Interview With North American Political Prisoner Marilyn Buck
This interview with U.S. political prisoner Marilyn Buck is a
response to the Newsweek article of September 1993 concerning
Kathryn Anne Power. The interview was for the Downtown, a New York
City weekly, December 1993.
Why do you think Newsweek chose to do the story on Kathy Power at
this time?
In a capitalist society, fame and recognition are commodities,
usually with a very short sales life. The moment is exploited for
all its worth; often times by the individual or institution in the
spotlight, but all the time by the media, the illusion-makers. They
create the saints and the demons.
Captures, particularly surrenders, are moments of celebration
for the state - a chance to affirm its power, despite its being
disavowed or challenged. Imagine challenging the power of the
biggest, baddest domestic and international military machine on the
planet! How dare they, we, she...me! To psychologize, and label
such behaviour as deviant is imperative. Never again does the state
want to see an uncontrollable or unpredictable rise of different
sectors of the population against its policies and programs, or its
existence as such. The U.S. incessantly broadcast that the bombing
of Iraq and the supposed national consensus supporting that
manufactured military manoeuvre has laid to rest the infamy of the
defeat in Vietnam. It has a pathological fear of decolonization and
national self-determination. Standing in the '90s, the propaganda
establishment seizes every opportunity to declare the '60s - that
time of standing up for liberation, justice, self-determination,
and against the status quo of white Amerikka - dead, an aberration.
Kathy Power's surrender was perfect for spectacularization.
Her surrender was a perfect vehicle to reinforce the
"see-what-happens-when-you-stray-from-white-Amerika" line. The is
not the first time sensational stories have hit the press about the
radical returned to the fold. Most recently, there was an interview
in the N.Y. Times, Living Section, with Bernadine Dohrn. There is
a fascination with a woman who defied the system, who she is
today, and a reassurance that she has been cured of "excessive
opposition."
How would you characterize Newsweek's political and ideological
slant on the Power article and the accompanying piece by Jane
Alpert.
Newsweek fulfilled its ideological and political role in how
it presented this story:
Woman-in-misery-because-of-her-political-past. They would have like
to have squeezed out an admission of remorse, but being depressed
had to do.
I think it's interesting that the Newsweek article chose not
to say anything substantial about here current political views. Is
she still anti-racist, pro-Black liberation, against U.S.
imperialism? Her statement upon surrender is not reported in this
article. Perhaps because she did not capitulate in here earlier
beliefs that war was wrong, that Black Liberation was important to
support.
Newsweek ignored what she said, and instead relied on a
pseudo-psychological rendering - focusing on depression and the
Betty Crocker lifestyle (Of course, they forgot to cite any
statistics on the prevalence of clinical depression in white-middle
class women in their forties..) By concentrating on the past, the
"moment" and the flight, as well as the reintegration into the safe
white world, the media did not have to say a word about who Kathy
Power is as a political person living in the world. Another
reassurance to the readers. From reading Newsweek and other
articles, I don't have much of a clue as to who she is socially or
politically. My first response was "oh, the prodigal son/daughter
line".
If Kathy Power's depression doesn't provide an example of
"divine punishment", then Jane's (Alpert) middle Amerikkkan
nightmare should flesh it out - struggle against the system is a
childish illusion, a romantic diversion that turns out no to be
such a lark after all. Jane's piece is intended to say "resistance
doesn't pay", from one who can say she too challenged the state,
but repented. Under the guise of feminism, Alpert continues to be
quite a vocal mouthpiece for reconciliation with the system,
patriarchal or not.
The actual intent of the Newsweek article, as well as the
majority of the "establishment" media, is to continue to
deligitimize resistance to U.S. imperialism and capitalism touted
as democracy. Despite its inherent weaknesses, the U.S. has emerged
more predatory, in the absence of any countervailing power. It is
a warning... "Don't even try it".
Even the "Revisiting the Radical gallery, while stating the
bare facts, is designed to say, "see, it's only a phase, you cannot
win!"
Why do you think Newsweek uses a lot of psychological jargon in
this spread?
Newsweek uses a psychological format to examine "objects" of
its focus. Also to convince people they know what they are talking
about.
The state is obsessed with trying to understand why white
people would "drop out" or challenge the system. They won't admit
that there is something seriously pathological in the system, so
they seek to convince the public there is something wrong with
those who oppose their system.
The expectation and heady sensation of change in the '60s and
'70s may be overwhelmed by two decades of unrelenting conformism
and systematic desensitization of political, social, and moral
conscience, but the reality of oppression, exploitation and social
injustice is greater than ever. It will not disappear. Even now it
is intolerable. Too much white supremacy, too little justice and
too few jobs. The L.A. uprising was only one seismic shock to this
structure. The demand for justice and national liberation has not
subsided.
Here in the oppressor nation, there is still a segment of
white youth who drop out, become anti-establishment punkers drawn
to hip-hop and the rap of the besieged African-American youth, who
are alienated and angry, sometimes not yet exactly sure why, but
squatting, looking for new forms of protest, examining history,
asking questions and rejecting a history of racism and genocide;
youth who are consciously, deliberately opposed to this system.
There are still socialist, anarchists, anti-racists and
anti-fascists. There are thousands and thousands of women lesbians
who refuse to go back. The potential for struggle within this
oppressor nation has not been crushed or thrown into the wastebin
of history.
Are there any similarities between Kathy Power's life and yours?
I am a woman who has lived a number of years in clandestinity.
There are of course some similarities in our lives - being white,
from the middle classes, having become political activists in the
'60s against the war in Vietnam, and for Black Liberation; and we
both lived lives underground. For myself, I know that becoming a
politically active woman was not an overnight experience, that I
was not led by some charismatic character. It was a thoughtful
process, an examination of what the nature of this system is, of my
own role both as object and, more importantly, as subject to fight
the oppression. I do not know Ms. Power's history of
politicization, but I definitely distrust the media's reductionist
scenario of girl-meets-convict-and-is-manipulated.
I think the differences between our lives are more important.
I did not feel it necessary to divorce myself from political
struggle to survive; and I did not surrender when I was captured -
imprisoned without negotiation. There were no peace talks, no
offers of pleas.
Living underground is not a romantic endeavour or diversion,
as Jane Alpert may have initially imagined it to be. It is
difficult and personally heart-wrenching to be separated from one's
family, friends and one's political cohorts. And yet, people all
over the world who have to struggle for survival and against
grinding, brutal oppression, lead lives of value, of resistance, no
matter the deaths, the separations they endure. Being underground
is not about escaping a life not liked nor not fulfilling. Who one
is does not rest on one's name or birthdate, but rather on how one
lives and acts.
It is hard to say much without getting specific, and that I
cannot do. I suspect that is something the state repressive
apparatus would read with great interest.
I remember a conversation I had with a comrade a number of
years ago, at the time that Bernadine Dohrn and her now-husband
Bill Ayers negotiated their own surrenders. The comrade, sadly and
a bit angrily, stated that there was not one of us who were engaged
in the liberation struggle who would not wish to be home, but in
Amerikkka not everyone can do that and live safely secure from
attack. I think that is true.
Certainly it is much more possible for white people than for
people from oppressed nations to do so. I think of the FMLN
comrades who have been assassinated after returning to public life
from clandestinity after all the agreements and international
assurances. I wonder how many more will die at the hands of the
death squads; Salvadoran society is still not safe for
revolutionaries and militants who advocate for social justice, nor
for the everyday working woman, man or child.
Being white gives one privilege, so the possibilities that
exist to surrender are much greater. In this last decade many white
people have retreated, either inured to the escalating racism and
socioeconomic oppression, feeling they have done all they can, are
not to blame, or are frightened at the possible consequences. Ms.
Power retired into the sanctuary of white Amerikkka. By that I mean
that she, as a white women, had the privilege of escaping notice by
retiring into the expected "normal" white life. She did not have to
fear being stopped by the police merely because she looked like a
"suspicious person" White people are not suspicious! Only if one
acts suspicious, refuses to conform. Certainly, in the first period
of flight, there was danger because Ms. Power was suspicious; she
was hunted. The full weight of the repressive apparatus had been
unleashed; radical white women were under attack for having
possible supported her and Susan Saxe. However, after the threats
and intimidation did not work in a number of radical women's
communities because of a refusal to collaborate with grand juries,
the relentless hunt was thwarted, and the danger diminished. The
state was not prepared to terrorize white Amerikkka to capture Ms.
Power, certainly not to the degree it did hunting Angela Davis or
Assata Shakur in Black Amerikkka. Once Ms. Power established a
conforming identity she was relatively safe. But feeling safe and
being safe are not always the same thing. One can be safe and not
feel that. Conversely, one may feel relatively secure, believing
that one has not betrayed oneself or been betrayed, and not be
safe.
I can say this because I was too hunted. After the initial
fear of being the fox before the hounds subsided, I found that it
was relatively easy to be an unassuming, unnoticed white woman. It
was assumed that I was part of the white social consensus. My
social credit was good. More than once, police even rushed to my
aid ... unrequested. The same police might then rush off to snarl
at someone Black or Latino ... ready to shoot to kill. I was also
able to continue being a political person. It did not stop me from
challenging racism, or working in social programs. Not until I was
discovered to be that traitor to the capitalist white supremacist
consensus. Then my white skin lost its American Express
credibility. The state's agents went haywire. And here I am with a
total of 80 years.
Q: Why are neither you nor Linda Evans in the radical gallery
sidebar?
A: With the exception of Kathy Boudin, none of the more than 100
political prisoners and P.O.W.s are mentioned in the "Revisiting
the Radicals" sidebar. None of us have surrendered or repented. Ms.
Boudin had been spectacularized in 1970 after the explosion of a
town house in the Village, so she was "revisited". Very few of
those of us now in prison were marketed by the media as "fame"
commodities. We are buried as much as possible. Those political
prisoners and P.O.W.s, such as Leonard Peltier or Geronimo ji Jaga
Pratt who are becoming better known, were not propelled by the
press into "fame". Rather, it has been through the struggle of many
people to bring attention to the reality that both these comrades
were framed by the COINTELPRO agencies, have been denied new
trials, release, even in the face of concrete evidence, that they
are known. Mumia Abu Jamal, a former Black Panther, MOVE supporter
and a journalist, sits on death row in Pennsylvania, framed by the
state. He's an established journalist, but Newsweek journalists,
nor others in the establishment media have yet, in more than 10
years, written an investigative piece about the fact that the
government is marching him to the death chamber!
Newsweek did not write articles about the Tribunal held in New
York in 1991, in which charges were brought against the United
States for its treatment and continuing detention of the political
prisoners and P.O.W.s from the New Afrikan and Black, Puerto Rican,
Native American, Hawaiian and Mexican national liberation
movements, and the anti-imperialist and peace/anti-war movements.
No establishment press wrote a major article on the 1992 Tribunal
charging the U.S. with the genocide of Native Americans, the
enslavement of Africans and the colonization of North America and
the Caribbean, held in San Francisco on the 500th anniversary of
the European invasion of the Americas.
Political prisoners are definitely not in fashion. The same
people that want us silenced, that continue to extract vengeance,
certainly would not encourage its public stand propagandists to
bring any attention it can avoid as to who we are and why we are.
Q: Has the Clinton administration dealt adequately with the issues
of political prisoners in the 1990s, from your point of view?
A: No. Even those with the most clear cut cases are being denied
under this new administration. Comrades like the New York 3 - Nuh
Washington, Herman Bell and Jalil Muntaqin - have had legal efforts
unjustly denied, even though the government misconduct was flagrant
- disappearing evidence which would have undermined the state's
court case. Silvia Baraldini, an Italian citizen, has repeatedly
been denied repatriation to serve her sentence in her homeland;
each time the Italian government has requested her transfer, the
Justice Department has refused because she refuses to "cooperate";
that is, to disavow her political views as an anti-imperialist.
There has been no attempt to resolve the demands for the release of
the Puerto Rican P.O.W.s and political prisoners, or
decolonization.
Sundiata Acoli was refused parole this year, after more that
20 years in prison! Those comrades who have been released were
released because there were no other legal ways to keep them locked
up. They were denied going to half-way house, at a time when the
Federal Bureau of Prisons has been trying to send more people to
half-way houses. Because they are "a danger to the community"!
Teachers, writers, productive human beings ... a danger?
Most other nations at some point in time have come to terms
with political movements that have oppressed or do oppose the
state. Political prisoners have been released and given amnesty all
over the world by state apparatuses that had revealed in brutality
and torture. But nothing has changed in the U.S.
Every one of us comes out of a movement that struggles for
liberation, social justice and human dignity. Supporting us is part
of supporting these movements. Until the movements challenging U.S.
state power regain strength and momentum, until there is a powerful
voice raised by you who are concerned with human rights and
justice, I do not think the government, no matter who is in the
White House, will make any qualitative moves in the direction of
justice.
