January, 06 2010, 08:53am EDT
Africa Action Mourns the Loss of Bill Sutherland, 1918-2010
“I'm a person who believes in nonviolence on principle. And true nonviolence is a spiritual force that the people can have, which can be the most powerful thing going. But I respect the revolutionist who adopts a violent method, because I think that the most important thing is the revolution." —Bill Sutherland
WASHINGTON
Africa Action
is saddened to learn of the death of Bill Sutherland, African American
pacifist, Pan African activist elder, and a founder of Africa Action's
first predecessor organization, the American Committee on Africa. He
died peacefully on the evening of January 2, 2010. He was 91.
"Bill was a remarkable person and a true pioneer committed to the
liberation struggle in Africa and achieving an end to colonialism and
Global Apartheid," said Gerald LeMelle, Executive Director of
Africa Action. He adds, "Africa Action is grounded in the history
and purpose of his vision and through his legacy, we are committed to
promoting human rights and working towards social, political and
economic justice in Africa."
During a ceremony of Africa Action's 50th anniversary, George Houser, a
founding Director of the American Committee on Africa (ACOA) and The
Africa Fund said, "This is how we got started. It was the Defiance
Campaign in South Africa sponsored by the African National Congress to
which we responded, resulting in more then 8500 arrests for nonviolent
civil disobedience against the apartheid laws. It was Bill Sutherland
who urged us to get involved."
The Americans for South African Resistance became the ad hoc support
group and a vehicle for information about the Campaign and to raise
money for political prisoners for the Africa. In 1953, once the
Defiance Campaign ended, the Americans for South African Resistance
disbanded, and Sutherland and his colleagues established a more formal
organization, the American Committee on Africa (ACOA), presently known
as Africa Action.
Sutherland's relationship with a broad spectrum of Africans who played
key roles in both revolution and reform, including Frantz Fanon,
Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Prime Minister Kwame Nkrumah, Rev. Martin
Luther King Jr., Malcolm X, Dennis Brutus and others, helped shape his
vision of a more just world. During his experience living in Africa
for over three decades, Sutherland demonstrated an unyielding
commitment to the liberation struggle.
Michael Stulman, Associate Director for Policy and Communications said,
"His work is a history of solidarity that is essential for finding
new paths to a future of human rights for all."
Africa Action extends our deepest condolences to his family and friends.
To find more information on funeral arrangements, please email info
(at) africaaction.org
XXX
Bill Sutherland, Pan African Pacifist, 1918-2010
Bill Sutherland, unofficial ambassador between the peoples of Africa
and the Americas for over fifty years, died peacefully on the evening
of January 2, 2010. He was 91.
A life-long pacifist and liberation advocate, Sutherland became
involved in civil rights and anti-war activities as a youthful member
of the Student Christian Movement in the 1930s. Sutherland was raised
in New Jersey, the son of a prominent dentist and youngest brother to
Reiter Sutherland and to Muriel Sutherland Snowden of Boston, who
founded Freedom House in 1949 and was awarded a MacArthur Fellowship
"genius" grant. He spent four years at Lewisburg Federal Correctional
Facility in the 1940s as a conscientious objector to World War Two,
striking up what became life-long friendships with fellow C.O.s Ralph
DiGia, Bayard Rustin, George Houser, Dave Dellinger, and others. In
1951, in the early days of the Cold War, Sutherland, DiGia, Dellinger,
and Quaker pacifist Art Emory constituted the Peacemaker bicycle
project, which took the message of nuclear disarmament to both sides of
the Iron Curtain.
In 1953, in coordination with the War Resisters International and with
several activist groups and independence movement parties on the
continent, he moved to what was then known as the Gold Coast. An active
supporter of Kwame Nkrumah, he married playwright and Pan African
cultural activist Efua Theodora, and became the headmaster of a rural
secondary school. The call of Pan Africanist politics was very strong,
and Sutherland was instrumental--along with a small group of African
Americans living in Ghana at the time, including dentists Robert and
Sara Lee-in hosting the visit of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and
Coretta Scott King to the 1957 independence celebrations. In the early
days of the first Ghanaian government, Sutherland also served on the
organizing team of the All African Peoples Congress. He was appointed
private secretary to Finance Minister Komla Gbedema. He was also
central to the development of the Sahara Protest Team, which brought
together African, European, and U.S. peace leaders to put their bodies
in the way of nuclear testing in the Sahara Desert.
Sutherland left Ghana in 1961, working in both Lebanon and Israel for
the founding of Peace Brigades International, and for the Israeli labor
organization Histadrut. It was also in this period that he began a
friendship with Prince Sadruddin Aga Khan of the Ismaili community,
working in support of displaced persons as Sadruddin became United
Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. He settled in Dar es Salaam,
Tanzania in 1963, as a civil servant. Sutherland's chief work in Dar
involved support for the burgeoning independent governments and
liberation movements. A close friend and associate of Tanzania's Julius
Nyerere and Zambia's Kenneth Kaunda, Sutherland helped develop the Pan
African Freedom Movement of East and Central Africa (PAFMECA). He
served as hospitality officer for the Sixth Pan African Congress--held
in Dar in 1974--working with C.L.R. James and other long-time colleagues
to bridge the gap between Africans on the continent and in the
Diaspora. He hosted countless individuals and delegations from the U.S.
in these years, including assisting Malcolm X in what would be his last
trip to Tanzania. His home in Dar became a camping ground for
liberation leaders in exile from Namibia, Zimbabwe, Mozambique, South
Africa and throughout the region. His love of music, especially jazz,
his passion for tennis (which he played well into his 80s), and the
pleasure he got from dancing, were hallmarks of his interactions,
shared with political associates and personal friends the world over.
Despite Sutherland's close association with those engaged in armed
struggle, he maintained his connections with and commitment to
revolutionary nonviolence, and joined the international staff of the
Quaker-based American Friends Service Committee (AFSC) in 1974. As the
AFSC pushed for the Nobel Peace Prize to be awarded to South African
anti-apartheid clergyman Bishop Desmond Tutu, Sutherland was working as
the AFSC international representative. In 2003, the AFSC initiated an
annual Bill Sutherland Institute, training Africa lobbyists and
advocates in various policy issues and educational techniques.
Sutherland was also the recipient of an honorary doctorate degree from
Bates College, and served as a Fellow at Harvard University's Institute
of Politics. He was awarded a special citation from the Gandhi Peace
Foundation in India, and, in 2009, received the War Resisters League's
Grace Paley Lifetime Achievement Award.
In 2000, Africa World Press published Sutherland's Guns and Gandhi in
Africa: Pan African Insights on Nonviolence, Armed Struggle, and
Liberation, co-authored by Matt Meyer. Archbishop Tutu, who wrote the
foreword for the book, commented that "Sutherland and Meyer have looked
beyond the short-term strategies and tactics which too often divide
progressive people . . . They have begun to develop a language which
looks at the roots of our humanness." On the occasion of Sutherland's
90th birthday last year, Tutu called in a special message, noting that
"the people of Africa owe Bill Sutherland a big thank you for his
tireless support."
Bill Sutherland is survived by three children--Esi Sutherland-Addy,
Ralph Sutherland, and Amowi Sutherland Phillips--as well as
grandchildren in Accra, Ghana; Spokane, Washington; Lewiston, Maine;
New Haven, Connecticut; and Brooklyn, New York. In addition to scores
of family members, friends, and loved ones, he will be missed by his
niece, Gail Snowden, his loving partner Marilyn Meyer, and his
"adopted" sons Matt Meyer and john powell. There will be a private
funeral for family members this week, and memorial services will be
organized for later this year.
Africa Action is a national organization that works for political, economic and social justice in Africa. Through the provision of accessible information and analysis combined with the mobilization of public pressure we work to change the policies and policy-making processes of U.S. and multinational institutions toward Africa. The work of Africa Action is grounded in the history and purpose of its predecessor organizations, the American Committee on Africa (ACOA), The Africa Fund, and the Africa Policy Information Center (APIC), which have fought for freedom and justice in Africa since 1953. Continuing this tradition, Africa Action seeks to re-shape U.S. policy toward African countries.
LATEST NEWS
ICE Goons Pepper Spray Congresswoman Adelita Grijalva During Tucson Raid
"If federal agents are brazen enough to fire pellets directly at a member of Congress, imagine how they behave when encountering defenseless members of our community," Grijalva said.
Dec 05, 2025
In what Arizona's attorney general slammed as an "unacceptable and outrageous" act of "unchecked aggression," a federal immigration officer fired pepper spray toward recently sworn-in Congresswoman Adelita Grijalva during a Friday raid on a Tucson restaurant.
Grijalva (D-Ariz.) wrote on social media that US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers "just conducted a raid by Taco Giro in Tucson—a small mom-and-pop restaurant that has served our community for years."
"When I presented myself as a member of Congress asking for more information, I was pushed aside and pepper sprayed," she added.
Grijalva said in a video uploaded to the post that she was "sprayed in the face by a very aggressive agent, pushed around by others, when I literally was not being aggressive, I was asking for clarification, which is my right as a member of Congress."
The video shows Grijalva among a group of protesters who verbally confronted federal agents over the raid. Following an order to "clear," an agent is seen firing what appears to be a pepper ball at the ground very near the congresswoman's feet. Video footage also shows agents deploying gas against the crowd.
"They're targeting small mom-and-pop businesses that don't have the financial resources to fight back," Grijalva told reporters after the incident. "They're targeting small businesses and people that are helping in our communities in order to try to fill the quota that [President Donald] Trump has given them."
Mocking the incident on social media, Department of Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin contended that Grijalva "wasn’t pepper sprayed."
"She was in the vicinity of someone who *was* pepper sprayed as they were obstructing and assaulting law enforcement," she added. "In fact, two law enforcement officers were seriously injured by this mob that [Grijalva] joined."
McLaughlin provided no further details regarding the nature of those injuries.
Democrats in Arizona and beyond condemned Friday's incident, with US Sen. Ruben Gallego writing on social media that Grijalva "was doing her job, standing up for her community."
"Pepper spraying a sitting member of Congress is disgraceful, unacceptable, and absolutely not what we voted for," he added. "Period."
Democratic Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes said on social media: "This is unacceptable and outrageous. Enforcing the rule of law does not mean pepper spraying a member of Congress for simply asking questions. Effective law enforcement requires restraint and accountability, not unchecked aggression."
Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) also weighed in on social media, calling the incident "outrageous."
"Rep. Grijalva was completely within her rights to stand up for her constituents," she added. "ICE is completely lawless."
Friday's incident follows federal agents' violent removal of Sen. Alexa Padilla (D-Calif.) from a June press conference held by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem.
Congresswoman LaMonica McIver (D-NJ) was federally indicted in June for allegedly “forcibly impeding and interfering with federal officers" during an oversight visit at a privately operated migrant detention center in Newark, New Jersey and subsequent confrontation with ICE agents outside of the lockup in which US Reps. Bonnie Watson Coleman and Rob Menendez, both New Jersey Democrats, were also involved.
Violent assaults by federal agents on suspected undocumented immigrants—including US citizens—protesters, journalists, and others are a regular occurrence amid the Trump administration's mass deportation campaign.
"If federal agents are brazen enough to fire pellets directly at a member of Congress, imagine how they behave when encountering defenseless members of our community," Grijalva said late Friday on social media. "It’s time for Congress to rein in this rogue agency NOW."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Gavin Newsom Wants a 'Big Tent Party,' But Opposes Wealth Tax Supported by Large Majority of Americans
"A wealth tax is a big tent policy unless the only people you care about are billionaires," said one progressive organizer.
Dec 05, 2025
California Gov. Gavin Newsom, considered by some to be the frontrunner to be the next Democratic presidential nominee, said during a panel on Wednesday that he wants his party to be a “big tent” that welcomes large numbers of people into the fold. But he’s “adamantly against” one of the most popular proposals Democrats have to offer: a wealth tax.
In October, progressive economists Emmanuel Saez and Robert Reich joined forces with one of California's most powerful unions, the Service Employees International Union's (SEIU) United Healthcare Workers West, to propose that California put the nation’s first-ever wealth tax on the ballot in November 2026.
They described the measure as an "emergency billionaires tax" aimed at recouping the tens of billions of dollars that will be stripped from California's 15 million Medicaid recipients over the next five years, after Republicans enacted historic cuts to the program in July with President Donald Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which dramatically reduced taxes for the wealthiest Americans.
Among those beneficiaries were the approximately 200 billionaires living in California, whose average annual income, Saez pointed out, has risen by 7.5% per year, compared with 1.5% for median-income residents.
Under the proposal, they would pay a one-time 5% tax on their total net worth, which is estimated to raise $100 billion. The vast majority of the funds, about 90%, would be used to restore Medicaid funding, while the rest would go towards funding K-12 education, which the GOP has also slashed.
The proposal in California has strong support from unions and healthcare groups. But Newsom has called it “bad policy” and “another attempt to grab money for special purposes.”
Meanwhile, several of his longtime consultants, including Dan Newman and Brian Brokaw, have launched a campaign alongside “business and tech leaders” to kill the measure, which they’ve dubbed “Stop the Squeeze." They've issued familiar warnings that pinching the wealthy too hard will drive them from the state, along with the critical tax base they provide.
At Wednesday's New York Times DealBook Summit, Andrew Ross Sorkin asked Newsom about his opposition to the wealth tax idea, comparing it to a proposal by recent New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani, who pledged to increase the income taxes of New Yorkers who earn more than $1 million per year by 2% in order to fund his city-wide free buses, universal childcare, and city-owned grocery store programs.
Mamdani's proposal was met with a litany of similar warnings from Big Apple bigwigs who threatened to flee the city and others around the country who said they'd never move in.
But as Robin Kaiser-Schatzlein explained in October for the American Prospect: "The evidence for this is thin: mostly memes shared by tech and finance people... Research shows that the truth of the matter is closer to the opposite. Wealthy individuals and their income move at lower rates than other income brackets, even in response to an increase of personal income tax." Many of those who sulked about Mamdani's victory have notably begun making amends with the incoming mayor.
Moreover, the comparison between Mamdani's plan and the one proposed in California is faulty to begin with. As Harold Meyerson explained, also for the Prospect: "It is a one-time-only tax, to be levied exclusively on billionaires’ current (i.e., 2025) net worth. Even if they move to Tasmania, they will still be liable for 5% of this year’s net worth."
"Crucially, the tax won’t crimp the fortunes of any billionaire who moves into the state next year or any later year, as it only applies to the billionaires living in the state this year," he added. "Therefore... the horrific specter of billionaire flight can’t be levied against the California proposal."
Nevertheless, Sorkin framed Newsom as being in an existential battle of ideas with Mamdani, asking how the two could both represent the Democratic Party when they are so "diametrically opposed."
"Well, I want to be a big-tent party," Newsom replied. "It's about addition, not subtraction."
Pushed on the question of whether there should be a "unifying theory of the case," Newsom responded that “we all want to be protected, we all want to be respected, we all want to be connected to something bigger than ourselves. We have fundamental values that I think define our party, about social justice, economic justice.”
"We have pre-distribution Democrats, and we have re-distribution Democrats," he continued. "Therein lies the dialectic and therein lies the debate."
Polling is scarce so far on the likelihood of such a measure passing in California. But nationally, polls suggest that the vast majority of Democrats fall on the "re-distribution" side of Newsom's "dialectic." In fact, the majority of all Americans do, regardless of party affiliation.
Last year, Inequality.org examined 55 national and state polls about a number of different taxation policies and found:
A billionaire income tax garnered the most support across party identification. On average, two out of three (67%) of Americans supported the tax including 84% of Democrats, 64% of Independents, and 51% of Republicans.
In national polls, a wealth tax had similarly high levels of support. More than three out of five Americans supported the tax including 78% of Democrats, 62% of Independents, and 51% of Republicans.
That sentiment only seems to have grown since the return of President Donald Trump. An Economist/YouGov poll released in early November found that 72% of Americans said that taxes on billionaires should be raised—including 95% of Democrats, 75% of independents, and 48% of Republicans. Across the board, just 15% said they should not be raised.
Support remains high when the proposal is more specific as well. On the eve of Mamdani's election, despitre months of fearmongering, 64% of New Yorkers said they backed his proposal, including a slight plurality of self-identified conservatives, according to a Siena College poll.
Many observers were perplexed by how Newsom proposes to maintain a “big tent” while opposing policies supported by most of the people inside it.
"A wealth tax is a big tent policy unless the only people you care about are billionaires," wrote Jonathan Cohn, the political director for Progressive Mass, a grassroots organization in Massachusetts, on social media.
"Gavin Newsom—estimated net worth between $20 and $30 million—says he's opposed to a billionaire wealth tax. Color me shocked," wrote the Columbia University lecturer Anthony Zenkus. "Democrats holding him up as a potential savior for 2028 is a clear example of not reading the room."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Case That Could Bless Trump's Bid to End Birthright Citizenship
"That the Supreme Court is actually entertaining Trump’s unconstitutional attack on birthright citizenship is the clearest example yet that the Roberts Court is broken beyond repair," said one critic.
Dec 05, 2025
The United States Supreme Court on Friday agreed to decide whether US President Donald Trump's executive order ending birthright citizenship—as guaranteed under the 14th Amendment for more than 150 years—is constitutional.
Next spring, the justices will hear oral arguments in Trump's appeal of a lower court ruling that struck down parts of an executive order—titled Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship—signed on the first day of the president's second term. Under the directive, which has not taken effect due to legal challenges, people born in the United States would not be automatically entitled to US citizenship if their parents are in the country temporarily or without legal authorization.
Enacted in 1868, the 14th Amendment affirms that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."
While the Trump administration argues that the 14th Amendment was adopted to grant US citizenship to freed slaves, not travelers or undocumented immigrants, two key Supreme Court cases have affirmed birthright citizenship under the Constitution—United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) and Afroyim v. Rusk (1967).
Here is the question presented. It's a relatively clean vehicle for the Supreme Court to finally decide whether it is lawful for the president to deny birthright citizenship to the children of immigrants. www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25...
[image or embed]
— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjsdc.bsky.social) December 5, 2025 at 10:55 AM
Several district court judges have issued universal preliminary injunctions to block Trump's order. However, the Supreme Court's right-wing supermajority found in June that “universal injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts."
In July, a three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit unanimously ruled that executive order is an unconstitutional violation of the plain language of the 14th Amendment. In total, four federal courts and two appellate courts have blocked Trump's order.
“No president can change the 14th Amendment’s fundamental promise of citizenship,” Cecillia Wang, national legal director at the ACLU—which is leading the nationwide class action challenge to Trump's order—said in a statement Friday. “We look forward to putting this issue to rest once and for all in the Supreme Court this term.”
Brett Edkins, managing director of policy and political affairs at the advocacy group Stand Up America, was among those who suggested that the high court justices should have refused to hear the case given the long-settled precedent regarding the 14th Amendment.
“This case is a right-wing fantasy, full stop. That the Supreme Court is actually entertaining Trump’s unconstitutional attack on birthright citizenship is the clearest example yet that the Roberts Court is broken beyond repair," Edkins continued, referring to Chief Justice John Roberts.
"Even if the court ultimately rules against Trump, in a laughable display of its supposed independence, the fact that fringe attacks on our most basic rights as citizens are being seriously considered is outrageous and alarming," he added.
Aarti Kohli, executive director of the Asian Law Caucus, said that “it’s deeply troubling that we must waste precious judicial resources relitigating what has been settled constitutional law for over a century," adding that "every federal judge who has considered this executive order has found it unconstitutional."
Tianna Mays, legal director for Democracy Defenders Fund, asserted, “The attack on the fundamental right of birthright citizenship is an attack on the 14th Amendment and our Constitution."
"We are confident the court will affirm this basic right, which has stood for over a century," Mays added. "Millions of families across the country deserve and require that clarity and stability.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


