ການປະທ້ວງໃນທົ່ວປະເທດຕໍ່ຕ້ານຄວາມໂຫດຮ້າຍຂອງຕຳຫຼວດໄດ້ປ່ຽນແປງການສົນທະນາຢ່າງສິ້ນເຊີງກ່ຽວກັບການຕຳຫຼວດ ແລະຄວາມປອດໄພ. ຮຽກຮ້ອງໃຫ້ກັກຕົວຕຳຫຼວດທີ່ຖືວ່າເປັນເລື່ອງບໍ່ຄາດຄິດໃນໄລຍະບໍ່ດົນມານີ້, ແຕ່ປະຈຸບັນຖືກນຳໃຊ້ເປັນນະໂຍບາຍຢ່າງເປັນທາງການຢູ່ບັນດາຕົວເມືອງໃນທົ່ວປະເທດ. ໃນເວລານີ້, ມັນເປັນສິ່ງ ສຳ ຄັນທີ່ຈະຂະຫຍາຍການສົນທະນາເພື່ອລວມເອົາແນວຄວາມຄິດຂອງການຄວບຄຸມຊຸມຊົນກ່ຽວກັບການ ຕຳ ຫຼວດ.
In order to do so, I caught up with activist M Adams, who describes community control as “essential coupling” to the demand to defund the police. Although we did touch upon some of the details of how community control would work, the goal of the interview was more to illustrate the importance of the idea. M. Adams is a community organizer and co-executive director of F reedom Inc. and a leader in the M ovement for Black Lives. As a queer Black person, Adams has developed and advocated for a strong intersectional approach in numerous important venues. Adams is a leading figure in the Take Back the Land Movement, she presented before the United Nations for the Convention on Eliminating Racial Discrimination, she is a co-author of Forward from Ferguson and a p aper on Black community control over the police, and she is the author of intersectionality theory in Why Killing Unarmed Black folks is a Queer issue.
Q: ໃຫ້ເລີ່ມຕົ້ນໂດຍການຂໍໃຫ້ທ່ານອະທິບາຍບົດບາດຂອງຕໍາຫຼວດເປັນກໍາລັງອານານິຄົມ.
MA: We think it’s extremely important to be scientific in our assessment about what’s causing police brutality. In our assessment, it is because the Black community exists and functions as a colony within the United States. When you use the word “colony”, most people think about one group of people colonizing another group of people in a far away place, and that is indeed one way of setting up a colony.
ສິ່ງທີ່ພວກເຮົາເວົ້າແມ່ນວ່າຄົນຜິວ ດຳ ເປັນອານານິຄົມພາຍໃນ, ບໍ່ ຈຳ ເປັນຕ້ອງເປັນປະເທດຫລືລັດທີ່ແຕກຕ່າງກັນ. ສິ່ງທີ່ກໍານົດການເປັນອານານິຄົມແມ່ນການເຄື່ອນໄຫວຂອງພະລັງງານ, ແລະຍ້ອນວ່າມັນກ່ຽວຂ້ອງກັບຄົນຜິວດໍາມີສາມລັກສະນະ.
- There is extraction of wealth and labor, and we can document this from the chattel slavery system to the current day mass incarceration. We can see the under-employment of Black folks, the precariousness, the displacement. Black people are a hyper-exploited class in the way wealth is extracted from us, our bodies are labor.
- The colony acts as a dumping site for runoff goods; not only do they use our labor to produce or create wealth, but then they also consume the things they think are good and dump the bad ones back on us. We’ve seen that in the recession of 2008, where banks’ exploitative practices like redlining and predatory lending – gendered racial capitalism – put us in a precarious situation where we don’t control anything, land is commodified altogether, and Black
people as a class don’t have the ability to house ourselves. Then the banks get the bailouts, get all the money and then they can charge us again, exploiting us another layer.
- In the context of the US, the colonial relationship tends to placate poor white people. Racial capitalism in the US has been a benefactor for poor white folk, as a way to keep poor white folk from turning on capitalists. For instance, the project of neoliberalism was not only a set of policies for capital to gain more power, but was accompanied by punitive policies, by discourses of Black criminality, anti Black and anti woman, anti queer, trans, intersex personal responsibility narratives, of Black people being responsible for the situation we were in. We see it in the current presidency. Trump is able to continuously have white people bought into the project of whiteness whether or not capitalism is actually serving the interests of poor white folk.
If we can demonstrate that Black people are in a colonial relationship with the US government – Black people as a class, not individuals where individuals like Oprah Winfrey are rich – then we understand what the role of policing inside of that is. It is to be an occupying force that maintains the status of capitalism. Hence, Black people are being murdered by the police because we are under occupation. If we want to end the murders, then we must end the occupation. We see this when our military occupies other countries; we know that those occupations only end if we withdraw the military. It won’t end if the military are nice, or militant forces that speak the language, or play basketball, or give somebody a ride-along in a tank. That all sounds ridiculous doesn’t it? Because we understand that military force is an occupying force.
ເຊັ່ນດຽວກັນ, ພວກເຮົາຮັບຮູ້ວ່າເພື່ອຢຸດການຄວບຄຸມອານານິຄົມຂອງຕໍາຫຼວດ, ພວກເຮົາຕ້ອງຕໍ່ສູ້ເພື່ອການຄວບຄຸມຊຸມຊົນ, ເຊິ່ງສຸດທ້າຍແມ່ນການຢຸດເຊົາການຄອບຄອງອານານິຄົມທີ່ຄົນຜິວດໍາປະເຊີນ.
Q: There is a famous quote by Kwame Ture (formerly known as Stokely Carmichael): “If a white man wants to lynch me, that’s his problem. If he’s got the power to lynch me, that’s my problem. Racism is not a question of attitude; it’s a question of power. Racism gets its power from capitalism. Thus, if you’re anti-racist, whether you know it or not, you must be anti-capitalist. The power for racism, the power for sexism, comes from capitalism, not an attitude.” Talk about the systemic aspect of racism and its connection with capitalism.
MA: That quote that you offered is so important. It is illogical to think that we can solve the issues of Black oppression by trying to change the individual mindset of white people. We need to be thinking systemically. Racism at its core is a system of power.
ສຸມໃສ່ການຄາດຕະກໍາຕໍາຫຼວດ, ຄົນຜິວດໍາທີ່ເຮັດຫຍັງກໍ່ຖືກຄາດຕະກໍາ. Aiyana Jones ແລະ Breonna Taylor ໄດ້ນອນຫລັບໃນເວລາທີ່ພວກເຂົາຖືກຄາດຕະກໍາ. ພວກເຮົາຖືກຂ້າຕາຍໃນເວລາທີ່ນອນຫລັບ. ພວກເຮົາບໍ່ສາມາດໄປແລະເອົາ skittles ຈາກຮ້ານເຊັ່ນ Trayvon Martin. ພວກເຮົາບໍ່ສາມາດເປັນຄື Sandra Bland ແລະຖາມເຈົ້າໜ້າທີ່ຕຳຫຼວດວ່າເຈົ້າດຶງຂ້ອຍມາເພື່ອຫຍັງ, ໃນຂະນະທີ່ຄົນຜິວຂາວສາມາດຕໍ່ສູ້ກັບຕຳຫຼວດໄດ້. ການຖືກຂ້າຕາຍໂດຍຕໍາຫຼວດບໍ່ແມ່ນກ່ຽວກັບລາຍລະອຽດຫຼືຄວາມຈິງຂອງເຫດການສ່ວນບຸກຄົນ, ແຕ່ກ່ຽວກັບລະບົບຕໍາຫຼວດ. ສິ່ງຕ່າງໆເຊັ່ນການຝຶກອົບຮົມຕ້ານອະຄະຕິແມ່ນບໍ່ພຽງພໍ. ລັກສະນະລະບົບແມ່ນມີຄວາມ ສຳ ຄັນຫຼາຍ.
ໃນແງ່ຂອງທັດສະນະຄະຕິ, ມັນອາດຈະເປັນຄວາມຈິງທີ່ວ່າຄົນຜິວ ດຳ ຫຼາຍຄົນບໍ່ມັກຄົນຂາວ. ຂ້ອຍຮູ້ຈັກຄົນຜິວດຳທີ່ບໍ່ຢາກຈັດການກັບຄົນຜິວຂາວ. ສິ່ງທີ່ແຕກຕ່າງກັນແມ່ນວ່າພວກເຂົາເຈົ້າບໍ່ມີພະລັງງານລະບົບທີ່ຈະທໍາຄວາມເສຍຫາຍໃດໆ. ພວກເຮົາບໍ່ສາມາດຕັ້ງຊື່ໃນໄລຍະປະຫວັດສາດທີ່ຄົນຜິວດຳເປັນຊົນຊັ້ນຄົນໜຶ່ງສາມາດປະຕິເສດຄົນຜິວຂາວສິດໃນການຢູ່ອາໄສ, ການສຶກສາຕົນເອງ, ການໃຊ້ຄວາມເປັນຂ້າໃຊ້, ຄວາມຮຸນແຮງທີ່ສຸດ ແລະ ການຂູດຮີດ. ພວກເຮົາສາມາດຕັ້ງຊື່ບຸກຄົນຄົນດໍາທີ່ໄດ້ຕ້ານທານ, ແຕ່ວ່າພະລັງງານໂຄງສ້າງດຽວກັນບໍ່ໄດ້ມີ.
Secondly, focusing on individual attitudes makes little strategic sense. For one, how do you measure that somebody gets it enough that inside of their socio-political standing, they will be pro-Black. Is 100s of hours of counseling enough or 1000s? I’m not saying that because I don’t think people should love Black people. I am Black, and I think everyone should love Black people. But measuring that and depending on that for the path forward is lacking a strong analysis of how we got here. The other consequence of taking the above path is that the organizing among the Black community needs to stop, and instead we should be focusing on organizing the white people to like and love us. That does not put us in a position of power and is instead asking us to pander.
ໃນແງ່ຂອງການເຊື່ອມໂຍງ, ທຶນນິຍົມແລະເຊື້ອຊາດແມ່ນ inextricable. ມັນເປັນໄປບໍ່ໄດ້ທີ່ຈະແກ້ໄຂຫນຶ່ງໂດຍບໍ່ມີການຄິດໄລ່ຂອງຄົນອື່ນ. ເອົາແນວຄວາມຄິດຂອງຕໍາຫຼວດ. ພວກເຮົາອາດຈະສາມາດຈັດການກັບສະຖາບັນຕໍາຫຼວດສະເພາະແລະຫັນປ່ຽນຫຼືປ່ຽນມັນພາຍໃນຂອງທຶນນິຍົມ, ແຕ່ພວກເຮົາຈະບໍ່ສາມາດທໍາລາຍຕໍາຫຼວດເປັນຫນ່ວຍງານໄດ້ເວັ້ນເສຍແຕ່ພວກເຮົາຈະເອົາຊະນະທຶນນິຍົມເພາະວ່ານາຍທຶນຈະຊອກຫາວິທີປ້ອງກັນຊັບສິນຂອງພວກເຂົາ.
ເຊັ່ນດຽວກັນ, ການຕໍ່ສູ້ຊົນຊັ້ນກໍບໍ່ສາມາດສຳເລັດໄດ້ໂດຍບໍ່ມີການປາບປາມການຕຳຫຼວດ, ເຊິ່ງແມ່ນກຳລັງທີ່ອຳນວຍຄວາມສະດວກໃຫ້ລັດທິທຶນນິຍົມ. ການຕໍ່ສູ້ຂອງຊົນຊັ້ນບໍ່ສາມາດປະສົບຜົນສຳເລັດໄດ້ ໂດຍບໍ່ມີການປະເຊີນໜ້າໂດຍກົງກັບຄວາມສາມາດໃນການຄອບຄອງຂອງນາຍທຶນ. ບໍ່ມີໃຜເລືອກທີ່ຈະຖືກຂູດຮີດ, ແທນທີ່ຈະເປັນລະບົບບັງຄັບໃຫ້ພວກເຮົາ, ແລະເມື່ອທ່ານໄປຕໍ່ຕ້ານລະບົບ, ມັນກໍ່ມີຄວາມຮຸນແຮງຕໍ່ພວກເຮົາ.
Other forms of oppression are intimately connected too. Lot of people don’t know that I answer the question of policing not only as a Black person, but also as a survivor of violence, and spend lot of my time thinking about how we end patriarchal violence, how do we end rape, stop sexual assault, intimate partner violence, etc. Our movement, i.e. of people who are feminist, who work at the intersection of gender based violence, or poor, trans, intersex people, is often used as the reason why we can’t abolish or get rid of policing. People often say what are you going to do for the rapist, for molestation of children, for the person who is abusing their partner. These are all very important questions that I deal with every day. Survivors of violence don’t have power over the system. Police are not accountable to survivors. Police violence is not just beating people up, but also sexual violence through strip searches and also the domestic violence they do in their homes and families. It is reported that the institution of policing has a higher rate of DV than civilian society. Policing violence is the choking of people like Eric Garner, but it is also the violence they commit at home. Having a feminist analysis of policing helps us to do multiple things. First, it helps us hold or better uncover all the victims of police violence who don’t get spoken about. There is a large number of survivors who call the police and then are assaulted by police officers, which is why many of the sex workers don’t even call the police. Not only does it help us better center all these victims of police violence, but it also helps us to understand the whole swathe of what the violence is.
ການໃຊ້ຄວາມຮຸນແຮງທາງຕຳຫຼວດແມ່ນລັດທິທຶນນິຍົມທາງເຊື້ອຊາດ, ແຕ່ມັນຍັງເປັນປະເທດຊາດ. ມັນເປັນທຶນນິຍົມທາງດ້ານເຊື້ອຊາດ. ມັນຍັງໄດ້ຮັກສາການເດັ່ນໃນຮ່າງກາຍຂອງແມ່ຍິງ, ໃນໄລຍະ queer, trans, ອົງການຈັດຕັ້ງ intersex. ມັນຍັງເປັນການບັງຄັບໃຫ້ແມ່ຍິງ, queer, trans ແລະ intersex folks ດໍາເນີນການແຮງງານການຈະເລີນພັນ.
Q: We have various proposals out there to fight police brutality as part of the uprising. We have
8 ບໍ່ສາມາດລໍຖ້າ, ຫຼັງຈາກນັ້ນມີ 8 to abolition, and then Defund and Community Control. Can you lay
ເຂົາເຈົ້າອອກ?
MA: I won’t spend time on 8 can’t wait, because it’s not serious. It’s probably proposed by people who are well meaning, but we don’t need to dwell on it.
8 to abolition is abolitionist in its pivot, not seeking to save the police or make them nicer, it is calling us to address harm and accountability without prisons or police. It also seeks to decriminalize a whole set of things that are criminalized today: skipping schools can be a criminal act, teachers report students for disorderly conduct for minor disobedience, which gets them a police citation, a whole array of age-appropriate behaviors by teenagers – such as smoking weed –are criminalized. It’s a smart intervention and an important intervention.
There are two other distinct sets of ideas right now. One is Defund. The Movement For Black
L ives has been pushing Defund. Defund is also abolitionist in nature. It recognizes that the crisis of policing has become big because of heavy investment. Police funding wasn’t organic; it was intentionally developed and heavily resourced, not only with money but with culture. Defund as a strategy seeks to take those resources back. We are still amidst a pandemic; many people are unemployed. In this moment, Defund is saying instead of austerity, take the money from police. Here’s a 100 billion dollars; just take it. Instead fund things like education, housing, health care, preventative measures around domestic violence, on-the-ground community responses to violence, and so on. I think it’s an important effort that demonstrates how grossly over-funded policing is. It’s also helping ask what we want to invest in that creates safety.
ການຄວບຄຸມຊຸມຊົນເຂົ້າຫາຄໍາຖາມຂອງຕໍາຫລວດບໍ່ຫຼາຍປານໃດຈາກດ້ານເງິນແຕ່ເປັນຫນຶ່ງທີ່ຖາມໂດຍກົງວ່າໃຜມີອໍານາດທາງດ້ານການເມືອງໃນການກໍານົດອຸປະກອນຄວາມປອດໄພພາຍໃນຊຸມຊົນຂອງພວກເຮົາ. ການຄວບຄຸມຊຸມຊົນແມ່ນເວົ້າກັບລັດ: ສົ່ງອໍານາດຂອງທ່ານກັບຊຸມຊົນ, ດັ່ງນັ້ນພວກເຮົາອາດຈະກໍານົດວິທີການຮັກສາຊຸມຊົນຂອງພວກເຮົາໃຫ້ປອດໄພ. ການຄວບຄຸມຊຸມຊົນແມ່ນການສົມທົບທີ່ຈໍາເປັນເພື່ອ Defund. ພວກເຮົາບໍ່ສາມາດຕໍ່ສູ້ກັບພຽງແຕ່ເອົາເງິນໂດຍບໍ່ມີອໍານາດຕໍ່ສູ້, ເພາະວ່າຫຼັງຈາກນັ້ນມັນຈະເປັນເອກະຊົນແລະຫຼັງຈາກນັ້ນພວກເຮົາຈະຊອກຫາຕົວເອງໃນການຕໍ່ສູ້ເພື່ອເອົາມັນຄືນຈາກເອກະຊົນເປັນສາທາລະນະເພື່ອກັບຄືນສູ່ບ່ອນທີ່ພວກເຮົາຢູ່ໃນມື້ນີ້.
What we have been naming as community control has to do with Black people in particular being able to determine policies, practice, procedures, as well as hiring and firing of police. And that would happen by creating hyper-democratic structures inside of communities, where actual
community members, not elected, randomly chosen as a way to avoid money in politics will have power over determining what safety looks like in those localities.
Q: ທ່ານໄດ້ນໍາເອົາການແຕ້ມແບບສຸ່ມ. ສົນທະນາກ່ຽວກັບແນວຄວາມຄິດຂອງ "ການຈັດລຽງ" ນີ້ແລະວິທີການໃນການສະເຫນີຂອງທ່ານມັນຖືກນໍາໃຊ້ເພື່ອປະກອບເປັນຄະນະກໍາມະການຄວບຄຸມຊຸມຊົນ (ທີ່ຈະດູແລຕໍາຫຼວດ).
MA: We envision communities to be defined hyper-locally. Suppose we decide to district up our boards to be areas of 5000 people at a time (maybe that’s too big, I don’t know; details like that will need to be worked out in the future). We want to ensure that regular people living there can be inside of these boards and take power. Elections can be easily bought off; people can be bribed. Furthermore, they are typically fought by career politicians. So, we rejected elections.
ພວກເຮົາໄດ້ໄປກັບຮູບແຕ້ມສຸ່ມຂອງຄົນທີ່ອາໄສຢູ່ໃນເຂດເຫຼົ່ານັ້ນ. ເຈົ້າສາມາດຕື່ນນອນໃນຕອນເຊົ້າມື້ຫນຶ່ງແລະສາມາດເລືອກຊື່ຂອງເຈົ້າໄດ້. ມັນບໍ່ແມ່ນຕໍາແຫນ່ງຖາວອນ. ທ່ານຮັບໃຊ້ເປັນເວລາສອງສາມປີ. ຄວາມຈິງທີ່ວ່າໃນອາທິດຕໍ່ໄປຜູ້ອື່ນອາດຈະເປັນຜູ້ທີ່ເປັນສ່ວນຫນຶ່ງຂອງຄະນະກໍາມະການປ່ຽນແປງນະໂຍບາຍດ້ານຂອງຊຸມຊົນ. ຄະນະກໍາມະການດັ່ງທີ່ປະກອບດ້ວຍຂ້າງເທິງຈະກໍານົດການປະຕິບັດແລະນະໂຍບາຍຂອງທີມງານຄວາມປອດໄພ.
Some say that the above sounds like I’m not against policing. I do think the current iteration of policing has to go. But I also know that as a leftist, as a survivor of violence, as a queer person, as a female-assigned person, as a Black person, that many things that I value and affirm are not popular. I am serious when I say sexual violence has to end. But if put to a vote, we might not win it. We still need some form of organized force to deal with those issues, with white nationalists who are mad. You need some form of organized force to deal with harm. But under community control, it would be radically different.
Raghav Kaushik ເປັນນັກເຄື່ອນໄຫວຢູ່ໃນຊີແອດເທິລ. ການມີສ່ວນພົວພັນທີ່ຜ່ານມາຂອງລາວແມ່ນໄດ້ກັບແຄມເປນ Tax Amazon ໃນຊີແອດເທິລ, ແລະການຕໍ່ສູ້ຕ້ານລະບອບການປົກຄອງ Modi ໃນປະເທດອິນເດຍ, ໂດຍສະເພາະກົດຫມາຍວ່າດ້ວຍການປັບປຸງພົນລະເມືອງແລະການລົງທະບຽນແຫ່ງຊາດຂອງພົນລະເມືອງເມື່ອບໍ່ດົນມານີ້.
ZNetwork ໄດ້ຮັບທຶນພຽງແຕ່ໂດຍຜ່ານຄວາມເອື້ອເຟື້ອເພື່ອແຜ່ຂອງຜູ້ອ່ານຂອງຕົນ.
ບໍລິຈາກ