No ‘Je Suis Charleston’?


The De-politicization of Black Oppression

By Ajamu Baraka

Source: Counterpunch

Where are the international marches of solidarity with African Americans? The statements from world leaders condemning the terrorist attack and calling on U.S. Authorities to crack down on the white nationalist terror networks developing in the U.S.? Where are the marches in white communities condemning racism and standing with black people? Why no ‘Je Suis Charleston’?

The fact that these questions are not being raised by most people speaks to the adroit way in which the propagandists of the U.S. state, with the corporate media in lockstep, successfully domesticated and depoliticized the murderous attack in Charleston, South Carolina.

First, President Obama, as the government’s chief propagandist, defined Dylann Roof, the white nationalist assailant, as a pathological, hateful loner who had easy access to guns. The words “terrorist” never crossed his lips or the lips of any other officials of the national government.

Then, the state and corporate media followed-up this framing with a fascinating slight-of-hand stunt: instead of focusing on the domestic security threat posed by violent, racist right-wing extremists groups in the country, the old trope of gun control – along with a new twist, removing the Confederate flag – became the new focus! The implication was that by removing the Confederate battle flag – a symbol of white supremacy and the defense of slavery – from public buildings (no one bothered to explain why, if this was the rationale for removing the Confederate flag, there would not be a discussion around the need to reject the national flag also), that would somehow move the country towards racial reconciliation, much like electing a black president was supposed to do.

The effectiveness of this propaganda effort paid off just a few days after the attack. The domestic and international press gave full coverage to the spate of “terrorist” attacks that took place in three different counties but missing from that coverage was any connection and mention of the terror attack in Charleston.

However, it was at the funeral of Rev Pinckney, the pastor of the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church murdered by Dylann Roof, where the concluding act of the governments’ obscene efforts to co-opt and deflect the pain of the attack played to a world-wide audience. President Obama turned in one of his best performances of a life-time of performances for white supremacy. His eulogy was a masterful example of his special talent to embody an instrumentalist “blackness” while delivering up that blackness to the white supremacist, U.S. settler project. In his eulogy, he couched his narrative of “American exceptionalism” in the language of Christian religiosity that was indistinguishable from the proclamations of the religious right that sees the U.S. as a state bestowed with the grace of their God.

Obama sang ‘Amazing Grace’ and lulled into a stupefying silence black voices that should have demanded answers as to why the Charleston attack was not considered a terrorist attack, even though it fit the definition of domestic terrorism, or why the Obama Administration collaborated with suppressing the 2009 report from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which identified violent white supremacist groups as a threat to national security more lethal than the threat from Islamic ‘fundamentalists’.

Because of this threat and the depraved indifference to black life by the U.S. government, international attention and solidarity is critical for African Americans. Yet, by quickly deploying the Obama weapon – aligning the government with the victims of the attack but defining the attack as a domestic criminal act – the political space for international solidarity with the plight of African Americans was significantly reduced, at least in relationship to the Charleston attack.

There is another element of this story that compelled the Administration to get out in front of this issue. Obama needed to draw attention away from the fact that his Administration caved under the pressure from the “respectable” racist right-wingers in Congress who criticized the DHS report in 2009.

John Boehner, the leader of the House of Representatives, characterized the report as “Offensive and unacceptable.” According to Boehner, the Obama Administration should not be condemning “American citizens who disagree with the direction Washington Democrats are taking our nation.”

Instead of defending Secretary Napolitano and the report issued by her Department, or taking the opportunity provided by the report to educate the public on this internal threat, Obama threw Napolitano under the bus and the DHS pulled the report from its website. The unit responsible for monitoring white supremacist organizations and movements was dismantled, and the threat of white supremacist violence becoming the victim of Washington politics.

This is the mindset and the politics of this Administration and the political culture in the U.S., where the differential value placed on black life allows black life to be reduced to an instrumental calculation when considering issues of international public relations and domestic politics.

The result?

For all intents and purposes, the tragedy in Charleston is over, closed out on a song written by a captain on a slave ship in 1779 and sung over 200 years later by a black man still in the service of white supremacy.

Ajamu Baraka is interviewed in Episode 3 of CounterPunch Radio, available for free here.

Ajamu Baraka is a human rights activist, organizer and geo-political analyst. Baraka is an Associate Fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) in Washington, D.C. and editor and contributing columnist for the Black Agenda Report. He is a contributor to “Killing Trayvons: An Anthology of American Violence” (Counterpunch Books, 2014). He can be reached at


This entry was posted in Activism, conditioning, corporate news, culture, divide and conquer, media, news, police state, propaganda, Psy-ops, Social Control, society, State Crime and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to No ‘Je Suis Charleston’?

  1. sojourner says:

    The reason “terrorist” was not used, was because Neo-Nero knew this Charleston incident was just another false-flag carried out by covert agencies, with this white kid as the patsy, just like Oswald and all the other patsies. It wasn’t “white supremacist groups” that committed these atrocities, it was the federal government, just like in Missouri, Baltimore, etc!

    Until everyone realizes (backs and whites) that racism was created and passed down, from one generation of whites to the next, by the elite powers who control every aspect of life in this country, this all will continue on as usual.

    As you said, if the confederate flag, a flag representing a stand against centralized, fascist government first, and then slavery, needs to be taken down, then so does the piece of crap every mindless idiot was waving last weekend; since it represents the monstrous entity that is behind slavery: the US Corporation, which came into existence just after “the war against slavery,” in 1871.

    Although I understand the anger here, this article, and ones like it, simply play into the hands of the powers that be by keeping the division between the races in this country alive and well: something happens to a white, and it is the blacks, browns and reds fault, and if something happens to a person of color, it is the whites’ fault. Meanwhile, the real culprits, the white Zionist psychopaths, and their “elected” stooges, go merrily along their way, smirking and saying, “We did it again! They hate each other now more than ever!”

    I’m out of the loop on this one. No one will listen in this country, and when those of us who see this speak out, then we are labeled as racists: “He once thought black people were animals.” etc, etc, ad-nauseum!

    • While a false flag scenario should not be ruled out, what the article astutely addresses is the institutionalized racism displayed in the aftermath. There have been other patsies in false flags (possibly including the Charlie Hebdo shooting) that government and media have been quick to label as terrorist, which also plays into the “divide and conquer” strategy you referenced. If you read the article carefully, the author is not directing anger at white people across the board, but at extremist groups, government and corporate propagandists who largely influence public perception to such events (though the groups aren’t necessarilly separate and may interact on varying levels). Even if such events are part of a strategy of tension, systemic racism is still a real problem for people of color and I would argue that by addressing and overcoming it, elites would have a more difficult time selling racist cover stories which more often than not feature non-white patsies.

      • sojourner says:

        Yes, I agree! If whites and blacks would come together, it would make it much harder for the elite powers. But I see less of this coming together now, than I did forty years ago.

        And I didn’t say the writer was singling out all white people, I just disagreed with the writer’s conclusion that this heinous event was perpetrated by white extremist groups. If it white extremist groups perpetrating these atrocities, then it is government inspired and directed.

        And I am more than aware of the systematic attacks on black men, women and children. And that what went on in Charleston, after this atrocity, was just another glossing over of the racism that exists and the pandering of bs politics. When we knock off the sugar coating, racism in this country has never improved, and primarily because of this elite owned and operated government.

        I believe this author’s finger pointing should have been directed at this government which seems bound and determined to keep whites and people of color at war with each other. And going after white extremist groups will piss off a large part of the white population. And I believe we should know this by know, all of us!

        We need to stop treating the symptom and start cutting out the disease: this government!

        Sorry, I didn’t mean to be so vehement in my first comment. I do care about this issue very much, as I always have.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s