In an unsettling display of reverence for a convicted killer, the Chicago Teachers Union (CTU) recently echoed sentiments glorifying Assata Shakur, who passed away in Cuba. Shakur, a figure infamous for her violent criminal past, once held a place on the FBI’s Most Wanted Terrorists list due to her conviction for the murder of a law enforcement officer. The CTU was quick to express condolences in a social media post, labeling her a “revolutionary fighter” whose “spirit continues to live in our struggle.” Such statements beg the question: what values are being upheld when a murderer is venerated?
Shakur was not only convicted of bank robbery and murder but also led a life that included years underground before her eventual flight to Cuba following her prison escape. She was found guilty in 1977 for the murder of New Jersey State Trooper Werner Foerster, whose family suffered lasting pain from her actions, leaving behind a wife and young son. The tragic consequences of her crimes have not deterred some groups from honoring her legacy. It raises an alarm about what icons are championed and why.
The celebration of Shakur’s life did not stop with the CTU. Rolling Stone magazine, a once-prestigious publication, weighed in with a feature that echoed Shakur’s call to fight against what she described as “capitalist exploitation.” Her assertions about political repression and radical transformation may resonate with some, but they group her alongside a long history of violence and crime. In the wake of such an article, one must ponder the implications of celebrating figures steeped in bloodshed and terrorism.
Voices from the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, typically viewed as a bastion of civil rights advocacy, have also lauded Shakur. The group’s president referred to her as an “example of undaunted resistance.” This declaration, while aimed at framing her actions as brave and resilient, overlooks the pain inflicted on countless victims and families by her choices. The question arises: what form of resistance is worthy of praise if it relies on violence against innocent lives?
Yet, this fascination with Shakur extends into the halls of Congress, where various lawmakers have expressed admiration for her actions. At events, members from the Congressional Black Caucus have referred to her as a “cop killer” deserving of respect. Against the backdrop of denial of political violence, these endorsements of a known murderer signal a troubling trend. Is honoring such a figure indicative of the values held by those in positions of power?
The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) has joined the fray by hosting writings that glorify Shakur, further complicating the narrative around her legacy. When organizations that claim to combat extremism begin to venerate individuals with Shakur’s violent history, it undermines their credibility. Society must scrutinize what constitutes an extremist and hold accountable those who misapply labels for political gain.
Moreover, the veneration of Assata Shakur raises alarm bells about the normalization of violent crime in political discourse. When institutions responsible for shaping future generations, such as educational unions, publicly honor a figure like Shakur, it fosters a culture that may excuse, or even glorify, acts of violence in pursuit of ideology. This gets to the heart of a broader issue: a society’s moral compass must be questioned when it celebrates a legacy steeped in bloodshed.
In a climate where political violence is often denied yet celebrated in certain circles, the metrics by which figures are judged and honored need reconstruction. As Shakur’s followers affirm her legacy through the lens of liberation, the reminder of the lives she shattered should not be forgotten. The consequences of her actions ripple through the families left in the wake of her violence, reminding us of a grim truth: freedom fought with blood is double-edged, leaving scars on both sides.
As conversations continue around figures like Assata Shakur, it is imperative to reflect on the narratives being built around them and the messages they send to society at large. Are we, as a culture, comfortable venerating those who celebrate crime under the guise of liberation? The line between heroism and villainy in such cases becomes perilously thin, forcing a reckoning with the values we hold dear.
"*" indicates required fields
