Violence, Answers

From the Chicago Tribune:
Panic shot through the small Tinley Park restaurant as quickly as the stream of determined, black-clad assailants marched in, clubs and hammers in hand.

The wide-eyed hostess frantically dialed 911. Old men leapt from their tables and grabbed chairs to fend off the surprise attack.

Several of the masked attackers targeted the bystanders, but authorities say the majority homed in on a long table — filled with who the attackers believed were about a dozen white supremacists meeting for lunch.


Authorities announced charges Monday against five Indiana men in the attacks and said they still sought about 13 who escaped arrest.

Those charged include three brothers, Jason W. Sutherlin, 33, Cody L. Sutherlin, 23, and Dylan J. Sutherlin, 20. Also charged were Alex R. Stuck, 22, and John S. Tucker, 26. All five live near Bloomington, Ind.

The men are connected to the Hoosier Anti-Racist Movement, which is part of the Anti-Racist Action Network that formed in Minneapolis in 1987 to address discrimination, according to a leader in the organization, Jacob Domke.


The Sutherlin brothers became interested in combating fascism while growing up in diverse family in Bloomington, a predominantly white city that is home to Indiana University, Domke said. Though they are white, their half sister's father is black, he said.

"When you grow up in a multiracial family in Indiana, I think that can open your eyes to the problem of racism in this country," Domke said.

Jason Sutherlin, the oldest of the three tightknit brothers, shaped his social philosophies as a teen at the Bloomington's Peoples Park, a decades-old popular spot for protests. The site has been a haven for the anti-establishment movement since 1968, when two members of the local Ku Klux Klan burned a black-owned store there.

"We knew the history, but because we were growing up in a different time, we thought we'd be shielded from that kind of hate," Domke said.

That illusion was shattered for Jason Sutherlin in July 1999, Domke said, when a white supremacist named Benjamin Smith went on a deadly shooting spree in Indiana and Illinois. Smith, a Wilmette native, targeted minorities, including an Indiana University student.

"Looking back on it, that was one the defining moments in our lives," Domke said.

The Indiana group has several initiatives in the area, including raising money for hate crime victims and providing security for gay and lesbian events, Domke said. Stuck teaches English to immigrants while Jason Sutherlin and Tucker teach self-defense classes, he said.
In his interview with me, actor Edward Hong revealed that despite his insight, eloquence, and knowledge, he doesn't refer to himself as an activist because true activists are out there risking their lives.  I maintain my admiration of that statement.  However, I do not consider myself as an activist because to your average activist, violence is never the answer.


First of all, white racists have made it more than clear that to them, violence is most assuredly an answer.  In fact, violence is the very first answer to every single one of their supposed "problems" - the Jewish Problem, the African Problem, the Polynesian Problem, the Native American problem, the Asian Problem, the Aboriginal Problem - fuck, name the non-white problem however you wish and rest assured violence is their answer to it.

A commenter on here recently stated that we can't keep fighting these battles hoping and praying and singing "we shall overcome."  We cannot.  We need anti-racist activism for a new no-nonsense century, so every now and again, it may very well require fucking some people up.

Our shiftless thugs have got nothing on white racists, and more importantly, our thugs actually do get arrested and hauled off to prison prontito - as well they should beAnyone who's out there meting out violence towards the defenseless and unsuspecting needs to be contained.  However, while our Black and Brown (and even our Red) brothers get profiled as society's Great Danger, white men who are far more dangerous and destructive roam freely, often armed with a badge.

Now, I don't know what all went down in Tinley Park, though I've been reading the blogs and news to get the gist.  After more info is revealed, I may not even (entirely) agree with why the Tinley Park Five made their decision.  In the long run, it might even have been a mistake.

That being said...I understand.


The Diversity Officer & The White Supremacist: Anatomy of a Hate Crime


  1. And the John Brown award goes to....


    Seriously though. Racists whites have made it clear that they will use violence to attain their means. In the meanwhile, PoC are encouraged to forever turn the other cheek. smh

  2. I wish, I wish, I WISH I could've been there to see it with a video camera. It would make my day seeing white people act violent against each other.

    But like what BlackPeopleSufferFromPTSD said, we are always expected to stay silent and non-active whenever whiteness shows up. As proof the constant disregard for history's crimes on the part of whites is a code for saying:

    "You're not supposed to know all that! You can't know all that! Shut up about it and don't do anything! You're have to remain in your place for the betterment of white supremacy."

  3. We need anti-racist activism for a new no-nonsense century, so every now and again, it may very well require fucking some people up.

    THIS-THIS and THIS!!! POC are always being told to calm down, that violence isn't the answer. Love your enemy. We're going to be seeing more shit like this on the news and television in the coming months. This is just the beginning.

    1. I hope it's just the beginning, because this is some bullshit. I wish we realy knew what set the Tinley Park Five off; supposedly the battle started on the nets.

      I want so more people - whites in particular - rock the boat against racism. I want to see more John Browns. This is the 21st Century; folks are trying to progress and move on and evolve and you got mofos trying to slow it down.

      And folks on the web calling these dudes cowards - acts like these aren't cowardly. That was bold motherfucking stunt right there. You go to White Watch and you can see the Negroes giving them a thundering applause.

    2. I just got a visual of them rollin' up in that place dressed like the Baseball Furies gang from "The Warriors" Movie:

      Its about damn time white people grew some balls and started collectin' they folks.

    3. Nicole:

      NO YOU DIDN'T REFERENCE THE WARRIORS!!!!! *slaps five over cyberspace*

  4. "It's like you have someone from extreme left field and someone from extreme right field come to center field to fight -- and Tinley Park was center field," Zabrocki said."

    Both sides view themselves as crusaders for a just cause. Additionally, both sides have concluded violence is a means to an end. Both sides are fanatical in their ethos, in which their growth- their struggle and their oppression becomes the central theme. All too often people of color get lost in the translation. Whites will wax aggressive for any pet cause- because, “desperate times call for desperate measures.” Non-whites in this country are assumed to be much too docile in the struggle for racial/political justice.

    Whether the cause is Anti-whaling, or Animal Rights- Anti-abortion or some other hot-button issue, the rationale for direct violent action is always on the table. Such groups feel not only justified in its use- but they’re compelled to pugnacity if those actions raise awareness. Killing doctors who perform abortions for instance; or bombing the related clinics. Likewise, whipping/lynching Negroes in public (as a means of intimidation) or bombing a church; because it’s always about violence to get their point across.

    I’m reminded of Carl Reiner’s extremist anti-smoking group employing surreptitious means to kill Cartman just to prove second hand smoking kills. The use of deception and violence to further your cause is permissible as long as the cause is just.

    From the look of their site this struggle has little to do with us and everything to do with what’s central to the narrative (as with the attack on Harpers Ferry). A white man’s word never has to match up with his actions; say what you need to say to draw the masses in and then switch the agenda. People of color have been met with violence- resistance and denial much too long in the country. White people must take up the banner if racism is to be eradicated. Not saying I condoned the violence mind you; but I understand.

  5. See I'm on that Malcolm X tip. He operated within the confines of the law but he made it abundantly clear that he would fuck shit up and handle business by any means necessary.

    1. Neo_prodigy said...
      See I'm on that Malcolm X tip. He operated within the confines of the law but he made it abundantly clear that he would fuck shit up and handle business by any means necessary.

      We're in agreement. Racial equality seems best served through passive means. But racial justice can be achieved through many channels. Using violence to attain racial parity derails the entire lobby; providing opportunity for those in power to paint us in a negative light. But implied violence for racial justice puts those in power on notice. What people of color put forward is this; there is a limit to our patience. We will only take so much before we’re forced to entertain other options (ergo, by any means necessary). Implied violence was intimated just before the Rodney King verdict (No justice... no peace).

      Through the use of non-violence you take your case to the people. Goals are achieved through civil disobedience to sway popular opinion. Stark images of water hoses - dogs and scenes of police brutality were beamed nightly into the homes of whites all over this nation. The oppressor showed his true colors by brutalizing passive protestors. Alternatively, the black panthers publically called for violence against whites in every neighborhood and district. Such declarations gave the white man justification to dismantle the Panthers by any means necessary. After all, the rule of law was on the white man’s side. He could pay informants, obtain warrants to tap phones; or outright assassinate leaders in the movement and portray them as terrorists.

      For this cause alone both Malcolm and Martin had to walk a fine line. With Malcolm, white authorities understood they were just one step away from ‘hell breaking loose’ if justice was repeatedly denied. In Martin’s view the only way to overcome was through civil disobedience and passive resistance. Both chose non-violence; albeit for different reasons. White men on the other hand view violence as a tool. To be used in raising awareness or solidifying power. “We have to show these people we mean business; enough with the talk!” That’s what makes them scary.

      Lord knows what’s at the core of their falling out with the white supremacists. By donning masks and wielding terrible weapons the white man again shows his true nature. In his eyes armed-aggression (to achieve an end) is much preferred over passive mediation.

    2. I feel like BPP for SELF-DEFENSE and Malcolm X were essentially on the same page. I give the BPP a lot of credit. I mean, they were about self-protection of community where there was no protection to begin with. They were very self-sustaining. For instance they instituted a breakfast/lunch program for black children b/c they found that many of them did poorer in school b/c they were not being fed. This kind of paved the way for a large-scale national hot lunch program, so they were quite ahead of the curve in this regard.

      But this incident reminds me so much of the predominantly white 99% movement at my school and how they maligned a lot of predominantly Poc/queer student life groups for being "passive" and not showing full support for their methods. Some of the things they said I could kind of understand but I found their message to be really ugly.

    3. Marona said...
      I feel like BPP for SELF-DEFENSE and Malcolm X were essentially on the same page. I give the BPP a lot of credit. I mean, they were about self-protection of community where there was no protection to begin with. They were very self-sustaining.

      I agree with every point. Very well stated.
      Self-reliance was the goal of course but it wasn't interpreted as such. Every word or action undertaken by the Black panthers was seen as a threat of unparalleled urgency. The Indians fought to defend their land against the white man but they too were portrayed as brutal savages; so of course prudence demanded that you wipe them out.

      Hence, these people of color had to be brought down through subterfuge and propaganda. The Black Panther’s "Ten-Point Program," called for land, bread, housing, education, clothing- justice and peace (among other things). Every political-economic grievance was twisted to mean something negative. For such petitions (it was thought) could only be realized at the white man’s expense. The white man painted the party as an armed insurgency, made up of thugs and hoodlums- formed for the sole purpose of rising up against this nation. Now we hear incendiary rhetoric coming from armed, militant groups all the time; but the difference is, they’re white militant armed groups.

      Conversely, when you have an armed group of people of color calling for revolution well... that's another thing altogether. That's war on the American way of life; "the very principles we hold dear," whites say. The panther’s legitimacy was doomed to failure once the federal government began its campaign against it. The key was to Divide and conquer. Turn the members against each other by developing mistrust. Through the use of informants/wiretaps they reduced the ranks even further through attrition and incarceration.

      Federal Bureau of Investigation Director J. Edgar Hoover called the party “the greatest threat to the internal security of the country.”

      In other words, Armed- militant, angry black people are out to take what you have. The very same tactics the political right uses today. Times have changed yes, but the narrative hasn’t. That’s how the white man frames the context to make you believe anything he wants you to believe. For when you control the flow of information to the masses, that’s true power.

      Please forgive me if I failed to make myself clear. What you wrote was spot on.

    4. I see what you're saying. I misinterpreted you at first but I see that we agree.

  6. Oh shit. My parents live one town over from TP. I'll ask my mom what she's heard on the radio.

  7. I admit, I'm a bit on the fence about this one.

    I don't usually support violence - especially when victims are random people who were prolly just chillin in a restaurant with no white supremacist thoughts (overtly) at work.

    HOWEVER, I do support feeling strongly enough about racism to do something about it. It just needs a better outlet.

    That said, I do understand what this family did so long as they really do believe in equality for races and are fighting against anti-racism and not just using that as breezy rhetoric so they can beat up some people. If that's the case, I do not believe the ends justify the means.


This blog is strictly moderated. Everyone is now able to comment again, however, all Anonymous posts will be immediately deleted. Comments on posts more than 30 days old are generally dismissed, so try to stay current with the conversations.