This is why I've been positioning everything I say about counterinsurgency around getting folks to understand that the state views us as insurgents, since a desire for an end to our oppression is also a desire for the end of the state. https://twitter.com/MalaikaJabali/status/1359629112478994436

If you did a cursory overview of how the state views insurgents, they understand how material needs drive insurgent development.

Our oppressor requires our continued oppression, poverty, disease, etc.

The state will typically shift the material needs of targeted communities as part of their efforts to stop insurgencies (build schools, hospitals, pass out food) in other countries, but they kill us when we try to do that here.

Why?

the state requires our oppression, so they:

1. Get us comfortable with our continued oppression

2. Get potential allies comfortable with our continued oppression

That's it. Every interaction the state has w Black ppl falls under either of these goals.

Prioritizing symbolism and "representation" does two things,

1. it gets ppl comfortable with our continued oppression, and
2. It reduces the likelihood of us fighting to end the state by focusing on our material conditions

Strategically, since at least the 1920s the state has fought tirelessly to artificially inflate narratives and goals within black liberation efforts that support the continued presence of US empire and support fixation on things that get us comfortable w our continued oppression

I suggest everyone study US Counterinsurgency strategy through the lens of seeing African Americans and Indigenous Americans as potential insurgents. You stop being surprised and bamboozled when you can clock state efforts directly.

(To be clear, the US created the conditions abroad that creates what they call insurgents abroad, and then tries to buy back goodwill through counterinsurgency efforts. May it always fail. May we see an end to US empire both here + abroad in our lifetime ashé)