Policing the Crisis, Policing the Planet: an Interview with Christina Heatherton and Jordan T. Camp


Thirty-eight years ago this month, a group of researchers led by Stu­art Hall pub­lished their land­mark study Polic­ing the Cri­sis. Though pur­port­edly focused on the moral panic sur­round­ing mug­ging, the book pro­vides con­tem­po­rary read­ers with a pre­his­tory of neolib­er­al­ism, chart­ing the unrav­el­ing post-war con­sen­sus and the dis­place­ment of social demo­c­ra­tic hege­mony. Accom­pa­ny­ing these polit­i­cal and eco­nomic trans­for­ma­tions was a restruc­tur­ing of the work­ing class itself; the com­bined effects of accel­er­at­ing job­less­ness and deskilling among migrant work­ers, who retained the black polit­i­cal con­scious­ness of the 1960s, con­sol­i­dated eth­ni­cally dis­tinct class frac­tions in Britain and resulted in a splin­ter­ing of strug­gles. On the one hand, there was a clas­si­cal series of indus­trial strikes from a mul­tira­cial but pre­dom­i­nantly white work­force. On the other, there emerged an oppo­si­tional cul­ture of extra-legal hus­tling and self-help. The authors noted that such dis­tinct modes of resis­tance could work in tandem: the refusal of work by urban black pro­le­tar­i­ans could become a refusal to com­pete with increas­ingly pre­car­i­ous indus­trial work­ers, a refusal to break their strikes. But with­out an orga­ni­za­tion that might have coor­di­nated these dis­crete sec­tors, it was the “law and order” strate­gies of the Con­ser­v­a­tive Party that played the medi­at­ing role. A trumped-up media scare around black crim­i­nal­ity autho­rized an increased police pres­ence in inner cities, while trag­i­cally dis­abling the pos­si­bil­ity of a rev­o­lu­tion­ary alliance, even as the racist rep­re­sen­ta­tion of crime pro­vided the nec­es­sary ide­o­log­i­cal mate­ri­als to “dis­ci­pline, restrain, and coerce” the work­ing class in gen­eral. Their analy­sis is a painful reminder that class isn’t just made at the point of pro­duc­tion – it’s a con­se­quence of pol­i­tics, too.1

 Polic­ing the Planet, an impor­tant new anthol­ogy edited by Christina Heather­ton and Jor­dan T. Camp, invokes this ear­lier work in more than just name. Across the indi­vid­ual con­tri­bu­tions from activists and schol­ars is a shared atten­tion to the role of bro­ken-win­dows polic­ing in the remak­ing of the Amer­i­can and even global work­ing class. Since Occupy, many have puz­zled over the ten­dency of social move­ments, regard­less of their orig­i­nal griev­ances, to revolve around an antag­o­nism with cops and cages. In chart­ing how a range of rul­ing class strate­gies – from urban rede­vel­op­ment and the dis­ci­plin­ing of migrant labor, to impe­ri­al­ist coun­ter-insur­gency – pivot on polic­ing, this book helps explain why.

Heather­ton and Camp’s vol­ume is also notable for its strong empha­sis on a mul­tira­cial rev­o­lu­tion­ary unity. Some con­trib­u­tors make this call quite explic­itly, but the case is best made by their sim­ple index­ing of the broad range of pro­le­tar­i­ans tar­geted by these new repres­sive tech­niques. For some read­ers, this may be hard to square with the tenor of con­tem­po­rary move­ment pol­i­tics. After all, the metaphors which anchor our under­stand­ing of the carceral state – Michelle Alexander’s New Jim Crow, for instance – often point to a specif­i­cally anti-black project. The cur­rency of this kind of analy­sis is a reflec­tion of the uneven char­ac­ter of polic­ing and pris­ons as well as the geneal­ogy of these insti­tu­tions’ emer­gence. Most impor­tantly, the pop­u­lar­ity of these metaphors is a tes­ta­ment to polit­i­cal lega­cies of black lib­er­a­tion, its unri­valed role in Amer­i­can rad­i­cal­ism both past and present. Nev­er­the­less, this book reminds us that polic­ing is not exhausted by the after­lives of slav­ery. What’s notable about “bro­ken win­dows” is the remark­able num­ber of avenues that it can inter­vene in, the tremen­dous range of its reach. Where the diverse array of forces loosely orga­nized under the ban­ner of Black Lives Mat­ter have re-posed ques­tions of black par­tic­u­lar­ity and uni­ver­sal eman­ci­pa­tion, these essays can help us locate those dis­cus­sions on a global and his­tor­i­cal level. 

As we take stock of the coor­di­nates of rev­o­lu­tion­ary strat­egy today, this col­lec­tion pro­vides an indis­pens­able resource. We offer this inter­view as an intro­duc­tion to the vital inquiries ini­ti­ated by Polic­ing the Planet and its con­trib­u­tors.

– Ben Mabie 


Ben Mabie: What are “com­mu­nity” or “bro­ken win­dows” polic­ing strate­gies? What makes them novel as a way to dis­ci­pline, divide, con­tain, and ter­ror­ize the work­ing class?

Jor­dan T. Camp and Christina Heather­ton: Bro­ken win­dows polic­ing names the prac­tice of aggres­sively enforc­ing petty crimes osten­si­bly in an effort to ward off large-scale “dis­or­der.” The idea, famously described in a 1982 Atlantic arti­cle asserts how a bro­ken win­dow in a neigh­bor­hood sig­nals neglect and encour­ages small crimes, which then lead to larger ones. The disorder—the “qual­ity of life” violations—that bro­ken win­dows polic­ing tar­gets are crimes of poverty, things like loi­ter­ing, tres­pass­ing, hav­ing a bro­ken tail­light, play­ing loud music—or to be more speci­fic, behav­ior that poor and work­ing class peo­ple don’t uniquely engage in but are dis­pro­por­tion­ately tar­geted for. Peo­ple can be stopped inces­santly, either for small crimes or because they poten­tially might have war­rants which are often unpaid tick­ets from ear­lier stops that they couldn’t afford to pay first time around. As we have seen in so many police killings, such as the mur­der of Phi­lando Castile who was stopped at least 46 times for petty offenses, this intense form of polic­ing makes every­one, espe­cially in Black, Lat­inx, Native, mostly immi­grant, poor, and work­ing class neigh­bor­hoods, crim­i­nally sus­pect.

As social move­ments demand an end to “bro­ken win­dows polic­ing,” lib­eral politi­cians and police offi­cials are propos­ing “com­mu­nity polic­ing” as an alter­na­tive. Assert­ing that there is a dis­tinc­tion between bro­ken win­dows and com­mu­nity polic­ing is both dan­ger­ous and disin­gen­u­ous, as we argue in Polic­ing the Planet. Even Bill Brat­ton, NYPD Police Com­mis­sioner and chief pro­po­nent of bro­ken win­dows, recently argued, “bro­ken win­dows polic­ing is prob­a­bly the most vivid exam­ple of com­mu­nity polic­ing there is.”

Seem­ingly new pro­pos­als to increase com­mu­nity part­ner­ships, diver­sify police forces, and arm cops with cam­eras and non-lethal weapons, are culled from a very old script. As Naomi Murakawa points out, the seem­ingly “new” ini­tia­tives pro­posed by the Obama admin­is­tra­tion are nearly iden­ti­cal to ones pro­moted by the Lyn­don B. John­son admin­is­tra­tion in the 1960s. These pro­pos­als arose in response to the long civil rights move­ment and the urban upris­ings in places like Watts, Detroit, Newark, and Harlem dur­ing the 1960s. As Jim Crow racial regimes were thrown into a cri­sis of legit­i­macy, the cap­i­tal­ist state aban­doned straight­for­ward seg­re­ga­tion and adopted new forms of racist social con­trol (as Jor­dan describes in his new book, Incar­cer­at­ing the Cri­sis: Free­dom Strug­gles and the Rise of the Neolib­eral State). Police depart­ments began pre­sent­ing them­selves as being more respon­sive to the needs of the “com­mu­nity,” more atten­dant to issues of racial inequal­ity, and more will­ing to engage in “dia­logue” (to use that cipher of good inten­tions and craven neg­li­gence). Then as now, these pro­pos­als are more pub­lic rela­tions than pol­icy, man­dat­ing no actual change in the func­tion­ing of polic­ing, but open­ing up new rev­enue streams for police depart­ments.

BM: You describe these strate­gies as both an ide­o­log­i­cal project and a polit­i­cal response to the cri­sis of the late 1970s. What pre­cisely in the con­junc­ture were these strate­gies respond­ing to?

JC and CH: Bro­ken win­dows polic­ing was pro­duced as a polit­i­cal response to the worst eco­nomic cri­sis since the Great Depres­sion that took hold in the 1970s. We argue that it helped facil­i­tate major shifts in the urban polit­i­cal econ­omy as well as the con­sol­i­da­tion of the U.S. carceral state. As Christina Han­hardt describes with regard to the gen­tri­fi­ca­tion of Times Square, this polic­ing strat­egy fur­ther exac­er­bated racist moral pan­ics about gen­der and sex­u­al­ity in order to “prime the city for pri­vate invest­ment.” We also fol­low geo­g­ra­pher Neil Smith’s lead in sug­gest­ing that bro­ken win­dows was used pri­mar­ily to ren­der cities more “secure” for neolib­eral regimes of cap­i­tal accu­mu­la­tion.

By neolib­er­al­ism, we mean a polit­i­cal and ide­o­log­i­cal project with long his­tor­i­cal and geo­graphic roots that includes fea­tures such as: the delib­er­ate shrink­age of the social func­tion­ing of the state (and the pri­va­ti­za­tion of many of those func­tions); dein­dus­tri­al­iza­tion and dimin­ish­ing capac­ity of U.S. cities to oper­ate as cen­ters of social repro­duc­tion for labor­ing pop­u­la­tions; dereg­u­la­tion and the crush­ing of pub­lic sec­tor unions and orga­nized labor; and the expan­sion of the puni­tive capac­i­ties of the state to man­age, ware­house, and dis­ci­pline sur­plus pop­u­la­tions (the unem­ployed and under­em­ployed, the home­less, those with­out proper health or men­tal health care, etc.). Fur­ther­more, in our book, we inter­ro­gate how racial ide­olo­gies have been deployed to nat­u­ral­ize these trans­for­ma­tions.

Bro­ken win­dows is an ide­o­log­i­cal project that jus­ti­fies and sus­tains a neolib­eral social order. It helps to ren­der peo­ple simul­ta­ne­ously less wor­thy of the state’s shrunken largesse and more deserv­ing of its expanded puni­tive capac­i­ties. Through such polic­ing mea­sures, “peo­ple with prob­lems” (lack of hous­ing, job secu­rity, food, ser­vices, etc.) have been socially con­structed “as prob­lems” (i.e. crim­i­nals) as George Lip­sitz puts it. By entrench­ing notions of “crim­i­nal­ity” it enables the state to man­age sur­plus pop­u­la­tions. The global pro­duc­tion of sur­plus pop­u­la­tions is a prob­lem for cap­i­tal. As another con­trib­u­tor to Polic­ing the Planet, geo­g­ra­pher Don Mitchell and his col­leagues put it, bro­ken win­dows polic­ing is “one means of man­age­ment.”

Bro­ken win­dows builds on and expands already exist­ing race, class, and gen­dered exclu­sions, ren­o­vates and inten­si­fies them towards new ends. It has emerged as the social reg­u­lat­ing mech­a­nism used by cities and local states to dis­ci­pline sur­plus pop­u­la­tions, refash­ion pub­lic space, and ren­der cities suit­able for neolib­eral regimes of cap­i­tal accu­mu­la­tion. In an era of mass incar­cer­a­tion these mech­a­nisms trans­form the work­ing poor, the home­less, and the dis­pos­sessed into walk­ing war­rants of the neolib­eral city.

BM: Since Occupy, the strongest move­ments in the United States have been directed against polic­ing and aus­ter­ity, with each arguably pos­sess­ing a dis­tinct com­po­si­tion from the other. With vary­ing lev­els of suc­cess, orga­niz­ers from Cal­i­for­nia to Chicago have tried to artic­u­late these dis­crete move­ments into a joint strug­gle. How do you and your con­trib­u­tors con­cep­tu­al­ize the rela­tion­ship between bro­ken win­dows polic­ing and aus­ter­ity? What kind of prac­tices do you think enable last­ing encoun­ters between these strug­gles?

JC and CH: Bro­ken win­dows polic­ing emerged in wake of the fis­cal cri­sis of the 1970s alongside the coa­les­cence of a, “per­ma­nent aus­ter­ity gov­er­nance” in New York City, as Alex Vitale and Brian Jor­dan Jef­fer­son describe. As aus­ter­ity poli­cies increased poverty, unem­ploy­ment, and home­less­ness, politi­cians clam­ored for author­i­tar­ian solu­tions. Vitale and Jef­fer­son con­clude that, “bro­ken win­dows polic­ing pro­vided the ide­o­log­i­cal jus­ti­fi­ca­tion and func­tional game plan.” The result in New York City and beyond has been the mass crim­i­nal­iza­tion of poor and work­ing class com­mu­ni­ties, par­tic­u­larly the Black and Lat­inx poor.

As dein­dus­tri­al­ized cities have become land­scapes of actual bro­ken win­dows – full of aban­doned homes and fac­to­ries – police depart­ments and politi­cians have uti­lized the logic of bro­ken win­dows to locate dis­or­der in the behav­ior of the so-called “under­class.” Many chap­ters in our book are con­cerned with such dis­place­ments. The defund­ing of pub­lic social goods alongside the exten­sive fund­ing of polic­ing and pris­ons has pro­duced mor­bid encoun­ters. Such fund­ing imbal­ances have effec­tively expanded police capac­ity, enabling them to func­tion in an array of roles, such as men­tal health facil­i­ta­tors, school dis­ci­pli­nar­i­ans, pub­lic hous­ing man­agers, and guards against park tres­pass­ing, etc. In some munic­i­pal­i­ties, the police also aggres­sively func­tion as sur­ro­gate tax col­lec­tors or “rev­enue gen­er­a­tors” as the Depart­ment of Jus­tice inves­ti­ga­tion into the Fer­gu­son Police Depart­ment recently con­cluded.

There is a tidy unity to the restruc­tur­ing of the state form encap­su­lated by bro­ken win­dows polic­ing. As Ruth Wilson Gilmore and Craig Gilmore describe in their Polic­ing the Planet chap­ter, the Black Lives Mat­ter movement’s strug­gle against police vio­lence and mass incar­cer­a­tion after Fer­gu­son can be described as “protests against pro­found aus­ter­ity” as well as strug­gles against “the iron fist nec­es­sary to impose” that aus­ter­ity. Bro­ken win­dows polic­ing has nor­mal­ized a shift in state capac­i­ties away from the pro­duc­tion of social goods and towards the “secu­rity” con­cerns pro­duced in their absence. In exam­in­ing its spread through­out the U.S. and around the world, we put Polic­ing the Planet together in order to explore how bro­ken win­dows polic­ing has become the polit­i­cal expres­sion of neolib­er­al­ism at the urban scale.

BM: Your book pro­vides a vivid pic­ture of move­ments inter­na­tion­ally, in Palestine, Lon­don, and across Latin Amer­ica, where racial­ized, sur­plus pop­u­la­tions are often run­ning up against the Brat­ton model of polic­ing, exported right out of New York City. What role does the United States play in the cir­cu­la­tion of these strate­gies? Does “bro­ken win­dows” inform the coun­ter-insur­gency efforts of the U.S. armed forces? And what does this tell us about con­tem­po­rary impe­ri­al­ism?

JC and CH: Seem­ingly “new” mod­els of coun­ter-ter­ror­ism polic­ing were not spun from whole cloth. They for­ti­fied already exist­ing forms of coun­terin­sur­gency and legit­i­mated the inten­si­fied polic­ing of racial­ized and crim­i­nal­ized seg­ments of the poor and work­ing class in U.S. cities. We argue that the inti­mate and seem­ingly micro-scale polic­ing of poor com­mu­ni­ties of color have become cen­tral to under­stand­ing the cir­cu­la­tion of secu­ri­ti­za­tion on a global scale. Poor com­mu­ni­ties in U.S. cities have become lab­o­ra­to­ries in which new mil­i­tary and coun­terin­sur­gency prac­tices and tech­nolo­gies have been tested.

As orga­nizer Hamid Khan of the Stop LA Spy­ing Coali­tion explains in, “The New Urban Coun­terin­sur­gency,” the appli­ca­tion of Brat­ton-style bro­ken win­dows polic­ing in U.S. cities has set the stage for coun­tert­er­ror­ism polic­ing glob­ally. The deep suc­cess of bro­ken win­dows polic­ing in Los Ange­les, for exam­ple, enabled the city to be the launch­ing pad of a major post-9/11 coun­ter-ter­ror­ism ini­tia­tive, imple­mented by the Depart­ment of Home­land Secu­rity. Accord­ing to Khan, such mea­sures would not be pos­si­ble with­out the already exist­ing sur­veil­lance, pre-emp­tive crim­i­nal­iza­tion, and autho­riza­tion of force granted by bro­ken win­dows polic­ing. Other con­trib­u­tors to Polic­ing the Planet, such as Mizue Aizeki of the Immi­grant Defense Project, echo this point. In ana­lyz­ing the cur­rent cri­sis of mass depor­ta­tion, she traces the “pre­emp­tive polic­ing logic” of bro­ken win­dows to mea­sures that con­fig­ure immi­grants as “per­pet­ual threats to pub­lic safety.”

The U.S. has long exported its secu­rity exper­tise and also trained police from for­eign gov­ern­ments in coun­terin­sur­gency tac­tics from the Cen­tral Amer­i­can wars in the 1980s to the present day “war on ter­ror” in Iraq and Afghanistan. Such cir­cuits of knowl­edge are, of course, mul­ti­di­rec­tional. Tech­nolo­gies deployed in wars abroad re-enter U.S. cities in forms such as drones and sur­veil­lance tech­nol­ogy. Khan notes that police offi­cials from places like Fer­gu­son and LA have trav­elled to Israel to be trained in coun­terin­sur­gency. In doing so, they learned lan­guages crit­i­cal to the legit­i­ma­tion of polic­ing, pris­ons, and per­ma­nent war and brought those prac­tices and tech­niques “back” to the U.S.  Brat­ton has been a key fig­ure in estab­lish­ing such ties and also in import­ing tech­nolo­gies and prac­tices used in the occu­pied Pales­tinian ter­ri­to­ries into U.S. cities. 

In his con­tri­bu­tion to our anthol­ogy,  Arun Kund­nani adeptly describes the cir­cu­la­tion of these secu­ri­tized log­ics and prac­tices as “flows.” Such infor­ma­tion flows between cities and coun­tries, bat­tle­fields and cities, as well as over space and time. Crit­i­cal to the prac­tice of coun­terin­sur­gency by impe­rial pow­ers like Britain have been col­lab­o­ra­tions between pub­lic social ser­vices and the police. Kund­nani traces prac­tices of British colo­nial coun­terin­sur­gency cam­paigns waged in places like Kenya and later North­ern Ire­land, and describes how they were later imported into cities like Lon­don and New York. The present global sur­veil­lance infra­struc­ture is a pro­duct of such mul­ti­di­rec­tional flows. We hope that in describ­ing these cir­cu­la­tions we might engen­der more robust the­o­ries and prac­tices of sol­i­dar­ity, par­tic­u­larly in the strug­gle against cap­i­tal­ism. As Kund­nani con­cludes, the expan­sion of sur­veil­lance is key to the repro­duc­tion of cap­i­tal­ism at present. There­fore that the strug­gle against polic­ing, pris­ons, and state secu­rity regimes, he con­cludes, “can­not avoid con­fronting cap­i­tal­ism itself.”

BM: There’s a long his­tory of sol­i­dar­ity between black rad­i­cal move­ments in the United States and anti-impe­ri­al­ist strug­gles abroad. The CPUSA  artic­u­lated the strug­gles of black pro­le­tar­i­ans against the after­lives of slav­ery as a part of a wider anti-colo­nial and anti-cap­i­tal­ist pol­i­tics. Later, the Black Pan­ther Party framed their oppo­si­tion to local police depart­ments as anal­o­gous to the Vietcong’s war for national lib­er­a­tion, as well as the con­fronta­tions between anti-war pro­test­ers and the national guard. Based on your own research on cross-bor­der and inter­na­tion­al­ist pol­i­tics, as well as your close col­lab­o­ra­tion with activists on the ground, what do you think an anti-impe­ri­al­ist prac­tice might look like today?

JC and CH: Con­tem­po­rary antiracist social move­ments against police vio­lence and mass incar­cer­a­tion are the lat­est phase in a pro­tracted strug­gle. In each phase of the long Black free­dom strug­gle, global sol­i­dar­ity offered move­ments in the U.S. new autho­riza­tion and broader plat­forms to resist racism, cap­i­tal­ism, and impe­ri­al­ism at dif­fer­ent geo­graph­i­cal scales. At the same time, Black rad­i­cal move­ments also revealed points of con­tra­dic­tions within U.S. empire, trou­bling the imag­ined sep­a­ra­tion between sys­tems of impe­ri­al­ist vio­lence “at home” and “abroad.”

Con­ti­nu­ities of these rad­i­cal tra­di­tions exist in the Black Lives Mat­ter move­ment. In our inter­view with mem­bers of the Chicago-based We Charge Geno­cide, Asha Rosa, Paige May, and Bre­anna Cham­pion describe their efforts to inter­na­tion­al­ize the strug­gle. Inspired by the Civil Rights Con­gress’ 1951 peti­tion to the United Nations, they trav­elled to Geneva to sub­mit a peti­tion before the U.N. to glob­al­ize the strug­gle against racism and state vio­lence in U.S. cities. Like­wise, Black Lives Mat­ter co-founder Patrisse Cul­lors empha­sizes the need for sol­i­dar­ity with Palestine and invokes the inter­na­tion­al­ism of the Black Pan­ther Party in the 1960s to make the point. Robin D. G. Kel­ley places the Black Lives Mat­ter move­ment in the con­text of global per­ma­nent war, high­light­ing the con­ti­nu­ities between the killing of Michael Brown and the siege Israeli siege of Gaza dur­ing the same sum­mer of 2014. In both con­texts, he writes, “civil­ians are deemed com­bat­ants and col­lec­tive pun­ish­ment is the fab­ric of every­day life.” In these ways, activists are draw­ing links between the strug­gle to over­turn police vio­lence and the carceral state with a global strug­gles for free­dom and dig­nity.

As the late Cedric Robin­son described, the Black rad­i­cal tra­di­tion encom­passes a broad project of lib­er­a­tion. Accord­ingly, mul­ti­ple con­trib­u­tors to Polic­ing the Planet con­nect the move­ment against polic­ing to a rad­i­cal antiracist strug­gle against impe­ri­al­ism, and, as mem­bers of the Red Nation describe, “colo­nial cap­i­tal­ism.” This Native-led group based in Albu­querque, New Mex­ico under­stands the intense deploy­ment of state vio­lence against Native peo­ple in the U.S. as an out­come of colo­nial vio­lence under cap­i­tal­ism. This inter­ven­tion is the crit­i­cal basis of sol­i­dar­ity. Orga­nizer Paige Mur­phy con­cludes, “Every­one is fight­ing cap­i­tal­ism in their day-to-day lives whether they want to admit it or not. When you’re strug­gling to make rent, you’re fight­ing against cap­i­tal­ism. When you’re look­ing for a job and you can’t find one, you’re strug­gling against cap­i­tal­ism. Peo­ple every day are fight­ing against cap­i­tal­ism. When we link these strug­gles, that’s when they’re able to see it.”

Polic­ing the Planet describes how the Left can engage in prin­ci­pled sol­i­dar­ity with Black Lives Mat­ter in a polit­i­cal and ide­o­log­i­cal strug­gle against impe­ri­al­ist state vio­lence. We argue that­such a fight for redis­trib­u­tive jus­tice and a social wage democ­ra­tizes social move­ments in gen­eral. This frame­work should be taken seri­ously as we debate alter­na­tive solu­tions to the polic­ing cri­sis, or else, as Vijay Prashad puts it in the book’s con­clu­sion, “the com­mon sense of our times will lead us to a bad end.”  This is a moment not for adapt­ing to neolib­eral poli­cies and impe­rial power, but for fir­ing the polit­i­cal imag­i­na­tion about the pos­si­bil­ity of alter­na­tive futures. 

  1. For more on Stu­art Hall’s debates within British Marx­ism, see Asad Haider’s metic­u­lous recon­struc­tion in “Law and Order: Make Marx­ism Great Again,” which I bor­rowed from lib­er­ally. 

Authors of the article

is a student at UC Santa Cruz.

is a postdoctoral fellow in Race and Ethnicity and International and Public Affairs at Brown, author of Incarcerating the Crisis: Freedom Struggles and the Rise of the Neoliberal State(University of California Press, 2016); co-editor of Policing the Planet: Why the Policing Crisis Led to Black Lives Matter (Verso, 2016); and co-editor (with Laura Pulido) of the late Clyde Woods’ book, Development Drowned and Reborn: The Blues and Bourbon Restorations in Post-Katrina New Orleans(University of Georgia Press, forthcoming).

is an assistant professor of American Studies at Trinity College, co-editor of Policing the The Planet: Why the Policing Crisis Led to Black Lives Matter (Verso, 2016), and author of The Color Line and the Class Struggle: The Mexican Revolution, Internationalism, and the American Century (University of California Press, forthcoming).

Comments are closed, but trackbacks and pingbacks are open.