A few days ago, a friend on Facebook posted the following as his status:

Would any of you be down to help me organize a march on Ferguson, MO? Dead serious. It’s something I hope would send a powerful message to the powers that be, but I’d need help getting it all together. I mean, like a grassroots thing via Facebook to organize a march on Ferguson and get people from here in NYC and possibly the entire country to descend and march on Ferguson. A march to show solidarity. A march to show that we will not sit idly by and ignore human/civil rights violations at the hands of police against anyone, but most specifically to say that we will absolutely not ignore the deliberate genocide of black boys and black men in the United States.

If my friend does manage–beginning with this powerful and passionate call to action–to organize this march,  and is able to bring to Ferguson other concerned citizens to participate in protests and rallies, and perhaps even get in the face of overzealous police to remind them loudly and verbally that they might be overstepping the bounds of reasonable policing, that the murder of Michael Brown will not be allowed to just pass idly into history, he will be regarded as a provocateur of sorts, an outside agitator, one meddling in affairs best left to locals, to the local community and their police, who can, and should, work out by themselves, a response to a highly particular, specific, local, problem, using highly particular, local, specific tactics to devise a highly particular…you see where this is going.

It’s a road to unmitigated bullshit, toward the worst kind of self-serving political delusion.

For as long as the cry of ‘outside agitator’ has been made–most notably, in the sad history of racist Southern resistance to the nationalization of civil rights–it has always been code for ‘butt out, and let us continue to address a political problem in familiar dead-end ways.’ In the South, the cry of ‘outside agitator’ was simply a euphemism for ‘we know how to deal with our blacks and we’ve been doing damn good job at it when no attention was paid us.’ The light often sends many scurrying for cover.

What is happening in Ferguson is not a local affair. It never was and never will be. The shooting of Michael Brown was a national phenomenon, temporarily resident in a new setting. That circus will soon move elsewhere, to some other urban killing ground, where soon enough, some other young man of color will fall to a policeman’s bullets. The police in Ferguson are not a local problem; the response to the demonstrations in Ferguson–indicative of a dangerous militarization of the police–is not a local problem. These are American problems, of interest to all Americans.

There are no ‘outside agitators’ in Ferguson. There is no arbitrary boundary that can be drawn around the problems of racism and police brutality; the stench of those wafts easily across one county line to the next.

Note: This post originally appeared–under the same title–at samirchopra.com

Posted in

6 responses to “Calling Bullshit On ‘Outside Agitators’ in Ferguson”

  1. seinsfrage@gmail.com Avatar
    seinsfrage@gmail.com

    This seems like a rather facile dismissal of boundaries and the notion of “local,” rather than problematizing them. (The either/or rather than both/and seems problematic, iow.) Also, from what I heard directly from residents of Ferguson, the people who live in Ferguson who complained about outside agitators used that term to refer to people who came in to commit crimes or foment more violent modes of protest/resistance. The (privileged) ability to enter and exit a space at will should not be ignored here, too.

    Like

  2. James Avatar

    Hold on. Hold on. Before the people at stake in this situation get swept up in these unrestrained calls for universalizing the Ferguson event…
    It must be noted that many people in Ferguson are actually concerned about the effect of outside agitators on the movement for justice in Ferguson. Community leaders note that one of the agitating factors between police and community has been outsiders engaging in activity that provokes an even more repressive response to the community. In other words, rule number one of activism in these cases has to be: consider first the community in which you propose to act. Have you been invited? How will your actions affect those who live there? Could your actions aggravate the situation for those who are already the victims here?
    Sure, there is a difference when the police use “outside agitators” to deflect attention from the problem in their community. But it would be very ignorant and dangerous to dismiss the real problems posed by outsiders to the efforts of those in the community who are fighting for justice. This is just false: “There are no ‘outside agitators’ in Ferguson.” Everyone wants to make Ferguson their rallying point, every media outlet wants to appropriate Ferguson for career-making stories. That’s fine. But people here are getting tired of their justice being co-opted by other interests. Realize that when you say that this is not a local problem, that police in Ferguson are not a local problem, that this is a national problem, you risk insulting people here on the ground who see the complexity of the situation, the history of St. Louis racial politics, and the specific needs of this community.
    “…get in the face of overzealous police to remind them loudly and verbally that they might be overstepping the bounds of reasonable policing, that the murder of Michael Brown will not be allowed to just pass idly into history…” What makes you think that would help the community at this point? What makes you think the family and community who are victims of this particular injustice cannot make history themselves? Recent events actually suggest that taking that sort of action is likely to deflect attention away from the peaceful and political actions the community is taking right now to right the wrongs done to them, directing attention toward more violent clashes.
    So, yes, join and support the fight for justice in Ferguson, but do not overlook the effect you as an outsider might have on the community you are supposedly supporting.

    Like

  3. Rich Booher Avatar
    Rich Booher

    Just to add more anecdotal data to the above comments, but data which supports the argument of the original post, I have spoken to several residents of the St. Louis area (not residents of Ferguson itself) who have been involved in the organizing there. Their take is that the residents of Ferguson welcome people who are participating with them at this time. The showing of solidarity is generally seen as a good thing.
    And, all of the talk of ‘oustiders’ committing crimes and what-not are often overblown by either the police or journalists who lack any real political consciousness.
    [I’m sure someone will mention the RCP, but anyone whose been involved in any kinds of marches or activism in any major city since the 80s will be familiar with them already. They show up to everything (in very small numbers), but they really don’t make much of a difference on their own. They are hardly a new phenomenon, but are rather a steady fixture of political activism in urban areas.]

    Like

  4. Samir Chopra Avatar

    Thanks for the comments. My aim in writing this post was to highlight the ideological role that talk of ‘outside agitators’ plays: it is merely one more strategy and tactic of picking apart a protest, and informing us what is wrong with its form and content, of defusing its force, of diverting the conversation–as is evident, not just in the initial raising of ‘concerns’ about ‘outside agitator’s and their ‘hijacking’ the protests, but also now, in informing me, how I should check myself as ‘outsider’ and as possessing ‘privilege.’ While we continue to check privilege and worry about being outsiders, the traveling circus of white policemen shooting black men moves from town to town, coast to coast, not worried about being outsiders anywhere. The treatment of communities as eggshell entities, eternally fragile in the face of external influence, doesn’t do justice to the folks in Ferguson either. Perhaps the retaliations against the community are meant to provoke the caution urged above, as a tactic to defuse the protests? You know, stay away, you’re just making things worse for the locals?
    The notes of caution urged above on externalizing and universalizing are familiar ones. I’m only suggesting, again, we note their ideological function. It is an old trick–urging the protesters to get their protests, and their allies, straight. Don’t fall for it.
    My apologies: I’m writing this in a rush in a coffee-shop while on vacation. Perhaps I could write a follow-up post when I return.

    Like

  5. G Avatar
    G

    You wrote: “Perhaps the retaliations against the community are meant to provoke the caution urged above, as a tactic to defuse the protests? You know, stay away, you’re just making things worse for the locals?”
    It’s very likely this is part of the story, but perhaps more importantly, many of the people coming to Ferguson to protest in solidarity have more privilege as a result of their skin tone than the residents of Ferguson. So someone who is white and throws a brick is less likely to be the target of police violence than someone who is not. In short, people of color will be blamed for white people’s actions, and those communities of color will suffer the consequences. That’s not fair, but that’s the current set of behaviors the resistance up against.

    Like

  6. reclaimuc Avatar

    You might find our piece on “the invention of the ‘outside agitator’ in three graphs” useful
    http://reclaimuc.blogspot.com/2014/08/the-invention-of-outside-agitator-in.html

    Like

Leave a comment