community-based, non-corporate, participatory media
The Future of Dissent in Pgh
by ...
Wednesday, Jan. 29, 2003 at 1:27 PM
One person's vision of what is necessary in continuing the efforts of Pittsburgh Activists.
This weekend, over 8,000 people marched through Pittsburgh�s streets over three days speaking out against the escalation of war. Many considered foreign policy regarding Iraq, the Police State, Corporate Capitalism, and/or gender/patriarchy issues to be manifestations of war. The Bush administration, the military, and all of the oppressive institutions of the state in our society listened to what Pittsburgh and hundreds of communities across the nation said about war here and abroad. They heard, but their rhetoric did not soften. They took note, but their policies did not change. They listened, but hundreds of thousands of people are still in the crosshairs of our government.
The INS will continue to register, deport, and detain foreign nationals for their political beliefs. It is still a crime to be poverty stricken in this country. Racist and sexist laws are consistently passed on the state and national level. It is clear that �representatives� in our government pay little heed to the people, preferring their own agendas and the goals of their corporate backers. They ravage our earth, imprison our friends, and murder thousands in the name of the American People.
The Demonstrations in Pittsburgh were important, but it is clear that they were not the final step in the peace movement. Work is undone. 5,000 people can march through Oakland to show dissent, but 50 can shut down a weapons manufacturer in our area for the day. 100 can march un-permitted and break a window (an effective tactic), but 10 can flyer and dialogue with every potential recruit walking through the doors of the marine recruitment center. It is clear that this war cannot be stopped with public opinion. It will be stopped with direct action taken by small groups working to save lives around the world. Every bullet that is late for shipment, every plane that sits on the assembly line awaiting parts, every day a recruiter fixes a window instead of doing their job, another innocent civilian in Iraq may be able to live another day.
Further, the peace movement in Pittsburgh can no longer concern itself with the media or �getting the message out.� The message is out. The Pittsburgh media were more receptive to these events than almost any other corporate-backed media in the country; they can do little more to stop any war. The movement cannot sacrifice effectiveness for publicity.
Pittsburgh is not a bastion of direct action and protest culture, but clearly the support is for it is here. Our communities can no longer afford to invest limited time and resources into these mass spectacles and hope to stop the war. Groups like the Thomas Merton Center and the Pittsburgh Organizing Group must concentrate on sharing skills with activists and potential activists, empowering small affinity groups to take effective action in our area. They have shown willingness in the past to bring trainers from out of town or even provide trainings themselves. It is the responsibility of these groups to increase such efforts and the responsibility of people in the community find out about these trainings. It is time that we begin to build the world we wish to live in as we frustrate the efforts of the appointed warmongers running our country. This means taking action to improve our lives, work in solidarity with other members of our community and communities around the world; and stopping every violent manifestation of war through pro-active measures.
The momentum of the Peace Convergence must be directed into appropriate channels, or the energy created by the immense and spectacular efforts of the three organizing groups will be lost.
Hell yeah
by Dazin
Wednesday, Jan. 29, 2003 at 1:48 PM
forevadazin@hipplanet.com
I definitly agree with you. One weekend wont be enough. I think everyone knows this..we just need to do something about it.
POG
by ______
Wednesday, Jan. 29, 2003 at 2:26 PM
POG is meeting this weekend. They will be assessing the convergence and what to do next.
POG meeting
by ____
Wednesday, Jan. 29, 2003 at 3:19 PM
POG will be meeting this weekend to evaluate the convergence and chart a future course.
Most people weren't involved
by Sarah
Wednesday, Jan. 29, 2003 at 3:38 PM
"Our communities can no longer afford to invest limited time and resources into these mass spectacles and hope to stop the war.�
Very few activists or groups invested much time or energy in this convergence prior to the event itself. Most radicals and affinity groups stayed on the sidelines without getting actively involved. I don't want to critique use of time because we all have separate projects and each of us must take action in ways we feel are effective, but it is important to take note of this when talking about the events. Maybe 25-40 people did 90% of the convergence work.
-
by -
Wednesday, Jan. 29, 2003 at 3:54 PM
"Further, the peace movement in Pittsburgh can no longer concern itself with the media or �getting the message out.� The message is out. The Pittsburgh media were more receptive to these events than almost any other corporate-backed media in the country; they can do little more to stop any war. The movement cannot sacrifice effectiveness for publicity. "
Do you think effectiveness was sacrificed for publicity? I don't but if you do I'm curious to hear what leads you to think that.
I feel like your sentiment towards the corporate media is understandable but too reactionary. We can't allow ourselves to be isolated from the mainstream and we have to utilize every means possible to get our message out. You are correct in that we shouldn't plan our actions based solely on the probable corporate reaction, but we should take it into account. The media can help us and it can create pressure on the authorities. A very hostile media climate will make it very easy for the power strucuture to attack us without much repercussions. The same can be said for the political strucure. If we dismiss politicians we do ourselves a dis-service. We need to be using everything we can to attack the war and its manifestations.
The media puts pressure?
by -
Wednesday, Jan. 29, 2003 at 4:04 PM
I don't know where you've been, but any pressure exerted through the media has been roundly ignored by authorities and policy makers. Further, I'd like to affirm that the anti-war movement is the mainstream. This isn't some tiny sector of the population that needs to worry about alienating everyone else ... there were 5000+ people out in 6 degree weather in Pittsburgh.
-
by -
Wednesday, Jan. 29, 2003 at 4:20 PM
"there were 5000+ people out in 6 degree weather in Pittsburgh."
One of the major reasons there were 5000 people out in the streets WAS the corporate media coverage prior to events. We don't have networks with a lot of those people. That was one of the major ways we brought new people out.
"I don't know where you've been, but any pressure exerted through the media has been roundly ignored by authorities and policy makers."
Yes it has been ignored. So has every broken window, every arson, every recruiting station that's been trashed, and the list goes on. The fact that a tactic hasn't stopped the war doesn't necessarily mean that it is ineffective. The local media in Pittsburgh was part of what brought people out on the streets, and it was part of the creating the situation that made it politically unadvisable to crackdown on us. We must respect and encourage a diversity of tactics that attack the power structure from numerous angles.
"This isn't some tiny sector of the population that needs to worry about alienating everyone else"
The problem isn't that there aren't a lot of people against the war rather it's that very few of them are taking concrete action against it. I think you are also ignoring the fact that there is no consensus within that group on what tactics are effective or acceptable. The media has a great ability to turn our supporters off by attacking some tactics. They will take a caricature of who we are and what we're about and they will turn it against us. We make this easier to do by ignoring and dismissing them. I want to make clear that I do not think we should judge our actions solely on the likely media reaction. That said, If we completely dismiss them people will still be against the war but they won't be supporting those of us taking action.
The media
by The Author
Wednesday, Jan. 29, 2003 at 4:24 PM
"We can't allow ourselves to be isolated from the mainstream and we have to utilize every means possible to get our message out."
I firmly believe that even the most slightly aware individual knows that there is an anti-war movement. Mass demos can't do anymore to educate people than they already have. People now know that the movement is strong in Pittsburgh, and that was effective. The convergance also served to bring all sorts of like-minded people together, people that will hopefully continue to work together and form new affinities.
I do not think, however, that another mass rally will be nearly as effective. Yeah, it might get a few new people to come out and get involved, but couldn't those people be reached through education (flyering, teach-in's, etc?) We need to be articulate as a movement, to be present in the community as individuals. We need to take action to stop the war machine.
The media won't help anymore than they have. They got the story. Another rally of the same size won't run on the front page of anything again, unless it contains rioting and massive property damage. While the reporters are sympathetic, the editors are still concerned with the bottom line ... they have advertizers and an image to worry about.
"We need to be using everything we can to attack the war and its manifestations. "
I agree with this. And we did use a large demo and the media. But there is a need to decided what is effective and use those tactics. It is silly to use something just because it's there even though we know it won't do anything. The only ways the media can further put pressure on is 1) Stop lying and start reporting complete facts and giving the public the information they need to be well informed and 2) start calling for the resignation of our president on the cover of every issue. What else is left for them to do? They covered our actions and our message. The elites don't listen!
media
by The Author
Wednesday, Jan. 29, 2003 at 4:33 PM
"Yes it has been ignored. So has every broken window, every arson, every recruiting station that's been trashed, and the list goes on. The fact that a tactic hasn't stopped the war doesn't necessarily mean that it is ineffective. The local media in Pittsburgh was part of what brought people out on the streets, and it was part of the creating the situation that made it politically unadvisable to crackdown on us. We must respect and encourage a diversity of tactics that attack the power structure from numerous angles. "
I do agree with a lot of this and do feel that this debate has gone a little further than my original intent. The media should not be relied upon. They can be used, as they were successfully for the convergance, but I don't see the media as an effective vehicle for change. Yes, they have resources to bring people out. Yes they can put the spotlight on the cops. But they won't be able to affect any policies. We should try to use them where it is effective. My main point is that mass rallies are not what I see as effective right now. I feel that the energy from the last weekend (which was incredibly effective) should be directed into more concrete action.
Yes, they may ignore the statement made by broken windows, but they still have to fix them. Any resource that we direct away from war is a person that may live another day. We cannot forget that our direct actions can save lives.
i
by i
Wednesday, Jan. 29, 2003 at 4:47 PM
"I do not think, however, that another mass rally will be nearly as effective. "
I completely agree with you if it is the same type of rally and it doesn't include new elements. If it does include new elements and it is structured around a very specific direct action I think it could be incredibly effective. The things that keep popping into my head are BLOCAKDE and OCCUPATION Even a thousand people blockading the federal building or weapons plant would have a major impact. The same goes for occupying some part of CMU until ties are severed with SEI.
I think we agree on a lot of things but we seem to be emphasizing different elemens. Solidarity, and I'm glad that others are thinking about this kind of stuff.
Media
by Casey
Wednesday, Jan. 29, 2003 at 6:04 PM
janstene@yahoo.com
"I don't know where you've been, but any pressure exerted through the media has been roundly ignored by authorities and policy makers."
That's most definitly not true. A president of Univ. of Pittsburgh donated 1 million dollars of his paycheck back to the school once because a reportor kept writing a story about how he recieved so much money.
There was a man who shot himself in the face (and died) at a press conference about something the media had dragged up about him.
What about Watergate, what about the Pentagon Papers? Just because it doesnt' always get the desired result doesn't mean it's not ever working.
" there were 5000+ people out in 6 degree weather in Pittsburgh. "
The estimates were between 3,000 and 5,000. Did you count everyone? I didn't. Besides, let's say there were 5,000 + people there. There are 1.6 million people in the Pittsburgh Area. 5,000 out of 1.6 million? That doesn't sound like mainstream to me.
I agree that we probably don't need another weekend long event like this past one. But we still need the media, we still need to be public. 5,000 of us didn't stop the war. How do you expect it to stop if we don't gain more people?
Media
by The Author
Wednesday, Jan. 29, 2003 at 6:46 PM
The media are not a vehicle for change. They represent the interests of elites and the status quo. If you don't believe this, then we can probably not agree on subjects relating to the media.
The instances of the media having a big impact tend to occur when they stumble on something so big they can't ignore it, where to not act would have more negative consequences than acting. You can name 4 or 5 instances of the media making an impact, but we can all name countless other times when they've lied and marginilized progressive issues. If you don't agree with this, then why read IndyMedia at all?
broadening and deepening the movement
by John Lacny
Tuesday, Feb. 04, 2003 at 8:09 AM
I concur with the argument that principled acts of resistance -- in addition to standard mass demonstrations -- have their place. Nevertheless it doesn't make sense to couterpose the two. Since the USA is not a democracy in any meaningful sense (not even formally, in fact, given the last presidential "election"), it's true that a shift in public opinion (well underway, though still -- it's important to note -- not a majority) does not automatically mean an end to the war. But militant actors will be isolated absent that mass movement. So we need both.
I know that the late Phil Berrigan is a hero to a lot of folks, but compare the effectiveness of his pouring chickenblood on the draft files in Catonsville in 1969 (?), in the context of a massive upsurge against the war in Vietnam, with the effectiveness of any number of his actions in later years, which were often isolated. Remember that the Nuclear Freeze movement really began to alarm the Cold Warriors (and Reagan felt bound to bait it as Soviet-controlled) when there was the mass march in Central Park. Clearly, the small-scale anti-nuke actions both before and after the Freeze's high point were important -- particularly the ones before it, which prepared the ground. But they were obviously not sufficient. (Not that the Freeze as a whole was a sufficiently powerful movement, but it was most powerful when it was obviously drawing mass support.)
Broadening and deepening this movement is therefore of critical importance. Those of us who have ties to organizations with mass constituencies have a lot of work to do on this front in addition to our regular work. It is very difficult, and I certainly don't have the answers.
We should strive to understand the worldview of most depoliticized people -- maybe what some would call "mixed consciousness" or what Gramsci would call "common sense." In this connection I would certainly agree that debunking the Bush regime's rationale for the war is important -- it's probably the case that there are a lot of people out there who have at best a hazy knowledge of the fact that Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden are two different people, for example. And learned rebuttals of Bush's farcical claims about "weapons of mass destruction," etc., are necessary.
Nevertheless even this is insufficient. Particularly in an area like Western Pennsylvania where -- I don't know the precise statistics, but it's true -- there is a disproportionate number of military veterans, there's a very striking cognitive disconnect between people's thoughts on the reasons for the war on the one hand and their willingness to go along with it -- and to shun antiwar activity -- on the other. You will find a staggering number of people -- probably a majority -- who agree at some level with the proposition that the Iraqi regime is really no threat to people in the United States, that at some point it's probably really just about oil, etc. If you make the argument in any depth at all, those same people will probably also agree that there's something strikingly hypocritical about going after Iraq when Israel is the only country in the Middle East that has nuclear weapons, or that installing a new puppet government in Iraq -- let alone a military occupation -- will probably not be better for the people of that country than Saddam Hussein, and that it's probably not a reliable way to reduce the threat of terrorism.
Nevertheless, even after all of that, there are lots of people who automatically fall back on the idea that we need to support our troops. And you'll note that I didn't put "we" or "our" in scare quotes, because for a lot of people around here, the relationship with "our men and women in uniform" is not a nationalist-patriotic abstraction but a very real one. It's their cousin or their brother or (very frequently) their grandson, you name it. Even if many people on the homefront really do KNOW, at some level, that the war is a lot of bullshit put together by greedy oil men and bloodthirsty "chickenhawks" (a phrase that resonates around here, to be sure!), they're also mortally afraid of "betraying" the troops.
It's a very weird, contradictory feeling, but also very real. We have to find a way to engage with that. I do know that there were about 118,000 soldiers -- out of perhaps 700,000 -- in the first Gulf War who came back with Gulf War syndrome or similar complications. So the question we should ask a lot of people is, "You're going to put people through this bullshit -- and for what?"
There is another thing which works very well that the antiwar movement should try to do if at all possible: have some people speak who have firsthand experience. Solidarity with the struggles in Latin America, for example, has always been helped by bringing in people directly involved in those struggles (often at great danger to their own lives) to speak to ordinary people here through churches and unions, to pick the two institutions that typically have broad and deep relations with large numbers of ordinary people. Our task is made more difficult in this case because of the murderous nature of the Saddam Hussein regime -- we of course need people to speak against the war who are principled opponents of the regime. But a lot of those people -- the ones who haven't been executed or imprisoned for a lifetime of torture, of course -- at least the ones we would have access to, have likely been in exile for a very long time and will probably not have many personal stories to tell about Iraq's travails in recent years, particularly under the sanctions. But those who have connections with people like this would be doing the antiwar movement a great service by bringing them forward.
Absent that, Gulf War vets who have come to the conclusion that the last war was bullshit and that this latest one likely is as well -- and I don't think they're few in number -- would be the next-best thing.
Let's also not forget that there are more wars, or at least serious acts of US sabotage and murderous intervention short of war (particularly in Venezuela, Colombia, and maybe even Brazil if the hard right gets its way) coming in a series of other countries.
![[masthead]](/images/masthead_140.png)