On the NYC Police Killings & the Haymarket Massacre

NYC Police killings and the Haymarket Massacre:  Lessons for the Movement

By Bill Fletcher, Jr.

In every vibrant progressive social movement there comes a moment when a psychologically or emotionally disturbed person, an agent provocateur, or a political extremist commits an atrocious act that is seized upon by the State and/or the political Right as a means of attempting to discredit or outright repress the movement.  The action, committed for whatever reason, is sufficiently heinous that confusion develops within the movement and the movement can lose both its momentum as well as a segment of its less committed or more ambivalent supporters.

In 1886, at the height of the Eight Hour Day movement, a bomb was set off at a worker’s rally at Haymarket Square in Chicago.  The rally was called to both protest police killings of worker protesters as well as to support striking workers fighting for the 8 hour day.  The rally was attacked by the police and a bomb was thrown at the police.  To this day no one actually knows who set off the bomb, including whether it was an agent provocateur, or a deranged or infuriated activist.  What is known, however, is that the bombing became a pretext for governmental effort to discredit the protests and the workers movement, and to suggest that the entire movement was led by cold, cruel anarchists who were only interested in violence.  Charges were brought against key leaders of the movement and in a kangaroo trial, eight individuals were convicted for their alleged involvement in the bombing and four were subsequently hanged.

The reaction by police unions, the political Right and much of the mainstream media today, in the aftermath of Ismaaiyl Brinsley’s alleged killings of two NYPD officers, is eerily reminiscent of the aftermath of the Haymarket massacre.  Intense and manipulative efforts are underway to paint those who have protested police violence, or even those who have simply spoken up against it, as allegedly having blood on their hands since they supposedly created the tension between the police and the community.  New York City Mayor de Blasio, for instance, has been demonized by the Right, with the suggestion that he and Rev. Al Sharpton created the incendiary environment that resulted in the murders of the two officers.

In this moment it is critical that progressives counter these arguments actively, vocally and with immense vigor.  These arguments and allegations are cynical and disingenuous efforts to discredit and derail one of the most important movements of the recent past.  Let us be clear as to what has been unfolding.

An apparently mentally and/or emotionally disturbed career criminal allegedly carried out the attempted murder of his girlfriend followed by the murder of the two officers.  This individual had no connection with any social justice movement, had no apparent connections with New York and was certainly not a leader of the movement against police violence.

Second, the tension that exists between the police and communities of color was not manufactured by any one.  It was and is the result of YEARS of police lynchings carried out in African American and Latino communities.  The fact that an African American man in his early twenties is 21 times more likely to be killed by the police than a white male of the same age [http://www.theroot.com/articles/culture/2014/10/young_black_men_21_times_more_likely_to_be_shot_dead_by_police_than_whites.html]  was not invented by Rev. Sharpton, Mayor de Blasio, or the countless grass roots activists who have taken up the battle around police violence.  It is, instead, directly related to a combination of the history of white supremacy along with police departments that are out of control.  Like all lynchings, these murders in essence serve to instill fear and terror in the population, making them more than reluctant to advance demands for justice and progressive change.

The tensions between the police and the communities of color are also not in any way new.  One can review the documents of the National Negro Congress, for instance, a united front organization among African Americans in the 1930s and 1940s, only to see the demand against police brutality as one of its planks.

Third, as horrible and unacceptable as was the murder of Officers Wenjian Liu and Rafael Ramos, Black America has been witnessing repeated murders of its youth at the hands of the police, yet the public is told that it should be understanding of such killings, regardless of the circumstances.

Fourth, the movement against police violence has not called for the killings of police.  While there are certainly extremist elements who have inappropriate and provocative rhetoric, there are no factual indications that they have any base or any leadership of the movement.  The movement has been militant and active, but it has gone out of its way to advance a non-violent approach.

While one could argue in favor of a temporary cessation of protests in New York until the funeral of the Officers, there is no basis for a cessation of the national movement against police violence.  This national movement, in point of fact, is actually about much more than police violence.  It is pointing to the continued and growing discrepancies in the treatment of African Americans and Latinos compared with whites.  It is a movement that, through its actions, is posing the same question as posed by comedian and social commentator Chris Rock when he stated that he would like to ask white police in Ferguson, Missouri, why it is that white youth are not being killed by the police.  Clearly Rock was/is not calling for white youth to be murdered, but he is asking a question that the mainstream media consistently wishes to avoid:  how is it that we do not see police rampages through Russian, Irish or Italian communities, for instance, where there are histories of very violent criminal activity?  How is this discrepancy in treatment to be explained?

Which all leads to a final point.  This is not a moment for silence, though it is a moment for sadness.  This is a moment that necessitates a genuine national discussion on race, racism, and violence.  This is a discussion that must be joined by all institutions in US society.  It is not a discussion to be held exclusively with African Americans or Latinos.  It is a discussion that governmental authorities should organize, along with groups in civil society.  We must ask ourselves how is it, nearly 150 years after the end of the Civil War and nearly 50 years since the passage of the Voting Rights Act, that disproportionate State violence against African Americans and Latinos not only occurs, but is actively tolerated by the so-called mainstream of US society.  We must also ask, how is it that the differential in treatment for African Americans and Latinos not only persists, but continues to grow during what some commentators once described as a supposed ‘post-racial’ era.

We must learn critical lessons from the Haymarket massacre and its aftermath.  Public opinion can be quickly, and rather easily, manipulated against progressive mass movements in the aftermath of the actions of a lunatic.  If the movement does not stand strong and especially pay attention to segments of the population that appear to be wavering in their support for the objectives of the movement, there can be major setbacks.  At the same time, there is nothing inevitable about what happens next.  This is why good leadership, organization and a sophisticated approach to strategy and tactics is so necessary.

I have absolute confidence in the young activists leading today’s movement.  I do hope that they pay attention to the lessons of history as they continue to battle for justice.  They have refocused the attention of much of this country on something that was all but ignored.  Now they must press on to translate attention into a victorious moment.

——————————————————

Bill Fletcher, Jr. is the host of The Global African.  He is a racial justice, labor and global justice activist and writer.  Follow him on Facebook, Twitter and at www.billfletcherjr.com

15 thoughts on “On the NYC Police Killings & the Haymarket Massacre

  1. Bill, It’s nice to see one make their points based on a knowledge of history. Haymarket Square was a turning point in terms of putting labor on the defensive as news media of the day constantly suggested those who organized the rally were responsible for the bomb going off. If the workers planned on setting off a bomb why did so many attend with their wives and children?
    When’s the last time a cop put a choke hold on a Wall Street crook for collecting an ill begotten bonus? In my book “Blue Eyes On African-American History,” more than once I ask the question “WHO GETS WHAT AND WHY?” Go to Lehigh Valley Vanguard and read my take on Eric Garner’s murder. It’s under the title “America’s Shame.”

  2. Its disgusting the way this article appropriates haymarket to advance what are basically respectability politics. People should learn what the haymarket martyrs actually wrote and believed in. The temporal analogy, at least, is valid, and thats why its important to note how important it is to_specifically_ rejected this kind garbage, this faux nonviolence and respectability politics.

    • I wish that I had some idea what you are referencing. I have not a clue what you are referring to by “respectability politics.” Perhaps you mean that i am interested in the people winning?

      • The Haymarket Martyrs were anarchists and the early U.S labor movement was predominantly “lead” (as in, the most active individuals) by anarchists and other varieties of socialists. Furthermore, violence in the labor movement *is* what gained the eight hour work day, not vice versa. Fuck your respectability politics and appropriation of history to fit your liberal, beg for change like a dog view-point.

        • I do not normally respond when someone is as obnoxious and arrogant as you. But, it is the holiday season, so i am making an exception. Anarchists were among the leading forces in the 8 hour day movement. Yes. They were not the only ones. Violence was a trend among some anarchists, but that was usually a matter of self-defense against the employer’s violence. Violence did not, however, gain the 8 hour day. Mass struggle, including at certain moments, legislative action, won it. Finally, i still have no idea what this “respectability politics” is that you keep referencing. I cannot see anything in the essay, nor in my practice, that comes close to begging for change. I will chalk that up to your misreading the piece. Take a deep breath and enjoy the holidays.

          • Mail bombings, attempted assassinations on bosses, the assassination of president Kinley AND mass protesting by protestor who were willing to defend themselves via violence against police culminted on the state (and Democrats) to FINALLY consider the eight hour work day. If it weren’t for rioting and violence the eight hour work day wouldn’t really exist, at least not as soon as it did due to the violence.

            I apologize if I sounded angry, but I think it’s important to not invariably exclude violent tactics from social movements. Almost every successful social movement in history (yes, including Gandhis) only existed because of violent revolutionaries/activists.

            “In order for non violence to work your opponent has 5o have a conscience. The US has none.”

          • You will get no argument from me that violence has been employed within the labor/capital struggle. My main point of emphasis is that the violence of capital has been the principal project to which labor has responded in different fashions. Second, different political tendencies approached violence in different manners. Yes, some anarchists saw violence as a pro-active approach. That was true in other social movements as well.
            The quote that you ended your note with is a famous one but a problematic one as well. Non-violence for some is about the conscience of the oppressor. For others it is an approach based on the balance of forces and an assessment of how to actually move people–on a large scale–to action. Unfortunately, many anarchists and those influenced by anarchism, have come to conclude that change is brought about by exemplary action on the part of a small group, i.e., that when they take action, others will follow. Such an approach, when raised to the level of principle and strategy can be disastrous.
            All approaches to struggle must reflect an assessment of where a critical mass of the people stand, on the one hand, and a cold, clear assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the opposition. To me that is what is meant when one speaks about the masses making change and making history. This does not, however, discount the role of leadership, organization and courageous action. It does suggest tactical flexibility based on the actual conditions.

          • You will get no argument from me that violence has been employed within the labor/capital struggle. My main point of emphasis is that the violence of capital has been the principal project to which labor has responded in different fashions. Second, different political tendencies approached violence in different manners. Yes, some anarchists saw violence as a pro-active approach. That was true in other social movements as well.
            The quote that you ended your note with is a famous one but a problematic one as well. Non-violence for some is about the conscience of the oppressor. For others it is an approach based on the balance of forces and an assessment of how to actually move people–on a large scale–to action. Unfortunately, many anarchists and those influenced by anarchism, have come to conclude that change is brought about by exemplary action on the part of a small group, i.e., that when they take action, others will follow. Such an approach, when raised to the level of principle and strategy can be disastrous.
            All approaches to struggle must reflect an assessment of where a critical mass of the people stand, on the one hand, and a cold, clear assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the opposition. To me that is what is meant when one speaks about the masses making change and making history. This does not, however, discount the role of leadership, organization and courageous action. It does suggest tactical flexibility based on the actual conditions.

  3. Once again Bill, your analysis is spot on. I would also point out that there was some active doctoring of people’s chants at the rally in DC by a fox news affiliate in Baltimore, Fox 45, to make it seem that people were chanting “Kill the Police.” This was an out and out lie. The story was taken down after the Fox affiliate was called out for their disinformation, but this has been picked up by the right wing blogosphere. It is imperative that we on the left take an active role in disputing these types of attacks.
    The case of the Eric Garner murder is particularly egregious. Here was a man who was allegedly selling individual cigarettes to make a few extra bucks to feed his large family. He should have been praised for his industriousness, not murdered because he was poor and Black.
    Just like in the Travon Martin case in Florida, can you imagine how quick the so-called stand your ground laws would be overturned if black folk were using this as a pretext to kill young whites because they felt threatened.

    • Well said! Yes, just as in Haymarket a campaign of disinformation has been actively used to attempt to discredit a mass movement and its leaders. Each time we catch the right-wing or the State in a lie we must expose the maneuver. There is no room for silence.

  4. Thank you, Bill. On the mark, as usual, and, as you advise, critically important to challenge the mainstream con job on the Black Lives Matter movement. This is particularly true for white progressives. Now is the time to engage our coworkers, family, friends, and neighbors in connect-the-dots conversations about white supremacy, patriarchy, economic inequality, threats to democracy and the environment, and holding government and corporations accountable.

Comments are closed.