Next time you're at a leftie Seattle march, or rally, or teach-in, or whatever, look around. How many of the faces are white? 80%? 90%? 98% All of them?

It's time to do something.

For years, if not millennia, progressive white activists in Seattle have bemoaned the lack of people of color at their meetings and events. It's an MLK Day perennial. Few of us--and fewer still among Seattle's groups--have done anything about it. And almost nobody has made the kind of sustained, long-term effort that is required to forge a truly multi-ethnic movement. The average Seattle grass roots left group is less integrated than the average Seattle union, or the average workplace, or the average classroom, or the average mall.

There are any number of reasons why this matters, none having to do with "political correctness." Justice is one. Means and ends is another; we can't work to remove oppression in our society unless we work to renounce white privilege ourselves.

Effectiveness is a third. And not just among people of color, who inexplicably don't care what an all-white activist group has to say. At Seattle's anti-WTO demo and every major street event since, mainstream pundits have sneered that the crowd of unhappy citizens simply represents a bunch of rich white kids with nothing better to do, trying to relive the '60s.

This, of course, is maddening beyond belief, because it's both patronizing and ducks whatever issue is at hand (like, suppose those privileged white kids are right?) And the '60s schtick is bullshit; it's been trotted out to minimize every major protest since 1974, and it's almost more tired than the '60s themselves. But the rest of it, while not entirely true, ain't entirely false, either. For the working class people who can't imagine taking time from the kids and two (or three) jobs to go to a seemingly pointless meeting, or for the person of color who went to a meeting, looked around, didn't see any other brown faces, and left, it rings true. Those are our lost allies. Those are lost potential leaders. Those are our mainstream legitimacy.

For as many years as this has been an identified problem (it's always been a problem; it hasn't always been true that white activists noticed, or cared), people of color and anti-racist whites have advised that it's incumbent upon groups wishing to diversify to go into communities of color and work on their issues.

True enough; and very few groups actually do it. (Instead, they'll write up flyers analyzing how their pet issue affects All Oppressed Peoples, and hand them to each other, and wonder why nothing happens.) But that's not enough, either. In Seattle, one of the most urgent grass roots issues in communities of color is police abuse. After last year's David Walker shooting, a First A.M.E. meeting with black church leaders and Mayor Schell drew some 800 people, at least 50% black. That, by segregated Seattle standards, is outstanding. The more radical People's Coalition for Justice, demanding a structure for civilian control of the police, usually draws about 20% black folks to its events; most of its public spokespeople are black. That's not bad, but could be much better; it's at least representative of Seattle's population, which is 20% non-white.

The Revolutionary Communist Party, on the other hand, has been working on issues of police abuse for years. They screech, they holler, they stand on the sidewalk with a bullhorn and copies of their recruiting newspaper. They've also done some very good work, and lord knows they try. But they remain almost entirely white, and tiny, and--not coincidentally--laughably ineffective.

The differences in these three scenarios are twofold. First, the ideological baggage. The AME event didn't make assumptions about police beyond the fact that at least some of them have been engaging in oppressive behavior. More people responded. PCJ folks tend to view all police as inherently oppressive. And the RCP, of course, generally wants to "off the fucking pigs," as they so quaintly put it.

In my immediate neighborhood--which is about 95% black--the neighbors I've talked with about it don't hate the police. They certainly fear them, and don't trust them much, but they also depend on them. Leftie War on Drugs rhetoric aside--and nobody knows about the abuses of that War better than these folks--illicit drugs, and the property and other crime they engender, are a huge concern on our block. Break-ins are a fact of life. And we don't want armed dealers and hookers doing their business in broad daylight right in front of the Boys and Girls Club. Or anywhere else in public.

In other words, if you actually went into the neighborhoods and talked with people, you might find that they know about the problems, but they also know that they rely on the police and can't afford to wage all-out war with them.

This speaks to the second difference among the anti-racial profiling groups: leadership. The AME event was organized, and publicized, by the black churches. PCJ is a mixed group. And the RCP will never get anywhere precisely because it takes orders from a trust fund revolutionary white guy issuing deeply irrelevant communiques from Europe.

Save Our Valley is a community group working in the south end, largely among immigrants and communities of color. It's done some great work. It is truly multiracial in composition. Yet it seems like every time there's a microphone or camera at hand, two white people--George Curtis and Angela Ford--are the ones talking. Even worse for that constituency, George looks like, well, a hippie. (Ever see a Vietnamese hippie? Ever?) George and Angela are great, and they're effective leaders. But they're the wrong face to put on this group, let alone lead it, and I'll lay odds it keeps people away.

I haven't cited these groups to criticize them; they're named precisely because they're among the few groups in town trying to take issues of concern in non-white communities seriously. They're the relatively good groups on matters of race. And that shows just how far Seattle has to go.

The bottom line: the only way to include any significant number of people of color in a movement is to make them feel safe and heard. That means, if you're white, earning non-white communities' trust by relinquishing the power you may not think you have: going to them, leaving your ideological assumptions at the door, and working on issues most important to them. For years. Then, maybe, some of "them" will come to your meetings and events.

That's a start. Next, your group has to incorporate those communities of color into its leadership, and its issues into your issues. Then, eventually- -if you work at it--word will get around.

This will take a lot of time, and we don't have much time. Better start now. Good luck.