by Bill Fletcher, Jr.

In growing up, every Fletcher is reminded that we are the descendants of a man named Tecumseh, one of the greatest leaders of the Shawnee, and of Native Americans. In the first decade of the 19th century, he embarked on a mission ignored by most historians, although Allan W. Ekert wrote an excellent book called, A Sorrow In Our Heart: The Life of Tecumseh, that I would recommend.

Tecumseh came to realize that Native Americans could not defeat the encroaching whites by fighting as Shawnee, as Winnebago, as Iroquois, as Cherokee; nor could they win in a confederation. Pontiac and others had attempted to build confederations, and these had failed because ultimately the component parts often have more identity with-and unity with-that part than the goals of the confederations. Tecumseh believed that Native Americans had to rethink themselves and essentially forge a new identity, that is, as Indians, and move towards the construction of an Indian nation state if they were going to successfully confront the encroaching white Americans. He actually came close to succeeding. But that's for another story.

One of the lessons we can learn from Tecumseh is that for resistance to be successful the oppressed must assert a collective identity that defines them in positive terms and builds a linkage across various boundaries of the particular oppressions. Tecumseh recognized this fact. He fought against the idea that the Shawnee need to continue to war against the Cherokee, or that it was acceptable to remain furious with the Iroquois because of things that had been done, but put forward the idea that there needed to be the forging of this new identity. And in fact, every successful national liberation struggle and any successful movement has come to exactly the same conclusion: A new, collective identity of the oppressed must be formed.

So we must do likewise, particularly because the compelling need is for us to build a movement that in fact can fight for and gain power and not just resist. To borrow from the Italian Communist Antonio Gramsci, this means that our search must ultimately be for what he called a new historic bloc-what I call a social/political bloc-that can fight for power and begin the process of transformation. In this sense resistance, contrary to the "Borg" for those of you who are Star Trek fans, resistance is essential (not futile), but it's insufficient. There comes a time when we have to move beyond being resistors to being a resistance. And when we move beyond being a resistance to becoming a movement of the majority in search of the struggle for power to change our environment, we begin a process of social transformation.
The question now is how do we form such a collective bloc, or what is the basis of this collective identity? In Tecumseh's situation, the answer was actually fairly obvious, although not simple. The construction of a new national identity made perfect sense with an enemy that was very clear and was attempting to squelch out the national existence of a people. We have a more complicated situation in which it is more a question of the oppressed coming to see themselves in and of that bloc. So the first thing is that we need to be able to see our interests represented there, as opposed to seeing it as simply a matter of external solidarity, that is, of doing something for someone else. Our interests are aligned with, and quite literally in, that bloc.

The second thing requires that we avoid an historical pitfall and, contrary to much of the past practice of progressive social movements, refuse to settle for the "lowest common denominator" unity. Usually this means let's forget about race and pretend it doesn't exist in order to build whatever unity we can in the face of what's called common oppression. That simply doesn't work because of the historical foundation of the United States. Therefore, in forging this bloc we have to be mindful of history when we move forward.

Let me close with one thing that's been troubling me but it's very relevant, I think, to the question of resistance. Over the last number of years I've noticed this rise of people who have decided to renounce and to leave the United States because they're sick of the United States and it's time to move on to some other place. Now I would say that if you were W.E.B. DuBois you had absolutely a reason to leave the United States, because in fact you were chased out of the United States. And there are many people, lesser known than Dubois, who in fact have been and will continue to be chased out of the United States, that is, where there is a threat to your actual life and livelihood. That is different from simply walking away out of frustration with the USA. If one is frustrated and believes that nothing more can be accomplished, then one should leave, but not make a pronouncement about it. All that accomplishes is the furtherance of despair. I would suggest that we are morally obligated to resist the Empire. Ultimately what we do provides the space for the rest of the planet to breathe or to suffocate (if we fail to act). That's why our resistance-and the work of RESIST-remains so essential.

---

Bill Fletcher, Jr., is a longtime labor and international activist, a former co-chair and founder of United for Peace and Justice, and a co-founder of the Black Radical Congress.