from:"X Y"

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==

On Sat, 25 Aug 2012 20:11 Louis wrote:
> The only now-deceased FBI agent I know about is Burney Threadgill who states 
> that he was Aoki's handler and directed him to join the CPUSA and then the 
> SWP afterwards.
>
>Here's the relevant passage from Rosenfeld's book. Comrades can judge for 
>themselves.

I offer this commentary after having now skimmed significant portions
of the book via the Amazon preview features, with the relevant chapter
28 "At Bayonet Point" in the most detail.

Louis has conveniently left out the ONLY citation on Aoki where any
DOCUMENTARY evidence that is supposedly connected with the allegation
is EVER provided by Rosenthal:

from page 640, in the Notes section:

[QUOTE]
418 - "But one of... radical organizations."  The author's conclusion
that Aoki was an FBI informer has several bases.  First, the former
FBI agent Burney Threadgill Jr., discussed Aoki's work as an informer
in interviews with the author; second, Aoki's own suggestive
statements to the author; third he is named as an "informant" with the
temporary code number "T-2" in 105-165706-22, a November 16, 1967 FBI
report on the Black Panthers; fourth, this conclusion is consistent
with other FBI records concerning Aoki.  It is also based on the
declaration of former FBI agent M. Wesley Swearingen, Seth Rosenfeld
v. Federal Bureau of Investigation and U.S. Department of Justice, C
11-92131MEJ, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California,
2011; author interview with M. Wesley Swearingen.
[/QUOTE]

The ONLY hard, documentary evidence is therefore claimed to exist
within the "T-2" form, to which Fujino also had access for her
biography of Aoki (as she declared in her interview on Democracy Now).
 Fujino states in her recent article from the SF Chronicle (link
below) that the document is AMBIGUOUS in its redacted form:

[QUOTE]
First, Rosenfeld cites only one FBI document, a Nov. 16, 1967, report.
It states: "A supplementary T symbol (SF T-2) was designated for" -
but the name was deleted. Following the now-blank space was the name
Richard Matsui Aoki in parenthesis, and then the phrase "for the
limited purpose of describing his connections with the organization
and characterizing [Aoki]."

In the FBI pages released to me, only brief background material on
Aoki is linked to T-2. Moreover, T symbols are used to refer to
informants or technical sources of information (microphones,
wiretaps). So was Aoki the informer or the one being observed?
[/END QUOTE]

To claim in the endnote citation that on the "T-2" document that
"[Aoki] is named as an informant" - with an incorrect middle name - is
misguided at best.  Therefore I and other detractors charge that
Rosenfeld's interview with the now-deceased Threadgill is the sole
origin of the allegation, and that it is LACKING in HARD, DOCUMENTED
corroborating evidence that UNAMBIGUOUSLY names Aoki as an informant.
We must somehow take the now-deceased Threadgill at his word.  All the
other "sources" cited in this endnote are based on Rosenfeld's and
Swearingen's SUBJECTIVE INTERPRETATIONS in pursuit of this primrose
path.  Every piece of information - or lack thereof - that they
subsequently encounter (including other FBI documents that describe or
mention Aoki but never claim any collaboration, or any FBI refusal to
release additional documents) is now somehow "proof" of their theory.
The entire allegation is propped up by nothing more than their
confirmation biases.

Louis has repeatedly claimed, both here or in other forums (such as
his blog or in the comments section of Kasama and North Star), that
"it shouldn't matter" if Aoki was an FBI asset or not, since his
"ultraleft numbskullery" (Louis' words) was so destructive.  And yet
despite such claimed irrelevancy, he persists in posting Rosenfeld's
allegations, presented as incontrovertible fact.  Notice Rosenfeld's
language - the use of conclusive statements instead of conditioning
them as allegations, just as Louis does in his blog entry by writing,
"I should mention that the FBI directed Aoki to join the CP and the
SWP before he ever got involved with the Panthers."

Hindsight certainly allows us to judge past actions/beliefs as
mistakes or errors.  In light of the aftermath wrought on the Panthers
and affiliated groups, it would certainly seem that they were courting
disaster.  What seems to be ignored by Louis and others however, is
that these groups (or their survivors) and ex-members didn't just
disappear into thin air.  Most of them continued organizing, and many
thereafter evolved or merged into the various formations within what
is sometimes collectively referred to as Third World Marxism or se

[Marxism] My comrade, Richard Aoki - By Elbert "Big Man" Howard

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


My comrade, Richard Aoki
August 24, 2012

by Elbert “Big Man” Howard

At almost 75 years of age, there are very few things in life that
surprise me anymore. However, I can say I was not only surprised by
the allegations made against my comrade Richard Aoki, I was sickened.
I should not have been surprised because I know that this government
still has unfinished business with us, we Panthers, and being dead
doesn’t free us from their need to persecute us and create chaos and
mistrust among those of us who remain.

full text at:
http://sfbayview.com/2012/my-comrade-richard-aoki/

Elbert “Big Man” Howard is one of the original six founding members of
the Black Panther Party; he served as the first editor of the Black
Panther newspaper and as party spokesperson. He is also, more
recently, a founding member of the Police Accountability Clinic and
Helpline (PACH). An activist, author and lecturer, he resides in
Sonoma County and can be reached at bigman0...@aol.com.


Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] Fwd: Aoki

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==

On Sat, 25 Aug 2012 22:59 Jeff wrote:
>
> Oh please! There IS NO legal issue involved under US law in him saying such
things which we all agree are not true (or at least not known to be true).
Otherwise I could sue a number of people on this list who have said much
more outrageous things.
>

Since I am not a lawyer, I meant this more in the rhetorical sense
that Rosenfeld can plausibly deny making the explicit accusation.  You
apparently take personal offense at actual legal ramifications (or
lack thereof), judging by your bombastic indignation.  Nothing I can
do about that.

> Geez, you are the only one who accepts that insinuation. Naming Aoki as the
one "who armed the panthers" was clearly for the purpose of pointing out
that this was an important figure. Just saying that they found some guy who
had been an informer among the Panthers would otherwise have hardly raised
an eyebrow (there surely were many!).

No sir, I am obviously not the only one.  It is all over the internet
now, but perhaps you have been hiding under a rock.  As I stated
before, the well has been poisoned.

The allegation of Aoki being an FBI informant is still just an
ALLEGATION.  It is based entirely on the claims of a now-deceased FBI
agent, who was commenting on heavily-redacted documents that DO NOT
SPECIFICALLY STATE AOKI AS AN ASSET, at least in their redacted form.
This was then extrapolated via Rosenfeld's interpretation of Aoki's
militancy (or ultraleft adventurism, however one desires to view it),
and further "reinforced" by the SPECULATIONS of Swearingen, based on
the same ambiguously redacted documents, who in turn also put forward
the CRACKPOT theory that a high-ranking Japanese-American in a Black
organization was somehow a perfect cover identity.

> But since you called the evidence insufficient, I'd be interested if you could
give me an example of an informer that was uncovered where there was
demonstrably stronger evidence. Thanks in advance, I'm waiting...

What should be required is documentary evidence that specifically
names a person as an informant.  This is not the case with Aoki.  In
fact, as Louis pointed out, Swearingen has provided much helpful
documentation and research on FBI activities in political groups.  But
in the case of Aoki, Swearingen is merely speculating.

> Otherwise I don't understand why Aoki answering the charge by saying
that "It is complex. Layer upon layer" doesn't count as an admission.

An alternative explanation has been offered by Fred Ho and Diane
Fujino, of humored condenscension towards Rosenfeld.  I offer this not
necessarily because it is more valid (although it arguably should be,
since unlike Rosenfeld or Swearingen, both Ho and Fujino knew and
worked with Aoki personally for years), but because it is equally
speculative/interpretive, just as you are doing right now.  Aoki does
in fact explicitly deny the charge (with a solid "No") in the
interview, but since those of you (including Rosenfeld and Swearingen)
who never knew Aoki have already formed your own conclusions, decide
to interpret it as a lie.

PS - As an aside to Erik Toren, yes, Fujino had access to the same
files as Rosenfeld for her biography.  In her judgement, as stated in
the Democracy Now interview, the very same "T-2" document was too
ambiguous to reach any conclusion about whether it names Aoki as an
asset or as a target.

Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] Fwd: Aoki

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==

Red Arnie, believe it or not, I actually agree with you that Ethnic
Studies has been "co-opted", but as you yourself concede - this should
be expected under capitalism.  The problem is that today Ethnic
Studies, despite its myriad flaws, is under direct attack by the right
wing, which for better or worse also sometimes uses the accusation of
"identity politics".  (Teabaggers will of course tend to say "reverse
racism" or even "Black/Latin@/Asian supremacy".)

No, you are not a "self-hating Asian", but you are certainly
approaching this in an ineffective manner.  The many potential allies
and "converts" within the field (I speak more of the students than the
faculty) to a more socialist or anti-capitalist analysis will not be
swayed by your condemnatory language.  Many people of color, because
of the nature of white supremacy, come to political consciousness more
through racial identity than through class/economic conditions alone.
In the USA, this is especially the case since the mainstream discourse
obfuscates the class struggle moreso than in perhaps any other
country.

As for Rosenfeld "never implying" that Aoki supplied the BPP under
direct FBI orders - he certainly covered his ass in a legal sense, in
that he never *directly* says that (and in fact denies it in the
Democracy Now interview).  But the fact that his articles and Youtube
video are headlined with statements like, "Man who Armed BPP was FBI
Informant", there is no need for him to make the explicit allegation.
It is insinuated, and the well is now already poisoned.

There is no "conspiracy theory against Rosenfeld".  Those who are
refuting him are showing that the evidence presented is simply not
sufficient, at best circumstantial, and is mostly based on speculation
and subjective interpretation.

On Sat, 25 Aug 2012 04:23 Red Arnie wrote:
>
> I am Japanese American and participated as a non-student community member in 
> the demos and Asian student group meetings at SF State and UC Berkeley to 
> fight for ethnic studies beginning in 1969. I worked along side Richard Aoki. 
> I arranged a panel discussion at the 40th anniversary of the founding of the 
> College of Ethnic Studies at SF State entitled Liberation Studies: Beyond 
> Identity Politics that included Harvey Dong, the executor of Aoki's estate 
> and currently a staunch defender of Aoki. The point of my panel was to show 
> how much of ethnic studies has been changed from the conception of many of 
> its [founders] as a vehicle for liberation studies to a narrow, safe and 
> sterile field for the study of history of immigration and comparative 
> sociology. (I was invited to arrange this panel as a returning outside 
> community agitator.) My good friend Harvey Dong who teaches in the Dept. of 
> Ethnic Studies at UC Berkeley and who is a socialist agreed to be on the 
> panel because he agreed with my view on the "co-optation" of academic ethnic 
> studies. (I use quotes because that is what should be expected to happen in 
> our capitalist educational system.)
>
> (I suppose the insightful X,Y who accused me of white chauvinist thinking 
> will now accuse me of self-hate for trying to get my community to move beyond 
> identity politics and cultural nationalism to building a socialist mass 
> movement.)
>
> In her 441 page hagiography of Aoki, Fujino describes Aoki's frustration with 
> that change at UC Berkeley and gives it as his reason for leaving the faculty 
> of the Department of Asian American Studies at Cal to teach at a community 
> college.
>
> Rosenfeld never said nor implied that Aoki supplied weapons to the BPP on the 
> orders of the FBI. He only said Aoki was an FBI informant during the same 
> time he was supplying weapons. Rosenfeld doesn't know or say whether Aoki 
> told the FBI that he, Aoki, was supplying arms. The conspiracy theories 
> against Rosenfeld to dismiss his work are useless, time wasting and tiresome 
> speculations.
>
> Can we direct our attention to the issues in this disclosure of FBI 
> information that will be useful for building a socialist movement instead?

Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] The Richard Aoki imbroglio

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


(Not meant to be a full response to Louis' entire article, just
calling attention to a single point of information/dispute.)

Louis states: "I should mention that the FBI directed Aoki to join the
CP and the SWP before he ever got involved with the Panthers."

Here Louis is presenting an allegation as fact.  The only "evidence"
of this is the word of a now-deceased FBI agent.  All subsequent
conclusions about Aoki's alleged status, including the FBI document
with the "T-2" designation, are speculative interpretations of
non-definitive, highly-redacted materials.

>>>

(As for Erik Toren's inquiry, I am awaiting word from individuals who
possess a copy of Fujino's book, which I skimmed early on when it was
published but do not myself own.)


Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] Rosenthal's ex-FBI source is JFK conspiracist (re: Richard Aoki)

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==

but "who killed JFK?" isn't all that important either.  i don't
believe the word of the government on this, just like most other
people with critical thinking skills.  but we will likely never know
the full truth.  pursuing this question will almost certainly only
lead to more conspiracism.

On Fri, 24 Aug 2012 22:36 Mark wrote:
> I have no opinion on Aoki. It's not important.
>
>But the official version of the JFK assassination (or King's or
Malcolm's or RFK) have never been persuasive. I suggest that those
who are dismiss those versions as "conspiracist" should give serious
consideration into investing a fine old nineteenth-century bit of
transit history crossing over into Brooklyn.
>
>They might be able to find funding by a reliable online Nigerian prince.
>

Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] Police infiltrators and provocateurs

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==

On Fri, 24 Aug 2012 20:26 Jeff wrote:
>
> He just happened to run across a shocking fact, and has reported it citing 
> the exact evidence he had (and releasing the audio of the phone call to Aoki 
> which I find extremely compelling) so that readers can judge for themselves. 
> But it was just a detail in his book.
>

It is still an allegation, not a "fact".  The only HARD "facts"
include: 1) there is an FBI document that names Aoki, but (possibly
due to redactions) it is NOT DEFINITIVE that he is in fact an
informant or simply another target of investigation. 2) a now-deceased
FBI agent's CLAIM that Aoki (with an incorrect middle name) was his
informant up until 1965.

Both Profs. Kurashige and Fujino have read Rosenthal, whose thesis is:

(pp. 34-35 on ibooks): ""Each of these men [Reagan,
Berkeley president Clark Kerr, and Mario Savio] had a transforming
vision of America and exerted extraordinary and lasting influence on
the nation. By tracing the bureau's involvement with these iconic
figures, this book reveals a secret history of America in the sixties.
It shows how the FBI's dirty tricks at Berkeley helped fuel the
student movement, damage the Democratic Party, launch Ronald Reagan's
political career, and exacerbate the nation's continuing cultural
wars."

Kurashige proceeds:

So we know that he chose to advance excerpt the Aoki narrative
not because it's central to his book but because it was the most
sensational sound bite he could use to draw attention to himself ahead
of the book release (standard marketing practice of course). The
thesis stated is entirely consistent with the liberal narrative of the
60s that I discussed earlier. Savio--the white free speech activist
from the early 60s--is "brilliant"; Reagan--the right winger--makes a
pact with the devil (Hoover) to advance politically; Kerr is the
reasonable, underappreciated liberal who was trying to be a
responsible steward but was a casualty of the new social polarization.
Three white male protagonists represent the 60s and the transformation
of America--think that will hold up in 2042?

Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] Rosenthal's ex-FBI source is JFK conspiracist (re: Richard Aoki)

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==

I am in fact aware.  Kurashige also acknowledges Swearingen's
contributions in exonerating Geronimo Pratt.  What is at question here
is the reliability of the speculative conclusion Swearingen reaches
(and which Rosenthal relies upon for Aoki's post-1967 activity) that
Aoki's ancestry was somehow a "perfect cover" for infiltration of the
Panthers.  Swearingen is to be lauded for the HARD EVIDENCE he has
provided as an ex-FBI agent.  But his analytical capacities seem to be
less reliable and tainted by conspiracism.

On Fri, 24 Aug 2012 18:19 Louis wrote:
>
> Apparently comrade x,y is not aware that Swearingen is one of the FBI's most 
> important whistle-blowers of the past half-century. He wrote a book on FBI 
> misdeeds for South End Press, a radical publisher, with an introduction by 
> Ward Churchill whose book on Cointelpro is a classic. He also testified 
> against the FBI for the SWP side in our $35 million suit.
>

Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] Richard Aoki, evidence, informants

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==

On Fri, 24 Aug 2012 14:46 Red Arnie wrote:
>
>This is understandable because Fujino is not a socialist and in her role as a 
>professor of Asian American Studies at UC Santa Barbara, she
is as an advocate of identity politics rather than socialist change.
>
[clip]
> What we need instead is a candid assessment of the strengths and weaknesses 
> of the Asian American and African American political movements during Aoki's 
> adult life.  The reason this candor is not forthcoming is because many are 
> not willing to admit that the weaknesses came from not combining a demand for 
> socialism with the fight against racism.
>

The characterization of ethnic studies as merely "identity politics"
is a common charge by white leftists.  People of color must somehow
wait for socialism in order for racism to be defeated.  This
subordinates their fight against white supremacy to the class
struggle.

Frankly, this calls into question Red Arnie's familiarity with and
understanding of the Black Panthers, Young Lords and related groups,
many of which merged or evolved into organizations affiliated with the
New Communist Movement.

One might as well use the racist language of Wes Swearingen
(Rosenthal's ex-FBI source), who accuses Johnnie Cochran of playing
the vaunted "Race Card". [designation as a proper noun requiring
capital letters was done by Swearingen.]

http://oswalddidnotkilljfk.com/Johnnie-Cochran-Jr.html

Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

[Marxism] Rosenthal's ex-FBI source is JFK conspiracist (re: Richard Aoki)

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


Wesley Swearingen is Rosenthal's ex-FBI source who ludicrously claimed
that Aoki's Japanese ancestry was a perfect cover to infiltrate the
Black Panthers.  Swearingen is Rosenthal's solitary FBI source
alleging that Aoki was still an informant into 1968 and beyond.  Here
is Swearingen's website, largely focused on conspiracies behind the
JFK assassination :

>>>

http://oswalddidnotkilljfk.com/Lee-Harvey-Oswald.html

Lee Harvey Oswald
J. Edgar Hoover ordained Oswald to be the lone assassin without first
conducting any investigation into JFK’s death. Why is that?

Hoover told his Chief Inspector, James H. Gale, that Oswald should
have been on the FBI’s Top Secret Security Index, (SI) but he wasn’t.
Why is that? One reason is that FBI informants do not appear on the
Security Index.

Richard Cain, Chicago’s most notorious gangster trained various groups
at a secret CIA camp in Florida to assassinate Cuban Dictator Fidel
Castro.

Richard Cain is alleged to have taken part in Kennedy’s assassination.

FBI agent William F. Roemer, Jr. admits in his book that Richard Cain
was the FBI’s Top Echelon Mob informant and that Cain had been
anointed the position of FBI Special Agent. Why would Hoover and Gale
ever permit such an act?

If it is true that Cain was at the Dealey Plaza the day JFK was
murdered then it is obvious why Hoover wanted Oswald named as the lone
assassin.

Naming Oswald as the lone assassin to protect Cain is much like Hoover
and Gale protecting the notorious “Whitey” Bulger who was finally
arrested in Santa Monica, California in 2011.

Since the printing of Swearingen’s book TO KILL A PRESIDENT, Ex-FBI
agent Don Adams, who served in Dallas, Texas, has come forward
claiming the FBI knew Lee Harvey Oswald was not in the sniper's nest
when JFK was shot.

James Hosty, who claims he interviewed Oswald for the first time after
Kennedy was shot, is the agent who was rumored to have thrown Oswald’s
FBI informant file in the toilet of the Dallas FBI office, on orders
of Hoover, the day after JFK was killed.


Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] (no subject)

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==

seems to me that this is all related.  the effort to discredit
radicalism in the 60's as "FBI plots", is tied to the attempt to
"stave off the growth of radicalism generated by occupy [et al]".
rosenthal and his ilk want to lionize the "civilized" moderates and
"good liberals", and channel people back into "reforming" the
democratic party.

On Fri, 24 Aug 2012 08:48 Louis wrote:
>
>My bigger concern is this sort of thing:
>
>http://occupyduniya.wordpress.com/2012/08/22/aoki/
>
>Lastly, what is to be gained by this accusation of Aoki as FBI informant, a 
>day before Rosenfeld’s book hits the bookstores?.. this is simply the tip of 
>an iceberg building to stave off the growth of radicalism generated by the 
>Occupy, eco-socialist and anti-globalization movements both in the U.S. and 
>across the planet.
>

Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

[Marxism] (no subject)

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==

On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 22:54 Louis wrote:
>On 8/23/12 10:40 PM, X Y wrote:
>> I have not read the book or any significant excerpts.
>
>
>I kind have figured as much.

Oh, hahaha!!! How cleverly snarky.of you!

So your answer is that you don't want to engage the points that
Kurashige and Fujino, who HAVE read Rosenfeld, brought up.  Nice.

Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

[Marxism] (no subject)

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==

On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 22:14 Louis wrote:
>Could you be more specific? I keep hearing this and plan to deal with this 
>charge in some depth but what exactly did Rosenfeld say that led you to this 
>conclusion?
>
>For example, this is a long article by Rosenfeld but it makes no judgement 
>about a "good" politics different from the Black Panthers.
>

Mostly from the book itself - the 95% of which does not deal with
Aoki. I have not read the book or any significant excerpts.  Diane
Fujino and Scott Kurashige have.

>From my third posting of Kurashige's commentary:

http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/pipermail/marxism/2012-August/143123.html

[excerpt]
Here's the thesis (pp. 34-35 on ibooks): ""Each of these men [Reagan,
Berkeley president Clark Kerr, and Mario Savio] had a transforming
vision of America and exerted extraordinary and lasting influence on
the nation. By tracing the bureau's involvement with these iconic
figures, this book reveals a secret history of America in the sixties.
It shows how the FBI's dirty tricks at Berkeley helped fuel the
student movement, damage the Democratic Party, launch Ronald Reagan's
political career, and exacerbate the nation's continuing cultural
wars." So we know that he chose to advance excerpt the Aoki narrative
not because it's central to his book but because it was the most
sensational sound bite he could use to draw attention to himself ahead
of the book release (standard marketing practice of course). The
thesis stated is entirely consistent with the liberal narrative of the
60s that I discussed earlier. Savio--the white free speech activist
from the early 60s--is "brilliant"; Reagan--the right winger--makes a
pact with the devil (Hoover) to advance politically; Kerr is the
reasonable, underappreciated liberal who was trying to be a
responsible steward but was a casualty of the new social polarization.
Three white male protagonists represent the 60s and the transformation
of America--think that will hold up in 2042?
[/end excerpt]

>>>

>From the concluding paragraphs of Fujino's SF Chronicle piece (posted
in the root of this thread):

[excerpt]
I was surprised that Aoki became the centerpiece of the chapter in
Rosenfeld's book on the 1969 Third World strike. While Aoki was an
important activist, he was largely unknown. Aoki and others agree that
the Third World strike promoted collective leadership. They believed,
as did African American civil rights activist Ella Baker, that the
charismatic leadership model encouraged hero worship, reinforced
individualism and narcissism, and diminished ordinary people's belief
in their own power to effect change. Rosenfeld elevates Aoki to "one
of the Bay Area's most prominent radical activists of the era," a
point that amplifies the drama of his own discovery.

Rosenfeld is particularly critical of activists' use of violence
without placing this violence in a larger context. He implies that
Aoki's guns, given to the Black Panther Party, triggered the police's,
FBI's and government's backlash. Yet he ignores the police brutality
that inspired the Black Panther's police patrols, and the violence of
racism and poverty that inspired the Panther's free breakfast
programs. Instead, Aoki used the symbolic power of violence to stop
the greater violence of the government's failing to actively counter
poverty and institutionalized racism at home and in imposing war in
Vietnam.

In my book on Aoki, I write that instead of being the trigger, Aoki
acted as the "safety on the gun." He was careful to teach gun safety.
Neither the Panthers nor Aoki expected to win a military battle with
the government. Firing the gun wasn't their intended goal. Instead,
Aoki used the symbolic power of violence to stop the greater violence
of the state.

So why did Rosenfeld magnify Aoki when his book focuses more on Mario
Savio, Clark Kerr and the Free Speech Movement? What responsibility
does an author have to provide evidence beyond reasonable doubt before
broadcasting disparaging accusations? Rosenfeld's article, video and
book raise many questions, but fail to meet the burden of proof.
[/end excerpt]

Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] Richard Aoki's Biographer: Where's the evidence Aoki was FBI informant? (SF Chronicle)

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==

I do not agree with Ely's allusions to possible FBI document
tampering.  Nor do I believe Fred Ho, Scott Kurashige or Diane Fujino
lean that way either, though of course it can't be ruled out 100%.
What I and all of the latter are instead emphasizing is that most of
the allegations against Aoki are based on speculative interpretations
and at best circumstantial evidence.  Furthermore, that Rosenfeld
and/or his publishers have cynically highlighted this sensational
accusation against Aoki, made only the DAY BEFORE publication of his
new book.  All this despite the fact that Aoki features in only PART
of the ONLY chapter having anything to do with him, out of a whole
other TWENTY-SEVEN chapters of over 700 pages.  The entire thesis of
the book couldn't deal less with Aoki and is about the supposed
relationship between Hoover and Reagan.  Rosenfeld generally aims to
condemn the radicalization of the "bad", late 1960's - as opposed to
the "good", "liberal/moderate" early 1960's.  The implication is that
such radicalization could somehow only have happened with FBI
meddling, instead of organically arising out of genuine frustration,
anger and resistance in oppressed communities and sectors of society.

At Thu, 23 Aug 2012 17:56 Louis Proyect wrote:
>
>I plan to write about this tomorrow but it is a mistake to think that FBI 
>agents are hell-bent on disruption. Ed Heisler was revealed to be an agent in 
>the SWP during the party's suit against the FBI but he was also a member of 
>the party's national committee for years, mostly on the strength of his work 
>in the railroad workers union. At some point he claimed that in the course of 
>infiltrating the SWP, he became convinced of its ideas. Who knows?
>
I> doubt if we'll ever know the full truth about Richard Aoki but I
seriously doubt that the FBI went through the trouble to make up a
story about him in order to isolate the "radicals" in the Occupy
movement as Mike Ely claims. That is mostly what I am interested in
addressing.

Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

[Marxism] Richard Aoki's Biographer: Where's the evidence Aoki was FBI informant? (SF Chronicle)

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


Seth Rosenfeld's dramatic announcement that Richard Aoki was an FBI
informant provoked an enormous response from Chronicle readers. Could
it be true? Or was this a "snitch-jacketing," a classic FBI tactic
used to cast suspicion on a legitimate activist by spreading rumors
and manufacturing evidence?

As a scholar, I insist on seeing evidence before concluding any
"truth." But as I read Rosenfeld's work and cross-checked sources from
my biography on Aoki, I realized Rosenfeld had not met the burden of
proof. He made definitive conclusions based on inconclusive evidence.

If Aoki was an informant, when was he informing? How did he help the
FBI disrupt political movements? What were his motivations?

I also questioned Rosenfeld's motives. Rosenfeld's piece, published
the day before the release of his own book, gained him widespread
media and public attention that surely will augment sales.

Rosenfeld offers four pieces of evidence against Aoki.

First, Rosenfeld cites only one FBI document, a Nov. 16, 1967, report.
It states: "A supplementary T symbol (SF T-2) was designated for" -
but the name was deleted. Following the now-blank space was the name
Richard Matsui Aoki in parenthesis, and then the phrase "for the
limited purpose of describing his connections with the organization
and characterizing [Aoki]."

In the FBI pages released to me, only brief background material on
Aoki is linked to T-2. Moreover, T symbols are used to refer to
informants or technical sources of information (microphones,
wiretaps). So was Aoki the informer or the one being observed?

Second, FBI agent Burney Threadgill Jr. said he recruited Aoki in the
late 1950s, but we have no substantial evidence other than Rosenfeld's
reports, and Threadgill has since died.

Third, FBI agent M. Wesley Swearingen's statement, as quoted by
Rosenfeld, is hardly compelling: "Someone like Aoki is perfect to be
in a Black Panther Party, because I understand he is Japanese. Hey,
nobody is going to guess - he's in the Black Panther Party; nobody is
going to guess that he might be an informant." But more logically,
Aoki's racial difference made him stand out and aroused suspicion. Are
we asked to simply trust authority figures?

Fourth, Aoki's remarks, as seen in the video, are open to multiple
interpretations, and Aoki denies the allegation. Anyone familiar with
Aoki knows that he spoke with wit, humor, allusion and caution.
Where's the conclusive evidence?

FBI reports notoriously get things wrong, unintentionally
(misinformation, typos) and intentionally ("snitch-jacketing"). The
FBI in its Cointelpro program created false letters and cartoons to
foment conflict between the Black Panthers and another black
nationalist organization, resulting in the 1969 murders of two
Panthers at UCLA.

I have an FBI report, dated July 30, 1971, 105-189989-38, stating that
Aoki had been "invited to become Minister of Defense of the Red Guard"
and served as "the liaison link between the Red Guard and the Black
Panther Party." But this seems wrong, based on archival documents and
my interviews with Aoki and Red Guard leader Alex Hing.

Simply put, because of the FBI's political motives, FBI reports must
be carefully cross-checked with non-FBI sources. But the entirety of
Rosenfeld's evidence relies on FBI sources.

I was surprised that Aoki became the centerpiece of the chapter in
Rosenfeld's book on the 1969 Third World strike. While Aoki was an
important activist, he was largely unknown. Aoki and others agree that
the Third World strike promoted collective leadership. They believed,
as did African American civil rights activist Ella Baker, that the
charismatic leadership model encouraged hero worship, reinforced
individualism and narcissism, and diminished ordinary people's belief
in their own power to effect change. Rosenfeld elevates Aoki to "one
of the Bay Area's most prominent radical activists of the era," a
point that amplifies the drama of his own discovery.

Rosenfeld is particularly critical of activists' use of violence
without placing this violence in a larger context. He implies that
Aoki's guns, given to the Black Panther Party, triggered the police's,
FBI's and government's backlash. Yet he ignores the police brutality
that inspired the Black Panther's police patrols, and the violence of
racism and poverty that inspired the Panther's free breakfast
programs. Instead, Aoki used the symbolic power of violence to stop
the greater violence of the government's failing to actively counter
poverty and institutionalized racism at home and in imposing war in
Vietnam.

In my book on Aoki, I write that instead of being the trigger, Aoki
acted as the "safety on the gun." He was careful to teach gun safety.
Neither the Panthers nor Aoki expected to win a mi

Re: [Marxism] First and Very Partial Read of Seth Rosenfeld's "Subversives" (Re: Richard Aoki)

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==

On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 01:49 Jeff wrote:
>All that Rosenfeld claims is that Aoki started working as an informant in 1957 
>which continued through the 60's during which time he "infiltrated" the CP, 
>SWP, and BPP.

that may well be all that rosenfeld "explicitly" claims (in legal
terms), but the book has 27 chapters, mostly concerning reagan and
hoover.  ONLY ONE chapter has content concerning aoki, and even then
he's not the focus.  meanwhile the promotional articles released the
day before the book release were only about this connection, along
with the headline, "Man who supplied BPP with guns was FBI informant".
 this is cynically manipulative and misleading at best, and is
obviously meant for full shock value, and meant to generate
sensationalist publicity for the book's release today (tuesday 8/21).

Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] First and Very Partial Read of Seth Rosenfeld's "Subversives" (Re: Richard Aoki)

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


just for clarification, those words are by prof. kurashige, not me.


On Tue, 21 Aug 2012 17:50 Louis wrote:
>
>On 8/21/12 5:40 PM, X Y wrote:
>
>> And just to reiterate, anyone who thinks my goal is to preserve Aoki
>> as an icon is misguided.


Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

[Marxism] First and Very Partial Read of Seth Rosenfeld's "Subversives" (Re: Richard Aoki)

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


again, currently only available on kurashige's facebook page

>>>


First and Very Partial Read of Seth Rosenfeld's "Subversives"
by Scott Kurashige on Tuesday, August 21, 2012

Ok, through Amazon and Google previews (you need both cause they
provide different pages) I just read almost the entire chapter of Seth
Rosenfeld's book dealing with Aoki. Can't say anything conclusive yet
but we do have much more to work with. Normally I'd say we should all
wait for the full publication to be released before criticizing a
book--but this is a different case. When an author makes sensational
claims in a short excerpt (just like Amy Chua did) we need to respond
with what we have to work with right now.



First let's be clear--the whole chapter is not about Aoki and that's
the only one out of 27 that deals with Aoki.  Almost the entire book
is about the FBI messing with UC Berkeley student activism in the 60s.
Here's the thesis (pp. 34-35 on ibooks): "Each of these men [Reagan,
Berkeley president Clark Kerr, and Mario Savio] had a transforming
vision of America and exerted extraordinary and lasting influence on
the nation. By tracing the bureau's involvement with these iconic
figures, this book reveals a secret history of America in the sixties.
It shows how the FBI's dirty tricks at Berkeley helped fuel the
student movement, damage the Democratic Party, launch Ronald Reagan's
political career, and exacerbate the nation's continuing cultural
wars." So we know that he chose to advance excerpt the Aoki narrative
not because it's central to his book but because it was the most
sensational sound bite he could use to draw attention to himself ahead
of the book release (standard marketing practice of course). The
thesis stated is entirely consistent with the liberal narrative of the
60s that I discussed earlier. Savio--the white free speech activist
from the early 60s--is "brilliant"; Reagan--the right winger--makes a
pact with the devil (Hoover) to advance politically; Kerr is the
reasonable, underappreciated liberal who was trying to be a
responsible steward but was a casualty of the new social polarization.
Three white male protagonists represent the 60s and the transformation
of America--think that will hold up in 2042?



Second, there is very little about Aoki's relationship to the BPP even
in this one chapter and almost of all of this material is already
reported in the CIR (long version--not the short version on sfgate)
article by Rosenfeld and the accompanying video. The only new
information is that Rosenfeld says the (November) 1967 report posted
in the CIR article (and the only one that Rosenfeld provides to
substantiate his claim that Aoki was an informer) also states that
Aoki reported to the FBI in May 1967 that he had joined the BPP and
was "minister of education." That may be very significant, but I also
don't think you're going to get any more from Rosenfeld than that.
There's nothing that says Aoki was ordered by the FBI to do any
actions within the BPP.



Third, Rosenfeld and Swearingen are contending that the FBI is
withholding further documentation on Aoki--and they most certainly are
right because the FBI withholds as much as it can from everyone.
Rosenfeld says this is circumstantial evidence that Aoki played a
major role for the FBI. Maybe. However, this is speculation. It's also
possible that the FBI doesn't want to release records on Aoki because
his files are part of a general body of documents that embarrasses the
FBI.



Finally and most interesting, most of the discussion about Aoki in the
book involves the TWLF at Berkeley. Here, Rosenfeld has no evidence
that Aoki was working for the FBI--all the argument is based on
circumstantial evidence. It goes like this: Mario Savio and the Free
Speech Movement were good, wholesome examples of (white) radical
activism in the early 60s. Reagan and Hoover investigated and attacked
Savio and FSM but it was all without merit--every claim that Savio was
a Communist or a subversive was dubious because Savio was just a
brilliant, articulate proponent of freedom and democracy. However, the
TWLF--even though it had some justified claims--was violent and turned
off many white students. More than that, for the author's thesis, the
violent TWLF made Reagan (and Nixon and Hoover) look justified in
their repressive calls for law and order. And since the book's big
claim is that it's exposing a conspiracy (mostly by Reagan and
Hoover--again, Aoki is a small player), Rosenfeld strongly suggests
that the TWLF's "violent" turn was sparked by Aoki working on behalf
of the FBI. Here is what he says Aoki did: a) rejected compromise and
always pushed for more militant actions, including the use of violence
(certainly Aoki was no Gandhi but there's no

[Marxism] Richard Aoki and the Black Panthers in the Mainstream Media (follow-up to "My Initial Reaction...")

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


NOTE: This is currently only available via Prof. Kurashige's Facebook page.

>>

RICHARD AOKI AND THE BLACK PANTHERS IN THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA
by Scott Kurashige

Movement activists: you’ve heard the reports that Richard Aoki was an
FBI informant and you’re wondering if this is a huge expose of a
movement icon. We’ll need to discuss this further. In the meantime,
you should realize that this is not at all why the story is
circulating in the mainstream media, which never heard of Aoki before
and doesn’t care about him as an individual. The story is circulating
because of the specific (and largely negative) role the image of the
“Black Panthers” plays in mainstream America.

Whenever you hear the “Black Panthers” discussed in the mainstream
media, you should be suspicious right away. The Panthers are a
fascinating, complex, and contradictory historical entity. But in the
mainstream media and mainstream politics, they are almost always a
simplified symbol of Black Power—and to most white middle-class people
(liberal and conservative) Black Power recalls a terrible time of
urban rebellions, when black militants were burning down cities and
forcing whites to flee to the suburbs.

Of course, this is all white racist history—the reality is that whites
were fleeing cities for decades, even when they held urban political
power, because capitalists were moving jobs to the suburbs and it was
easier to recreate all-white neighborhoods in newly established
suburban tracts. Then, of course, urban rebellions and Black Power
militancy only erupted after years of nonviolent resistance and
legislative lobbying proved inadequate to overcome white hostility,
capitalist maneuvering, and liberal arrogance in the quest for
equality.  The rebellions, as James and Grace Lee Boggs have argued,
were a necessary breaking of the threads of order by people who viewed
the police as an occupying army. The rebellions did not
in-and-of-themselves constitute revolution (nor does any uprising or
armed struggle), but we’ll leave this point for another time.

Whenever Americans want to revel in their backwardness and ignorance,
they bring to mind the bogeyman of Black Power to remind themselves
that they need brutally racist cops, racial segregation, and gated
communities to maintain law and order. And just like movement
organizers use history to expose patterns of oppression, so do these
white populists who cling to a sense of white victimhood. They remind
us that America was seriously threatened by “Black Panthers” and that
this legacy is still with us. (The whole bogus debate on affirmative
action is another variation on a white victimhood narrative.)

You know that Mumia was a Panther. But really, his connection to the
Panthers was tangential—let’s just say Wikipedia is right and he was
in the BPP for 17 months—compared to the rest of his activism,
especially connected with MOVE. The mainstream has never heard of
MOVE. Many folks in Philly know MOVE, but even there most folks know
it as the group that was bombed by the police, causing a major
disaster in West Philly. So it’s just so much easier to call Mumia a
former Panther. And of course, the idea that a “Black Panther” killed
a white cop and deserves to be put to death just makes so much sense
to mainstream America.

Now what about Jamil Abdullah Al-Amin, the former H. Rap Brown? Well
you may have heard that he too was a “Black Panther” even if you never
studied the very short and failed attempt to merge the Panthers with
SNCC.  It was probably when he was arrested for shooting at a cop—a
shooting he claimed was in self-defense. Now of course, lots of
movement folks are inclined to believe that a black man is highly
justified to feel he needed to defend himself from the cops, but the
mainstream rarely sees it that way. Especially when you have CNN to
tell us “Ex-Black Panther convicted of murder”—because calling him the
“ex-leader of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee”—even if
that’s what he’s most historically known for—just isn’t as catchy a
headline. http://edition.cnn.com/2002/LAW/03/09/al.amin.verdict/index.html

We could go on and on. Angela Davis has been associated with so many
different causes and movements but to many she’ll always be identified
solely as a “Black Panther” (and maybe and with more justification a
“Communist”). And the big thing is that the Panther bogeyman never
goes away. The Tea Party is up in arms today about Eric Holder because
they say he won’t prosecute bogus charges of voter intimidation in
2008 by—you guessed it—the Black Panther Party. Yes, folks, the
Panthers swung the 2008 election to make sure we have an evil Muslim
as president. That’s why we need Voter ID laws to disenfranchise poor
people and people of color—riiig

[Marxism] My Initial Thoughts on the Richard Aoki Controversy

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==

http://darkjez.tumblr.com/post/29853162407/my-initial-thoughts-on-the-richard-aoki-controversy-by

My Initial Thoughts on the Richard Aoki Controversy by Scott Kurashige

The story of Richard Aoki being an FBI informant is all over the web.
The published stories are drawing simple conclusions that need to be
questioned and scrutinized. The stories are based on an article for
the Center for Investigative Reporting by Seth Rosenfeld, who has just
released a 720-page book on FBI efforts to disrupt radical activism.

I’m not afraid to learn new things. As a historian, I want to get to
the truth, and I won’t evade contradictions. I want to see the records
and the draw the best possible conclusions. However, there is clearly
more to this story than what’s out there right now.

Here’s what we ALREADY knew: 1) In the aftermath of WWII, young
Japanese Americans were a bundle of contradictions—still facing
intense racism but also being embraced as a model minority. Richard
embodied this contradiction—he was a stellar student but also got into
fights and trouble with the law. He joined the army in the 1950s ready
to be a gung-ho soldier but left soon after and later was a part of
many radical groups in the 1960s. 2) The FBI infiltrated and disrupted
many civil rights, Black Power and left wing groups in the era of J.
Edgar Hoover. One tactic used was to have agent provocateurs spur
radical groups to violence to justify the state using repression
against it. Although Hoover’s COINTELPRO was ended, the FBI and police
are still spying on and trying to undermine activist groups today. 3)
Richard Aoki supplied the Panthers with guns. The Panthers advocated
armed self-defense in the age of intense police brutality and a time
when most in the black community saw the cops as an occupying army.
The Panthers inspired wide support from the community for their
militant opposition to white supremacy AND their survival programs.
The Panthers were heavily infiltrated and got into many violent
clashes with the state that devastated their ranks and led to
increased internal dissension.

So what exactly is NEW about this story: 1) Rosenfeld says he dug up
records saying that Aoki—around the time he graduated from high school
in the 1950s--was commissioned by an FBI agent named Burney Threadgill
to give reports on the Communist Party and the Socialist Workers
Party. This was at a time when Aoki does not claim to have any radical
political consciousness and had been put in a compromised position by
getting into trouble with law enforcement. Let’s accept this for now
and accept that this is historically significant. But let’s keep it in
context. It’s the height of the Cold War and both the CP and SWP would
have been viewed by the public as fringe groups—moreover, they had
little mass appeal to young people of color at this time. We know from
here that Richard went on to join the army. 2) Rosenfeld has one
document from 1967 that identifies Aoki as an FBI informant. It spells
his middle name wrong. It does not say whether he is still actively on
the FBI payroll. It doesn’t specify that Aoki did anything to aid the
FBI’s work against the Panthers. Note that Hoover has yet to declare
war on the Panthers at this time and is more concerned about SNCC and
MLK. And to keep things in perspective, Geronimo Pratt will be
fighting for the US military in Vietnam winning two Purple Hearts
until 1968. 3) That’s it—at least all that’s on the internet right
now. Everything else is speculation based on connecting dots that we
already knew existed.

SETH ROSENFELD’S NARRATIVE

Again, we can’t draw definitive conclusions, yet. What we can saw is
that Rosenfeld has not provided any evidence that Aoki was actively
working to undermine the Panthers on behalf of the FBI.

What Rosenfeld says is that Aoki supplied the Panthers with guns and
that the Panthers were undermined by violent clashes with the state.
But these are things we ALREADY knew. All this story is doing is
tapping into the simplistic white liberal narrative of the 1960s. The
story goes like this: all the activism in the early 1960s was
wholesome, nonviolent, and integrated but then the late 1960s was
dominated by urban rebellions, violent militants, and black
separatists who undermined all the achievements of the early 1960s and
provoked a white middle-class backlash that led to Nixon, Reagan, and
now the Tea Party. In the minds of white conservatives and liberals,
the Panthers have always symbolized the turn toward the so-called bad
activism of the late 60s (and of course conservatives never embraced
the "good" early 60s and many liberals were slow to embrace them). The
only twist to the story is that Rosenfeld wants to use Aoki to say the
FBI was the source of the violent turn—and n

[Marxism] Richard Aoki: Snitch Jacketing 2.0?