Washington march organizers fritter away fightback potential

Scan page 12

The 50th Anniversary Commemoration of the 1963 March on Washington, held on Aug. 24, drew perhaps 100,000 participants. The main conclusions to be drawn from the day’s happenings are how very far we have to go on organizing, educating, and mobilizing around the issues that raised, especially how far we are from building an independent po­ litical movement to end racism and achieve social justice. But the gathering also dem­ onstrated how much potential there is to achieve these goals if the growing discontent throughout the nation can be tapped.

A sizable turnout was universally expected on Aug. 24 given the massive, youthful mobi­ lizations a month before against the acquit­ tal of the racist who murdered Trayvon Mar­ tin, as well as the evisceration of the Voting Rights Act, and the deepening crisis of jobs and services impacting workers of color so disproportionately. In the end, though, the crowd was much more middle-aged and sedate than at the Trayvon Martin rallies, a composition reflecting the commemorative (rather than protest) character stamped upon the event by its middle-class, pro-Dem­ ocratic Party organizers—e.g. the National Action Network, the NAACP, the Urban League, etc.

The upside of the March was its size, filling both lawns on the sides of the Reflecting Pool plus more at either end. But March organizers and speakers led very few chants from the stage, and as the after­ noon wore on the event increasingly took on a picnic atmosphere. (And it was a constrained picnic at that: photos from the ’63 March showing attendees cooling their feet in the Reflecting Pool are a shocking wakeup call for 21st-century marchers who are used to be­ ing herded behind police steel barriers—as we were on Aug. 24.)

One notable exception in terms of militant spirit was the Dream Defenders, who formed a circle of 75 to 100 youth, joyfully dancing and chanting. The Defenders had just finished a 31-day sit-in at Florida Governor Rick Scott’s office against the school-to-prison pipe­ line, Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law, and for an end to racial profiling.

Still, the organizers had to let some glimpses shine through of the dire social reality and the slowly grow­ ing fight against these conditions. Thus, for instance, we heard the short but fiery speech of nine-year-old Chicago Public Schools student Asean Johnson—a speech that would have been even shorter had not Asean said to teachers’ union head Randi Weingarten, “Hey, I’m not done!” when she tried to grab the mike away from him.

Asean achieved national fame with a brilliant speech in Chicago exposing the lies of Chicago Public Schools officials who falsely claimed his and other schools had to be closed for budgetary reasons. In the end, his and some other schools were saved. The self-confident militant spirit produced by the years-long joint fight of teachers’ unions, parents, and students was won­ derfully visible in the contingent of marchers from Chicago, who displayed a particular eagerness to trade fightback stories with, and buy literature from, social­ ists staffing tables at the March.

(We have to note in passing that Weingarten’s at­ tempted mike grab is symptomatic of her disregard for grassroots voices fighting to save school and teach­ ers’ jobs. Just the week before she had given a speech praising labor-management collaboration to “refine” the anti-teacher, anti-student testing mania embraced by Obama and his education bureaucrats.)

Organizers also allowed speeches by the father of Emmett Till, victim of a racist murder in 1955, as well as Trayvon Martin’s family. But the clear sentiment among the huge crowd to actually do something about such atrocities was given no concrete outlet, no an­ nounced plan for future activity.

And the very presence on the platform of Eric Hold­ er, Obama’s chief aide in twisting and breaking the Tony Savino / Socialist Action the marches of 1963 and 2013. Jones, author of a justreleased book on labor’s role in the ’63 March, noted a key similarity in the respective eras’ political climate.

“A. Philip Randolph,” said Jones, “the veteran trade unionist who had first called for a march on Washing­ ton to protest employment discrimination in 1941, wanted the demonstration to focus on the shortcom­ ings of Kennedy’s economic policies. Pointing out that black workers were restricted to entry-level jobs that were most vulnerable to the automation and off­ shoring of manufacturing under way in the 1960s, he warned that without measures to end discrimination and create more jobs, blacks would be condemned to struggling for survival ‘within the grey shadows of a hopeless hope.’

“The [1963] march was so successful that we often forget that it occurred in a political environment not so different from our own. Kennedy’s victory over Richard M. Nixon in 1960 signaled a break from the conservatism of the 1950s. But like the election of Barack Obama in 2008, hope for a return to the lib­ eralism of the 1930s was dampened by an adminis­ tration that rejected ‘old slogans’ like wage increases and public works in favor of tax cuts and free trade to stimulate growth.”

The week after the March another prominent Black author drew important conclusions about its signifi­ cance and what we need to do to follow up. Michelle Alexander, author of “The New Jim Crow: Mass Incar­ ceration in the Age of Colorblindness,” wrote a note on her Facebook page that went viral. In it she promised to link issues of racial injustice with other issues that she admitted not having addressed as regularly, such as U.S. militarism and mass surveillance.

Said Alexander: “For the past several years, I have spent virtually all my working hours writing about or speaking about the immorality, cruelty, racism, and insanity of our nation’s latest caste system: mass in­ carceration. But as I pause today to reflect on the meaning and significance of the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington, I realize that my focus has been too narrow.

“Five years after the March, Dr. King was speaking out against the Vietnam War, condemning America’s militarism and imperialism—famously stating that our nation was the ‘greatest purveyor of violence in the world.’ He saw the connections between the wars we wage abroad, and the utter indifference we have for poor people, and people of color at home. He saw the necessity of openly critiquing an economic system that will fund war and will reward greed, hand over fist, but will not pay workers a living wage.

“Five years after the March on Washington, Dr. King (continued on page 9, in “Bloodbath in Egypt Exposes Military Rule”)