Updated below (on February 29, 2012)
Sacramento Bee/sacbee.com photo
Members of the apparent white supremacist group “South Africa Project” arrive at the California State Capitol today. The group very apparently is using real and/or fabricated killings of whites by blacks in South Africa as a cover to push a white supremacist agenda. The sign with the apparently PhotoShopped image of the injured little white girl reads, “Genocide cannot be justified” — something that is awfully interesting to hear a group of white people proclaim. But today, it’s white people who are the victims, you see.
I work near the California State Capitol building here in Sacramento, and I noticed during my lunch break today that there was a decent-sized group of people demonstrating on the Capitol grounds. This is common at the Capitol; protests, demonstrations and gatherings there are so common there that they’re easy to ignore. California is, after all, the nation’s most populous state and there are a million causes and issues, and throngs of people often travel to the Capitol for their causes.
A co-worker of mine told me as I was returning from my lunch break that members of the Occupy movement were protesting some white supremacists at the Capitol. I should go check it out, he said. My lunch break was over, so I couldn’t, but all the same, where there are white supremacists gathered it’s probably volatile and therefore your safety might be put in jeopardy, so even if I’d had the time to check it out, there is a good chance that I wouldn’t have.
But I read the headlines afterward.
Reportedly, some members of the Occupy movement threw bottles and other objects at the white supremacists as the white supremacists were leaving the Capitol grounds. (Unfortunately, I missed all of this.) Reports The Associated Press today (text in bold is my own emphasis):
Sacramento, Calif. — At least two law enforcement officers were injured [today] during a clash with members of the Occupy movement who were at the state Capitol to counter a rally by a group protesting violence by blacks against whites in South Africa.
The clash erupted in the afternoon as California Highway Patrol and Sacramento police officers were escorting about 35 members of the South Africa Project to a parking garage after their protest outside the Capitol building.
About 50 members of Occupy Oakland began throwing cans and bottles at the South Africa group and at the officers. The Occupy members then clashed with the officers as people with the pro-whites group hurried into the parking garage.
“It was the activists across the street engaging the officers,” said CHP officer Sean Kennedy.
Two officers suffered minor injuries and were taken to a hospital. CHP Capt. Andy Menard said one officer who was struck in the face by an object was released from the hospital. The second officer was getting X-rays after apprehending a person suspected of throwing objects, Menard said.
Kennedy said the officer who was struck by an object was showing signs of possibly being affected by some type of chemical or pepper spray.
The CHP arrested three members of the Occupy group on suspicion of disobeying an officer.
The violence abated after a large contingent of law enforcement arrived at the scene, about a block from the Capitol.
The clash followed a tense afternoon during which peace officers kept the two groups separated outside the Capitol.
Members of the South Africa Project were trying to draw attention to what they said is black-on-white violence in that country. Organizers said similar demonstrations were planned in other states and elsewhere in California.
The group was mostly male and white, some with shaved heads and prominent tattoos.
Many of the Occupy protesters, some wearing hoods or masks, said they came from the San Francisco Bay area to counter what they called a racist group affiliated with former Louisiana Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke.
Occupy protesters had been cursing at the South Africa Project rally and at officers keeping the two sides apart.
Ryan Stark, 26, who said he is part of Occupy Sacramento, said he joined the protesters challenging the South Africa Project protesters because there needed to be a showdown.
“I didn’t throw anything … but these sorts of demonstrations need to happen,” he said, referring to the counter protest. “They do have the right to say what they want, but we’re not going to let it fly.” …
“South Africa Project” apparently is new. There is no entry for it in Wikipedia, and Wikipedia has an entry for fucking everything. However, the group’s shitty website gives me the impression that the group indeed is a white supremacist group that is using the real and/or fabricated killings of white South Africans by black South Africans (because white South Africans never have killed or otherwise oppressed any black South Africans) not only as a cover for pushing white supremacism, but as a tactic to stir up hatred — and probably violence — against blacks by whites here in the United States.
And The Associated Press’ description of the “South Africa Project’s” demonstrators — “mostly male and white, some with shaved heads and prominent tattoos.” Hmmm. Does that sound like anyone we already know and love?
(Hey, if you think I’m being inaccurate or unfair, look at the group’s own pictures of its little dog and pony show at the California State Capitol today on its own bad website and then draw your own conclusions.)
That is not free speech, the incitement of race-based violence, even if such incitement is communicated in code (as the white supremacists, including Repugnican Tea Party presidential contenders, like to communicate these days).
Therefore, in my book, white supremacists who are trying to spread their disease of race-based hatred in public don’t deserve personal protection in public.
The cops who got mildly hurt today got hurt because they were protecting, shielding — dare I say, thus even aiding and abetting — the white supremacist scumbags. (And if the cops now are being pepper-sprayed back, as the AP news story seems to suggest, well, maybe that’s what you call karma…)
Also, let’s be clear: The description of the Occupy/“Occupy” protesters who threw the objects — “some wearing hoods or masks” — sounds to me like a description of anarchists, who are a group that is distinct from the Occupy movement, and a group that pre-dates the Occupy movement by years.
Hey, if you don’t trust me, here is photographic evidence of the Occupy/“Occupy” protesters who counter-protested the white supremacists at the Capitol State Capitol today:
Sacramento Bee/sacbee.com photo
“WHITE POWER IS HORSE SHIT.” I love that sign. Anyway, with the exception of a few, including Captain America, which is a hoot (really — I think that someone wore that costume to counter-protest white supremacists is pretty fucking funny), those “Occupy” protesters are wearing black and they have their faces covered, which is the garb of the typical anarchist — and not the garb of the typical Occupy protester.
Anarchists often infiltrate left-leaning gatherings and raise hell. That’s their thing; peaceful protests that don’t change anyfuckingthing because they don’t threaten the status quo are not the anarchists’ cup of tea.
I can’t say that I blame them for not demonstrating “nicely,” in a way that does not offend the powers that be — and thus in a way that is utterly ineffectual. We claim that we have free speech in the United States, but such “free” speech in reality often if not usually means only speech that cannot jolt the status quo. And the status quo sure the fuck needs jolting.
I have nothing against the anarchists. Anyone who goes after white supremacists who dare to spew forth their filth in the public square is fine with me, and the imagery of a bunch of supposedly bad-ass white supremacists fleeing from a mob of Occupy/“Occupy” protesters (most if not all of them actually anarchists) — the way that blacks have had to flee from mobs of white supremacists — is gratifyingly amusing.
And who knows? When/if the shit really hits the fan, I might join the anarchists’ ranks. (Black is slimming anyway…)
But, for the time being, it’s unfair and inaccurate that the corporately owned and controlled mainstream media continue to refer to fairly obvious anarchists as members of the Occupy movement when, in fact, these anarchists might not claim the Occupy movement and/or the Occupy movement might not claim them.
Your typical member of the Occupy movement does not pelt plutocrats or white supremacists or their witting or unwitting protectors, cops (many of whom are white supremacist themselves, or who at least protect and serve the white power structure), with objects.
Not yet, anyway.
P.S. Does any of this remind anyone of the American Civil War? Is this what we are headed toward — a rematch of the Civil War? Might we be presented with the opportunity to crush the white supremacists once and for all?
Update (February 29, 2012): “South Africa Project’s” home page has been updated since I first wrote about it. Now, there is a video that prominently features notorious white supremacist David Duke on the hate group’s home page. (I guess that they’re not bothering to pretend anymore.) The hate group’s home page also now features an image of a little white girl praying, accompanied by this text: “Dear Lord, please protect my big brother and my daddy and my uncles and my oupa [grandfather?] from those savages that are raping and murdering us.”
Wingnuts, not known for their subtlety, are fine with exploiting children to try to advance their ignorance and hatred — this little girl never asked to be exploited like this, and could not agree to such use of her image, since she is too young to consent, is too young to understand racism and white supremacism, but is at the total mercy of adults — and it strikes me that a child in the Middle East certainly might pray to God that the killings and maimings and other violent abuses and the wrongful incarcerations of their family members by white occupiers comes to an end. (Ditto for Palestinian children…)
At any rate, after Apartheid* in South Africa, I just can’t feel sorry for the white people there. Anything that might be happening there now that disfavors whites probably would be what you call karma, and karma is always just.
*Wikipedia notes of Apartheid:
Apartheid was a system of racial segregation enforced by the National Party governments of South Africa between 1948 and 1994, under which the rights of the majority non-white inhabitants of South Africa were curtailed and white supremacy and Afrikaner minority rule was maintained. Apartheid was developed after World War II by the Afrikaner-dominated National Party and Broederbond organizations and was practiced also in South West Africa, which was administered by South Africa under a League of Nations mandate (revoked in 1966), until it gained independence as Namibia in 1990.
Racial segregation in South Africa began in colonial times. However, apartheid as an official policy was introduced following the general election of 1948. New legislation classified inhabitants into four racial groups (“native”, “white”, “coloured“, and “Asian”), and residential areas were segregated, sometimes by means of forced removals. Non-white political representation was completely abolished in 1970, and starting in that year black people were deprived of their citizenship, legally becoming citizens of one of ten tribally based self-governing homelands called bantustans, four of which became nominally independent states. The government segregated education, medical care, beaches, and other public services, and provided black people with services inferior to those of white people.
Apartheid sparked significant internal resistance and violence as well as a long trade embargo against South Africa. Since the 1950s, a series of popular uprisings and protests were met with the banning of opposition and imprisoning of anti-apartheid leaders. As unrest spread and became more violent, state organisations responded with increasing repression and state-sponsored violence.
Reforms to apartheid in the 1980s failed to quell the mounting opposition, and in 1990 President Frederik Willem de Klerk began negotiations to end apartheid, culminating in multi-racial democratic elections in 1994, which were won by the African National Congress under Nelson Mandela. The vestiges of apartheid still shape South African politics and society.
So: According to the hate group “South Africa Project,” we are to feel sorry for whites in South Africa today, despite their long history of depriving black South Africans of their equal human and civil rights, based upon their race. We’re to cry in our beer for these white supremacists. We are to focus on their more recent woes and totally ignore the crimes against humanity that they perpetrated upon others over a very long period of time.
Again, one word comes to mind:
9 responses to “Anarchists attack white supremacists. Hell, yeah!”
The FBI documents that in 2005 over 35,000 white women were raped by black males and hundreds of thousands of white Americans were the victims of violent felonies by black men.
Does calling attention to those facts make one a racist?
Yes, if one does not also give the statistics for the number of white males (and males of all of the other races) who committed the same crimes in 2005, it sure the fuck does, because it ignores the sociological context and picks out one group for special castigation. And I’m confident that far more of our precious white women were raped by our righteous white men than by black men in 2005. I know that I, a white man, have been screwed over, have been done wrong unto, by far more white people than I ever have by black people.
Also, any statistics about “violent felonies” need to take historical and current socioeconomic factors (including racism and discrimination, of course) into account. These things don’t happen in a fucking vacuum. The quite comfortable 1 percent never have to resort to violence to survive, do they? They sure the fuck steal our money, all right, but they don’t need a gun to do it.
So yeah, you are a racist for spewing forth statistics like that — whether your statistics are accurate or not (when you give such stats, you really need to give your source) — for quoting statistics that single out a group based upon race and that give no historical or socioeconomic context whatsofuckingever.
This is a very good article. Racist and sexist white males have caused major suffering all over the world. White males are known to rape countless number of women of colour. Many US and European white males travel to non white countries where the women and girls are more vulnerable so it is easier for them to rape them.
I have posted a peace about racist and sexist white Afrikaner males in South Africa concerning the destruction they have caused. Should you wish to read it you can do so here
Yes, rape is not the domain of a certain race, although of course white supremacists claim that all of the rapists (and murderers and thieves, et. al.) are black.
I’ve watched documentaries on whites in Africa, where the tides of power have been turning, and where whites now karmically are finding themselves to be the victims of violence by the black majority. I don’t relish violence, but karma is what it is, so yeah, I can’t boo-hoo-hoo for the whites in Africa who now are facing racial discrimination themselves.
If I were a hated white in Africa who felt that my life were in danger, I’d do my best to leave. After all, whites colonized Africa, and thus one could argue that they never belonged there, in the land of others, in the first place.
It is important not to be fooled by some of these documentaries. I am currently working in South Africa so I am very much aware of what is happening. White Afrikaner males still hold all the wealth and live very privileged lives in comparison to many blacks.
I don’t know if you pick-up Al Jezeera there. There was a segment at the beginning of the year where the Al Jezeera anchor was interviewing two South Africans. One a black man the other a white woman. The whole discussion was about the appalling conditions many black South Africans are living in. Many live in shacks some even on the streets. This is not their own fault but because the white Afrikaner male stole all the resources that rightfully belong to them.
The white woman had made a fictional movie which high lighted the terrible conditions these black people were living in. The black man worked for an organisation that help get decent homes of these black people. The show was one where callers could call in and either ask questions or voice opinions.
What totally shocked me was that every single caller i.e. 100 percent of them where racist white South African males who phoned in to whine about lost white male privileges as a result of the fall of the apartheid. I could not believe the selfish arrogance of these idiots. The show was about the terrible suffering of millions of black people and all they cared about was that they weren’t being treated like gods.
I was also upset that Al Jezeera let so many of them on the air. For someone who is not familiar with what is happening in South Africa they would be completed convinced that these privileged racist white males were really getting a bad deal.
I wish that I could recall the name of the documentaries that I referenced, but alas, I cannot.
One is about white farmers and their families in an African nation (Zimbabwe, I believe) who violently are forced from their farms by the native Africans. The documentary is fairly balanced, although perhaps a bit on the side of the whites. What I don’t understand is why the whites (Brits, if memory serves) are so steadfast in remaining in a nation whose inhabitants clearly don’t want them there. While I understand that these whites (and/or their forebears) purchased their land/farms from a previous government (and the new governmental regime is about returning all land to the native Africans), it seems to me that their lives are more valuable than is property. If it were me, I’d do what I could to leave, being unwanted and vastly outnumbered.
Given the history of colonialism, I found it hard to feel too badly for the whites portrayed in that documentary. I don’t condone the violence done unto them, but in the larger historical context, one can’t dismiss the violence in Africa done to blacks by whites.
The other documentary is about emergency medical services in South Africa and features whites whining about how unsafe they feel, and about the extraordinary security measures they must take, or feel they must take, with their homes and vehicles.
Again, my thought is: Then why stay?
And again, we have to look at the historical context of South Africa, and within that context, I find it very hard to boo-hoo-hoo for the whites.
Speaking of context, thank you for adding that information about South Africa. It comes as no shock to me that the white males there still hold a disproportionate amount of political and socioeconomic power, given their minority status.
I do think it is important to put context to the Zimbabwean vs SA situation. I strongly oppose white male supremacy because of all the suffering it has caused to all women, people of colour and people who live alternative life-styles such as the gay and lesbian community. However this does not mean I condone oppression instigated by non white males towards white males.
In the Zimbabwean situation the cause of the terror was Robert Mugabe and his black followers, not the white farmers. The white farmers made up a tiny minority in the country, were not properly armed and were no threat to anyone. They did however provide great value to the country both directly in that they provided jobs for many blacks from other countries such as Malawi who needed the money to send back to their families as well as indirectly in that that ensued that there was enough food for the people of Zimbabwe. As a result of the land invasions all of this was destroyed and many black people suffered and are suffering. Some of these white farmers were offered new land to come and farm by the government s of other African countries such as Zambia and even as far as Nigeria as these black leaders saw the potential of having these white farmers.
The white Afrikaner male in SA is a very different set-up. They are a much bigger minority they are armed, aggressive and very ready for a fight. Their world view is very much in line with the Nazis, they believe that black people are lower then animals and they even treat their own wives and daughters like property. They stole most of the land and resources which they use to make themselves wealthy. They refuse to share what they stole with the rightful owners which results in millions of black people living in poverty. The vast majority of white Afrikaner males are criminals and stripping them of their power should be a priority for anyone who believes in equality and freedom.
From your blog I accessed the South Africa Project and the pictures I saw really concerned me. Those white males may be few but their ideas are extremely dangerous. Looking at the few women amongst them I found myself feeling concerned for them as they do not seem to be able to realise the danger they put themselves into by associating with these white male supremacists.
What I am finding incredibly hard to understand is that how can a country namely the US that is the leader of the free world allow this kind of demonstration to take place. This is not freedom of speech this is about going back tom the days of slavery.
Those supremacists should have been arrested so that they cant cause any harm. And just to give those racist hate mongering white males a taste of their own medicine they should have been thrown into a cell of angry black men who are fed-up with racism.
The courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, have found white supremacists’ demonstrations to be protected by the First Amendment.
I generally agree with that, but, that said, it is predictable, perhaps especially in a blue or purple state, that a public demonstration by white supremacists could result in property damage and/or injury — or even death — to human beings.
Therefore, does the “value” of the expression of the white supremacists outweigh the risks of allowing them to publicly express themselves?
I say NO, but the U.S. Constitution, according to our courts, says yes.