In a message dated Wed, 11/1/00 7:16:40 PM EST Jeffrey Blankfort <jab@tucradio.org> writes: <What the underreported deaths of the 23 black <men in Mississippi and Michael's response indicate <is how limited we are in making the type of <investigation that he suggests. Only those who are uncomfortable with the prospect of acquiring evidence which does not confirm their ideological needs are limited. Let me give an example from Norman, Oklahoma, during the Vietnam years. Political busts against white activists started happening in January, 1966, with what I have called the "Great Marijuana Raid." Several SDS members and friends were arrested at a quiet gathering in a rooming house, and about one roach's worth of pot was seized, along with much left-wing political literature. After much agony and legal expenses associated with the felony charge, the defendants were freed on the basis of a faulty warrant. In August 1967, on several occasions white activists guilty of nothing more than looking unconventional and wearing peace buttons were arrested for "loitering" at night. On two occasions I was called into service to raise money to bail them out. Afterward, the local city attorney would always dismiss the charges. He knew the law was unconstitutional, but didn't want to risk losing it in a court test. They found it a handy instrument for harassment. It was also used in this fashion in April 67. In February 1968, 28 antiwar demonstrators, all white to my recollection, were arrested for "obstructing the sidewalk" while picketing a speech by Selective Service Director Lewis Hershey, in Oklahoma City. Later the charges were dismissed on Constitutional grounds. In December 1969, five white males associated with Norman's underground newspaper were arrested on felony charges of obscenity. Four were freed on Constitutional grounds, and a fifth member accused under a different statute had to pay a $1000 fine. In May 1970, white antiwar activist Keith Green was arrested under an antiquated 1919 law, never enforced earlier, making it a felony to display a red flag or "emblem of anarchy or rebellion." He was carrying a North Vietnamese flag at an antiwar demonstration the day after the Kent State Massacre. Immediately following this, about 250 demonstrators held a sit-in around the police car, and a riot squad ultimately waded in with clubs to break it up. Over the summer, felony charges of incitement to riot were brought against four white activists considered to be "leaders." The charges were dismissed by the judge, who did not agree that a "riot" took place. Keith Green was also freed under a ruling that the 1919 flag law was obviously unconstitutional. And how were Black activists in Norman and the OU community treated in this same period? In 1971, after the Attica prison riot, black students at OU formed a human chain to obstruct traffic for several hours on one of the campus streets. This created a safety hazard, since approaching motorists had to stop and turn around to exit the campus. These demonstrators could have been charged under numerous laws, such as obstructing traffic, disorderly conduct, and who knows what else. There were no arrests and no charges, but the year before a white kid went to jail on a felony charge for merely having displayed a flag. Just last week I asked Ron King, an old friend who was a black activist at OU during this time period, if he could think of any arrests of OU black activists in clear retaliation for political dissent. He couldn't come up with a single example. I see no reason why the same kind of evidence could not be obtained for any American campus of the Vietnam years. >Since an unknown number of black women and men >were murdered over the decades in the Jim Crow >south, unknown because there was no police interest >in locating their killers, many of whom were, in >fact, the police, and there was no media that was >at all interested in investigating or reporting on >the deaths of missing blacks, we will never know why >they were killed. He says (1) there was no police interest in locating their killers, (2) we will never know why they were killed, and (3) the number killed is "unknown." In the face of these admitted uncertainties, he is sure that many of the killers were "in fact, the police." I think that speaks for itself. >I will suggest that it is reasonable to suggest >that some were murdered for their defiance of the >white ruling elite. The above statement is nothing but speculation and wishful thinking in response to the need to stretch reality to conform to the requirements of ideology. The evidence I summarized about Norman was not speculation. ~ Michael Wright Norman, Oklahoma >>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 11/03/00 EST