic in composition, with 90.9 percent of DC voters in 2012 choosing to re-elect Barack Obama, according to the DC Board of Elections. From this statistic and a historic trend of the District voting Democratic, it’s a safe bet that DC would send two more Democratic senators and one Democratic representative to Congress.

However, the lion’s share of concern lies in practical implementation of statehood. People who don’t want to see the District become a part of Maryland cite the burden on security expenses, but if DC was its own state, concerns about potential burdens on existing states would be unfounded. Additionally, if the downsizing of the capital city district was accepted, the federal government would pay for security, negating financial burden concerns on new and existing states entirely.

President Barack Obama recently came out in favor of DC statehood. President Obama also made the choice to put “Taxation Without Representation” DC license plates on the vehicles in the presidential motorcade, following in President Bill Clinton’s footsteps.

But if DC becomes a state, won’t District residents have to pay federal taxes in addition to local taxes?

District residents actually pay federal taxes already. If D.C. residents didn’t pay federal taxes, the District would be overpopulated with tax evaders, which is simply not the case. There is a proposal to exempt DC from federal income taxes, but as of now it hasn’t been adopted. In reality, DC residents pay more than double the national average in income taxes. DC’s state and local income tax collections per person were $2142 in 2011.

Why not just let D.C. join Maryland like the section of the District that was given back to Virginia across the Potomac River in 1846?

There is a good chance Maryland won’t want the land it originally donated to the District back. The addition of over 600,000 residents would push Maryland’s population to over 6 million, possibly qualifying the state for more representatives in the House and more electoral votes in the Electoral College in addition to its existing 10. Currently, Maryland sends 7 Democrats of its 8 members in the House.

Also, this idea is unpopular with District residents. In an interview with The Washington Post cited by the Montgomery County Daily, Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD) feels that DC and Maryland residents are proud of their separate, distinctive identities.

“I think the residents of the District of Columbia have no desire to be subsumed into the state of Maryland. They are very proud of the fact they are District of Columbia citizens,” Hoyer said.

What are some recent happenings in the DC Statehood movement?

Legislatively, a lot of the strides made most recently to achieve DC Statehood have been largely symbolic and geared towards mobilizing support.

Council Member Yvette Alexander recently introduced a bill at the DC City Council level, which will rename the two blocks of Pennsylvania Avenue that pass by the White House “D.C. Statehood Now Way.” Alexander hopes the proposed renaming would be a wake-up call to passerby tourists. The new White House address would be “1600 D.C. Statehood Now Way” rather than “1600 Pennsylvania Ave”.

Screen Shot 2014-08-06 at 3.18.19 PM

How do I get involved in the DC statehood movement?

Check out Neighbors United for DC Statehood , DC Vote and Stand Up For Democracy in DC ,three wonderful resources for both more information and ways to get involved. You can also register with the DC Statehood Green Party.

Breakdown of America’s Recent Immigration Crisis

Central Americans on Train
Central American immigrants traveling on the tops of trains through Mexico in order to reach their final destination. John Moore/ Getty Images

These past seven months have seen a noticeable spike in the number of underage children crossing the border. So far this year, the number of unaccompanied children entering the United States that the Department of Homeland Security’s Immigrant and Customs Enforcement arrested surpassed 47,000. This alone is a 92% increase from last year’s numbers.

But why the drastic increase?

Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador are going through a turbulent time. According to Eric Olson, Associate Director of the Latin America Program at the Wilson Center, these three countries have some of the highest murder rates in the world.

Although, murder rates have decreased in comparison to last year, this does not mitigate the rampant violence that occurs throughout this region. Gang activity is as high as ever. Nevertheless, the lack of stability in this region is pushing parents to send their children to the United States.

Whatever doubts people had on the lengths these gang members are willing in order to continue their regional dominance is long gone now. People throughout this region live in consistent fear. Not only that, but there is no sense of continuity—the belief that life will get better by the time one’s children become adults—and widespread poverty does nothing to alleviate their living conditions.

Human traffickers, known as coyotes, are taking full advantage of this situation. They promote the idea that if there is any time to leave for the United States, that time is now.  And parents in Central America buy it. They are willing to pay traffickers thousands of dollars despite being warned of the trip’s dangers and the numerous obstacles the children must face throughout their journey.

The problem becomes what to do with these minors.

Protesters in Murrieta
Police cautiously monitoring the two opposing protesting groups in Murrieta, California as tensions mount while they all wait for immigrant detainees set to arrive by bus to the U.S. Border Patrol facility.  Gina Ferazzi / Los Angeles Times

Should the Department of Homeland Security’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement deport all of these children or provide them with temporary housing until each minor’s situation is determined? This question has created a rigid dichotomy amongst much of the population. Human rights advocates argue that these children should not be treated as immigrants but rather as refugees.

On the other hand, others, such as members of the Tea Party, blame President Obama’s approval of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), created to allow those who entered the country illegally while they were minors to receive a grant of deferred removal action. In other words, eligible immigrants remain legally in the United States for up to 2 years with a possible extension. This is not a path to citizenship, nor is it a guaranteed permanent residence but it allows immigrants who came here illegally to avoid deportation.

Some suggest that the U.S. government deport these minors immediately. However, some international organizations, including the United Nations, argue that many of these children have legitimate claims to stay as they are fleeing desperate situations.

Underaged Immigrants in Detention Centers
Children detained at a center in Nogales, Arizona.   Ross D. Franklin / AP

According to the New York Times, President Obama requested $3.7 billion from Congress in order to respond to this influx of child migrants. Previously, significant amounts of money were spent in trying to secure the border. Given this large influx of immigrants, it is evident that pouring more money into the border is not the solution.

Even if the Obama administration pushed to deport all unaccompanied minors with full force, it could not. The William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 passed by the U.S. Senate during the Bush administration is intended to help human trafficking victims, however a portion of this act relating to unaccompanied illegal immigrants under the age of 18 makes immediate deportation for them difficult. As stated in a news article from The Oklahoman, “The legislation said they must ‘be promptly placed in the least restrictive setting that is in the best interest of the child.’ The U.S. Health and Human Services Department is to provide for their custody and care while deportation hearings are under way. The department is to attempt to find a parent or sponsor in the United States while providing free legal representation and a child advocate.

This past Friday, the presidents of Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras met with president Obama to discuss this immigration crisis. NPR’s Eyder Peralta writes, “…with Plan Colombia and the Merida Initiative, the U.S. has helped combat violence in Colombia and Mexico”, yet by doing so, pushed organized crime into Central America.

Central American Presidents with Obama
L-R: Salvadoran President Salvador Sanchez Cerén, Guatemalan President Otto Perez Molina, President Barack Obama and Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernandez   Reuters

Regardless of history in the past, all four countries must focus on the present. The United States must decide how it will improve the manner in which it deals with incoming unaccompanied immigrants. Meanwhile, Nicaragua, El Salvador and Honduras must determine what they need to do in order to curb gang violence and thus emigration figures.