1996: Ballot or the Bullet: The Strengths and Weaknesses of the Electoral Process in the U.S. and its relation to Black political power today.
by Greg Jackson
"Most of the greatest advances in Black political activism did not occur at the ballot box, but in the streets, in the factories, and through collective group awareness and mobilization…
Yet because of the electoral focus of most of the current crop of middle class Black elites, we now tend to think of power as an electoral process. But there is also power when oppressed people acquire a sense of cultural integrity and an appreciation of their political heritage of resistance.” -Manning Marable.
Introduction: Does the power of the vote equal "hope"?
As the 1996 Presidential elections draw near, more and more candidates and their supporters will be asking for your vote.
Some of the same individuals and groups from the 1992 campaigns, in addition to many new faces, will also be asking for those of you who haven't registered to vote to do so; and for those who have registered, to now exercise your "right" to vote.
But how far does the voting process extend the personal and collective political power of the people? Does your vote really count? Is the "right to vote" really a "right"; or is it actually a "privilege" given to us by purportedly "benevolent" and "fair" political leaders?
This writing explores these questions. The purpose of this is to assist in creating a fully informed public, as well as to encourage all people to really take the time to think about what they really need and desire, and how they want to obtain these needs and wants. Written specifically for registered voters of African-American descent, it is my sincere hope that all who read this will weigh the information in this text against their own personal experiences, research, and options carefully so as to make the best decision in what they feel is right for themselves, their class, and their particular community.
"It was the new politics of ambiguity; speaking for the lower and middle classes to get their support in times of rapid growth and potential turmoil. To give people a choice between two different parties and allow them, in a period of rebellion, to choose the slightly more democratic one was an ingenious mode of control. Like so much in the American system, it was not devilishly contrived by some master plotters; it was developed naturally out of the needs of the situation. " (Zinn pg. 212)
I. The Electoral College.
There is still a popular misconception in the US that we 'the people' select the president and vice president. When we as voters cast ballots for either one, those votes are mere formalities; they really don't count for much more than the value of one's own opinion. Let me explain...
The Electoral College was created around 1789, shortly after the original 13 settler colonies won their independence from the British empire. As these colonies were becoming independent, federated states, many conflicts around the rights of states vs. the rights of the federal government were happening. One of the earliest conflicts was between those who wanted the Congress to elect the president and vice-president, and others who wanted a popular vote of citizens to decide who would hold these posts. The Electoral College was created as a compromise between both opposing groups.
An Electoral College exists in all 50 states. The number of electoral college members, called "electors", is determined by the number of office holders in the House of Representatives and the Senate from each particular state; the number of congressional and senatorial positions to be filled in a state is determined by the population size of that state. Thus, the District of Columbia (a small area that is not officially a "state") has 3 electors, while the state of California (with a large population) has 54 electors; one vote for each House and Senate member in that state. Nationwide, there are 538 electors; 270 are needed for a majority (one man-one vote) in determining the national winner of a presidential race.
The explicit reasons behind this set-up for determining the president and vice-president were many. One was because of the size of the US at the time this system was created; news traveled slowly as did information on the various candidates running for public office. The founding fathers felt that there needed to be a group of "informed persons" in each state who would explain the process itself and the differences between candidates to the voting public. This group was to be elected by voters in each state, and trusted with the responsibility of electing a president on their behalf.
The requirements for becoming electors varied for state to state; theoretically the selection of electors was to be based on the social popularity of a particular candidate for the electoral college.
The one requirement that has most visibly stood the test of time was that nominations to the electoral college were to be based on the party loyalty of the nominee. Thus, nominees who became electors were expected to cast their vote for candidates their party (Republican or Democrat) supported.
Today, once the nominees are chosen by either the Republican or Democratic party, the public then selects the number allocated per candidate based on their party of choice in a primary or in a caucus.
When voters would go to the polls in November, their votes would serve as a "signal" to the electors; if the majority of the voting public was for a democrat, for example, the electors of that party would generally vote for that candidate, the opponent's electors would concede defeat (their votes going to the winner), and the democratic party's candidate would carry that state. The votes of the electors count as the overall vote of a particular state in the national election.
However, electors are not bound by any rules that say they have to vote for whoever the public or their party widely supports. Electors have the option of voting for a candidate they as individuals support, even if that person is not supported by a majority of the people or any particular political party.
So, if the majority of voters in a state vote for Candidate “A" and the electors of that state vote for Candidate "B", the votes of the electors (and NOT the voter) are the ones counted for that state nationally; the will of the majority (as well as the minority; you and I) of the public becomes largely irrelevant.
The electors then meet on December 14th (the actual date of "Election Day") to cast their ballots for president and vice-president.
The electoral college system helps to maintain two-party dominance (political dictatorship?) in US politics. Only three times in over 200 years has this foundation been seriously challenged through "legal" means; 1801, 1825, and (partially) in 1992.
In 1992, Texas billionaire Ross Perot used his fortune to finance a presidential race that he later decided to drop out of. What made Perot's challenge "progressive" (and I use this term lightly) in the minds of some was not his positions on issues that effect us as well as the majority population, but the fact that a third-party candidate was actually "taking on the political status quo" (in purely reformist terms).
Even if Perot had not dropped out of the race, his efforts would have proven futile. The following three scenarios help to illustrate this point.
The May 28, 1992 edition of The Washington Post provides the first two (paraphrased):
"Scenario 1: Ross Perot wins 32 electoral votes. Bill Clinton and George Bush receive 253 electoral votes a piece (remember, 270 out of 538 count as a "majority"). Perot then concedes defeat to either Clinton or Bush and one of them becomes president, but not before Perot makes some type of deal with one of the candidates.
Scenario 2: Same as before, except this time Perot makes no deals and does not admit defeat. The election of a president now goes in front of the House of Representatives and the election of vice-president goes to the Senate. Meanwhile, electoral college votes from around the country are counted on January 6th as usual.
Each state delegation must vote as one group, since deadlocked states cannot vote. This vote occurs on January 7. If the House doesn't select a president by January 20, negotiations in the House continue. In the Senate, the same process occurs for selecting the vice-president from the top two winners nationally. If their efforts fail, the job goes to the Speaker of the House; who now must resign his post as speaker, since it's illegal for politicians to hold office in the executive and legislative branches of the federal government at the same time. If that fails, then the job is appointed to the president pro-tempore of the senate, or the leading member of the Cabinet." (Wash. Post)
Scenario 3 (mine): The electoral vote is split three ways, with no candidate having a clear majority. Of course, for those of you who did the math, you already know that this scenario is impossible within the two-party/electoral college system because 538 does not divide evenly by 3. Since the college is one person-one vote, I doubt any "partial" persons or "decimal" electors would be voting. The only way to begin to resolve this within the rules of this system would be for one of the states to elect two more electors, raising the total to 540; which does divide evenly three ways. Or, for the system to refer back to scenario #2; this I believe would be the most probable situation.
Judging by the public's current discontent with both parties, I doubt that this course of action would be met with any kind of real approval from voters (let alone from the growing number of us who already advocate revolution); except from Republicans who currently hold majorities in both the House and Senate; or the dejected masses who cynically "go through the motions" at the various polling places and then remain silent; with the exception of the alienated "lone gunman" or "mad bomber" who on occasion expresses the frustrations of the largely silent and alienated public; with the exception of the right-wingers, from mainstream conservatives to crude fascist/Klan activists/supporters.
An act of desperation which may arouse a subdued satisfaction or at the very least a morbid curiosity in the public, but never a practical solution in and of itself.
This discontented attitude of all sectors of Amerikkkan culture is historically justified, even if much of its roots are largely unknown beyond individual disillusionment of both whites and [especially] non-whites. Charles Beard, in his book "An
Economic Interpretation of the Constitution", sheds some light on the origins of the United States Constitution, the framers of that Constitution, and the subsequent policies of that document (such as the electoral college). In it, he expounds on the economic backgrounds and political ideas of the fifty-five men who gathered in Philadelphia in 1787 to write the Constitution.
According to Howard Zinn, author of "A People's History of the United States", Beard "found that a majority of them were lawyers by profession, that most of them were men of wealth, in land, slaves, manufacturing, or shipping,...Thus, Beard found that most of the makers of the Constitution had some direct economic interest in establishing a strong federal government: the manufacturers needed protective tariffs; the money lenders wanted to stop the use of paper money to pay off debts; the land speculators wanted protection as they invaded lndian lands; slave owners needed federal security against slave revolts and runaways; bondholders wanted a to raise money by nationwide taxation, to pay off those bonds. Four groups, Beard noted, were not represented in the Constitutional Convention: slaves, indentured servants, women, men without property. And so the Constitution did not reflect the interests of those groups.” (Zinn pg.90)
Since the 1992 presidential race, more and more voices have come out in favor of a direct vote of the people, with a "run-off' election in the event of a tie or three way race. Others advocate proportional representation, a system used in countries such as England, France, and Germany, in which seats in a parliament are awarded to candidates based on the number of votes that a particular candidate and party received nationally.
One of the major weaknesses of that system, like the one here, is the influence of special interest groups, professional lobbying firms, and wealthy individuals who make campaign contributions on the behalf of large companies and multinationals to candidates; eventually subsidizing some candidates incomes throughout their entire political career.
Another "weakness" (or rather, an unmentioned character flaw) can be found in the underlying ideological foundations of the Constitution and its authors;
“In Federalist Paper #10, James Madison argued that representative government was needed to maintain peace in a society ridden by factional disputes. These disputes came from 'the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold and those who are without property have even formed distinct interests in society'. The problem, he said, was how to control the factional struggles that came from inequalities in wealth. “ (Zinn pg.96)
At the same time, this "weakness" is a strength for some sections of the American population:
"The Constitution, then, illustrates the complexity of the American system: that it serves the interests of a wealthy elite, but also does enough for small property owners, for middle income mechanics and farmers, to build a broad base of support. The slightly prosperous people who make up this base of support are buffers against the blacks, the indians, the very poor whites. They enable the elite to keep control with a minimum of coercion, a maximum of law…all made palatable by the fanfare of patriotism and unity.” (Zinn pg.98-99)
While we're on the subject of whether or not this current set up is "dictatorial", we cannot over look the role of the major media in the framing of political debate; not only amongst the public, but even amongst the candidates themselves.
During the 1992 campaign, black candidate Dr. Lenora B. Fulani was shut out of a presidential debate on national television when she was informed that her party would have to pay $50,000 in order for her to participate. More recently, on March 3 of this year, black republican candidate Alan Keyes was not only barred from participating in a televised debate between fellow republican candidates but was subsequently escorted away from the Atlanta television station in handcuffs when he protested. The television station executives claimed that he was not invited because he hasn't won any state primary as yet. How interesting! Millionaire Steve Forbes (publisher of Forbes magazine), who is white, had yet to win anywhere either but was invited to participate in that same debate.
II. Reconstruction and the Black vote.
The Thirteenth amendment to the US Constitution, ratified on December 18, 1865, reads as follows:
"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."
With this amendment came the promises of Black land ownership. In 1865 Union army General William T. Shennan issued "Special Field Order No.15" which handed over the entire southern coastline 30 miles inland to free Blacks. An estimated forty thousand former slaves settled onto the land, only to be forced off at bayonet point by Federal troops called in by president Andrew Johnson in August of that same year. In 1870 the fifthteenth amendment to the US Constitution was ratified;
"The right of citizens to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude." (Grilliot pg 642)
Yet, it was only with the assistance of Federal troops that Black voting rights were enforced. Only with the "permission" of a larger, better armed and organized section of the white power structure were our newly "emancipated" ancestors allowed to partially determine their destiny within a political framework not of their own design. In 1876, northern troops were pulled out of the southern states and in 1890 a new, more discriminatory Constitution was written in Mississippi. In 1890, there were 71,000 more blacks registered to vote than whites. By 1964, black voters consisted of only 6.7 percent of the 400,000 blacks of age to vote.
Our hobbled, and largely illusionary, ability to determine our own destiny has still not been reconciled, despite the numerous Black politicians in office. Samuel F. Vette, in his work "The Choice: The Issue of Black Survival in America ", speaks to the issue of the crop of newly elected Black officials in the wake of the various pieces of legislation won by the 1960's civil rights movement:
"While the black appointees were highly visible, they were, for the most part, powerless. And their powerless visibility in and around the bureaucratic councils added an aura of legitimacy to illegitimate acts, providing a smokescreen for dirty dealing.
This is neither to criticize nor exonerate the appointees. The fault was not theirs. The fault was in the system...by design.” (Yette pg.766)
Of course, this was a historical pattern taken right out of the Reconstruction-era south; Black politicians elected to city, county, and state government only to have their power permanently checked by the combined forces of wealthy whites, their political representatives, the federal government itself (with memories of the Haitian Revolution still fresh in the minds of many in office at the time), and collaboration in the form of violence and terror from sections of the white working class until it was effectively repealed, not to reemerge with any real potential for strength until the 1960's and only after much bloodshed, numerous executive and legislative mandates, and displays of the armed might of the federal government in the form of National Guard troops.
Today, even these modest reforms are under attack. Recent Supreme Court decisions on redistricting have eliminated formerly all Black voting districts in southern states. This situation comes about in response to a-historical and materially baseless cries of "reverse racism" or "reverse discrimination" by reactionary demagogues from all sections of the class strata within the white population; whose bellowing is then met by with the fear-based, chest-beating rhetoric of equally reactionary and objectively powerless “cultural nationalists" (Newton pg.92); whose influence is limited to equally, and justifiably, scared and uncertain people [of all classes] within the Black community itself.
The classic "reverse racism" argument is eloquently stated by conservative columnist George F. Will:
“The purpose of drawing lines to create districts in which minorities constitute a majority of the voters is to assist, virtually to the point of ensuring, the election of minorities to offices to which they presumably are entitled by virtue of their race or ethnicity. The result is “political apartheid", to use Justice 0’Connor's phrase from the 1993 ruling invalidating North Carolina's districting scheme..." (Newsweek pg. 64)
How quickly Will and even a student of the US Constitution like Justice 0'Connor, forget the foundational and fundamental power dynamic of this country. Article 1, section 3 of the Constitution makes it plain:
“Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other persons..." (Grilliot pg630)
So when white, male, land and business owners constitute a majority in the government to the exclusion of all others it is declared a "democracy", but when Blacks and other non-whites attempt the same thing, us "[excluded] Indians [and] three fifths of all other persons" are now guilty of "political apartheid"?!
This is functionally and politically impossible!
If it were not for federal troops in the 1860's-90's and again in the 1960's enforcing the 13th and 14th amendments and later the Voting Rights Act of 1965, we would have had absolutely no voice in mainstream politics whatsoever.
Yet, this can hardly be considered true Black and/or non-white political power. After federal troop withdraw in 1890, the state of Mississippi went back to its old repressive ways and added laws to the state Constitution which stripped black politicians and voters of what little power they had been granted by the 'Emancipation Proclamation' (instead of what they had won for themselves). As the US Supreme Court has demonstrated in recent years; "what the white power structure granteth, the white power structure can (and has) taketh away!" Our power is restricted to being allowed to complain and demonstrate (and even those actions have some hidden, heavy consequences), but still we are not allowed to act forcefully and decisively in our own behalf. That would be considered treason, sedition, or criminal activity; and would make us (and has made some of us) subject to harassment, imprisonment, or death (usually a combination of all).
III. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 to the Present.
"The act of registering to vote does several things. It marks the beginning of political modernization by broadening the base of participation... But obviously this is not enough. Once the black man has knocked back centuries of fear, once he is willing to resist, he then must decide how to best use that vote... He must move independently." (Carmichael pg.104- 5)
The signing into law of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by then president Lyndon Baines Johnson marked a turning point in the struggle for social equality in public spaces and employment. Yet, the use of federal election observers was not enough to insure that no violence towards Black voters or organizers occurred. Southern polling places that weren't under the observation of federal election officials continued to lock-out Black voters through written and oral tests, "good moral character" qualifications, and the usual physical intimidation and violence.
Despite all of that, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 has allowed more Black politicians to hold public office. In 1970, fewer than 1,500 held office nationwide; by 1990, that number increased to over 7,300. But has this phenomenon allowed for the wide diffusion of political power to the Black masses? Recent events, with few exceptions, have said "no".
In 1991, the US Supreme Court heard a case in which two Alabama counties had stripped two duly elected Black county commissioners of their power. Justice Anthony Kennedy, in the majority opinion of the court, wrote:
“The Voting Rights Act is not an all-purpose anti-discrimination statute" (Newsweek, pg.28)
Speaking for the dissenters, John Stevens argued that the court had set legal precedent by ruling the Voting Rights Act applicable when white majorities had conspired to disenfrancise blacks. This should come as no surprise:
"...we need to remember that the Supreme Court is not always the special champion of black Americans. Indeed, if history is any guide, the Court is as likely to choke off an American Reconstruction as to precipitate one. In the 1870s and 1880s the Court gutted the First Reconstruction by invalidating or misconstruing a series of critical Congressional protections of black political and economic rights." (The Nation pg. 698)
The larger number of minority politicians in office and candidates running for office has not slowed, nor stopped, the political onslaught of reactionary "angry white males" and their representatives (Republican and democrat). In fact, the appearance of 'dark faces in high places' has angered the most backward sections of the white population, mobilizing them as foot soldiers for wealthy and middle class right-wing elements in the public and private sector. The pointed condemnations of new legislative policies and the individual Republicans who authored them at the state or federal level, made by Black officials has done nothing to stop the attacks on people of color and small sections of the poor white population by corporations or the various branches of government. Black public officials have also taken heat from their own people; from being seen as "do-nothing careerists, opportunists, and uncle toms to actually justifying that perception by turning a blind eye to the needs of the very communities that got them elected and their underemployed or impoverished majorities.
Some, like former Philadelphia mayor Wilson Goode, went so far as to physically attack their own Black constituants as he did on May 13, 1985 when he allowed a fire to burn out of control while police and firefighters looked on after Philadelphia police dropped plastic explosives (obtained from the FBI) from a helicopter on to the home of the MOVE organization, killing 11 (five of them children) and leaving hundreds homeless.
More recently, many Black politicos even turned against each other. Protests against the federal Crime Bill made by members of the Congressional Black Caucus fell on deaf ears as the bill was passed with overwhelming bi-partisan (Republican and Democrat) support. Joining in the chorus of "get tough on crime" and "lock 'em up and throwaway the key" were mayors of major metropolitan areas, including many Blacks; which helped to not only silence their fellow Black office holders, but also helped to give a thinly veiled justification to white racist arguments that "racial equality" had been achieved and that vote outcomes (whether in the polling places or in the chambers of state or federal government) and has nothing to do with race-consciousness or racism.
In addition, "grassroots" initiatives, ranging from the denial of gays and lesbians to equal protection under current civil rights laws, to mandatory minimums for drug offenses, to increased police powers in search and seizure raids were pushed through without so much as a wimper or an organized counter-campaign from Black or other non-white politicians.
Then again, their fearfulness has a name and a face. In addition to fighting the ideological wars with other office holders, the Black political elites -like the rest of us- had to face the organized might of Conservative "intellectuals" and other “rights for [privileged] whites" types, along with their Republican (read: fascist) representatives in government (local, state & federal),and supporters within the business world and all classes of white society. Some of their work includes Washington State's "Three Strikes...You're Out!" and "California's Proposition 187".
It makes sense that these so called "grassroots initiative drives" (media terminology) would in fact serve as "fronts" for various corporate interests, special interest /lobbying groups", right-wing "think tanks", etc; the average successful initiative campaign in the state of Washington costs $250,000.00. In the past five years, 12 initiatives have made it to the ballot in that state; 11 got there because their sponsors had paid signature gatherers. In order for an initiative to make it to the ballot, it must have 180,000 "valid" signatures. Once an initiative is voted in, it becomes law; which can only be taken away by the state legislature or the courts. As you can see, there are no real guarantees that we can exercise our human right to self-determination within apolitical structure in which we have to "pay to play", in addition to waging the usual protracted battle(s) just to maintain those few meager concessions that our people shed blood for and lost their lives for back in the 1960's.
Because we are at the mercy of the US Supreme Court, and the court is currently trying erode what few concessions we have won (with assistance from the Republicans, democrats, and other supporters of the Amerikkkan state; white or Black) what real guarantee(s) do we have to insure that we are not completely stripped of all political power? Or are we in such a state already?
The choice facing Blacks and other non-whites of all classes today comes down to this: Do we continue to attempt to work within a system that only presents us with marginal benefits in return for its own self-perpetuation and benefit (and as a result, our continued oppression) or do we make a collective attempt at overthrowing this system and replacing it with one that places greater emphasis on the needs and desires of our people and makes an equal distribution of wealth and political power its number one priority for all people?
Clearly, the largest proportion of people on the bottom of the economic and social ladder in the United States today are Blacks and other people of color. Scientists are also estimating that by the year 2000, one out of three persons in the US will be a person of color or of mixed racial background.
Thus, the choice facing whites is to adapt themselves to, and make meaningful contributions to, the mass uprising and revolution of non-white workers and poor people or to join the various forces of reaction from right of center politicians to far right militias/nazis/Klan extremists. The social and political polarization of Americans has made the politics of liberalism and all variants largely irrelevant, except in academic circles and in the minds of the wishful or ignorant.
We can expect these divisions to widen as wages continue to lag behind the increasing cost of living, as jobs are shipped overseas by profiteering corporations, as already impoverished areas continue on their downward slide, as middle-class black politicians continue to be rendered functionally powerless (in addition to being alienated from the community at large), and attitudes on both sides of the racial divide fixate on race alone (egged on by white racists in white communities and "pork-chop nationalists" within communities of color [Newton pg.92]) in place of a coherent analysis of the class issues related to American history, economics, and social policy; and their cumulative relation to skin color and political power.
From this comprehensive analysis, grounded in the realities of the daily lives of the most directly affected persons, must emerge a practical, liberating program for political empowerment and community-wide transformation of social relations amongst working-class Blacks in Amerikkka. History has shown that it is our people who constantly provide that elusive "leadership by example" for other communities; the 1960's would have never happened without it.
If a successful revolution can occur in the Black community in Amerikkka, it can happen anywhere in Amerikkka. And it is up to each and every one of us to assure that it happens. We owe it to ourselves, and we owe it to workers and peasants across the globe, to make the Black revolution a reality.
V. Works Cited.
Boyd, Herb and Robert L. Allen "Brotherman; The Odyssey of Black men in America-An Anthology" Ballentine 1995
Carmichael, Stokely and Charles V. Hamilton "Black Power; The Politics of Liberation in America" Vintage 1967
"Case of Amnesia for the High Court'" Los Angeles Times 2 July 1995: M4
Cose, Ellis "The Voting Rights Act: A Troubled Past" Newsweek 14 Iun. 1993:28
Cutler, Lloyd N. "Electoral College Dramas" Washington Post 22 Jun.1992: p.A17
Grilliot, Harold I. and Frank A. Schubert "Introduction to Law and the Legal System. "Houghton Mifflin 1992
Houston, Paul "Reformers Say US Should Drop Out of Electoral College" LosAngelesTimes9 Sept 1992: p. A5
Johnson, Brian "Initiatives" KOMOAM 1000 Seattle, Wa 27 Dee 1995
Karlan, Pamela S. "End of the Second Reconstruction?" The Nation 23 May 1994: p.698-700
Marable, Manning "Toward Black American Empowerment" Boyd, pg 799-808
Newton, Huey P. "To Die For The People" Writers and Readers,1971
Scott, James M. "The Unpopular Electoral College" Washington Post 22 Jun. 1992: p.A17
"The Electoral College in Action" Los Angeles Times 1Nov. 1992:p.A20
Will, George F. "The Voting Rights Act at 30" Newsweek10Jul. 1995:p.64
Zinn, Howard , ”A People’s History of the United States" Harper Collins 1980
"Postwar America: 1945-1971" Bobbs-Merrill Co. 1973
VI. For further reading.
Black Autonomy vol. I, #1-#5 1995; vol 2, #1-#2 1996.
Frazier, Thomas R "The Underside of American History. Volume Two: Since 1865" Harcourt Brace 1987.
Lee, Marvin A. and Norman Solomon "Unreliable Sources; A Guide to Detecting Bias in News Media" Carol Publishing Group 1990.
Martin, Brian "Democracy without Elections" Social Anarchism #21, 1995-96:p.18
Newton, Huey P. "Revolutionary Suicide" Writers and Readers 1973.
Wright, Bruce "Black Robes, White Justice" Carol Publishing Group1987.
Pamphlet produced by the staff of Black Autonomy, A Newspaper of Anarchism and Black Revolution.
Feel free to copy and distribute; just give us our props.