DNR Land Auction met with resistance in Lansing
On Wednesday, the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (DNR) hosted one of its bi-annual auctions for leasing mineral rights for oil & gas companies across the state.
We reported about the resistance to the DNR land auction in May, since the method known as fracking is becoming more common as a means to extract natural gas throughout the country. At the DNR auction that took place yesterday, there was another wave of resistance that involved numerous tactics.
Registration for the DNR auction began at 8am on October 24 and dozens of people were already outside holding signs in opposition to the auctioning off of land rights to companies only interested in profits and not environmental protection or public health.
In addition to those who protested outside, some people released a banner attached to balloons inside, while others who sat in the room where the auction was taking place began to express their opposition to the land auction through chants and signs.
At one point several people stepped over the divider separating the public seating and the bidder seating, locked arms and sat of the floor in an act of civil disobedience. Simultaneously, there were some noise tools released to disrupt the auction and then the whole room began chanting in opposition to fracking and the arrest of those who sat down.
Nearly everyone who wasn’t a bidder, which included about 60 people, continued chanting for sometime, until one protestor got everyone’s attention by using a technique commonly used during Occupy gatherings. The protestor said mic-check and people stopped chanting. Then this person told us that the cops were now going to tell the rest of those in the room what “their rights were.”
This was an unfortunate outcome, since it not only took away the momentum from the crowd, it also gave legitimacy to the police.
A DNR cop told those in the room who were attempting to disrupt the DNR auction, that if they spoke up or made any kind of noise once the auction process began that they would be “evicted from the space or arrested.”
Now everyone is quiet and the auction is able to proceed. However, once they began bidding on public land for oil & gas rights and announcing that specific parcels of land were sold, people began to say, “stolen, not sold. This land is now stolen.” When people began say this they were quickly approached by DNR officers, grabbed and escorted out of the room.
Once out of the room, officers took down information and told each person removed from the auction that they had to leave the building and if they re-entered they would be immediately arrested.
This tactic of verbally disrupting he auction went on for some time and dozens of people were forced to leave the Lansing Center, where the DNR auction was being held. Many people then gathered out front and either continued to have a physical presence in opposition to the DNR granting fracking rights to private companies or they talk with people from other communities, networking and talking about upcoming events and action possibilities.
Later on in the day the fire alarm in the Lansing Center went off, which brought the fire department in and over a hundred high school students out who were attending another event inside. However, when the student came out, many of them joined in with the protestors, chanting, holding signs and getting an education in the politics of fracking.
In addition to this there were people who were doing jail solidarity, since at least six people were arrested and being detained by the DNR police and held at the Lansing City jail. A lawyer and several other activists were able to determine that those arrested were being charge with both felonies and misdemeanors and would not be arraigned until the next day (Thursday).
Charging people with felonies was clearly a tactic to not only intimidate people, but to send a message to future actions that might try to disrupt or shut down a DNR land auction.
However, lots of people pitched in funds and by the time this writer left, it appeared that enough money was raised to bail out people who had been arrested. Anyone wanting to financially supports those who were arrested, you can contribute at this link http://lansingstopfrackingfund.chipin.com/bail-money-to-stop-fracking.
Many people were still involved in protesting the DNR auction even at 3pm, when this writer left the Lansing Center area and it was clear that a diverse group of people came from all over the state with the intent to protest and disrupt the DNR land auction that will allow oil & gas companies to drilling and extract fossil fuels from public land.
The Resistance Continues!
Money is Speech: A Musical History of Campaign Finance
The following video is re-posted from Pro Publica. Editor’s note: While this is a creative way to look at the history of campaign finance or the injection of money into political campaigns, posting this video is not an endorsement of the electoral process, rather a means to help understand ways in which power functions in this country.
Below are the lyrics to this Musical History of Campaign Finance.
Act I: Brown Paper Bags
“I made my mistakes, but in all my years of public life, I have never profited [from public service]. I’ve earned every cent.” (Richard Nixon)
“Money is speech.” (Jeff Greenfield) “The more speech the better.” (Antonin Scalia) “Money is speech.” (Jeff Greenfield) “I’ve earned every cent.” (Richard Nixon) “Money is speech.” (Jeff Greenfield) “The more speech the better.” (Antonin Scalia) “I don’t like all the influence of money in politics.” (Mitt Romney)
When people think of Watergate they think of a break-in But they don’t mention the money that Nixon was taking From wealthy donors to help him get reelected Nixon paid them back in favors just like they expected
To battle corruption Congress passed a new law Capping contributions to a candidate’s haul The source of the donations had to be disclosed too And the FEC was formed to enforce the new rules
Some who felt the law went against the Constitution sued Saying limits on money limited free speech too So the courts kept the cap on how much you can donate But said spending was unlimited by an outside group or candidate
That meant no more spending limits to promote a cause Or to point out a rival campaign’s flaws So while candidates once snuck around with brown paper bags From then on they raised money publicly or left it to PACs
“Money is speech.” (Jeff Greenfield) “The more speech the better.” (Antonin Scalia) “Money is speech.” (Jeff Greenfield) “I’ve earned every cent.” (Richard Nixon) “Money is speech.” (Jeff Greenfield) “The more speech the better.” (Antonin Scalia) “I don’t like all the influence of money in politics.” (Mitt Romney)
Act II: Soft Money
“We should also curb the role of big money in elections by capping the cost of campaigns…” (Bill Clinton)
In the 80s and 90s, there was a new gimmick: “Soft money” that’s disclosed but had no limits It’s supposed to cover each party’s expenses But guys like Clinton used it to help their election chances
There was just one problem, Clinton’s party was broke So he asked for more money every time he spoke And in return for the 100 million dollar cash-in He let donors use the Lincoln Bedroom to crash in
Then the “scandal and reform” cycle happened again And legislation was proposed by Feingold and McCain It capped donations to parties, ending soft funds And banned corporate/union issue ads right before elections
But with each new reform comes new loopholes Tax exempt “527s” arose Because they weren’t explicit about whom they supported Many still raised money without limits to thwart them
“Money is speech.” (Jeff Greenfield) “The more speech the better.” (Antonin Scalia) “Money is speech.” (Jeff Greenfield) “I’ve earned every cent.” (Richard Nixon) “Money is speech.” (Jeff Greenfield) “The more speech the better.” (Antonin Scalia) “The rules are what they are…” (Jay Carney)
Act III: Super PACs and Non-Profits
“I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests.” (Barack Obama)
But the most outside money was yet to be spent Some argued spending limits broke the first amendment “Corporations and unions are entitled to free speech” They took it to court, the Supreme Court agreed.
Super PACs can raise as much money as they want They can also use union and corporate funds The only rule is they cannot coordinate With a specific party or a specific candidate
But reform opponents weren’t quite done yet. They found new uses for 501(c)(4) non-profits Which are a lot like Super PACs with more mystery. They haven’t had to disclose donors ever in history
Whether Republican or Democrat you might believe That spending limits jeopardize our freedom of speech But with each new cycle of deregulation More money is being injected into our elections.
New Video is the Coca Cola 16 case against racism
Earlier today we received the October newsletter for the Killer Coke Campaign. There is always a wealth of information in the monthly newsletter and this month’s is no different.
The most recent Killer Coke newsletter contains mostly information on the Coke 16, which are the Coca Cola workers that have been the target of racist discrimination by the company, despite claims that Coke is an anti-discrimination company.
There is an excellent downloadable document on the case of the Coke 16, several new videos, including testimony from Coca Cola workers and this new video, which provides an introduction to the Coke 16 case.
Behind the scenes video from Frankenstein for President
This short video includes commentary from the Director of Frankenstein for President, Matt Judge. There is also some commentary from a few of the actors and information on the premier screening of the film (October 26) as well as information on the Bloom Collective, which has been the main organizational supporter of this locally produced film.
Do CEOs have a hard time sleeping at night?
Obama Aides Launch Preemptive Attack on New Iran Plan
This article by Gareth Porter is re-posted from ZNet.
Although the place and time of the next round of talks on Iran’s nuclear programme have not yet been announced, the manoeuvring by Iran and the United States to influence the outcome has already begun.
Iran sought support for a revised proposal to the talks during the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) last month, according to a New York Times report Oct. 4. Then, only a few days later, the Barack Obama administration launched a preemptive attack on the proposal through New York Times reporter David Sanger.
The officials suggested the Iranian proposal would give Iran an easier route to a “breakout” to weapons grade uranium enrichment. But that claim flies in the face of some obvious realities.
An Oct. 4 story by Sanger reported that Iran had begun describing a “9-step plan” to diplomats at the UNGA and quoted administration officials as charging that the proposal would not “guarantee that Iran cannot produce a weapon”. Instead, the officials argued, it would allow Iran to keep the option of resuming 20-percent enriched uranium, thus being able to enrich to weapons grade levels much more quickly.
Iran’s nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili issued a denial that Iran had “delivered any new proposal other than what had been put forward in talks with the P5+1″. But that statement did not constitute a denial that Iran was discussing such a proposal, because the Times story had said the proposal had been initially made to European officials during the P5+1 meeting in Istanbul in July.
Obama administration officials complained that, under the Iranian plan, Iran would carry out a “suspension” of 20-percent enrichment only after oil sanctions have been lifted and oil revenues are flowing again.
That description of the proposal is consistent with an Iranian “five-step plan”, presented during the talks with P5+1, the text of which was published by Arms Control Today last summer. In that proposal, the P5+1 would have ended all sanctions against Iran in steps one and two, but Iran would have ended its 20-percent enrichment only in the fifth step.
In that same final step, however, Iran also would have closed down the Fordow enrichment plant and transferred its entire stockpile of 20-percent enriched uranium to “a third country under IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) custody”.
Iran has made clear that it intends to use the 20-percent enrichment as bargaining leverage to achieve an end to the most damaging economic sanctions.
Ambassador Seyed Hossein Mousavian, the spokesperson for Iran’s nuclear negotiating team from 2003 to 2005 and now a visiting scholar at Princeton University, told IPS, “Iran is prepared to stop 20-percent enrichment and go below five percent. The question is what will the P5+1 provide in return. As long as the end state of a comprehensive agreement is not clear for Iran, it will not consider halting enrichment at 20 percent.”
But the administration’s portrayal of the Iranian proposal as offering a sanctions-free path to continued 20-percent enrichment is highly misleading, according to close observers of the Iran nuclear issue. It also ignores elements of the proposal that would minimise the risk of a “breakout” to enrichment of uranium to weapons grade levels.
The Obama administration criticism of the proposal, as reported by Sanger, was couched in such a way as to justify the U.S. refusal to discuss lifting the sanctions on Iranian oil exports during the four rounds of talks with Iran. A senior administration official was quoted as saying that Iran “could restart the program in a nanosecond,” whereas “it would take years” to re-impose the sanctions.
Paul Pillar, national intelligence officer for Near East and South Asia from 2000 to 2005, noted in a commentary in The National Interest that it is “far easier to impose sanctions on Iran than to lift them” and that if Iran reneged on a nuclear agreement, “it would be easier still.”
Peter Jenkins, British permanent representative to the IAEA from 2001 to 2006, noted in an e-mail to IPS that it took the EU only two months to agree to impose oil sanctions, and that “political resistance among the 27 (EU member states) to imposing oil sanctions would probably be less if re-imposition were required by an Iranian breach of a deal with the P5+1.”
Jenkins pointed out that EU oil purchases from Iran now have experience in getting supplies from other countries which could make re-imposing sanctions even easier.
One U.S. official was quoted by Sanger as complaining that the Iranian proposal would allow Iran to “move the fuel around, and it stays in the country”. That description appeared to hint that the purpose is to give Tehran the option of a breakout to weapons grade enrichment.
But the biggest difference between the proposal now being discussed by Iranian diplomats and the one offered last summer is that the new proposal reflects the reality that Iran began last spring to convert 20-percent enriched uranium into U308 in powdered form for fuel plates for its Tehran Research Reactor.
The conversion of 20 percent enriched uranium to U308, which was documented but not highlighted in the Aug. 30 IAEA report, makes it more difficult to use that same uranium for enrichment to weapons grade levels.
The new Iranian proposal evidently envisions U308 uranium remaining in the country for use by the Tehran Research Reactor rather than the entire stockpile of 20-percent enriched uranium being shipped to another country as in its previous proposal.
Former State Department official Mark Fitzpatrick of the International Institute of Strategic Studies, who has argued in the past that the only purpose Iran could have in enriching to 20 percent is a nuclear weapon, told the Times that the conversion “tends to confirm that there is civilian purpose in enriching to this level”.
But Fitzpatrick told the Times that the Iranians know how to reconvert the U308 powder back to a gaseous form that can then be used for weapons grade enrichment. “It would not take long to set it up,” Fitzpatrick said.
In an interview with IPS, Dr. Harold A. Feiveson, a senior research scientist at Princeton’s Woodrow Wilson’s school and a specialist on nuclear weapons, said “it would not be super hard” to carry out such a reconversion.
But Feiveson admitted that he is not aware of anyone ever having done it. The reconversion to 20 percent enrichment “would be pretty visible” and “would take some time,” said Feiveson. “You would have to kick the (IAEA) inspectors out.”
Even Israeli policymakers have acknowledged that Iran’s diversion of 20-percent enriched uranium represents a step away from a breakout capability, as Haaretz reported Oct. 9.
Defence ministry sources told the Israeli daily that the Iran’s reduction of its stockpile of medium-enriched uranium had added “eight months at least” to what the Israeli government has cited as its “deadline” on Iran. The same sources said it was the justification for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s dropping the threat of attack on Iran in his U.N. speech.
The deep reduction in Iranian oil revenues from sanctions and the recent plunge in the value of Iran’s currency may well have made Iran more interested in compromise than when the talks with the P5+1 started in April.
Mousavian told IPS, “I am convinced that Iran is ready for a package deal based on recognition of two principles.” The first principle, he said, is that “Iran recognises the P5+1 concerns and will remove all such concerns”; the second is that the P5+1 “recognises the rights of Iran and gradually lifts sanctions”.
But Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has expressed serious doubts about whether the Obama administration is willing to end the sanctions on Iran under any circumstances. In an Oct. 10 speech, Khamenei said the Americans “lie” in suggesting sanctions would be lifted in return for Iran giving up its nuclear program.
U.S. officials “make decisions out of grudge and aversion (toward Iran)”, Khamenei said.
Porn Stars & Sinners in Grand Rapids: A Feminist Interpretation
Yesterday, MLive posted a story about “porn star” Ron Jeremy’s visit to a West Michigan church.
The article talked about how the pastor at Daybreak Church invited Jeremy to share the stage with him and “guest pastor Craig Gross, an anti-pornography pastor who Jeremy counts as a close friend.”
Jeremy and the Daybreak pastor discussed how everyone is a sinner and is in need of saving. Ron Jeremy also apparently said that lots of “porn stars believe in God.” The bulk of the article provides lots of commentary from Jeremy who acknowledged that he still makes pornographic films.
So what can one make of this visit to West Michigan by Ron Jeremy? Well, it’s not the first time he has been here or the first time he has appeared with Pastor of XXX Church, Craig Gross.
The two men have “debated” pornography before in West Michigan, but their debates, like Jeremy’s recent visit, is rooted in the idea that pornography is wrong because it promotes sex outside of marriage.
Talking about pornography in a religious context is also a way to attract younger churchgoers, which the XXX Church is known to do, with its hip graphics of youth sporting tattoos and wearing shirts that say, “Jesus Loves Porn Stars.”
Such an analysis, or lack thereof, of the pornographic industry omits what many feminists believe to be the more important and relevant analysis.
Ever since Catherine MacKinnon and Andrea Dworkin began to challenge pornography from a feminist perspective, the discussion about pornography has shifted from just sex to harm. These two fierce feminists paved the way for many others since then, such as Jane Caputi, Diana E.H. Russell and Gail Dines to use a feminist analysis of pornography so that instead of just talking about frivolous sexual behavior, we could talk about pornography as a means of objectification, exploitation, violence and global capitalism.
This changes the very nature of the false debate between the like of Ron Jeremy and Craig Gross, two men who want to moralize pornography instead of thinking critically about the impact of one of the most profitable media industries.
According to the work of Gail Dines and Robert Jensen, the estimated profits from global pornography is $57 Billion. Comparatively, Hollywood films make roughly $23 Billion annually from global sales. In addition, there are roughly 4.2 million pornographic websites and 68 million daily porn searches.
Beyond the shear amount of pornography now available in the digital age, the issue of the harm done is what Dines and Jensen focus on. In the film The Price of Pleasure, feminist critics of pornography point to the dehumanizing nature of the current mass-produced pornography. Most pornography is produced by and for men, thus women’s bodies are merely to be consumed and tossed aside. Dines and Jensen have interviewed hundreds of porn producers and other people who have worked in the industry and what they have come to find as the norm is reflected in the following comment:
“Women were born with three holes for one purpose: To cram a cock deep inside every cuddly cavity! Like true cock sockets, our whores subject their beautiful bodies to the nastiest 4-way debauchery ever lensed.”
— Cover description of Zero Tolerance: No Holes Barred (DVD)
Women who have been consumed by the porn industry are tossed aside once they no longer fit the necessary role as object of male fantasy.
However, what Dines and Jensen have also done is looked at the harm done to men who consume pornography. Both argue that it negatively impacts men’s ability to enjoy healthy sexual intimacy with their partners, since they have become accustomed to the instant gratification of non-consensual and male pleasure-focus imagery of pornography. Here are other consequences of regular porn consumption by men:
Much more could be said about this topic, which is a perspective you will not get from porn stars like Ron Jeremy, despite his willingness to visit churches in West Michigan.
Lastly, here is an interview we did with Robert Jensen when he visited West Michigan in 2008, while on book tour with Getting Off: Pornography and the End of Masculinity.
Bloom Collective to host premier screening of Frankenstein for President this Friday
This Friday, the Bloom Collective will host a public screening of the locally produced film, Frankenstein for President.
The film is seasonal in two ways. First, it is a zombie & vampire film just in time for Halloween. Second, it is seasonal in that it takes a satirical look at elections in the US.
Frankenstein for President is about the monsters of capitalism, how the system creates zombies and how elections become not only a distraction from the real pressing issues of the day, but how it justifies a system that is designed to benefit the privileged few.
Frankenstein for President
Friday, October 26
8:00PM
8 Jefferson SE, Grand Rapids – right next to Bartertown
The event is also a costume party, so feel free to dress up. The event is free and open to the public, but donations will be accepted and DVDs of the film will be available for purchase. There will also be refreshments, music and dancing. For updates go to http://www.facebook.com/events/128327400649409/?fref=ts
Fracking Poisoning Families at Alarming Rate
This article is re-posted from Common Dreams.
Residents living near gas fracking sites suffer an increasingly high rate of health problems now linked to pollutants used in the gas extraction process, according to a new report released Thursday.
The study, conducted by Earthworks’ Oil & Gas Accountability Project, pulled from a survey of 108 Pennsylvania residents in 14 counties, and a series of air and water tests. The results showed close to 70 percent of participants reported an increase in throat irritation and roughly 80 percent suffered from sinus problems after natural gas extraction companies moved to their areas. The symptoms intensify the closer the residents are to the fracking sites.
“We use water for nothing other than flushing the commode,” said Janet McIntyre referring to the now toxic levels of water on her land, which neighbors a fracking site. McIntyre said her entire family, including their pets, suffered from a wide array of health problems including projectile vomiting and skin rashes, indicative of other families’ symptoms in the areas surveyed. Other symptoms include sinus, respiratory, fatigue, and mood problems.
“Twenty-two households reported that pets and livestock began to have symptoms (such as seizures or losing hair) or suddenly fell ill and died after gas development began nearby,” the report finds.
After taking water and air samples, Earthworks detected chemicals that have been linked to oil and gas operations and also directly connected to many of the symptoms reported in the survey on the resident’s properties. This study showed a higher concentration of ethylbenzene and xylene, volatile compounds found in petroleum hydrocarbons, at the households as compared to control sites.
“For too long, the oil and gas industry and state regulators have dismissed community members’ health complaints as ‘false’ or ‘anecdotal’,” said Nadia Steinzor, the project’s lead author. “With this research, they cannot credibly ignore communities any longer.”
According to a separate report released earlier this month, EPA regulators are having trouble keeping up with the “rapid pace” of shale oil and gas development, due to a lack in resources, staff, data and a number of legal loopholes.
This article by Tolu Olorunda is re-posted from Dissident Voice.
This is the life of the poor; this is the perpetual cry I hear.
— Khalil Gibran, Spirits Rebellious
“A house is not just a roof over somebody. It must have all the necessities that a human being needs. Because even this beautiful museum, if there is no water, no light, this is not a museum. It’s a slum,” Mnikelo Ndabankulu said this past Sunday afternoon inside the Charles H. Wright Museum, where Dear Mandela, a Sundance grant-funded film about the South African shack dwellers movement, was being screened. “For us, a house, a structure in the middle of nowhere is not a house. It’s a shelter. But it becomes a house when there are clinics, schools, shops—infrastructure—around” — the words of Zodwa Nsibande, a fellow member of the shack dwellers movement, Abahlali baseMjondolo, visiting Detroit from South Africa.
They were being hosted for the weekend by Welfare Rights, a long-running grassroots organization in Detroit. The activists touched briefly, while their film screened inside the museum’s theater, on a recurring scene in their travels. Through their 8-city nationwide visit, Detroit being the 7th, they had noticed an invariably older crowd. This is, of course, not the norm worldwide, where the young tend to be active socio-politically. Imagine, Zodwa said, a young South African saying: “Because my fathers and mothers fought for liberation I don’t have to fight for it.” This would suggest struggle is a project with an end date, rather than an endless process of resistance to any and all forms of oppression.
In Durban, their oppression is multi-layered, but central to it Land.
Abahlali baseMjondolo was formed in 2005 as a response to rising attacks on informal settlements, using education of the law as the main weapon. We see in Dear Mandela an emphasized knowledge of the constitution to resist the illegal evictions and rebuild what is destroyed.
“We don’t have resources,” Mnikelo said. “We only have masses and political ideology. So we have to force the government to do what the constitution says.”
The notion seems almost foreign in this land where apathy clouds the day and people have “ceased to ask anymore” of government than that, in the words of Hannah Arendt, it “show due consideration for their vital interests and personal liberty.” And yet, justice takes a different orientation in a land with 3.5 million homeless people and 18.5 million vacant homes, a land with acres upon acres of rich soil waiting for builders with axes and hammers. From country to country, the contrast is sharp.
“In South Africa, we’re fighting for land,” Mnikelo said, envisioning a much-different scenario in Durban. “When we build these shacks, the government doesn’t always say, Yes. Government says, No; we say, Yes. … [Here in Detroit], if people want those empty buildings to be theirs, they would take them over.”
Unity is key for any meaningful victory, Zodwa said. There would have to be coalitions of homeless people to begin organizing and occupying. But organizing should have a strategic definition, contextual and conscious of its surrounding. “Everything that we do is determined by the time and space that we’re living in,” she said, speaking of Abahlali, which actively represents 25,000 dwellers from 64 settlements. “In our movement, we’ve got two kinds of people. People who are good with negotiating.” This group is put into the boardrooms to lobby municipality officials for housing needs and upgrades. “And there are people who don’t care about negotiating, who only want resistance—so you put them in the streets.”
We get a glimpse of these streets in the chaotic opening scenes of Dear Mandela as a crowd of protesters scream and flee from rubber bullets fired upon them by police officers. They are nonviolent, poor activists fighting for a human right: housing. But they are also fighting for their community; each settlement is held tight together by family values: sharing, participation, support, solidarity. “You don’t pass by when people are building a house” we hear early on in the film.
In one scene, government goons called Red Ants have descended upon a settlement. Cloaked in jail jumpsuit red, they are contracted to chop down shacks, usually while the resident students or workers are out for the day. “They don’t talk, they just do the chopping.” Flanked around them are soldiers with rifles drawn, ready to fire. And yet, as is mentioned, “people build anyway because they don’t have nowhere else to go.” They are simply disobeying an immoral law, an act of self-determination.
They are also asking some salient questions, such as: what is a slum? what is a house? What is a settlement? As Zodwa mentioned, there’s been a shift recently to move semantically beyond “House” to “Human Settlement” because “Human Settlement comprises of all elements that make a human being.”
Dear Mandela plays on the screen touching moments of simple, everyday humanity forged by deep social bonds. It also tells the complex story of South African life. Close-up shots of shacks are offered against a lavish wine-filled gala at “Emperor’s Palace” thrown by the Department of Housing to congratulate itself in curbing the shack problem and restoring order to society. Like life, Dear Mandela is a journey of tragedy and triumph. A light moment is grained against the ever-present looming fears of random, brutal eviction; and yet, victory does come through struggle. The title evokes the central narrative of the so-called New South Africa, of a post-Mandela generation fighting for freedoms promised but never realized; as Mnikelo notes in one scene, “I do not like the fact that what he has been jailed for has never been achieved.”
The film was shot between 2007 and 2012, capturing the heart of the movement’s struggle before and after the devastating Slums Act of 2007. South African-born filmmaker Dara Kell was present and talked of “people telling their own story in their own way, and coming in with an attitude of respect, rather than trying to be a director and having a vision and making a film that fits into your vision.” Especially when covering a life-and-death struggle. “I mean, it is creating a process because you decide what to focus on,” she continued. “You are building a certain narrative.”
Kell and her co-filmmaker ultimately “wanted to create a cinematic experience, a beautiful film to watch.” And yet it’s a haunting experience, evoking strong emotions because we see the raw brutality of Power in its inability to concede anything—even basic human rights guaranteed to all—without fierce, prolonged, often blood-dashing demand.
The film begins with helicopter shots flying over Durban panning large swaths of land checkered by informal settlements. It’s a humbling moment, for if one were to skim over Detroit, it would be a different scene. It would be of a three story brick structure decorated with bright fall flowers and manicured lawns next to a series of ecological ruins, of weeds, roof-high, swallowing unoccupied, decomposing houses.
Following the screening, during a discussion with the activists, Marian Kramer, co-president of the National Welfare Rights Union, drew the parallels between the land and home struggles from Durban to Detroit. “This struggle going on in South Africa: we’re not there yet, as far as people building their houses, but we’re getting there,” she said. “When you don’t have your own bed to live in and you have to stay on somebody’s couch, you’re homeless. These houses are out here that people should be occupying, and people are looking at us like we’re the criminals [for trying to move families in].”
She spoke of the gentrifying of many of Detroit’s neighborhoods, historically Black—the shocking scope of a people abandoned, left to fend for themselves and do-or-die in the age of collateral damage; lives are disposable, entire neighborhoods are allowed to return to nature in real time, sprawled out against land that once held communities.
A stand has to be taken against injustice, she said. “If we don’t start implementing that housing is a human right, then we become a part of the same people taking the homes away from [those in South Africa]. We cannot let folks live in this country without the right to a house. It is not right for people to have two when others can’t get one.”
“Why are we sitting back and letting these banks, the mortgage companies—HUD, Fannie, Freddie Mae, and all of them—get away with it?”
“Cause we’re scared!” Maureen Taylor, state chair of Michigan Welfare Rights, answered. “No backbone!”
“That’s right,” Marian Kramer agreed. “Everybody’s scared. [But] when you get scared you split it into two: there’s scared that pushes you forward to do something and there’s scared that makes you go hide in your house. We want that fear that’s going to push you forward for the future.”
From city to city, country to country, the struggle continues.
