u may kill the lion...but what do u do with the cubs i am a forty year old black man. i am from oakland and love it. you statments make me proud. you have a fan i follow your blog daily. it is refreshing to now that you have a voice........

@ Kristopher

Thanks please make sure you subcribe to my blog as well. I need people to help spread the word about oakculture. The was created and design to serve the people of Oakland.

I'm with you brother, I've been thinking a lot about Lee's film the last few days. Especially:

"One of many questions at the end of the film is whether Mookie 'does the right thing' when he throws the garbage can through the window, thus inciting the riot that destroys Sal's pizzeria. The question is directly raised by the contradictory quotations that end the film, one advocating non-violence, the other advocating violent self-defense in response to oppression. Spike Lee himself, however, has stated that only white viewers ask this question. Lee believes the key point is that Mookie was angry at the death of Radio Raheem, and that viewers who question the riot's justification are implicitly valuing white property over the life of a black man.^[6] Mookie tells Sal 'Motherfuck a window. Radio Raheem is dead'."

Thanks for being honest with your feelings of conflict. I think that we all struggle with the duality of life’s situation. As a Mexican American I have mixed feelings about wither or not Oakland will riot. I feel that there is a lot to be angry about and at times it feels like there is no justice for people of color. If this was happening in Arizona and it was about illegal immigration I wonder what I would do? I would like to believe that I will not resort to violence because on a fundamental level seeking peace though violence seems flawed. Yet, when there is no justice and they have no respect for your life just because of the color of your skin how could I not act out in self-defense? I guess the only thing I can hope for is that if violence is the answer that it is directed at those who deserve it and not the innocent.

I'm glad that you posted this.  The conversations that have emerged about the trial, some honest, some heated, some hating, shed a lot of light on how people think and feel about the situation.

Personally, I'm opposed to things turning violent (but, like you, definitely feel the urge to have a violent response to something that is so unfair and unmanageable).  Why?  Well, because I ask myself: who will benefit from the violence?  Besides insurance agencies and commercial media, who else stands to gain from kids smashing cars and storefronts, and each other in Oakland?

Dear Mr. Allen,

I appreciate the honesty with which you write.  There is a lot to be angry about.  There is so much mistrust between the police and the community.  Police brutality is a real problem.  It's a complex problem with historical roots of racism and oppression that goes back centuries.  And we are still trying to make sense of it all.  I am sensitive to this. 

Even though I am sensitive to the above, I wish to make a point.  Maybe what I'm going to say is not a very popular thing to say.  I'll begin with something you said Mr. Allen,

"I’m a 21 year-old, African-American male, who is truly f**king tired of the police getting away with the murders of black males."

Point well taken, Mr. Allen.  But I ask this question to you:  Of the 100-120 or so people who are murdered every year on the streets of Oakland, how many of them are murdered by police?  On average?  I would venture to guess it's less than 1% of the 100 or so that are murdered every year in Oakand.  My point is this: for every young black man who is murdered by a police officer, how many do you think are murdered by other young black men?  1 for every 10?  1 for every 20?  To me this is the real tragedy in Oakland.  For the 27 years I have lived here, how many thousands of young black men have died at the hands of other young black men?  And I ask: where is the outrage in the community?  Yes, it is totally unacceptable that a white cop would get away with killing a young black man.  But is there too much focus on this one incident and not enough focus on the larger issue of violence as a whole?  Will it change the real deeper issues of violence within the community?  I certaintly don't think a violent protest will.

Where is the lionshare of violence and brutality coming from in Oakland?  Is it coming from the police?  Honestly.  I know this is a hard reality to look at.  Where are the masses of protesters for the 100 or so young people who are murdered by each other every year in Oakland? 

Who are the fallen?  They are forgotten.  What are the names of the 100 or so people who lost their lives last year in Oakland, and the year before, and the year before that?  Does anyone know?  Where is the peace movement for them?  Where are the rioters?  Why is there so much outrage and anger pointed at one, under-trained, obviously incompetent BART police officer?   I guess that's a rhetorical question.  I know the answer.  He symbolizes so much.

Whether he did intentionally murder Grant in ruthless cold blood, or whether it was a tragic error made under stressful circumstances, my point is this: the main problem in Oakland is not police brutality.  The main problem in Oakland is violence within the community.  Period.  And that violence starts (and ends) with each individual.  Every single one of us is responisble for peace.  That means police.  But that also means you.  That means me.

Two weeks ago a 19 year old girl was gunned down in West Oakland while attending a vigil for her 17 year old friend who was killed the week before in East Oakland.  Where is the protest for her?  If it had been caught on cell phone cameras from several different angles, would we have a riot?  I doubt it.

So, will Oakland burn over the verdict?  I sure pray and hope not.  And if it does burn, will there still be 100 murders in Oakland by the end of the year?  More than likely.  This killing won't stop so long as we don't demand peace.  And will we forget about the other fallen?  My point is simply this: regardless of race, class, creed, nationality, sexual-orientation, color, religion, this city needs peace.  Peace is the only way out of this mess.

With love.

"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." -- Ghandi

"My point is simply this: regardless of race, class, creed, nationality, sexual-orientation, color, religion, this city needs peace.  Peace is the only way out of this mess.

With love.

"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." -- Ghandi"

BRAVO Oaklander, you took the words right out of my mouth.

Before one judges the cleanliness of another's home, one should examine the nature and order of their own home.

Oaklander, you right on the money. It really surprises me that no-one will address this issue. It's the elephant in the room, 120 back men/boys get killed in Oakland each year. If a cop does it there's constant public calls for accountablity and threats of violence on the community itself.

It's tragic. I feeel like you have very eloqountly stated here what needs to be said, but is not being said anywhere.

Appreciating this discussion, but troubled that no one seems to think public officers--including and perhaps especially those with guns and the right to committ violence--are not accountable to a higher standard that the general public.  It is tragic that many young men of color are killed by their own, but any implication that justifies or mitigates issues of policy brutality is both wrong-headed and in correct, in my view.

It's a little bit too much inthe family of those who say  woman who goes out in a short dress "asked for it" if a man refused to listen to no from her lips. Issues of violence don't justify police being violent, or a justice system that so many have experienced as injust.

Note: These are my personal views.

My point again is simply that peace is the only solution.  A violent protest in the name of Oscar Grant certainly will not put an end to more police brutality.  And it certainly won't put an end to the violence that plagues this city, violence which claims the lives of over 100 people every year.  What Oakland (and the world) needs is a peace movement.  Youth need to feel empowered that they can make a difference in the world.  Yes, peaceful demands for justice and accountability from the police are appropriate, but so are peaceful demands for an end to the senseless killing that goes on almost every day here in our beautiful city.

Youth Uprising has a peaceful approach: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqofgXqteuQ&feature=player_embedded

Regarding the organizing of response to the verdict, the issue isn't "violent" versus "peaceful" whatsoever.  NO action organized by the Oak. General Assembly and its constituent groups has harmed or  hurt a single soul.  These also are the folks who have been doing the continuous organizing, the prisoner and arrest support, the media work, attnding board meetings and reporting on BART, its management and policies over these last 18 months, not these non-profits who bailed long ago and were never heard from again .... except for now when prompted by the cops and city hall to participate in a disinformation campaign about "outside agitators", something repeatedly debunked and plainly false  to anyone who was a witness (which I was)  There has been a massive campaign to control and channel the voices of the community since day one of the shooting - from the confiscation of cameras on the Fruitvale platform - to the disinformation and vilification campaign instigated after 1/7 by OPD and then parroted by many non-profit's leadership about vandalism=violence and "outside agitators"  - to Desley Brooks kicking people off the stage , taking the mic and shutting down the "open public speak-out" at the Fvle. Bart station on the anniversary of Oscars death - to the undermining of a open, collective public gathering in response to the verdict by equating it with  "outside agitators" and "violence"

A copy of the letter circulated to create division:  http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2010/06/23/18651684.php

To quote the event poster and call :  "**HELP US MAINTAIN A SAFE SPACE!**
While the gathering does not have an official “permit”, organizers still intend to maintain a safe space for everyone, and need your help to respect the tone of this rally. The rally will be in the intersection of 14th and Broadway. Organizers are also not planning a march and want to avoid arrests or police activity within this space. Please do not invite police to enter this space or provoke the police from anywhere within or close by to this space. Please do tell everyone you know about this gathering – the best safety is in numbers."

Check out the press conference with some of the organizers laying down some vital truths about the whole situation:

  http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2010/07/01/18652466.php

There is indeed  a powderkeg in our city...  and  the negation, the dismissal, the stifling of voices and  of  lives are what have filled it.    This fear and demonization campaign is just more of the same.

Pray at your church.... gather ... stay at home.  Follow your heart the day of the verdict.  Mine is saying to gather openly, publicly and  together  to create a genuinely free space to meet each other, look face to face, hear each other and move forward. 

DAY OF THE VERDICT (whatever that may be)

14th and Bdway, 6pm.

Peace Stephen,

I appreciate your honest prose. A few thoughts.

For me, the statement of "last year’s 'peace protest' turned into a riot," has a lot inside it. The Fruitvale BART and downtown Oakland "gathering" were quite different. Both organic, although people have argued that the so-called riot was instigated by a police informant (documented elsewhere).

I refuse to use the police/corporate press definition of "riot" in this situation, personally, and have been fairly consistent with terming January 7 the "Oscar Grant Rebellion" (sounds more historic). Riot is a very pro-establishment term, while rebellion could be considered an anti-establishment, or pro-masses/pro-justice, etc.

These definitions and terms are important in how you frame your thoughts, message; but also what viewpoint you speak to, and for.

Violence is also debatable. I do not refer to overly exaggerated property damage as violence. Because of the high value I place on human life, I usually look at violence in terms of its affect on human life. However, I would be guilty of the "sin of omission" if I were not mention the violent scare tactics of the Klan in the Jim Crow south, in which property damage was used to intimidate Blacks. Property damage can be used as a tool of intimidation.

To end this hastily:

Look into the invention of race (when was the term first coined? By who? Why?)

In all these discussions of Oakland burning down, why are many assuming the worst? And what is the "worst"? Is it the actual "acquittal" of Mehserle, or the anger that people will feel from such an injust verdict?

In the name of condemning "violence," have people forgotten about the initial violent act, and the likely underlying state of mind that led to the loss of a human life?

Speaking that "human life," when you sit your beautiful children down, I hope you can tell them more about who Oscar was, opposed to what happened to him, and how the people of Oakland responded.

RJ