Confidential Informants, Militarization and the Police

In the United States the modern day police force finds its roots in the slave patrols of the Antebellum South (Williams, 36-46). Created to patrol roads, spy on slaves and report or suppress talk of rebellion these patrols soon expanded to include poor white (indentured servants and others) and acted to protect the boss class and their material interests.

This is one of the reason the police have become such a power lobby in our society is they "provide a mechanism by which the power of the state and eventually that of the emerging ruling class, could be brought to bear on the lives and habits of individual members of society" (Williams, 75).  For many they embody the right of the state to reserve the use of violence for itself. They are unquestioned in their dispensation of force and idea of justice. A quick look at the history of the police helps us to understand quite a bit about them.

Through the past two centuries the role of the police has evolved and become more specialized but essentially has remained the same. The protection of private property and the surrveilence and control of poor people.

The ways in which the police do this are varied. One of the main tactics law enforcement uses is the gathering of information through unofficial means. This is one aspect of control and militarization that truly represents the most dramatic departure from the ideal of the police as we think we know them. 

Author Peter Kraska writes "Militarization ... can be defined in its broadest terms as the social process in which society organizes itself for the production of violence or the threat thereof" (williams, 198).

Kraska goes one to list the following as evidence of that increasing militarization of the police in America.

1. A blurring of external and internal security functions leading to a targeting of civilian populations, internal 'security' threats, and a focus on aggregate populations as potential internal 'insurgents'.

2. An avoidance of overt or lethal violence, with a greater emphasis placed on information gathering and processing, surveillance work, and less than lethal technologies.

3. An ideology and theoretical framework of militarism that stresses that effective problem solving requires state force, technology, armament, intelligence gathering, aggressive suppression efforts, and other assorted activities commensurate with modern military thinking and operations. 

4. Criminal justice practices guided by the ideological framework of militarism such as the use of special operation paramilitary teams in policing and corrections, policing activities that emphasize military tactics such as drug, gun and gang suppression, and punishment models based on the military boot camp.

5. The purchasing, loaning, donation, and use of actual material products that can be characterized as militaristic, including a range of military armaments, transportation devices, surveillance equipment, and military style garb.

6. A rapidly developing collaboration, at the highest level of the governmental and corporate worlds, between the defense industry and the crime control industry.

7. The use of military language within political and popular culture, to characterize the social problems of drugs, crime and social disorder.

(Williams, 198)

Below is an excerpt from a very excellent book called "Eco-Defense a guide to Monkey-Wrenching" for those of you involved in what some would term radical politics this is good advice. 

Confidential Informants

The confidential informant, or “CI” is possible the single most valuable tool used in law enforcement. CI’s are obtained by a number of means:

Walk-in – These are disgruntled or disenchanted members of a target organization who volunteer their services, for a variety of reasons. They may have joined a group with good intention, only to be offended by what they see as overly radical tactics. Or they may e ambitious people who have been passed over for leadership roles and decide to seek revenge against those they think have slighted them. Or they may be wackos who seek revenge against someone in the group for personal reasons, including romantic ones.

Tip offs – The future CI is indiscreet in talking of illegal exploits, and is overheard by someone not of the group, who in turn informs the police. The police obtain information about other illegal activities. This often occurs with drug busts.

Recruits – Known members of a target group may be targeted for recruitment by the police. The effort usually begins with a background check for signs of vulnerability. An individual who appears ‘weak’ might simply be interviewed repeatedly by a persuasive officer until she agrees to cooperate. A conservative employer perhaps only with a law enforcement or military background might be enlisted to help in pressuring the prospective recruits. In the past, for instance, the FBI has used interviews with employers to intimidate members of political groups.

Similarly, a spouse may be approached to aid in the recruitment. Veiled threats to children or to one’s job security have often proved effective. Also, the parents of the would be informer may be approached to secure their help. This approach may be particularly effective if the subject is say a college student receiving financial support from their parents.

People who have never been arrested, or young people heavily influenced by their families are more often susceptible to becoming CIs than those with more experience.

Excerpt from “Ecodefense – a field guide to Monkey Wrenching”

Williams, Kristian (2007) "Our Enemies in Blue police and power in America" South End Press, Cambridge, MA.

The Phone Call

If you are an activist involved in what people consider radical politics (and lets be truthful, this can mean to the left or the right) it is inevitable at some point the police will call you for information of some kind. 

The call itself is not a big deal (maybe) and it is certainly not illegal or unethically for the police to call and try to ask you a whole bunch of questions. The issues is that most people get immediately freaked out with the police contact them and for good reason. The phone call is an exploratory contact. Usually your name has come into contact with them for something it is a part of their job to ask about. The things they are asking about may or may not be true, may or may not have happened. It is also important to remember that crime prevention is not the main function of the police. Crime investigation is a main function of the police. So while it may seem like harassment when you get this call it is no more harassment than somebody coming up to you and asking you a bunch of questions that could be easily classified as none of their business. 

Just like with those other nosy nellies you are under no compulsion to answer any question put to you by a police officer. You have the right to legal representation and the right to remain silent. My advice would be to exercise both of these rights.

Where most people get into trouble is they try to match wits with the cops. Bad Move. Police officers have all day everyday to sit around and try to figure things out. People get smart with them, speak rudely, try to explain themselves or whatever. This is a waste of time, energy and life.

These conversation always start out the same way. The officer either calls or comes to your house. "Hello, my name is officer so and so and I want to talk to you about this (Blank) situation."

This is to let others know what is going on and simply say you are under NO OBLIGATION to speak with the police or answer their questions without legal representation. Remember, having a lawyer is not an admission of guilt or of something to hide. It is a constitutionally protected right guaranteed to you by this government. The right to silence and protection against unlawful search and seizure has nothing to do with guilt or innocence and they are two rights you still possess as an American citizen. Use these rights and keep your wits about you when dealing with the police.

Particularly since the passage of the Patriot Act and other federal laws some very basic ways that we as organizers and activists interact with the police has changed. As has the way information can and is collected by police. It is always important to remember that the number one function of the police is crime investigation not prevention as many people think.

I think it is also important that everyone have a basic idea of what to do if they are contacted by the police. These are my suggestion as always all are free to make their own decisions.

Don’t be rude to the police - conversely don’t be scared. It doesn’t serve any purpose to be rude and will likely make you an unnecessary target. Be polite but firm and above all stay calm.

If the police come to your house you do not have to let them inside. They will tell you they just want to ask you a few questions about some matter that has come to their attention. What’s important to understand is that you are somehow implicated in what they are asking questions about.  Tell the officer that you would rather not speak to them without your lawyer being present.

The police have the right to search to perform a Terry Search. This allows them to pat you down on the outside of your clothes. The courts have deemed this as a minimum action to ensure the safety of the officer. If they ask for your identification give it to them.

You do not have to consent to a search of yourself or your property without a warrant. If the police ask to search your property ask them if they have a warrant. If they do not then tell them politely and firmly - NO. If they search anyways DO NOT TRY AND STOP THEM. Try and observe their actions to the extent they will allow but do not physically oppose them it isn’t worth it.

If you are arrested the police officer will not read you your rights. Later when you are arraigned you will be given a piece of paper advising you of your rights and asked to sign it. This how you are read your rights in the real world. 

If the police really desire to speak with you then tell them they can arrange a mutually agreeable time and you will present yourself with legal representation.

If your contact with the police was over the phone when you hang up IMMEDIATELY write down as much of the conversation as you can remember so that other can know what is going on. The only way to fight police intimidation is to go public with it. The police depend on people being embarrassed or to scared to say anything. Don’t fall into that trap. Let everyone know right away. Especially those other individuals who the police might have been asking about. 

Remember, you are probably not a lawyer. So don't try and argue the law. Keep your peace and try to remember everything you can. Wait for the lawyers to get there. 

March 2009 - MSU Chicano/Latinos Undergrads Demand Director Contreras OUT- MTG with Dean Marrieta Baba

MSU Chicano/Latino Undergrads Demand Director Contreras OUT - Meeting with Dean PT. 2

“Political Mobilization is the most fundamental condition for winning the war.”

Examining the history and theories of guerrilla warfare/insurgency is important for correctly perceiving our present political situation and the development of new options of resistance for Xicanos and other Third World people in the United States. Based on an acknowledgement of industrial inferiority the Vietnamese people and leaders approached the development of political will in their war with the French and the United States, as a necessary component of national survival. While the French and U.S. “were fighting to control the national territory … the guerrillas were interested only in winning its population” this is the essential distinction between conventional warfare where “the army fights to occupy territory, roads, strategic heights, vital areas” and guerrilla warfare where “the guerrilla fights to control people, without whose cooperation the land is useless to its possessor” .

In other words, a people’s war produces military power as a consequence of the political mobilization of the people by the army. This is why Vietnamese General Vo Nguyen wrote the main responsibility of a peoples war is first to “educate, mobilize, organize, and arm the whole people in order that they might take part in the resistance” and form a peoples army which according to Mao Tse-Tung Chinese General and theorist of revolutionary war “is not an instrument of the state, but the essence of it, its spirit, its life and its hope.”

It is important to remember that revolutionary situations can, have been and continue to develop in Third World and that these tried and tested methods and theories of revolutionary activity have resulted in numerous revolutionary insurgencies, most of which been successful. The existing body of literature concerning guerrilla movements, insurgencies and revolutionary thought is considerable and much of it focuses on Latin America. It is important to understand that guerilla warfare is the only proven method of successfully challenging the overwhelming military, political and technological strength of the First World. By its nature political warfare is an activity that favors the poor and underdeveloped nations, invigorating the will to resist by creating a will to win. These are not methodologies and ideas produced by inexperienced moaners or whiny children but intelligent people dedicated to the liberation of their nation from colonial domination.

To understand the relationship of this body of knowledge to the Xicano community and what it could ultimately mean for indigenous people to understand the development of physical resistance is a legitimate aspect of Xicano studies. It is constructive topic of academic discussion, debate and dialogue. Why it is not a major branch of study within Xicano Studies, which publicly states its beginning was in the revolutionary Third World student movements of the United States, is a question of concern about the future of Xicano Studies and a subject for future papers.

The theories and ideas of revolutionary methodology should be important pieces in the Xicano struggle against U.S. imperialism. It is important to state up front this is a suggestion that analyzing these different methodologies to organize a Third World population for political change and national liberation is a good idea. Mao was very clear in stating and writing that no two revolutionary situations were the same. All the same, any a mass movement in the U.S. must take race and class into account if success is desired. The same is true of a Xicano Liberation Movement, however, in the end, race and class not withstanding, it is the adherence to and belief in the stated goals of any resistance movement that determines the nature of the combatants and their aspirations.

That being said, it is crucial to note there is currently no basis for making any type of prediction about the goals of a Xicano insurgency, who would fight (since the term Xicano liberation is used frequently we can assume a portion of that populations would participate), where they would come from in society or if their objective would include a geographic succession or some type of autonomous homeland. It is beyond the scope of this post to consider such things. Indeed, it may be beyond the state of current Xicano politics and scholarship to consider these matters. Mainly, because the framework for implementing the type of organizing efforts discussed within the boundaries of the United States has yet to be created. The purpose of this exercise is solely to define and study revolutionary methodologies implemented in other countries for political change and to offer suggestions for creating a method of revolutionary political mobilizations that operates legally within the United States based on those observations.

In the last half the 20th century European imperial and colonial powers around the globe were challenged by Third World liberation movements relying on a strategy of political education escalating into guerilla warfare and then conventional warfare as theorized by Third World military strategist such as Mao Tse-Tung, Che Guevara, Amilcar Cabral and Vo Nuygen Giap . This “fusion of traditional guerrilla tactics with political and, especially, ideological objectives marked the emergence of a revolutionary guerilla warfare or insurgency” during the latter half of the 20th century. This prevailing model of guerilla warfare is traditionally strategized as a rural based military movement where a growing insurgency controls larger and larger tracts of the countryside until the guerillas encircle the cities and cut them off from each other causing the downfall of the central government . This has occurred because up to the present time the majority of any the world’s population lived in rural areas, hence the focus on mobilizing where the people are.

However, dramatic shifts in populations’ centers around the planet are happening and as a result “the world is expected to reach 50 percent urban for the first time in history in 2007. In 2000, 2.9 billion people live in urban areas, comprising 47 percent of the world population. By 2030, 4.9 billion are expected to live in urban areas, or 60 percent of the world.” In addition by 2010 “some 80 percent [of the worlds population] will inhabit the developing world…by 2020 the developing world will have accounted for 90 percent of global population growth since 1930.” This shift to urban settings due to forced migration brought on by war and economic need, along with the ongoing population explosion of Third World peoples is creating new paradigms in the theories of guerilla warfare and insurgencies. These facts along with a clear understanding of how important political education is to beginning guerilla movements and insurgencies is central to Xicanos engaged in cultural and physical resistance to U.S. imperialism as the next logical step in the decolonization of the Americas.

As people indigenous to this continent we languish in the shadow of the greatest military power the world has ever known. By any explanation it appears we are permanent guests in our own land, and are currently moving rapidly toward a permanent illegal alien status. In spite of the rhetoric of revolution embedded in the U.S. Chicano dialogue we continue to deal with the reality of revolution as a phase of youthful fancy. Xicano scholars refuse to have serious conversations among themselves when in fact a large body of scholarly research has been compiled regarding the issues of secession, nation building and revolution. Partly this has happened because as a scholarly community we have not incorporated into Chicano studies a vocabulary appropriate to the subject by which to articulate academically our ideas about revolution.

One goal of this discussion is to define specific revolutionary methodologies that have proven successful over the course of time and relate them to our current situation as Xicano/ Mexicanos in the United States. One important way of doing this is through an understanding of internal colonialism as first a metaphor for understanding the experience and contextualizing the presence of Third World people, specifically non-Europeans, within the U.S. colony “the general concept appears to apply to a number of cases, and is valuable in emphasizing the structural similarities and common historical origins of the positions of Third World peoples inside and outside the United States.”

It is here in the United States that the presence of indigenous people and Africans gives a modern reality to the idea of an internal colony. By placing this discussion of national liberation within a colonial framework it is understood the existence/purpose/history of the continental United States and its territorial holdings are explainable within the framework of the colony . To be specific the colony being is historically an economic venture by Europeans here in the Americas and around the world that by “the middle of the last (19th) century … the colony was understood to mean, both in official circles and in common language, possession of a territory in which European emigrants dominated indigenous peoples.” Accepting this definition of colony allows us to understand how and why the history of the United States is officially told though the lens of the European conqueror. It is by this process of colonial displacement the United States has become a pretend motherland to white Europeans.

It is also important to note this discussion of resistance takes place with full awareness and understanding of the powerful arguments that exist for joining our oppressors. Each urging us to take our place next to the colonizer of our land, and march out to conquer the rest of this world both ideologically, physically, and economically. Indeed, many of us have already proudly chosen that course. Activists during the 1960s recognized this danger when they saw “the potential for the creation of a Chicano/a professional class disassociated from the ethnic Mexican working class in the United States.” As Xicano Historian George Mariscal points out “there was certainly no reason to think that even the most radical Chicano/a could successfully counter the seductive power exerted by consumer society.”

Viewing the success individual Xicanos and Mexicanos have achieved through total compliance we must ask ourselves, what is the point of continued resistance? How will exploring and understanding different methods of resistance help Xicanos make better decisions in strategy and tactics while developing long terms goals for national survival? Fanon was pointed in his depiction of the demise of a nations culture under colonialization,

Colonial domination, because it is total and tends to oversimplify, very soon manages to disrupt in spectacular fashion the cultural life of a conquered people. The cultural obliteration is made possible by the negation of national reality, by new legal relations introduced by the occupying power, by the banishment of the natives and their customs to outlying districts by colonial society, by expropriation, and by the systematic enslaving of men and women. - Frantz Fanon

Xicanos, particularly in academic and activist circles talk all the time about being a colonized people. But we never discuss the physical dismantling of the colonized situation. We talk, debate and speak of our oppression and displacement only in historical, academic, and identity terms never in the context of our colonization being a living and ongoing system of economic exploitation that must be confronted and destroyed. Our subaltern position has become so entrenched in our national and personal psyche we debate and ridicule anyone who argues against total collusion with our subjugators.

Understanding Liberation Movements

The political is paramount as a catalyst for social change. The preceding section outlines the necessity of political education and mobilization through an understanding of internal colonialism and its subsequent political critique by Third World ideology. Conservative, liberal and revolutionary scholars agree this critique of colonialism and internal colonialism around the world has helped to develop the will to resist both Corporatism and U.S. political hegemony. Within this internal colonial critique it is clear that without an understanding of why political change must occur all hard work toward change will fail especially in regards to building armed resistance movements.

After the second World War, Third World ideology in the United States springing from the “Third World Non Aligned Movement” connected, at first ideologically and later militarily “aspiring U.S. revolutionaries to the Third World parties and leaders … who were proving that ‘the power of the people is greater than the man’s technology.” Based on the revolutionary axiom that the political education of the nation is the first order of business for those seeking to bring political change including change through armed resistance Mao Tse-Tung wrote, "without a political goal, guerilla warfare must fail, as it must if its political objectives do not coincide with the aspirations of the people and their sympathy, cooperation and assistance cannot be gained."

For the purposes of this paper definitions of seizing of power (or creating political change) will be limited to the idea there are three ways to SEIZE political power: “Revolution, plot (or coup d’etat), and insurgency.” It is important to understand the differences and overlaps of each category and to note that by definition none of these three categories are inherently progressive and in fact may be just the opposite. Also noteworthy for Chicano scholars engaged in the study of revolutionary movements, particularly armed movements, is the amount of literature written by governments and military leaders on how to suppress guerilla and insurgent movements. This large body of research and publication speaks directly to the seriousness; legitimacy, viability and success of these movements particularly post World War II.

For purposes of academic clarity and discussion within this paper we will define these three concepts in the following way: Revolution: “usually is an explosive upheaval – sudden brief, spontaneous, unplanned (France 1789; China, 1911; Russia, 1917; Hungary, 1956). It is an accident, which can be explained afterward but not predicted other than to note the existence of a revolutionary situation … in a revolution, masses move and then the leaders appear.” Plot: “is the clandestine action of an insurgent group directed at the overthrow of the top leadership in its country. Because of its clandestine nature, a plot cannot and does not involve the masses … it is always a gamble.” Insurgency: “a protracted struggle conducted methodically, step by step, in order to attain specific intermediate objectives leading finally to the overthrow of the existing order … To be sure it can no more be predicted than a revolution ... when an insurgency starts is a difficult legal, political and historical problem … though it cannot be predicted, an insurgency is usually slow to develop and is not an accident, for in an insurgency leaders appear and then the masses are made to move … [a] revolutionary situation did not have to be acute in order for a the insurgency to be initiated.”

Although the words revolution and insurgency are used at times interchangeably and often insurgencies develop into revolutions, it is clear from the definitions that military thinkers do not view them as the same thing. The reminder of this paper will concentrate on definitions and theories of insurgency and later on how those theories could be put into operation through present day Xicano community organizing methodologies.

Guerilla warfare is first and foremost a revolutionary war, a political effort and “whereas in conventional war, either side can initiate the conflict, only one – the insurgent – can initiate a revolutionary war.” Revolutionary wars, particularly since the end of World War II, have succeeded in successfully addressing issues of social and economic inequalities the world over. A purposely misleading and unfortunate reaction by imperialist governments and their the capitalist/corporate structure using multinational corporate media outlets have been to cleverly and successfully misrepresent in modern times most revolutionary wars as simple terrorism or the work of the mentally unbalanced for the purpose of securing their own financial investments in Third World countries and Third World communities within the United States.

These different insurgencies are not solely wars of terror or violence, although those are tactics often used by insurgents and counter insurgents. Nor, are they at first wars to gain control of the land, although that is an end goal of guerilla and insurgent movement. No, the first job of the guerilla is political mobilization. Not in the liberal sense of electoral politics, which in most countries where a revolutionary situation is developing means protecting the status quo by the solidifying of the national bourgeoisie, but in terms of, Raising the level of political consciousness of the people and involving them actively in the revolutionary struggle – is the first task of the guerillas; and it is the nature of this effort, which necessarily takes time, that accounts for the protracted character of the revolutionary war.

Insurgencies begin when a group of people under the control of what they consider to be either a colonial or oppressive government have attempted to resolve their issues (whatever they maybe) with the dominant social group but have either failed to do so or are ignored until the point of rebellion which unfailingly “presupposes the existence of valid popular grievances, sharp social divisions, an unsound or stagnant economy, and oppressive government.” Crucial to the success of any guerilla mobilization is the ability to articulate their political grievances in such a way that will persuade others to accept their version of the outstanding political problem or as it was termed by Mao the “unsolved contradiction” within the current political system. This position leaves little room for accusations of outside interference and political agitation, two of the main allegations made by governments against insurgents engage in political mobilization. If one accepts the notion, “revolutionary propaganda must be essentially true order to be believed,” and that “if it is not believed, people cannot be induced to act on it,” then aligning the insurgency as a political outgrowth of one side of the “unsolved contradiction” becomes a reality. So then,

“If revolution is to be understood as a historical, social process, rather than an accident or a plot, then it will not do to consider guerrillas, terrorist, political assassin as deviants or agents somehow apart from the social fabric, irrelevant or only fortuitously relevant to the historical process. Guerrillas are of the people, or they cannot survive, cannot even come into being. Terrorism, while it aroused the popular will to revolt, is at the same time a manifestation of that will, expressing the first surge of the popular impulse toward a new and different order of existence. It may be argued the terroristic movements attract criminals and psychopaths. So they do. But criminality itself is a form of unconscious social protest, reflecting the distortions of an imperfect society, and in a revolutionary situation the criminal, the psychopath, may become as a good revolutionary as the idealist” (Taber).

Military analysts identify classical modern guerilla warfare mainly by two distinct theoretical paradigms. The first is the Chinese/Vietnamese theories of war developed by Mao Tse-Tung and subsequently expanded on by Gen. Vo Nguyen Giap during the Viet Nam War and the Focoismo theory of guerilla warfare developed in Cuba by Cubans revolutionaries and imported throughout Africa and Latin America by the efforts of Ernesto “Che” Guevara. The organizational differences between the two theories are significant, and although they are both ideologies designed to create revolutionary situations within countries, they approach change in society very differently. An explanation of the two theoretical bodies in terms of their similarities, differences and rules of engagement is central to helping Xicano Third World scholars, organizers and activists currently working in the U.S. today develop a better understanding of the way political change is approached, a fuller appreciation of political glam revolution, and the fetishization of resistance by segments of the Xicano/Latino community here in the United States.

Because of the pervasiveness of revolutionary example during the last half of the 20th century a deeper appreciation for the impact of revolutionary political methodologies on organizing efforts within U.S. Third World communities can be seen and should understood in terms of their contribution to change around the globe. It is important to reiterate that revolutionary war is political war or the furtherance of politics by the means of the gun. Revolutionary political war is by all definitions a protracted or long lasting war. There can be no quick solution to revolutionary or guerilla warfare that is good for the insurgent because “it takes time for a small group of insurgent leaders to organize a revolutionary movement, to raise and develop armed forces, to reach a balance with the opponent, and to overpower him.” (Galula, 10) This sense that time is truly on the side of the insurgent is reiterated by Galula when he writes, “revolutionary war is short only if the counterinsurgency collapses at and early stage, With this central theme in mind we begin to understand “the insurgent has no interest in producing a shock until he feels fully able to withstand the enemy’s expected reaction,” (Galula) this is a situation that could go on for years and in fact until intentions are revealed through “subversion or open violence … an insurgency can reach a high degree of development by legal and peaceful means, at least in countries where political opposition is tolerated,” (Galula).

In order to fully appreciate the emphasis on developing the will of the nation to resist and how this emphasis leads inescapably to a peoples war which is the production of “military power as a consequence of political mobilization.” (Marks) an in depth discussion on the theories of Mao Tse-Tung on guerrilla warfare as a primarily political operation concerned mainly with the mobilization of the Chinese people for what he termed “Total Resistance.” This model of resistance was developed by Mao and his generals because the Chinese were not an industrialized power in control of manufacturing resources with which to create the tools of war to fight first against a Japanese invasion of mainland China during the Sino-Japan War and later while combating the nationalist forces of Chiang Kai-shek and the Kuomintang (Taber).

---
Vijay Prashad "The Darker Nations"
Elbaum, Max (2002) What Legacy from the Radical Internationalism of 1968? Radical History Review Issue 82, Winter, p.41
Mao Tse-Tung Primer on Guerilla Methods
Galula, David (1964) “Counter Insurgency Warfare Theory and Practice” Frederick A. Praeger, New York, NY.
Taber, Robert (1965) “The War of the Flea: A study of Guerilla Warfare Theory and Practice” Lyle Stuart New York, NY.
Marks, Thomas A. (2003) “Urban Insurgency” Small Wars and Insurgencies, Vol. 14, No. 3,

space + time = will

The challenge of past generations to this structure of force now over us, called colonialism was uttered when as Fanon wrote concerning those past struggles “they fought as well they could ... and if the echoes of their struggle have not resounded in the international arena … this silence lies less in their lack of heroism than in the fundamentally different international situation of our time.” This war between the descendents of European colonizers, their lackey’s and the indigenous inhabitants of this land is ongoing and in the end we will prevail. The only question that remains is whether our world will be sick and twisted copy of the European legacy that has dragged and mutilated our planet to the brink of extinction or a nation built on the principles of sustaining life.

Franz Fanon, the intellectual ambassador of African anti-colonization has shown through his work the necessity of opposing our oppressors to whatever extent we deem necessary in order to end the colonial project. However, he warns repeatedly against eliminating the colonizer simply to replace them or recreate their structure by our inaction, “If we want to turn Africa into a new Europe, and America in to a new Europe, then let us leave the destiny of our countries to Europeans. They will know how to do it better that the most gifted among us.”

Fanon understood the colonial dilemma facing so-called third world people then and now. He clearly saw and experienced how indigenous cultures under colonialism begin to dissipate as the assault by the colonial system is focused on every facet of who they are as a people. This attack on the fabric of our civilizations is what makes us become jealous puppets, dark shadows of our colonial masters, it is the cultural sickness that makes it possible for us to unwittingly duplicate their system of oppression. Again Fanon points out the dialectical nature of colonial oppression to those who will listen when he writes, “Colonialism is not satisfied merely with holding a people in its grip…by a kind of perverted logic, it turns to the past of the oppressed peoples and distorts, disfigures, and destroys it.” We must choose our own path by finding ways to restore a mental veiw of Xicanos as indigenous people in the Americas. Once the battle for this land is joined and it was joined full scale the day our first ancestors were slaughtered by European invaders there is no turning back, “when a people undertakes an armed struggle or even a political struggle against a relentless colonialism, the significance of tradition changes” writes Fanon. This struggle is or becomes the main vehicle for developing the necessary power/force to challenge the power of the colonial state.
In his reading of Walter Benjamin’s classic essay “Critique of Violence” Algerian born French philosopher Jacques Derrida asserts every society is initiated by the use of force. A supposition that can be easily supported with the creation of colonial nations; this force (Gewalt) , which upholds the law of society and establishes “the foundation … in a situation that one can thus call revolutionary. It inaugurates a new law; it always does so in violence.” It is exactly this idea that colonized people must examine closely. If all society is founded in force or violence, and certainly we see the truth of that in situation of indigenous people in the Americas, then what role can there possibly be for nonviolence to play in founding a new society, even if that non-violence is based in a determined struggle? How does a combination of these diametrically opposed philosophies contribute to the political power of indigenous peoples in the Americas?

What then is the source for creating this society creating force? We begin a discourse, search for truth in our choices and allow that truth to create an oppositional force to colonialism within the framework of our colonized minds. In the past this has created what some call revolutionary violence. However, it was revolutionary or transformative only to the extent it swept away the old oppressive system. Can the type of force (Gewalt), which Derrida and Benjamin define as “the dominance of legal power, the authorizing or authorized authority: the force of law” be exerted by nonviolent means? Derrida goes on to explain there are two different outcomes with the use of this type of force (Gewalt) which he calls a “distinction between the two kinds of violence of law, in relation to law: the founding violence, the one that institutes and posits law and the violence that preserves, the one that maintains, confirms, insures the permanence and enforceability of law.” Can indigenous people use a version of nonviolence as political defiance? Can non-violence rise to the level of “founding violence [Force/Gewalt], the one that institutes and posits law”?

We must strive for a transformative force that extends beyond anger and works itself into the fabric of national proposals. The idea we can make our lives and the lives of our people better by simply overthrowing our colonizers in some type of final cataclysmic conflict has had its day. Fanon tells us “history teaches us clearly that the battle against colonialism does not run straight along lines of nationalism,” This is an unconcluded struggle whose ending must be written by those within the Xicano movement.

It is vital to remember that we should strive to be according to Emiliano Zapata’s Plan de Ayala “partisans of principles rather than men." For to long our community has existed as personalists – we worship the leader, the strong man, the hero. Instead of accepting the responsibility for our own free choice we fall trap to the messianic ideal a person can deliver us from our bondage as a people. We fail to realize that way of thinking is bondage itself. To the extent it is possible we must all accept the charge of messianic deliverer. And by doing so accept the necessity of choice of deciding for us the ultimate course to nationhood and liberation. How this can be accomplished is actually the question we must find ways to as separate movements working toward common goals to articulate.

The idea of free choice within our indigenous politics is found within the practice of collective action, collective decision-making and building a popular front as an umbrella for an anti-colonialist movement. The biggest obstacle in the way of an even marginally successful Xicano nationalist movement with a growing indigenous philosophy has an unclear, romanticized vision of where and how this type of struggle begins. Taiaiake Alfred in his book “Wasase – indigenous pathways of action and freedom” tells us that options like armed struggle through Guerilla warfare are impractical, “it is clear that guerrilla and terrorist strategies are futile … violent revolt is simply not an intelligent and realistic approach to confronting the injustice we face,” While Alfred’s words are important, it is also important to understand a variety of organizational methodologies that may at one time or another be appropriate for the people to try. The challenge is whether as a people or nation we have the ability to enact these different methods, even in learning about guerilla warfare as an extreme example we come to understand that it is much more guns and fighting.

For Xicanos examining the words of revolutionary guerilla fighter Mao Tse Tung along with the modern analysis of an liberation theorist like Alfred and Adams is important, it is Mao who states simply but eloquently, “without a political goal guerrilla warfare must fail” for Xicanos engaged in indigenous liberation politics this one statement should shine a bright light on the necessity of political partying building organization. The nature of guerrilla warfare or what Mao calls revolutionary war is a “protracted one” the goal of the revolutionary is not to produce a quick military decision but rather “how to avoid a military decision … give way before the determined advance of the enemy, and, like the sea, close in again as the enemy passes,” according to Mao in the beginning of a revolution there are no pitched battles – there is merely a struggle for the minds and allegiance of the people through political education.

Because of the impoverished nature of Chinese society (and maybe to some extent Chinese culture itself) Mao choose to develop his revolutionary theory focusing on the three intangible aspects of warfare: space, time and will, “the basic premise of this theory is that political mobilization may be substituted for industrial mobilization” according to Edward L. Katzenbach, Jr., who served as the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State under President John F. Kennedy, in his influential essay on the military theories of Mao Tse Tung .

Today, within this slowly emerging indigenous Xicano movement we suffer from a sense of unrealistic impatience about our roles and the activities we should be undertaking at this point in our liberation struggle. An important lesson from Katzenbach’s analysis of Mao’s guerrilla theory that places our own movement with in a proper lens of what constitutes appropriate action at the beginning of a revolution is about timing,

Mao’s military problem was how to organize space so that it could be made to yield time. His political problem was how to organized time so that could be made to yield will, that quality which makes willingness to sacrifice the order of the day … Mao’s real military problem was not that of getting the war over with, the question to which Western military thinkers have directed the greater part of their attention, but that of keeping it going.

Space + time = will is the equation Mao used to explain his theories of protracted warfare, and one that may well serve the needs of indigenous liberation movements today. For indigenous fighters in the America’s today even a basic understanding of Mao’s military theory tell us that while we consider ourselves at war, we have not lost, “only those willing to admit defeat can be defeat.” And while it may seem to some that war can only be conducted in a specific way it is evident through reading not only Mao, but other revolutionary theorists that war is at its very basic level an attack on the force of law Benjamin and Derrida spoke of earlier. It is an attempt to reconstitute that society, or as Derrida points out “war is in fact … a violence that serves to found law.”

Authoritarian measures instituted by the colonial system i.e. courts, police, social workers perpetuate the misery around us. They have as their basis our mental relationship with the colonized mindset and the perpetuation of colonialism within our personal and public affairs. We respond as a colonized people to this type of oppressive authority as a people because it is all we have ever known and we cannot conceive of a different system because we have an incomplete understanding of our role as indigenous people in the Americas. Albert Memmi a Tunisian philosopher who wrote extensively about the conditions of both the colonized and the colonizer said, “regardless of how soon or how violently the colonized rejects his situation, he will one day begin to overthrow his unliveable existence with the whole force of his oppressed personality.” (Memmi 62-63) The greatest danger our movement faces today is falling prey to the seductive force and philosophy of defeatist assimilation whether it is overt or not.

Our current structure within the Xicano movement is conveniently set up, running and allegedly functioning all around us. We unwittingly structure many of the changes we try to institute within the context of the current system of exploitation. This colonial mindset is so ingrained in our national psyche at this point the only hope toward any significant change in the way we see the world and deal with each other would come only after it was clearly articulate how a recovery of indigenous identity and nationalism would work and then begin to order the very identity and nation we have proposed. Law and our understanding of that law and colonialism as a system must be fundamentally altered to grasp the importance and necessity of understanding the role that violence plays in founding law.

We cannot have it both ways. We cannot be citizens of the United States and continue to talk about Aztlan as if it were a real entity. If we are to be good Americans than we must halt this talk of stolen land, oppression and colonization because “History shows that serious potential for conflicts exists when people in one country begin referring to territory in a neighboring country in proprietary terms and to assert special rights and claims to that territory.” (Huntington. 4)

The decision we have before us is one of great historical importance. If we are to choose the path of nation building and pay more than lip service to the creation of a state for Xicanos and other indigenous people on this continent then it is imperative that we begin studying the methods of achieving that end.

WASASE – The Warrior Dance

“Bringing it all together, being indigenous means thinking, speaking and acting with conscious intent of regenerating one’s indigeneity. Each indigenous nation has its own way of articulating and asserting self-determination and freedom…as indigenous peoples, the way to recovering freedom and power and happiness is clear: it is time for each one of us to make the commitment to transcend colonialism as a people, and for us tot work together as peoples to become forces for Indigenous truth against the lie of colonialism” - Taiaiake Alfred.

The Americas are the last and greatest stronghold of European colonialism in the world. The colonial system, especially in North America, has assumed a position of unquestionable legitimacy within the mythology of mankind as a historical homeland for white Europeans. A complete historical revision by white nationalists and the disintegrated condition of indigenous culture, history and resistance both on a personal and national level has allowed a version of history glorifying the colonizer to be taught and presented as canon to generation after generation of invaders. While each successive generation of indigenous people have come more and more as Fanon pointed out and as indigenous people have come to understand about their nation and its situation under this system, “you will never make colonialism blush for shame by spreading out little-known cultural treasures under its eyes.”

Where does the construction of this authentic indigenous identity here in the Americas begin? An important point in all of this is to reconsider Fanon’s statement concerning behavior of colonialism toward indigenous cultures “colonialism did not dream of wasting its time in denying the existence of one national culture after another. Therefore the reply of the colonized people will be straight away continental in breadth.” This is historical process of continental solidarity is an important one to keep in mind. With the destruction of our ancient civilizations many aspects (i.e. Education, religion, family structure) that would have been important to our development both as a nation and as individuals were lost. By including into our own Xicano liberation movement the ideas, theories and beliefs of a pan indigenous effort of “resurgence” Xicanos can begin experience how their own liberation movement can become a part of the greater pan indigenous movement in the Americas through the understanding that “indigenousness is reconstructed, reshaped and actively lived as resurgence against the … processes of annihilation that are inherent to colonialism.”

This indigenous reconstruction and resurgence of will begin with “people transcending colonialism on an individual basis.” It means a fundamental shift in understanding the reality of our situation and rejecting the language and attitudes of oppression and colonization used to support the hegemony of European superiority. It is the internalization of that language of oppression through education and mass media on our part that creates and solidifies in our minds and society in general very specific personality stereotypes that work against indigenous people organizing for liberation.

Creating space for the development of an indigenous identity is paramount to the success of this liberation movement. Alfred writes about “zones of refuge” which in may ways are reminiscent of Mao’s base camps present in liberated zones. Perhaps the basic difference being for most of us there are no formally declared hostilities. He sees these zones as “powerful conceptualizations of a strategic and cultural objective that remains consistent with traditional goals,” of indigenous communities. How we begin to organize around these “zones of refuge and other breaks from colonial rule that creates spaces for freedom” finds a theoretical partner is the idea of low intensity organizing. One-way of thinking about this is to theorize organizing opportunities within the United States as potential revolutionary situations. If this is done correctly then the question of how problems should be addressed can be resolved using revolutionary methodology. Low Intensity Organizing (LIO) is non-traditional approach to solving or reforming issues within the community based on theories of Low Intensity Conflict (LIC) which gained prominence in U.S. military thought during the 1980s.

In practice Low Intensity Organizing would follow the same guidelines as LIC the emphasis being on: political considerations with the stress on ideology and ideals including propaganda and psychological operations; non-organizational and organizational mechanisms are brought into play; “conflict is viewed as a long-term endeavor and therefore strategy and tactics must be flexible and adaptive.” This model adapted by the U.S. government was derived from the theories of revolutionary war discussed earlier and is completely opposite of prevailing methods of organizing within community and labor organizing. In particular, communities, regardless of race or class, working for change have been derailed over and over again by reformist issue and needs base organizing. The following is a beginning discussion of how Low Intensity Organizing might be theorized, “into the category of indirect strategy” and then implemented as “a total strategy in the indirect mode” that views conflict “as having a dual nature” and understands strategy is like music that “can be played in two keys. One is direct strategy and the other is indirect strategy.” LIO is the second and organizes people for change through indirect resistance. Some initial thoughts on how LIO could be discussed are as follows.

LIO is educational: The primary goal of low intensity organizing is to politically educate the people. Since it has been shown that no substantial change or action can be supported to its conclusion without the understanding and support of the community this is the first step. Education and an understanding of their/our personal relationship to the greater structure are paramount. LIO builds structure through political education: Only after the people and organizers have become educated can the physical structures we need to create as a distinct people emerge. Until we work to build these institutions through political education we will be locked into the dominant reactionary activist/protestor paradigm constantly playing out the role of the squeaky wheel. LIO is total resistance: Every facet of the community must be mobilized or attempted to mobilize. LIO maintains: a constant presence and teaches resistance to accepted paradigms, creates new norms, and free spaces for the participant. LIO questions everything beginning with our personal and group relationship to the greater structure.

This is the beginning of an urban insurgency – not one with guns but an educational and organizing insurgency where colonial paradigm is exposed and challenged outside reformist liberal frameworks on a daily basis. In building this popular will to resist insurgents should understand concerning their efforts to educate the people that “revolutionary propaganda must be essentially true in order to be believed… If it is not believed, people cannot be induced to act on it, and there will be no revolution.”

As a nation we are untried. We are unformed and unorganized. We do not yet know the lengths we will go to be free. I have to wonder if we really have the courage to fight this fight to take up the flag against a nation of tested mettle. Xicanos are scared. Within the Xicano movement we expect this unrealistic level of unwavering commitment to everything we propose to believe in and use anything less as an excuse to not participate or bash others if they fall short of the mark we set. The problem is - like most people who profess their undying devotion – far to often we fall short of the mark we set ourselves. Maybe it's not for us, we say. Maybe we're not talented enough or eloquent enough to make a real contribution. Maybe my perceived failure means I don't believe as much as you do.

These are the self-recriminations of 500 years of colonial distortions. When we talk about resistance and what shape or form that resistance will take, we often have a hard time expressing our growing opposition consciousness to our oppression in concrete terms. So in addition to understanding the macro concerns of how we organize for liberation it is important to be clear on the micro or personal level. The concept of warrior is one we all understand although for many of us there may be some unease or discomfort in using this term. But when it is understood in the light of a growing Xicano indigenous liberation movement then we begin to see where we could possibly fit.

Alfred calls the reinvention of this fighting spirit “Wasase – our warriors dance” he clearly outlines the discourse of this awakening.

“Wasase is spiritual revolution and contention. It is not a path of violence. And yet, this commitment to non-violence is not pacifism either. This is an important point to make clear: I believe there is a need for morally grounded defiance and non-violent agitation combined with the development of a collective capacity for self-defense, so as to generate within the Settler society a reason and incentive to negotiate constructively in the interest of achieving a respectful coexistence.”