… Are we still living under the legacy of the Dred Scott decision?
… Struggling to go from the defensive to the offensive

We were all outraged and moved to action by the legal lynching of Trayvon Martin and the acquittal of his murderers – not just George Zimmerman, who pulled the trigger, but also the historic reality of white supremacy deeply embedded within the development of US and global capitalism. Indeed, the system worked precisely as it was designed to.

Centuries of struggle have not yet ended the racial and political oppression and economic exploitation that rain down on our working class communities. Whatever struggle brings us into the movement, we find ourselves fighting the same system that oppresses, exploits, dispossesses and destroys in infinite ways.

History teaches us that in the run-up to the Civil War, Roger B. Taney, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, declared in his opinion on March 6, 1857 that "they [Blacks"> had no rights which the white man was bound to respect."** The Dred Scott decision helped spark the Civil War in its day.

Two centuries and many struggles later, what rights did Trayvon Martin have? Did he have the right to walk down street, to go to the store for skittles and tea, to wear a hoodie, to stand his ground, to defend himself? Trayvon was denied all these rights under the law. The State initially refused to arrest George Zimmerman or to prosecute him for killing Trayvon for simply doing these things. The jury found Zimmerman not guilty and set him free.

Thousands of young Black and Brown men and women live in this moment under repressive laws such as stop and frisk, the castle law, stand your ground, etc. And every year hundreds are murdered in cold blood at the hands of the State. Clearly the problem is not only the laws, but the way they are enforced, e.g., racial profiling. Witness Marissa Alexander, sentenced in Florida to 22 years for protecting herself.

So we return to our question – in the 21st century do Blacks have any rights that the State and society are bound to respect? The strategic question is what will living under the legacy of Dred Scott spark us to do today?

The Zimmerman verdict has given rise to many activities that we are part of and support. Given this reality and context, what do we have to do to resolve these problems so deeply embedded in the history, structures, institutions, ideology and culture of society? We have endured the long historical continuity and consistent attack on our communities of colour and working class communities. We have fought every attack, and made some gains, but we have not solved the root cause of our problems. We have to move from defensive struggles against individual atrocities and attacks to an offensive struggle against the whole system that is at the root.

This moment requires a huge and unified social movement in the U.S. with millions of politically conscious people to ensure victory for the arising social motion in the interests of humanity and the planet – especially the oppressed, exploited, and dispossessed. The US Social Forum is playing a role in pushing forward strategic US movement development through the dynamic interrelation of local and regional struggles, and the emergence of a national movement in relation to global movements.

Through the People’s Movement Assembly process the social forum works to bring forces in motion and in struggle from the bottom-up into closer relationship, deeper political alignment and movement cohesion, and to stay the course from short term battles to long haul fundamental systemic change.

The US Social Forum process is striving to step up and take its place in history by advancing the interests of working class, low-income, and grassroots struggles. The moment is urgent and the opportunities are great.

** Roger B. Taney's "Opinion of the Court" stated that Negroes were not citizens of the United States and had no right to bring suit in a federal court. In addition, Dred Scott had not become a free man as a result of his residence at Fort Snelling because the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional; Congress had no authority to prohibit slavery in the federal territories. Furthermore, Dred Scott did not become free based on his residence at Fort Armstrong (Rock Island), because his status, upon return to Missouri, depended upon Missouri law as determined in Scott v. Emerson. Because Dred Scott was not free under either the provisions of the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 or the 1820 Missouri Compromise, he was still a slave, not a citizen with the right to bring suit in the federal court system. According to Taney's opinion, African Americans were "beings of an inferior order, so far inferior, that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect." (Kaufman 221). Taney returned the case to the circuit court with instructions to dismiss it for want of jurisdiction (Credit: Missouri Historical Society).

The Accountability and Coordination Team of the National Planning Committee
US Social Forum
July 24, 2013

* BROUGHT TO YOU BY PAMBAZUKA NEWS

* Please do not take Pambazuka for granted! Become a Friend of Pambazuka and make a donation NOW to help keep Pambazuka FREE and INDEPENDENT!

* Please send comments to editor[at]pambazuka[dot]org or comment online at Pambazuka News.