One major element of Media Literacy is the idea that all media is constructed. There isn’t a 360 degree video shot that is unfiltered. The news media essentially gives us what they want to give us and when they want to give us the news.
A clear example was the recent Missing or Murdered Indigenous Person’s awareness day action that took place on Friday, May 5th, in downtown Grand Rapids. I was at that event, so I decided to record the full interview that WZZM 13 did with one of the organizers of the event, Jade Green. Here is the unedited interview that channel 13 conducted with Jade.
Now, here is the WZZM 13 story as it aired later that night for their 11pm news broadcast.
After looking at the unedited version of what Jade had to say and what they included in the channel 13 news story, one can see/hear that they use just a few seconds of what the Indigenous Youth organizer had to say. The portion of the interview was a pretty good one, since the comment from Jade challenged the Federal and State governments to do more than just pass resolutions.
However, had channel 13 stayed for the entire program, which included several Indigenous speakers and a march through downtown Grand Rapids, they would have captured a great deal more that would have provided viewers a more complete sense of what Indigenous people are demanding. For instance, speakers hit a several important issues during their talks, such as:
- Making sure that people understood that MMIP included, men, women, children and two-spirit members of the Indigenous community, something that is important, especially since there is a great deal of backlash and the LGBTQ community, particularly the trans community.
- That Line 5 must be shut down immediately, since it directly impacts Indigenous communities and violates numerous treaties.
- In edition, pipeline projects and other fossil fuel extraction projects, like the Willow Project in Alaska, which one of the speakers addressed, is important because it means that camps are set up for oil & pas workers, what are general referred to as “man camps.” It has been well documented that the presence of oil & gas workers always increases the possibility of sexual assault and murder of Indigenous people, which has been well documented, like the findings in this article by the Center for Public Integrity.
A fourth, and last point, was the fact that the WZZM 13 newsreader stated that the youth organizer who was interviewed said that the violence against Indigenous people is genocide. Now, it is a common misunderstanding that when people hear the word genocide, they think that means the outright extermination of a group of people. However, genocide, as was determined by the 1948 United Nations Genocide Convention, means more than the killing of a group of people. Here are the ways that genocide can be perpetrated against Indigenous people.
Article II
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
- Killing members of the group;
- Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
- Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
- Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
- Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
Overall, the WZZM 13 story was not an awful story on the MMIP rally/march, but it was fairly superficial, missing an expanded critique of how violence is being perpetrated against Indigenous people in North America, along with no real list of demands or concrete examples sexual assault and violence that several speakers have experienced, along with the lasting trauma they must live with for the rest of their lives. All news agencies can and must do better when reporting on critical issues that affect communities, particularly communities that are highly marginalized in the dominant society.
Last week, we wrote about the annual May Day march that was organized by Movimiento Cosecha, the immigrant-led movement that works on a variety of issues specific to those who are undocumented, but are currently fighting to win Driver’s Licenses for All in Michigan.
Most of the 200 people that marched last Monday were undocumented immigrants, who are some of the most vulnerable people in the state. This is why it was particularly frustrating to observe last Monday that not one State Legislator from the Democratic Party was present to walk in solidarity with a community of people who live in constant fear of arrest, detention and deportation.
The Kent County Democratic Party likely knew that the annual May Day march organized by Movimiento Cosecha was being held, since newly elected Kent County Commissioner Ivan Diaz shared the information about the Cosecha march. Even if not every Democratic State Legislator didn’t know about the Cosecha May Day march, they should, since Movimiento Cosecha is the movement that put Driver’s Licenses for All on the map in Michigan.
Yes, there is a politically inside group, Drive Michigan Forward, who has been working with State Legislators to pass a driver’s license bill, but this group did not start organizing until years after Movimiento Cosecha began demanding driver’s licenses for the undocumented community. Plus many of those involved in this coalition, came out of Movimiento Cosecha.
In addition, as State Legislators who have introduced or supported passing a Driver’s Licenses for All bill in Michigan, they should be attending actions like the annual May Day march. If State Legislators showed up to these events, it would send a message to the undocumented immigrant community that they want to support them, that they want to hear their stories and their concerns.
Then there was the fact that in late March, Movimiento Cosecha visited State Senator Winnie Brinks at her office in Lansing. Senator Brinks was not there, but Cosecha members spoke with her staff, providing information in English and Spanish and inviting her to participate in the May Day march.
Now, some might say that since Senator Brinks, who has introduced a bill in support of Driver’s Licenses, doesn’t need to attend Movimiento Cosecha events. People are aware of the fact that Senator Brinks has introduced legislation, but the undocumented community, who can’t obtain Driver’s Licenses, also cannot vote. Therefore, it seems to me that regardless of whether or not people can vote, if they are some of the most vulnerable people in the state, then elected officials should make it a priority to develop relationships with them.
In looking at Senator Brinks’ Facebook page, it is clear that she attended several other events last week and even a local coffee shop that was just a few blocks from where the May Day march had been walking in the rain last Monday. People in positions of power and privilege need to interact with, develop relationships with, and be in solidarity with undocumented immigrants. Proposing legislation and even passing legislation are not enough, since they can learn a great deal from those who facing family separation on a daily basis.
Two weeks ago, MLive posted an article entitled, Making room for proposed riverfront amphitheater could cost Grand Rapids $58M.
Early on in the MLive article it states:
On Tuesday, April 25, Grand Rapids city leaders approved a notice of intent to issue up to $60 million in bonds which would help fund the purchase and renovation of the Kent County Road Commission’s central complex location at 1500 Scribner Ave. NW. Grand Rapids plans to relocate its operations at the city-owned 201 Market Ave. property to the Scribner Avenue location.
Since October of 2020, we have been tracking this story, especially since the outdoor amphitheater project is being run by Grand Action 2.0, an organization run by the Grand Rapids Power Structure. Here are some of the other articles we have posted on GRIID about the outdoor amphitheater project:
How is it that we allow groups like Grand Action 2.0 to get away with the shit they do?
In a June 2021 post on GRIID, we wrote:
This whole project so far has involved roughly $42 million, between the City of Grand Rapids, the Convention and Arena Authority and the DeVos-owned 63 Market St LLC. This is a great deal of money, which demonstrates that when a multi-billionaire family the the DeVos family wants something, they usually get it. Sure, building an outdoor amphitheater will bring more people, including more tourists to Grand Rapids, which means more money will be spent in the city. But, we must always ask ourselves who are the primary beneficiaries of such projects?
Then, in March of 2022, GRIID noted that the City of Grand Rapids unanimously approved the new $116M land purchase for Amphitheater project. One question we asked in the March 2022 article was, “when was the last time that the City of Grand Rapids spent $35.7 Million on a project that would specifically benefit the Black community or any other marginalized community in this city? In fact, we could expand this question to include the amount of money that is estimate to be spent on the larger 31 acre riverfront development (includes the amphitheater), which is $500 Million. When was the last time the City of Grand Rapids spent $500 Million to benefit the BIPOC community in this city?”
In June of 2022, we then learned that the State of Michigan would be providing an estimated $30 million for the downtown amphitheater project, which is also public money.
This brings us to the present, where we are once again told that an additional $58 Million will be spent by the City of Grand Rapids to move some of the City’s operations to purchase and renovate the Kent County Road Commission’s central complex location at 1500 Scribner Ave. NW.
There are a few things that are important to point out about all of this. First, the MLive article from last week is not quite accurate when they wrote that amphitheater could cost Grand Rapids $58M. This latest aspect of the amphitheater project will cost taxpayers $58 Million to move some of the City’s operations to purchase and renovate the Kent County Road Commission’s central complex location at 1500 Scribner Ave. NW. The same way it was reported that the State would contribute $30 Million to the downtown Grand Rapids Amphitheater project is misleading, since the State of Michigan will be using $30 Million of taxpayer money, public money, to contribute to the outdoor amphitheater project.
A second point about this is that even though we are talking about $88 Million, plus however many other millions have been negotiated for this project, the public had NO say in the $88 Million of their money being spent on the amphitheater project. Now, I know that we have a representative form of government, but no politician, not at the City, County or State level, ever asked me or anyone else I know, whether or not they wanted $88 Million – plus in public money going to a project that was proposed by the most powerful family in West Michigan.
And third, the failure of the local news media to question these types of projects, which are always subsidized by public money with no public input, limits our collective imagination about what taxpayer money, public money could be used for.
Imagine if the $88 Million we are talking about in this post, which is only part of the total amount that the public will pay towards the outdoor amphitheater project, imagine if that public money were spent on:
- Public housing in Grand Rapids
- Public transportation in Grand Rapids
- Public Education in Grand Rapids
- The creation of living wage jobs
- Renewable energy projects to power homes in Grand Rapids
- To subsidize child care for working class families in Grand Rapids
- To fight food insecurity in Grand Rapids
- To fight Structural Racism in Grand Rapids
The only way we will ever be able to imagine, work on and implement these kinds of projects is if the public begins to say no and then actively resist the use of public money for projects like the downtown amphitheater, then start demanding that public money be used to meet real public needs. Imagine that!
On Tuesday, Downtown Grand Rapids Inc. posted a message, which not only needs to be seriously scrutinized, it deserves a retraction and an apology. Here is that message, stupid emojis not included:
Happy Birthday, Grand Rapids!
Did you know that our city was officially founded on this day in 1850? Here’s to many more years of progress and growth!
Scroll for a quick history on the start of GR
2000+ years ago: Indigenous Americans settled.
Early 1800s: The first white settlers arrived.
1831: Louis Campau bought what is now the entire downtown business district of GR for $90.
1850: Grand Rapids became a city.
The comment about wanting many more years of progress and growth is the first thing that should be challenged. When using the word progress, if they mean moving forward in the areas of social, political and economic rights, then most of the history of Grand Rapids has not been equitable for the majority of the population. Grand Rapids still has the largest wealth gap of any city in Michigan, but more importantly, whatever social progress that has been made has been the result of organized groups and social movements. Labor unions, the Black Freedom Struggle, the LGBTQ movement, the Environmental Justice movement, the Immigrants Justice movement, various feminist movements, etc, have all brought about significant progress/change, but always against systems of power and oppression in the community that did not support them.
Early 1800s: The first white settlers arrived. Now, I know that this statement comes right after 2000+ years ago: Indigenous Americans settled. However, Euro-Americans did not simply arrive, they used a variety of tactics to displace indigenous people and then appropriate their land.
Grand Rapids was founded on Settler Colonialism
As a foundational framework, it is vital that we come to terms with the fact that Grand Rapids, like virtually all US cities were founded on what Native scholar Roxanne Dunbar Ortiz calls Settler Colonialism. Settler Colonialism in West Michigan is the result of a larger White Supremacist strategy that included legal means (treaties), forced relocation, spiritual violence (role of churches) and cultural imperialism, most radically seen with the policy of putting Native children in boarding schools with the goal of, “Killing the Indian, Saving the Man.”
We know that hundreds of Native children from the Three Fires Nations were taken and put into boarding schools by settler colonialists, many of which were run by christians. In these instances Native children were denied the right to speak their own languages and practice their own spiritual traditions. Most of the removal of Native children from their communities happened in the later part of the 19th Century and first half of the 20th Century.
However, on the matter of christian missions attempting to make converts of Native communities in the 1820s and 1830s along the Grand River, it is less clear on whether or not this could be defined as a form of genocide. How much free will did Native people have on choosing another religion? Was the adoption of christian beliefs a form of assimilation into the dominant culture and was it tied to larger socio-economic issues like food and land?
It should come as no surprise that right after the 1821 Treaty of Chicago was signed, the first christian missions came to what is now West Michigan. The Baptist Church established a mission in 1824, under the leadership of Isaac McCoy, and Catholic missions were begun in 1833 by Fr. Frederic Baraga.
One of the things that lured missionaries to the area after the signing of the Treaty of Chicago, was a provision in the treaty which allowed funds for people to work as teachers of blacksmiths amongst the Native people along the Grand River. The government treaty called this, the “civilization fund,” a phrase that underscores the settler colonial mentality.
Isaac McCoy first arrived in 1823, only to discover: “Many Odawa were drinking and few responded to his call for a council. After some inquiries McCoy learned that the majority regarded the 1821 treaty as fraudulent and viewed his visit as an attempt to trick them into ratifying it.” (pg. 7, from Gathered at the River: Grand Rapids, Michigan and Its People of Faith)
Such a statement reflects not only that the Native people along the Grand were not in support of the government imposed treaty, but that many Natives were negatively impacted by alcohol. Alcohol was introduced by French fur traders, particularly Louis Campau and should be seen as another tool used by settler colonialism to control Native people.
Rev. McCoy, however, was not deterred from his initial observations and continued to use all means at his disposal to “win over” the hearts and minds of Native people. In 1826, McCoy set up the Thomas Mission on the westside of the Grand River. McCoy’s greatest contribution during his time along the Grand River was his relationship with Native leader Nawequageezhig, whom the white settlers called Noonday.
Noonday was one of the few Native leaders who signed the 1821 Treaty of Chicago and was viewed by many as a traitor or collaborator with the settler colonialists. Noonday went as far as to be baptized by McCoy’s successor, Rev. Leonard Slater in the summer of 1827. Another Native leader in the area, Kewwaycooshcum, also known as Blackskin, did not sign the 1821 treaty, but did develop a relationship with the catholics through his connection to Campau. It is hard to know from the limited documentation of that time, whether or not the Native people were using the tensions between the various christian factions to their benefit or if the christian were using Native compliance with the government as a means to an end. One gets a sense of the christian rivalry in a comment from Fr. Baraga, who said, “Mary, to who it is given to root out all heresies of the world……to destroy the false [Protestant} teachings with which some of the poor Indians were already infected, and suffer on His gospel to reign everywhere.” (pg. 12, from Gathered at the River: Grand Rapids, Michigan and Its People of Faith)
However, whatever tensions existed, they were most useful in pushing Native people out of the area as more white settlers colonialists came to the area. This increase in settler colonialists, along with greater desire for land and settler colonial expansion, resulted in a new treaty being drawn up, the Treaty of Washington in 1836. This treaty turned over an additional 13,837,207 acres of land to settler colonialism’s expansionist desires.
It seems that all along, the goal with relations of Native people along the Grand were to take the rest of their land. Whether or not there was direct complicity with the early christian missions to this land takeover is not relevant, the fact remains that they did nothing to resist such an effort.
The end of chapter one from Gathered at the River: Grand Rapids, Michigan and Its People of Faith, states of the fate of Native people in West Michigan:
Keeping title proved difficult, however, as fraud, inexperience, and incompatibility of family farming with tribal tradition took their toll.
It indeed took its toll, but the authors of Gathered at the River do not call it land theft or settler colonialism or even acknowledge the role that early missions played here in the ongoing genocidal policies of US expansionism. The plight of Native people is not addressed in the rest of the book, which simply goes on to celebrate the history of christian churches in Grand Rapids. However, it seems apparent to this writer that the history of christianity in West Michigan is founded on genocide and settler colonialism.
1831: Louis Campau bought what is now the entire downtown business district of GR for $90. This point by DGRI is totally misleading, since it doesn’t say from whom did Campau buy the land. It is a popular notion that Louis Campau and Lucias Lyons are seen as the founding fathers of Grand Rapids, but the reality is, they are the founding fathers of Settler Colonialism in what was to become known as Grand Rapids.
The last last point that DGRI makes is, 1850: Grand Rapids became a city. While it is true that Grand Rapids officially became a city in 1850, those involved in making that happen were only able to do so because of the displacement of Indigenous people and the theft of their land. Grand Rapids only became a reality because of the genocidal policies that were implemented by the early Settler Colonialists. Until Grand Rapids honestly confront this history it will never be a community that is rooted is equity and justice.
None of the bullet points that DGRI made on their Facebook page about the founding of Grand Rapids should surprise people, especially those who actually pay attention to what they do. Their mission statement says, “Downtown Grand Rapids Inc. (DGRI) is the organization responsible for city building and place-management in the urban core of the City of Grand Rapids, Michigan. Established in 2013, DGRI serves as the singular management entity for the combined operations of the Downtown Development Authority, the Downtown Improvement District, and the Monroe North Tax Increment Finance Authority.” DGRI is all about furthering the interests of those who control large sections of land and property in the downtown area, which includes members of the Grand Rapids Power Structure, other businesses and members of the professional class, which are the dominant class of people now living in downtown GR. So it would stand to reason that DGRI would reflect a history of Grand Rapids that is all warm and fuzzy, one that avoids talk of Settler Colonialism and genocide.
For a counter-narrative to the early history of what is called Grand Rapids, see my new book, A People’s History of Grand Rapids.
On Friday, May 5th, beginning at 6pm, there will be a rally and march for Missing and Murdered Indigenous People (MMIP) in Grand Rapids.
There have been several held in Grand Rapids in the past, or related issues, such as an event the Indigenous community organized after the new revelations about US & Canadian so-called Boarding Schools in June of 2021. Last year, we interviewed two indigenous activists after an MMIP event was held, where a Grand Rapids government official spoke just one month after the GRPD had murdered Patrick Lyoya during a routine traffic violation.
This year GRIID interviewed the lead organizer, Jade Green, who sat down with us earlier this week to talk about the event and why the issues that the rally/march addresses are so important for both the Indigenous community and the dominant community. Below is a video interview with Jade, but we are including the questions we asked them in the interview.
- Can you talk a bit about what exactly the MMIP Youth Rally and March will be about and what it is an urgent matter?
- Why do you think that this issue hasn’t received the same kind of attention that other BIPOC issues have received, at least not outside of Indigenous communities?
- What do you think are the underlying factors, the root causes Missing or Murdered Indigenous Persons?
- How is the MMIP connected to the ongoing issue of settler colonialism of Indigenous land and communities?
- I was at a mostly white organized Climate Justice march last week, where they did an Indigenous land acknowledgement, but failed to address how Indigenous people are at the forefront of the Climate Justice Movement. What do you think about land acknowledgements?
- Are there demands coming out of this rally/march, and if so can you name them?
- What are the most important things you want people to know/think about after coming to the march/rally?
- Last question, why is this issue so important to you personally?
Editor’s note: As a matter of full disclosure, I was an active participant in yesterday’s May Day march, organized by Movimiento Cosecha.
Last week, we posted an interview with Gema Lowe, one of the volunteer organizers with Movimiento Cosecha about the upcoming May Day march in Grand Rapids, along with a timeline of all the previous May Day marches that Cosecha has organized since 2017.
Last night, despite the rain and wind, some 200 people gathered at Garfield Park in Grand Rapids and marched for 2 hours to demand Driver’s Licenses for All!
As people began to filter in for the march, the GRPD showed up to tell us what we could do, but mostly what we couldn’t do. They produced a piece of paper (although they never gave us a copy), which they read from, with a long list of rules. They were pretty emphatic about us not march onto a highway or even getting close to a highway on ramp. They were also clear about the consequences of our failure to comply. We passed this information onto the leadership.
Before the march began, people gathered under one of the pavilions in Garfield Park, where several speakers addressed the crowd. Most people focused on the current demand of driver’s licenses and the 15 years of hardship they have had to endure, since it was 15 years ago that Michigan stopped allowing undocumented immigrants the right to a driver’s license. As always the stories that people shared were moving and communicated a deep sense of urgency, since not having a driver’s license creates a climate of fear and the real world possibility that people could be stopped, arrested, detained and even deported…..all because they don’t have a driver’s license.
Once the march began, we walked out on the road going east on Burton St. There were people with large banners, handmade signs, and some using bullhorns to lead the chants that would continue for the next two hours. However, before we even walked the length of Garfield Park, several GRPD officers, sitting in their cruisers, began to threatened people with arrest if they didn’t get out of the road. To be clear, Movimiento Cosecha uses tactics that are often disruptive, like marching in the road, because they believe that disrupting business as usual is especially necessary for communities most impacted by state violence, which is the case with the undocumented immigrant community. Movimiento Cosecha will often say, “we will stop interrupting your lives, when you stop interrupting and often destroying our lives.”
Once marchers were back on the sidewalk, they proceeded east on Burton St, often receiving affirming honks from motorists, along with numerous people who came out of their homes to cheer them on, to record the march on their smart phones or to offer verbal affirmations for what they were fighting for. In fact, during the whole two hours that we marched yesterday, at no time did the energy of the crowd dissipate or diminish, despite the fact that was raining the whole time we marched.
There were a few times where we crossed over Burton St., so people could see the size of the march and to engage in a bit more disruption, as you can see in the photo above, where we crossed at Eastern and Burton.
We eventually stopped off at a church on Burton and Kalamazoo, so that marchers could use the bathrooms and take a break from the rain. While we were at the church, Cosecha organizers decided to end the march, since people were cold, tired and wet. Cosecha had several vehicles that were following the march in case anyone got hurt or needed a break, and those drivers then began to shuttle people back to Garfield Park, where people gathered again to share hugs and get some refreshments.
What was evident was the lack of white allies at yesterdays march. The small number of white allies has been the case over the past 2 years, primarily over the belief that since there is a Democrat in the White House that the political climate for immigrants is better. This is simply not the reality, as the Biden Administration has continued many of the same policies that existed during the Trump Administration, which we have documented. Movimiento Cosecha has always been clear from the beginning of their movement, when they stated right after the 2020 Election that “Democrats deport us too!” State violence against immigrants is a bi-partisan reality and if you aren’t aware of this, you haven’t been paying attention.
The participation of the immigrant community, as always, was amazing. The energy and commitment they bring is always an inspiration for anyone who pays attention to movement work. Granted, movements like the Immigrant Justice movement need allies to create enough political pressure to make the necessary changes in policy. However, this movement must be lead by those most affected and those of us who carry a whole lot more privilege need to take our cues from movement organizers if we truly want to be in solidarity with them. Hasta La Huelga!
On Friday, there was a Black man who was shot and killed on the Southeast side of Grand Rapids. WOODTV8 ran a story about the shooting, which included comments from Grand Rapids Police Chief Eric Winstrom.
In the channel 8 story, Winstrom commented about what may have caused the shooting, but then used the opportunity to take a shot at those who have been calling for the GRPD to be defunded:
Winstrom questioned why those who continue to push to defund the police aren’t out supporting their neighborhoods.
“There’s people willing to come to every (Grand Rapids City) Commission meeting to advocate for abolishing the police; every commission meeting,” he said. “I didn’t see any one of those people at this murder scene, talking to the mom, advocating for the residents of the 3rd Ward.”
These comments from Winstrom are very instructive and reveal a great deal about him and how he views people who are not only participating in the very limited democratic process during City Commission meetings, but also people who are, and have been deeply committed to neighborhoods in Grand Rapids for decades.
It is also instructive that Winstrom goes out of his way to point out that those calling for police defunding were not present in the neighborhood where the shooting occurred. First, the cops are the ones who were called and they have all the technology they could ever want to quickly respond to shootings. Second, those who have attended City Commission meeting demanding the City defund the GRPD also have jobs and do other work in the community and can’t at the drop of a hat show up to things like shootings in the City. Third, Winstrom is making an assumption that there was no one present (of those who have attended City Commission meetings) offering support to the families members and residents where the shooting took place. I seriously doubt that the Police Chief could identify everyone who has been involved in this movement, unless of course his department has dossier’s of those who have been demanding the GRPD be defunded since 2020, two years before Winstrom was even hired.
More importantly, when Winstrom says he doesn’t see those calling for the GRPD to be defunded out supporting their neighbors, it only reflects his ignorance and his arrogance. What follows is just a brief list of the ways that many of the very same people who have been demanding that the GRPD be defunded are working directly with their neighbors, particularly BIPOC neighbors and other marginalized residents in Grand Rapids.
- The Grand Rapids Area Mutual Aid Network (GRAMAN) has raised $295,566 over the past 3 years. All of this Mutual Aid money is prioritized to BIPOC people for rent, food, transportation, medical expenses, etc, and many of the recipients who have benefited from this Mutual Aid, live in the 3rd Ward. In addition, GRAMAN has delivered food, appliances and furniture to families who have requested these kinds of items. Their motto, which is practiced on a daily basis is, “Everything we need is right here in out community.” GRAMAN is not charity, it is Mutual Aid, and Mutual Aid is a form of direct action and solidarity with our neighbors.
- Several of those who show up to City Commission meetings also are involved in community garden projects, which also benefit the community, both the beautification of neighborhoods, fighting food insecurity and sharing fresh produce with our neighbors.
- There have been organized efforts to do snow removal in the Third Ward for senior residents and those with disabilities.
- People demanding the Defunding of the GRPD regularly are involved in providing food, clothing and other necessities to the unhoused community, often distributing items at Heartside Park.
- Several people have made food and sold it to raise money for the children of Patrick Lyoya, along with other Mutual Aid projects, which also goes directly to BIPOC residents and neighbors.
- Other people work with the Grand Rapids Area Tenant Union, which provides support to tenants who are being harassed and threatened by landlords and Property Management Companies. The tenant union provides support for those facing eviction and increased rent. Tenants are our neighbors and live in the neighborhoods that Chief Winstrom is talking about.
- Some people work with GR Rapid Response to ICE, which provides support, solidarity and Mutual Aid for undocumented immigrants who have been impacted by ICE violence. This involves in ongoing Mutual Aid requests, transportation to immigration court hearings, legal support and providing bond funds for those who are in detention. These neighbors who have been impacted by ICE violence live throughout Grand Rapids, many of them in the 3rd Ward.
- Then there are those who work with Movimiento Cosecha GR, which is an immigrant-led organization that is fighting for immigrant justice. Their current campaign is to win driver’s licenses for all. There are undocumented immigrants in Grand Rapids, including the 3rd Ward and are our neighbors.
- There are also several people in the group of activists that Chief Winstrom so callously criticized who are social workers and direct care staff, working with Grand Rapids residents who experience poverty, struggle with mental health issues, and those who are marginalized in this city. These people work real neighbors in real neighborhoods throughout Grand Rapids.
I could go on with all of the amazing things that people who are demanding the defunding of the GRPD do in this community, but it doesn’t seem to matter to Chief Winstrom, who is using his position of power to take pot shots at people who are currently, and have been doing amazing community work for neighbors in Grand Rapids for decades.
In February, I made a series of posts about books on racism and the Black Freedom Struggle that have influenced me, which was followed by a series of posts in March about books on feminism that have influenced me as well.
This month I want to include three posts about books on the environment that have influenced how I view with the world around me. In Part I, I focused on books I read in the 1980s and 1990s that initially radicalized me about how I view being part of the natural world. In Part II, I focused on books that I read in the 2000s, and in today’s post I will focus on environmental books that I’ve read over the last decade and have had a significant influence in how I think.
Here are those books that influenced my thinking at that time:
Slow Violence and the Environmentalism of the Poor, by Rob Nixon
The Green New Deal and Beyond: Ending the Climate Emergency While We Still Can, by Stan Cox
The End of Ice: Bearing Witness and Finding Meaning in the Path of Climate Disruption, by Dahr Jamail
Climate Change as Class War: Building Socialism on a Warming Planet, by Matthew T. Huber
This Is Not A Drill: An Extinction Rebellion Handbook, by Extinction Rebellion
Planet on Fire: A Manifesto for the Age of Environmental Breakdown, by Mathew Lawrence and Laurie Laybourn-Langton
On Fire: The (Burning) Case for a Green New Deal, bu Naomi Klein
The Red Deal: Indigenous Action to Save Our Earth, by The Red Nation
Future on Fire: Capitalism and the Politics of Climate Change, by David Camfield
How to Blow Up a Pipeline, by Andreas Malm
Is Science Enough?: Forty Critical Questions About Climate Justice, by Aviva Chomsky
Climate Crisis and the Global Green New Deal: The Political Economy of Saving the Planet, by Robert Pollin and Noam Chomsky
All four daily commercial Grand Rapids-based news media reported on the Tuesday night Public Hearing at the City Commission meeting, a hearing specifically on the issue of whether or not the GRPD should purchase and utilize drones.
Now, WXMI 17 did not have a reporter in the room during the public hearing, they simply watched the video recoding of the hearing that the City of Grand Rapids provided online and on their Facebook page.
The problem with not having a reporter in present in the room is that they did see or hear everything that went down on Tuesday, in part because Mayor Bliss suspended the hearing at some point and cut the mic for some who were publicly opposed to drone use by the GRPD.
The channel 17 reporting was lazy, but the largest damage was done by beginning with lengthy portions of Chief Winstrom’s presentation, followed by the lone supporter, even though the lone supporter didn’t get up to speak until 28 people who opposed drones had already spoken. Only after the pro-drone person who spoke, did viewers see comments from those opposed, but just two people. The WXMI 17 story then went back to Winstrom’s presentation and failed to say anything about the fact that the Mayor had suspended the public hearing, or the fact that there was clearly a double standard being applied to those who spoke against drones for the cops and the lone person who spoke in favor. The channel 17 story was a classic example of constructed news that did not adequately reflect what happened at the public hearing.
WOODTV8 was another news outlet that didn’t bother to send a reporter to the hearing on Tuesday, relying soling on the City’s recorded video, also with a clear bias in the constructed news story. The channel 8 story was 1 minute and 49 seconds long, and we only hear two perspectives in the story, the first being from Chief Winstrom who was given 38 seconds of time, followed by just one of those who opposed drone use by the GRPD, who was given 30 seconds of airtime. However, the other 27 who spoke were not heard from in the story and viewers of WOODTV8 would not even know that the Mayor had suspended the public hearing because of the threatening comments from a drone supporter, followed by those who opposed the drones pointing out the double standard that exists at the City Commission meetings, where those who are anti-GRPD are berated and those who are pro-cop are given lots of freedom to violate City Commission protocol.
Now, WZZM 13 did have a reporter present, along with a camera operator, yet despite being present for the 2 hour public hearing, the channel 13 story still gave more airtime to Chief Winstrom and never challenged any of the claims he made in the presentation he gave prior to the public comment period. GRIID was present for the Public Hearing and we wrote about how problematic it was to have the Police Chief give yet another presentation on drones, knowing full well that the Chief would be given more airtime than those who were critical of drone use by the GRPD. GRIID wrote:
It is also important to note that having Chief Winstrom speak first, essentially undermined the public comment period for this Public Hearing. It set a tone and potentially intimidated people who came to speak on this matter. Lastly, his presentation also serves as an “expert testimony” on this topic, whereas the people who spoke during the public comment period are merely providing their “opinion” framework, despite the fact that those who opposed drones for the GRPD had well thought out arguments with sourced facts.
Like the stories from FOX 17 and WZZM 13, the WOODTV8 story presented Winstrom as “the expert” and those who opposed drone use by the cops as just having an opinion, despite the fact that many of those who opposed cited credible sources and had well thought out arguments.
In addition, WZZM 13 did a poor job of communicating why the Mayor suspended the public hearing and the fact that cops quickly surrounded those who spoke out against drones, even though the channel 13 camera operator was present and I witnessed them filming what happened after the public hearing was suspended. This means that the news chief at WZZM 13 made it clear that none of that footage would be used for their story.
Of all the four daily Grand Rapids commercial news outlets, MLive did the best coverage. First, their headline was more reflective of what happened at the public hearing, More than 2 dozen voice opposition to Grand Rapids police drones.
Second, the article begins by saying that there was significant push back against the GRPD use of drones, along with the fact that they stated that there were 28 people who opposed drones. Third, before the article provided more details Public Hearing, the MLive reporter recounted the reason why the Mayor suspended the hearing, citing a comment from the lone supporter of drones who said, Grand Rapids police officer Christopher Schurr “did a great job taking a monster off our street.” Fourth, the MLive article then recounts several arguments provided by those who opposed drones, which the TV coverage failed to do at that level.
The later half of the MLive article was weaker, since it relied primarily on recycled information from previous stories that have done on the GRPD’s proposal to purchase and utilize drones, specifically citing Chief Winstrom and City Manager Mark Washington. Where the MLive article failed, like the TV coverage, was that their reporter never questioned or challenged the claims made by Winstrom or other City officials, they merely reported what happened at the public hearing.
Overall, the coverage from local news media was often biased, omitted much of what happened during the public hearing and often framed the coverage from the point of view of Chief Winstrom. This was specifically the case of the TV coverage, which provided way more comments from Chief Winstrom than they did from the 28 people who spoke against drones. Lastly, the failure of local news reporters to question or verify the claims of City officials or Chief Winstrom is a major flaw in how they do journalism in general.
Since February, GRIID has been writing about the GRPD’s proposal to purchase and utilize drones as technology for their practice of policing in Grand Rapids.
From the very beginning GRIID has critiqued both the news media’s coverage of said proposal and the GRPD’s narrative about what they would use drones for. In a February 22nd post, we critiqued the coverage from MLive, which was based on proposal that police Chief Eric Winstrom made to the Public Safety Committee in regards to obtaining drones.
On March 29th, GRIID once again critiqued the local news coverage of Chief Winstrom’s presentation to the Public Safety Committee, where the news agencies failed to ask important and probing questions about the GRPD’s proposal to use drones. On the very next day, March 30th, GRIID presented its own analysis of what the GRPD presented to the Public Safety Committee. Earlier this week, we provided a critique of a survey that the City of Grand Rapids sent out, which we believe to be misleading and even deceptive in regards to the GRPD’s proposal to use drones.
Public Hearing on the GRPD’s proposal to use drones
Last nights public hearing on the issue of the GRPD using drones started off poorly, in terms of process. I say that because when the Public Hearing on the GRPD’s acquisition and use of drones the police chief was given the floor to do yet another powerpoint on why the GRPD needs drones. The presentation that Chief Winstrom gave was essentially the same presentation he gave at the Public Safety Committee meeting previously, which we reported on March 30th, which also included a link to the video presentation that Winstrom gave then.
It is also important to note that having Chief Winstrom speak first, essentially undermined the public comment period for this Public Hearing. It set a tone and potentially intimidated people who came to speak on this matter. Lastly, his presentation also serves as an “expert testimony” on this topic, whereas the people who spoke during the public comment period are merely providing their “opinion” framework, despite the fact that those who opposed drones for the GRPD had well thought out arguments with sourced facts.
Surveillance curates mistrust
There were numerous arguments against the GRPD’s proposal to purchase and utilize drones, such as an invasion of privacy. Other points that were made centered around issues like a lack of public trust that the cops would not abuse the use of drones, the litany of current lawsuits that the GRPD is already facing around civil rights violations, that drones would be used to monitor and target activists and organizers, plus the defund the police argument, which says that money for drones should be redirected to meet community needs and not expand the already bloated police budget.
There were also some people who felt that this public hearing was merely a formality and that it had already been decided that the GRPD would get whatever they wanted.
I counted 28 people who opposed the GRPD’s proposal to use drones and only one person in support. There were other people who were lined up to speak who would have expressed opposition to drones for cops, but the Mayor suspended the Public Hearing.
The one supporter of the GRPD’s proposal to use drones said during their comment, that former Grand Rapids police officer Christopher Schurr “did a great job taking a monster off our street.” Many of those in attendance took offense at Patrick Lyoya being referred to as a monster, especially since Schurr shot Lyoya in the back of the head while sitting on top of him.
However, the reason that the Mayor suspended to public hearing was more complicated than the reaction people have to the comment about Patrick Lyoya. The person who made the comment, when walking back to their seat lobbed a verbal threat against some of those seated in the front that had already spoken against drones. One of those members got up and approached Chief Winstrom and said, “this person just threatened people, what are you going to do about it?” Winstrom did nothing and in fact that the cops who were there last night began to surround those who opposed drones while the white woman who made threatening and despicable comments was left alone. This was the context for why the meeting was suspended by the Mayor…….white privilege.
My comments for the public hearing
I have been part of an organized effort to oppose the GRPD from purchasing and utilizing drones since the proposal was first announced earlier this year. We have created educational material and invited people to sign our statement of opposition, with some 660 letters already sent to this elected body.
I also saw the City’s survey about the GRPD’s proposal to use drones, a survey I found to be misleading and deceptive. While I understand that the City already has a policy in place on technology use by the GRPD, this policy is ultimately meaningless, since Grand Rapids City officials can always use Extenuating Circumstances as a justification to use drones to monitor activists, organizers or protests whenever they feel like it.
The issue of Extenuating Circumstances was discussed in an April 11 article on MLive, where City Manager Mark Washington said that drones could be used to monitor protests that aren’t permitted and are potentially interfering with roadways. In case there is any confusion about that, most of the autonomous groups that I have been involved with in recent years NEVER obtain a permit to protest, because we do not need your permission or anyone else’s permission to protest or resist oppression. Many of these same groups also engage in disruptive tactics, like shutting down traffic. Disruption of business as usual is a longstanding tradition that has been practiced by social movements since the Abolitionist movement in the 19th Century, the labor movement, anti-war movements, the Civil Rights Movement, the Environmental Justice Movement, the Climate Justice Movement, the Immigrant Justice Movement, the Disability Justice Movement and the LGBTQ Movement. We believe we are in pretty damn good company when we use disruptive tactics.
In that same MLive article from April 11, it also stated that drones may be used by the GRPD “in the case of civil unrest and large gatherings where an aerial view is necessary to ensure safety and minimize the number of officers involved on the street,” Chief Winstrom wrote to commissioners in an April 11 memo.” Again, Extenuating Circumstances is the rational that can and will be used in these circumstances.
Another thing about the recent survey on drones that was deceptive was in Question #2 of the survey where it stated that drone use including reporting all deployments, making photos/video subject to records retention policies and available under FOIA records requests. This might sound like transparency, but the fact remains that even if someone submits a FOIA request it doesn’t mean that the GRPD will honor that request to turn over any and all documentation. For example, when we submitted a FOIA request to the GRPD in 2019, a request that focused on all of the GRPD monitoring & surveillance of Movimiento Cosecha’s 2019 May Day march, we received 271 pages the GRPD had on that action. However, between 80 and 85% of those 271 pages were redacted, they were blacked out, so we couldn’t read what the GRPD was doing or saying about the surveillance of the immigrant justice movement that is deeply committed to non-violence. We paid $551 for the 271 pages, with most of the content redacted. This is all to say that if the City of Grand Rapids allows the GRPD to use drones, then the public should know that if they submit a FOIA request on drone use by the GRPD, the GRPD gets to decide what information they chose to share, which is the complete opposite of the concept of transparency.
With that I simply want to urge this elected body to reject the GRPD’s request to purchase and utilize drones, which in the end will be used to monitor, surveil and target activists, organizers and autonomous groups that are committed to fighting against repression and fighting for collective liberation.
Grand Rapids Institute for Information Democracy 