Demonstration yesterday embraces racial supremacy

As protests across the country carry on without relent, the top brass running the show have put some serious thinking into how best to achieve racial equality. Apparently, part of the plan involves directions as to what white folks who want to protest can, and cannot do. I guess black people want to make sure white people keep their white privilege in check. Or something like that. Not sure.

The Right Scoop has printed screen shots of these lists at a demonstration in Boston, which are hand written on large pieces of paper. Some instructions are in black. Others in red. I guess the red signifies the really important stuff. But again, not sure.

The list begins with the following heading:

White Peoples [sic] Roles & Responsibilities

There’s nothing like having a protest, a rally, a march, or a town looting and burning in the name of racial equality and separating folks in attendance into groups along racial lines. Oh, the irony!

The first item below the heading is this:

*We are called to the struggle for liberation NOW*

I’m not sure how that’s a role or responsibility, but since it’s listed first and is written in red and has asterisks on each end of the phrase, I’m guessing it’s a general rant for inspiration sake. Below it is a list of bulleted points for whites only:

  • Show up
  • Stay off the megaphone
  • Direct media to Black leadership
  • Follow direction of Black leadership
  • Protest from our position (We are not Mike Brown, carry signs challenging white supremacy)
  • Call-in/collect white folks who are causing harm and/or breaking guidelines set by Black leadership

I’m guessing people reading the sign have showed up, but ok. Let’s not quibble over details. The second instruction is quite clear: no whites can use the megaphone. I guess they can talk amongst themselves and perhaps scream and shout (if allowed), but no amplification of their pathetic voices will be permitted.

OK. Got it.

The next two points are illuminating. Black leadership, in case you didn’t quite get it, is in charge. Upper case, black. Lower case, white.

Got it.

The next point is a bit unclear to me. I'm truly not sure what it means to “protest from our position” and I definitely don’t understand the section in parenthesis – the parenthesis suggests a minor point for consideration, but the red ink seems to say this is ultra important.

The last point on the first page of orders is interesting. I guess white folks are to somehow report or gather up white troublemakers. I wonder: Are black folks at the protest instructed to report and/or “collect” black (er, I mean, Black) troublemakers? Or is it assumed that Black trouble-makers have free reign to do as they please?

I suppose some details have yet to be worked out.

Next up is page 2 of whites only instructions, which has four bulleted points, as follows:

  • Meet level of escalation with Police, do not exceed it
  • We have a strategic commitment to militant non-violent resistance – honor that
  • Recognize group responsibility before, during, and after action. Ensure everyone is bailed out of ‘jail’ and strive to do court support
  • When planning white specific solidarity actions, target spaces of white power, and don’t speak for Black people but about white culpability

Oh my goodness gracious! This is quite something, no?

As to the first point, I’m shocked the word police got an upper case “P.” That almost sounds like  respect.  But I wonder, if the police officer is white, does the letter get demoted to lower case? More details to work out.

As for not exceeding the escalation of protest determined by blacks, I’m mildly amused. How exactly does that work? If you see black people burning buildings, you can and should, join in? Arson for all. However, don’t consider setting off a bomb? (That would be escalation.) Just stick with garden variety arson.

Not sure.

As to the second point, the concept of “militant non-violence” is curious, don’t you think? Here’s the Merriam-Webster dictionary definition of the word militant:

  • having or showing a desire or willingness to use strong, extreme, and sometimes forceful methods to achieve something
  • Bottom of Form
  • engaged in warfare or combat: fighting
  • aggressively active (as in a cause): combative

These are some of the synonyms the dictionary lists: assaultive, bellicose, belligerent, warlike.

When someone figures out how a person can be combatively non-violent, please let me know. Perhaps it has something to do with being violent and then claiming to be non-violent after you’re arrested because, well, the paper with instructions said the words “non-violence.” Surely that must count for something, right?

Based on the above contradiction, I wonder how would this fit into the scheme of militantly non-violent things: Protestors marching down the streets of NYC shouting, “What do we want? Dead cops. When do we want it? Now!”

This, as the police provide protection for these lunatics to safety march through the city streets.

The irony just won’t quit.

Next up: Why the word jail is in quotation marks in the next-to-the-last point, I do not know. Please share your theories in the comments section (where I hope blacks and whites will freely mingle, unhindered by rules, regulations, or restrictions based on skin color).

And finally, you have to appreciate for sheer lunacy sake the idea of “white specific” actions where whites are encouraged to identify places that embody “white power,” go to those places, and atone for their white sins. For those not sure how to do that, no doubt college courses in white privilege that are cropping up all over the place can give some pointers.

Here’s an idea: White people thinking about attending one of these segregated rallies can stay home and maintain whatever shred of self-respect they have remaining in some hidden corner of their being.

If you experience technical problems, please write to