No Way As A Way: An Interview with Greg Lewis  	  PDF   	  Print   	  E-mail
Written by Ernesto Aguilar   
Sunday, 19 September 2004
 

In the early 1990s, under the name "Greg Jackson," Greg Lewis eas the editor of Black Autonomy, the first Black anarchist newspaper in the United States. Lewis, along with Lorenzo Komboa Ervin, became the most high-profile members of the Federation of Black Community Partisans, a Black autonomist formation. Today, he is a self-defense and fitness trainer still living in the Seattle area. We talked about his history, the trails blazed by Black Autonomy and Copwatch 206, and struggles today.

 

Was there a defining political moment in your life?

 

One thing just led to another. All my life my mother struggled to feed us and keep a roof over our heads. Welfare used to send her on jobs that didn't pay a living wage. But she was required to go, or else we would be cut off for good. But, if by some miracle she made any money, it would be deducted from her monthly check and they would threaten her with prosecution or being cut off for making too much money. Every year I had to take a form to the school to fill out and send to them to prove I was in school. One more reason other kids had to pick on me.

 

The day she died, she was a college grad, Phi Theta Kappa, with a bachelor of arts in journalism; but she was working at a fast-food restaurant because local newspapers refused to pay her a living wage or didn't hire her at all.

 

When I was a teenager, I was on the bus going to work as a dishwasher at an upscale restaurant when a group of white police stopped the bus and ordered all of the black people off, accusing us of shoplifting at a local mall. I glanced at one officer's badge as I got off, he saw me do it, and said that he would be more than happy to put a third 'eye' in my forehead.

 

Years later, I was confronted by neo-Nazis in the University District, and I successfully defended myself against them. At the time, I was a trained kick-boxer who fought ring matches regularly; they never saw it coming. I later found out that I wasn't alone; there was a "movement" of punk rock homeless kids, gangster types and weed dealers who were doing their part to run them off the Ave also.

 

It wasn't until I read Revolutionary Suicide and The Autobiography of Malcolm X that I began to get a clearer picture of what I was dealing with. Later, some of the homeless kids turned me on to Marxist and anarchist writings.

 

I drifted from one struggle to another. First, there were the protests due to the police raiding a squat. At the same time, the former City Attorney, Mark Sidran, was pushing for an anti-sitting and anti-panhandling ordinance. Then, the neo-Nazis returned and stabbed a black man on a bus on the Ave on Christmas Eve. It was shortly after that the homeless kids got organized and marched to Broadway 100 or so deep to confront them Then the first Gulf War happened and the large protests shutting down the freeway, and finally the beating of Rodney King, which led to two nights of riots, fires, and fighting the cops downtown and on Broadway. All of these things happened one after the other with very little time in between events. It was in this climate that my politics began to expand and change.

 

How would you say your politics evolved over time, and at one point in that development would you say anarchist ideas became most real to you?

 

What drew me to anarchism was not so much the theory or the ideal, but the way the anarchists did things. The Maoists were around in greater numbers back then, but they seemed a lot like religious people seeking converts. And they would get mad if you didn't agree with them. Some of them would actually challenge you to fight!

 

The anarchists did things. They took over buildings and lived in them, they chased the Nazis off the streets, they would go to community meetings and blast the so-called "experts" on homelessness or youth issues, and they would share whatever they had with you without asking for anything in return except for your opinion on whatever subject.

 

I used to call myself an anarchist, until one day an older activist, now a political prisoner, Omari Tahir (he was convicted of hitting former Seattle mayor Paul Schell in the face with a bullhorn; it took them two trials to get the conviction), said to me, "I know what you're against, but what are you for!?" He also warned against letting others put you in a box by of labeling yourself in way that is alienating to others.

 

To me, all "isms" out there are a form of ideological and social prison. Like Bruce Lee said in The Tao of Jeet Kune Do, "Absorb what is useful; discard what is not. Use no way as a way."

 

If I am to be labeled, here's the box to put me in: life-long black man in amerikkka of mixed racial background, a so-called "person of color." I am a certified personal fitness trainer, and professional martial artist and instructor. I am for reparations (for chattel slavery, for genocide of indigenous people and the theft of their land, and for police terrorism/murder of people of color; white people should also be compensated for being assaulted by cops or losing loved ones to police violence), self-determination (individual and collective), direct workers control of community institutions by those within that particular community, and an economy based the equal distribution of wealth and resources. I am for freedom, justice, and equality for all the human families of the planet. I am a revolutionary.

 

You were a founding member of two groups that planted the seeds for a lot of movements today -- Seattle Copwatch and the Federation of Black Community Partisans. Can you talk about those groups and what, in your mind, made them significant?

 

The Copwatch was significant since it was the first one in Seattle since the Black Panther Party did their patrols in the 1960s. We were the only group at the time that monitored the police directly on the street. We defiantly got the attention of the police department, the local media, and attorneys on both sides of the police accountability issue. I don't think the FBCP was all that significant; it wasn't widely supported.

 

How big was FBCP at its peak, if you can mention that? And can you drop some knowledge on the FBCP formed?

 

I honestly don't know. Lorenzo was the common contact we all had. It basically came about from discussions I had with him, and discussions he had with black activists in the various cities he spoke in.

 

Do you think that kind of dynamic -- where one person was the conduit and leader, for lack of a better word -- hurt the organizing generally? And being who you are, one could guess you were not comfortable with such a communication flow.

 

For me, the problem was more of a lack of numbers locally. I got calls and emails from other folks involved with the project all the time. I had plenty of allies locally, but the organization itself wasn't growing. Another problem was people not following through on what they said they would do on a consistent basis.

 

In what ways do you think FBCP contributed to the theoretical framework of today's Anarchist People of Color movement?

 

I do believe it gave a voice to what many folks were already thinking. Beyond that, it's hard to say. Usually it's the white anarchists that come up to me talking about how moved they were by the newspaper, how they were inspired by what Lorenzo had to say in their town, etc.

 

Why did the Federation of Black Community Partisans end? And what would you have done differently if you knew then what you do now?

 

It barely even started. It was really a formal organization in name only. People weren't interested in a formal organization. I received very little help in funding or publishing Black Autonomy or in building an organization.

 

To do it all over, I wouldn't have done it at all had I known that people's word was not bond and that I would be used and abused for my work ethic. Or maybe I would have published it as a more of a personal 'zine. Lately, people have been asking me if I ever thought about starting it up again. I don't know. It was a lot of work and most people, even so called "conscious activists," don't have the discipline for the tedious work that it was.

 

A lot of organizations and work relationships suffer from disparities on several levels. Could you break down your experience for newer activists to avoid similar pitfalls? And do you think what happened with FBCP could have been avoided?

 

When I was doing the newspaper, I didn't even own a computer. I had to arrange to use other people's gear or go to Kinko's or to a college campus. That took planning and organization in itself. Then, I had to assemble the graphics and pictures. That meant lots of cutting, photocopying, scanning and re-scanning. Then I was forever waiting on people to send their articles and letters, especially FBCP comrades who were doing work in the streets. People had a really hard time with deadlines. And all of that had to be spell-checked and edited for length.

 

Once that was done, I had to send the hard copy to a printer down south, since printing is so expensive out here. After that, distribution took up more of my time. And I still had to go to work, do my own local activism, answer mail, maintain accounting, train in karate, teach the occasional self-defense seminar, and stay current on what was going on in the world.

 

I think the way to avoid those kind of pitfalls is to be prepared to do it all yourself, no matter what anyone promises. Plan ahead prior to trying to put the paper together. And be sure that you have a way for the newspaper to make money, because with publishing you will usually lose money. In the four years that Black Autonomy came out, I never broke even.

 

Same question about the group ending, but regarding Copwatch 206?

 

Lack of money. Political hatred from other local anti-police brutality groups. Eventual burn out. No non-profit funding agency will give you money to really and truly solve the problem of police terrorism. They, like the paid activists, are too tied to the system. Without the problem, they won't collect a paycheck. They don't grasp with real depth that capitalism and white supremacy are necessary components for keeping "the American way" alive and well. And because of that, they are generally more a part of the problem than the solution. Another Copwatch exists in Seattle, born out the WTO protests, but they focus more on the large demonstrations and confronting the city council on police accountability to the public.

 

Can you talk about Copwatch 206's tactics and political objectives, and how those differed from others at the time, and even now?

 

Our job, as we saw it, was to 'police the police' and educate the public on what their rights were under the law. Our slogan was "Copwatch 206: the REAL civilian review board!" We even considered conducting citizen's arrests of police officers, but decided that would be inviting death even more so than we already were. As it turned out, the people weren't ready for that; it was all we could do to get them to share information with us.

We advocated for an independent civilian review board with broad legal power, with a well funded over sight patrol, the copwatch, as the "eyes and ears" of the board. We would use the investigative tactics of the police against them. A brother by the name of Diop Kamal, who heads the Police Complaint Center in Florida, is already doing it. He, along with the Black Panther Party, was our inspiration.

 

The line that the rightists like to use is "well, if you aren't doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about." This what we would say to the police when they would pitch a fit about us filming them.

 

I cannot talk specifically about our tactics, since some of them are still in use by Copwatch volunteers throughout the world. I would advise folks to learn the law, learn how to use a camera under pressure, get in shape and stay in shape, fix any legal contradictions you may have before you go deal with their contradictions (pay your fines, do your time, etc), learn the investigative techniques of the world's law enforcement agencies, surround yourself with lawyers and media people, read (and re-read) Sun-Tzu's "The Art of War" or Mao's "On Protracted Warfare," and plan, plan, plan. And be prepared to be killed in action; Copwatching is serious business and is not to be taken lightly.

 

How do you look at some of the criticism of Copwatch work today?

 

Every Copwatch is different in every city. I believe that over time a uniform standard will develop. For me, the current standard of service to the people has been firmly established by the Police Complaint Center (www.policeabuse.org). Ultimately, it's a question of what a cop watch actually does day to day and what community a cop watch actually serves. If it is limited to just the large demonstrations involving the "usual suspects," then its obviously not keeping it real. If it's only a cop watch in name, limited to informational forums, harassing politicians, and doing its own demonstrations, then its not keeping it real. All of the above are important, however the cop watch is most needed and effective when it serves the interests of people of color, primarily, in a real and tangible way.

 

As I see it, the real test of a Copwatch's validity is measured by how many beatings and killings of the most directly affected are actually prevented. If the people the cop watch serves and the organization itself can look back after a year and say, "see, because of our vigilance in the streets, in the courts, in the media, and in the halls of government, no one has been hospitalized or died at the hands of the police in the past year!" or, "because of our vigilance in the streets, in the courts, in the media, and in the halls of government, not one police officer has gotten away with assaulting or killing anyone in the 'hood or on the campus!" then all will have to bear witness that the cop watch is real, is revolutionary, and is effective.

 

Where do you think the Copwatch movement as a whole needs to be going tactically and politically?

 

Tactically, the Police Complaint Center is the current model that activists need to study, dissect and improve upon. Diop Kamal and his team have been instrumental in successful lawsuits and convictions against abusive police officers and their leadership. Study the methods used by the great reactionary law enforcement groups of the world, FBI, CIA, Mossad, MI5, etc; and use their investigative and spy tools against them. Just don't kill anybody, like they do. It might be a good idea if some folks actually went to school to learn how film making, criminology, police science and other skills, at a professional level, to make Copwatch that much better.

 

Something else that we found in our time doing it was that Copwatch was also an effective deterrent to crime; no one wants to look stupid on camera, and no one wants to get caught on tape.

 

One thing that progressives don't usually get involved in is the neighborhood watch programs. At the very least by being involved progressive forces will know intimately well who the reactionaries are in the community, what they are up to, and be better able to deal with them before they get anymore out of hand than they already are.

 

In addition, the police are very open about the fact that they cannot operate effectively in a neighborhood without the help of civilian auxiliary organizations. I wonder how would they would operate if the neighborhood watch or the local police reserve unit in a particular area was dominated by radicals and the local copwatch was on a first-name basis with just about everybody who lived in the 'hood and all the activists on both sides of the color line and the language barrier?

 

Same question, regarding the Anarchist People of Color movement?

 

Oh boy, here we go; you had to ask the 'million-dollar' question…

 

Well, first of all, I believe that the term Autonomous People of Color movement is a more accurate description of what's really going on today. I can't speak for everybody, but I'm sure there are others who feel me on this.

 

Let's face it, we are separate from, yet at the same time allied with, the main anarchist movement, the left, and the various struggle-based tendencies (anti-globalization, anti-racism, Palestinian independence, reparations, police brutality, tenant rights, homelessness, religious freedom/post 9-11, etc) that call themselves movements. We may do work with individuals and organizations within these circles, but I can almost guarantee that we are a new breed of activist; a new type of people, based on how we see ourselves, how we see the rest of the world, and how we see ourselves in the world.

 

We may agree (or disagree) with some aspects and concepts that are espoused by the various anarchist/anti-authoritarian groups out there in the world, or we may (or may not) take positions on other subjects that casual observers may label "Maoist," "Islamic," "Christian," "Indigenous," etc. Our political, cultural, and, for some of us, even our genetic influences are diverse. Our needs, wants, and desires transcend mere political struggle; we are outside 'the box.' There are spiritual dimensions to all of this, regardless of whether we pray to a God (or Gods), don't believe in a God, or call ourselves "God."

 

The one common ideological thread I saw at the conference with those I spoke to and the discussions I heard in workshops was that no one was down with a leadership clique, a messiah or savior leading 'the masses' to the promised land, or individuals doing what they pleased with no regard for others. People were for collective decision-making and the idea of leadership by personal example. I think that's what makes us all "anti-authoritarian" and "revolutionary."

 

Right now, my advice would be for everybody who was at this historic event to stay in contact with one another. Organize similar APOC affinity groups in your city. Attend the next conference if you can and bring as many people as you can. Go to the APOC website (www.illegalvoices.org/apoc) and review the notes that were posted from the various workshops. Discuss what happened with other people in your community, especially the youth. And read this book. Twice. And discuss it in your community.

I feel that the way forward is through all of us, in our own way, making a conscious effort to contribute to the (r)evolution of popular culture from that of consumerism and backwardness to that of intelligence and popular resistance. Many of the artistic types (emcees, spoken word artists, DJs, etc) are already doing it. This means more networking, this means making communication between groups and individuals easier. This means building more bridges between artists, street activists, certified professionals in various fields, academics, and the "average" brother or sister on the block.

 

This means being careful not to reinvent oppressive social relationships (we must get rid of fear, hate, greed, and jealousy in our own heads, amongst each other, and amongst our respective peoples; all of these things breed reactionary ideas and actions) since this kills activism and popular struggle from within, and allows COINTELPRO-type operations to kill it from without. Out of that will come trust; then tighter, more formal organizational structures; necessity is the mother of invention, and I believe this is how it will occur. This is how we will build our power.

 

Power consists of four main elements: knowledge, wealth, violence and unity.

 

Together, we possess more than enough knowledge collectively to do great things; the wealth and unity will come with the proper utilization of the knowledge we all have. If violence can be avoided, that would be great; but if our enemies want to box, then we will have to defend ourselves.

 

A lot of people still pass around "Mythology of the White-Led 'Vanguard': A Critical Look at the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA," your article and analysis on the RCP. Some people -- mostly whites but even a few people of color -- allege the piece was divisive. But most really feel it and say it's time opportunist elements like the RCP get called out for how they target people of color. How do you respond to the critics of that piece, and what's your take on that piece now?

 

To the critics I ask, "If you can't criticize them while they do not hold state power, what happens if or when they do have state power and they are criticized?" This question also applies to any other organization jockeying for a position of leadership in "the movement"; claiming to be a vanguard or whatever. Are the critics saying that the RCP and/or other organizations are above criticism? Are the critics saying that they themselves are above criticism as well?

 

I agree that criticizing allies or potential allies should be done in a way that is constructive and doesn't purposely hurt them, but at the time this was written the RCP was doing things to directly hurt groups and individuals outside their party, and the movement generally; and either didn't know, or didn't care, or didn't care to know.

 

I was under the impression that they didn't care, since conversations around various issues (some brought up in the pamphlet, some not) with local RCP members always degenerated into shouting matches, veiled threats from both sides, routine vandalism upon their bookstore and occasional violence.

 

It was to a point where other organizations were calling for 'party discipline' from the national RCP leadership. Some actually attempted to contact the RCP's central committee with their concerns. I was one of them. At one point (around 1997) some black activists ordered them out of the Central District (a historically Black neighborhood in Seattle) because of how they treated oppressed people.

 

I don't know about other cities, but the Seattle RCP behaves considerably better now. I believe they have a clearer understanding of their role in local politics and realize that they too cannot afford to be alienated anymore than any of us already is.

 

In all reality, that piece was written in the spirit of Mao's principles of "unity-criticism-unity" and "let 100 flowers bloom, let 100 schools of thought contend." And this, despite any personality conflicts that activists may have with individual RCP cadre, is precisely what happened.

 

The October 22nd event locally, which was for years exclusively an RCP event, is now more diverse and powerful. Many activists are still critical of their overall political line, but they do make an effort to involve as many people as they can reach out to. They attend all the major political events out here. They make an effort to encourage people to pack the courtroom for every police shooting inquest and activist trial, and they sent members to both of my trials (criminal and civil) around the events of September 1998.

I have no beef with the RCP or its supporters at this time; they know perfectly well what I think, they know where I stand on important issues, and what I am willing and capable of doing. They may not like me as a person, and this could be said for some of the anarchists out here, but I'm pretty sure they respect me as activist.

 

Do you think it's still fair to call the RCP, and particularly its portrayal of people of color in its paper and literature, when the organization is white-dominated?

 

Although the argument could be made that having images of people of color protesting and speaking out is good, it also comes off as ultra-liberal and even pimping the images and histories of the oppressed, particularly when the RCP is against decolonization and other issues.

 

There is not one white-led organization out there above criticism for racist practices, no matter how 'revolutionary' they claim to be. This one of many reasons this APOC network exists. Some groups are better than others.

 

The only way this will change as far as the RCP goes is when the people of color within the party or those who support the party make that change occur. I notice that top-down leadership type organizations tend to improve when the rank and file either leave or force the leadership to leave.

 

Today, you teach karate and self-defense, and you've been an advocate of self-defense awareness. How important is self-defense in the lives of people of color?

 

Self-defense has been extremely important in the life of this particular person of color. My journey in the martial arts began due in large part to being regularly attacked because of how I look, how I speak, how I used to dress, how I was a klutz and had asthma, the fact that my dad was not around, and my mother was white. To this day, there are people who hate on me for some of the same reasons.

 

What I teach is more rooted in the real living struggles of the oppressed, rather than any ideological posturing. Historically, traditional Okinawan karate was refined in the struggle of peasants against Japanese invaders and the sell out king who disarmed them in the 1600s. Later, Japanese-adapted karate was used by some elements of the population against G.I.s during the U.S. occupation of Japan after World War II.

 

In this country you have the legacy of the Deacons for Defense, the BPP -- as well as the Brown Berets, Puerto Rican Independence Movement, AIM, etc -- and the Black Liberation Army. Most of them, probably all of them, taught some form of unarmed self-defense to anyone willing to learn.

 

And then there's the reality of domestic violence; this is something Franz Fanon actually touched on indirectly when he wrote about how the oppressed will attack each other if they are unable to attack their enemies. This goes on amongst men and women daily in this country, regardless of sexual preference. People of color are the targets and victims of violence more often than white people are; often at the hands of other persons of color; people who look like us and speak our language(s). Sad, but true.

 

The reactionaries are light years ahead of the forces of progress on this subject. There is an entire industry devoted to teaching middle class white America, both civilians and cops, how to fight back against terrorists, car-jackers, thugs, serial rapists, etc.

 

Thankfully, there are small groups of progressive folks like Home Alive in Seattle and Girl Army in Oakland who teach self-defense in a way that is not about patriotism, racism, xenophobia, or personality cults around a fighting style or teacher.

 

Many of those who are progressive, anarchists in particular, often fail to deal with "what is" and try to leap directly to "what they wish to be." Some progressives grew up bourgeois and sheltered, and never have been placed in a situation where their lives were truly in immediate peril (until they got involved in radical politics). Or they got their first education in the concept of self-defense from someone who used the words and the overall concept to justify targeting them for abuse.

 

There are still those out there who subscribe to the ideology of "redemptive suffering," a pacifist politico-religious doctrine advocated by Bayard Rustin, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Mahatma Ghandi; that somehow those who do evil to the most defenseless segments of the population will finally 'come to their senses' or 'repent' for their sins against humanity because of the willingness of a few nonviolent martyrs to be brutalized. Those who advocate nonviolent resistance have been jailed and killed in numbers equal to or greater than those who (as Malcolm X put it) "stop singing and come out swinging." Proclaiming yourself to have sole ownership of the 'moral high ground' or 'the truth' in a situation only leads to alienation from those around you and execution at the hands of your enemies, with help from those around you who are now alienated from you. Jesus is a prime example.

 

I believe in self-defense by any means necessary, but what I specialize in is unarmed self-defense and the use of improvised weapons. In an age of tighter control on handguns, knives, and specialty blunt force weapons (sap gloves, brass knuckles, etc) and longer prison sentences for their use (even if its justified), it makes more sense in my opinion. At the same time, it is good to be well rounded in the use of tools other than your bare hands and I study in that direction.

 

Philosophically, I believe as Gichin Funakoshi (the founder of the Shotokan style of Karate) did, that "karate is for the development of character." If you can control yourself, then no one else can control you. If you cannot control yourself, then someone else will control you.