community-based, non-corporate, participatory media
a call to put the peace back into peaceful civil disobedience
by Jeff Mann
Friday, Mar. 21, 2003 at 9:40 PM
whirlwind29@alltel.net
A call to put the peace back into peaceful civil disobedience
First off I’d like to say that I’ve participated in the marches and rallies since the big one on Jan 26th. And I support them. I think it’s a great idea to show mass numbers of people to our area who are against this war. And I’ve got no problems with people that wish to do so in different ways. But I have to say that since the last two marches I’ve been disturbed by some of what I’m seeing and even more disturbed by what I saw going in on in Thursdays march. I’m sorry I wasn’t able to attend that one and I’m very sorry it ended up in arrests. I realize that these things sometime take on a life of their own. But some of the things I’m hearing about and even witnessed myself in the past are disturbing. People turning over garbage cans, banging on cars, harassing motorists, turning over paper boxes and tossing bricks thru windows. NONE of this helps our cause and in fact helps to cause the police to be MORE likely to crack down on us. I speak to those that feel their fight is with the marines, or the local police or whomever. Please feel free to take up your fight with them on your own time. But when you are involved in a protest against George Bush’s polices and his war in Iraq then stay focused on whom you are speaking out against. Not everyone that is protesting alongside you agrees with everything you are personally fighting against. Please DO respect that. Up till now the police had been VERY cooperative with us. I was VERY surprised at just how far back the police stayed behind this past Sundays march. But actions like the ones I mentioned are going to bring closer police scrutiny now. They HURT and not help our cause. I’m for peaceful civil disobedience but when we have IDIOTS that go out of their way to BRING police action down on us then you start to lose my support and the support of a great deal of others too. We made a HUGE statement on jan26th. We make HUGE statements when speak out in massive numbers. But we can’t keep those numbers up if scare the people that are supporting this cause off by pulling stupid stunts. I for one am glad I didn’t participate in yesterdays march. I’m seriously reconsidering participating in anymore in downtown Pittsburgh because of the radical element that is just doing all they can to get themselves and others to be victims of police brutality. But if I do attend another, rest assured I will have NO problems in pointing ANYONE out that is going out of their way to harass others or damage property. I suggest we ALL start to police ourselves before we get to the point where the city police do it for us. The only way we can be a credible movement for peace is to what say we will and be the people we say we are, people that are using peaceful disobedience to get the message that war is wrong out to the public. And not turn things into a walking crime spree.
A defense
by C
Saturday, Mar. 22, 2003 at 1:33 AM
The escalation of state force was not caused--perhaps influenced by--but not caused by some protestors' actions.
However, this is not the 60's!
The escalation of state force has more to do with orders given from high levels of state than it has to do with whatever tactics we use... Nevertheless, one would expect that they would use a significant amount of force against those tactics which were most effective--or most "dangerous."
We have learned since the 60's-- (so have they).
We need to be realistic and careful
by Bradford
Saturday, Mar. 22, 2003 at 1:48 AM
I agree wholeheartedly with these remarks, however I was at the rally and in all honesty did not witness harassment or vandalism, with only one exception. When a motorist knocked over a bicyclist the crowd instantly responded trying to keep the driver from causing injury. In their anger, the license plate was damaged along with a few dents. While I do not condone any damage of property, I find it hard to believe that anyone watching a car lurch onto a bicycle and into a crowd would have reacted without such strong protective instincts. All things considered, I am surprised there wasn�t more retaliation.
Despite my defense of protesters at the March 22 rally, I too call for consideration of what sort of behavior will be most beneficial. To inspire peace, one must act with complete peace. Acting in a manner that can be construed as belligerent and irritating undermines our goals. It is imperative to have the most mature and respectable attitude. To truly affect our intended audience (made primarily of people who are socially in-line) we must not give them reason to see us as different from them for any reason other than our beliefs about the matter at hand. If this cannot be accomplished, they will simply shut us out of their mind.
put peace back in the peace march
by red predator
Saturday, Mar. 22, 2003 at 9:24 AM
a group of anarchists known as the "blac bloc" are the ones causing the violence during your protests. this "bloc" has nothing to do with a person's ethnicity. red predator
yeah
by Evan N
Saturday, Mar. 22, 2003 at 10:21 AM
Anyu little thing you do that could even be remotely construed as disruptive and vioilent automatically has those words labelled on every protestor there. if you want to act like a spoiled kid or are daydreaming that you are in seattle 1999 and want to break shit and toss boxes and imagine you are in a riot do it yourself. The peace movenment can't be highjacked by a need to get attention. little attention is far better than lots of bad attention
just a thought...
by a dissenter
Saturday, Mar. 22, 2003 at 2:09 PM
i frequently notice people making reference to the sixties as an example of peaceful protest, either as an ideal or a model to depart from. the sixties were an example of a peace and justice movement which was eventually successful in many ways. however, it is my historical understanding that this was not because the government suddenly started caring about people's opinions, but because they feared large scale civil unrest and rioting due to more militant elements. (anarchists like abbie hoffman, black panthers and supporters, etc.) the government was afraid it would lose domestic control. no? to me that's a cogent argument for radicalism today.
black bloc could have saved us on thursday
by Brian
Saturday, Mar. 22, 2003 at 6:37 PM
artriotmedia@aol.com
Had the Black Bloc deployed more tactics on Thursday we would not have been arrested. There was not enough diveristy of tactics going on Thursday. I don't know if it's because we were in shock at the fact that this war was actualy going on or what. I believe had we had more actions taken we would not have been arrested in mass like we were. The flipping of dumpsters in several streets could have kept the cops off of our back alot. The use of shields to fight back with the cops could of gotten alot of us out of that alleyway and not so many people beaten. If we had done small acts of property destruction perhaps less cops would have been able to push us into that alley and then proced to arrest us. We realy could have all just locked arms and took that street. THere were alot more of us then them and they wouldn't beat us or open fire in the streets of downtown. Not in sight of the media. And even tear gas being used on the streets would have resulted most likely in less arrests occuring then what happened in the alley. We were just to compliant. Thankfully, the arrests of myself and 121 others has done exactly the opposite of what the cops wanted. We organized while in jail and encouraged others. We also showed to some the brutality of the police. And they only enouraged us to march more often. Please people, remain peaceful, but keep in mind, property has no feelings and the existence of property ensures violence. So start doing something with it to keep us from getting arrested. There going to keep tossing us behind bars wether we're peacefully protesting or tearing the streets apart. We might as well get something accomplished before being locked up.
My use of BB
by Troy Shelley
Saturday, Mar. 22, 2003 at 7:19 PM
axelfear@yahoo.com
As I was one of the fifeteen people in the front of the march, I was adopted as one of the "leaders" of said march. I called black bloc several to the front of the crowd to organize and keep the march in check. Despise the bad comments being made across the internet about BB, they helped me close up a lot of the gaps in the march and stopped people from marching when we needed to regroup. I regretfully had fallen back in the march several to hand out water to the dehydrated protesters and the ones who were losing their voices.. I had come to the march to speak my mind about the atrocity that was the war in IRAQ. I came to keep whoever I could from getting hospitalized for sunstroke and dehydration.
For the information and threats of action against all of us:
The threat of bodily harm towards us by the fascists and pro-war faction are completely and utterly illegal. We made no action against anyone in particular, violently. We were marching in the Anti-War movement, though some were NOT supporters of non-violence. I, on the other hand, until the 36 hour jail stay and unlawful arrests, was peace-supporting. But now I look at things like this:
If we are going to meet violence we are going to retaliate in any form we can to protect our selves, our homes, and our rights.
One jail stay is not going to kill the fire of Anti-War that has been lit.
And if you want to try anything I have this to say:
BRING IT.
Love Some,
Troy Shelley
www.geocities.com/axelfear/axel_fear
Well...
by Sam
Saturday, Mar. 22, 2003 at 7:31 PM
While it's valid to argue that these are misguided tactics, they are *not* violent. Violence is committed against living things, not inanimate objects.
VIOLENCE IS VIOLENCE IN ANY FORM
by James Quinn
Saturday, Mar. 22, 2003 at 8:24 PM
Violence includes violence against property and generally promoting the cause of hate and disrespect. You don't have to hit someone in the face to be violent agaisnt them. I posted teh following at another forum, but I think it is worth repeating here.
Your tactics are irresponsible to say the least.
You have an important message. You have passionate opinions. But you act like petulant children. Please spare me all of the "we were oh so very polite, but the policeman beat me anyway." We all know that that is nothing but merd. Hell, take a look at your own website http://indypgh.org/news/2003/03/2095.php. You actively suppport this sort of behavior and you wonder why you are heckle. You wonder why people are not receptive to your cause? The actions that were undertaken in Shadyside were appalling ! These are private businesses. The employees there did not casue the war. But you went in ther, disrupted their business, vandalized their store (yes, and you can see it on the video. Your protesters knocking products off of shelves.) In the retail business the manager and assistant managers are responsble for their stores. You very well may have cost these people some real economic harm. Yet, they didn't start this war. And they can't stop it. But I doubt they find any reason to give credence to your cause.
The tactics you employed in these marches is excatly like that of the fraternity guys you met up with in Oakland, only you were more destructive and disrespectful. How can you complain about the frat boys or even call that a confrontation. They had an opinion, just like you do. They voiced it. In all of that video that you have here I did not see any of the fraternity boys hit anyone, throw anything in the streets, or knock anything out of anyone's hands. In fact, they had their own slogans, not unlike ours. They have an opinion, not unlike us. But you have allowed yourselves to be drawn to their level in expressing your opinion.
And why are you are all so worried about how people are heckling you and talking onthis website. I am afraid that we are taking ourselves far to seriously, and at the expense of our ability to engage in any discourse with those that have another view. Even some of your hecklers seem to have been receptive to your cause, but you never once tried to or did reach out to open that window of opprtunity to change a mind and heart. In other words, we are failing at communicating.
I read much of the posts of the past couple of days, and many on the peace movement side were actively advocated the bannishment of certain persons becasue they were using what some of you described as "abusive" language. Quite honestly, with the exception of one person who seemed to just want to type dirty words rather than say anything meaningful, the people that you seemed to want to ban were actually making some important and meanigful statements even if they were using some tongue in cheek rhetoric or otherwise attempting to lighten the debate. However, the actions you took in shadyside and the language that was used were truly offensive and abusive.
I mean how does it at all communicate the intelligent casue of peace to walk into a Starbucks screaming and repeating "F*$% Starbucks". All you do is offend people and certify your own ignorance. Yet, there was the "rally" that you apparently support, harassing people in private businesses.
I would think that you were in fact trespassing when you entered those businesses for the purposes of your rally. And each of those merchants would have been able to have you arrested. I see this in the video on your site and I truly have to questions whether you were all the saintly messengers of peace that you say you were when the police arrested all of you. These tactics do nothing to promote your agenda.
You must stop supporting such ant-social and anti-democrat activities in your rallies. Please also be honest. Your own notice telling people to come to the rally on THursday said that people shoudl be prepared to get arrested and that your tactics would be open to change based on opportunity (or some such equally adolescent statement). http://indypgh.org/news/2003/03/2454_comment.php#3097.
If you want people to respect your message, you must respect them. But you have not succeed in comunicating your message. You are not simply getting people upset, you are actively scaring them. I work with people that were afraid to stay in downtown on Friday when they heard there was going to be another rally. They were afraid they would be in the middle of a repeat of Thursday. I work downtown. I saw what was going on first hand as an observer. I was one of the people who would have supported you if you were having a truly respectful and peaceful rally. But I was scared. I saw how protesters were running through the streets with little or no apparent purpsoe other than to disrupt the lives of peaceful people of Pittsburgh. I saw the hate and anger in the faces of many of the ralliers, and I was certain that they were going to be very aggressive with anyone that they had the opportunity to confront. I saw some of the ralliers screaming their slogans at the drivers and passengers in the cars as they ran out in front of the cars. I saw them follow the cars and continue screaming at them.
I was actually very surprised that the marchers were not arrested sooner. I was ashamed for each of you. I was ashamed for the Merton Center, which I think has a noble agenda. I was afraid that the Merton Center had been coopted by people who have their own political agenda which might be a basic hatred for our President or even anarchy, neither of which have anyting at all to do with the casue of peace. (All Presidents have their supporters and detractors, and all Presidents have to take on the distateful task of waging war. Please focuas onthe casue of peace and not the person in the office.)
Read the postings of the self-proclaimed peacemarchers. Many of these posting have little to do with the agenda of peace, and more to do with their own personal frustration with an organized society or a capitalist economy. If you want to promote your cause you must recognize that there are other VALID points of view. It is only when you actually practice what your seek from others that they can respet you. NOw you have left our cause terribly, maybe irreparably, damaged. We have our own crisis of credibility. Do you not think that the videos of the protesters causing property damage will not be shown ad nauseam during hte next presidential campaign. I even saw one post on your BB that had a link to an article showing "peace marchers" destroying a 9-11 memorial that residents of a community had erected and maintained on theri own. This practically made me cry. And then to see that video of the Shadyside events and to think that IMC promotes or supports that activity. Shameful.
By the way, many of the marchers in tha video looked like they shoudl have been in school. I don't deny them the right to form their own opinion, but please respect the cause and don't see it as an outlet for adolescent angst or an excuse to cut class.
All and all, I think the confrontational tactics demean our cause, rob you of any credibility, demonstrate a lack of intellect (in fact it makes you look like the fraternity boys that you are complaining about on another page), and will do nothing mor than marginalize your movement. Please stop it. Please try to be responsible citizens of your community. Polluting and litter has NOTHING to do with peace http://indypgh.org/news/2003/03/2160.php.
If you want respect, show respect. If you want peace, live peace. What I saw was disrespect, anger and hate.
What you saw?
by Troy Shelley
Saturday, Mar. 22, 2003 at 9:59 PM
axelfear@yahoo.com 412 422 2260
VIOLENCE IS VIOLENCE IN ANY FORM??
SO STEPPING ON A BUG IS VIOLENCE?
OH MY GOD, SO PILLOW FIGHTING IS PROMOTING VIOLENCE?
*GASPS* I AM SO ASHAMED.
GO TO CNN.COM AND COMPLAIN IN THEIR CHAT ROOMS INSTEAD OF HERE WERE YOU CAN'T SEEM TO REMAIN CIVIL IN ANY FORM.
LOVE ALL,
TROY
www.geocities.com/axelfear/axel_fear
DEAR TROY
by James Quinn
Saturday, Mar. 22, 2003 at 10:25 PM
And yes you response was violent.
Stepping on a bugcan be done in a threatening manner. Screaming in someone's face can also be violent. Using certain terms or descriptions can be violent and not invilve physical assault (such as the "n" word, referring to a woman as a "bitch" or screaming your peaceful message at someone in a car as you chase them down Stanwix Street). If you don't see the difernece between this and stepping on a bug, then you are the problem with the new peace movement.
I am sorry that you think that I am not being civil. I thought and intended that all of my comments were civil and presented honestly, as the board had requested. If I can not even tell you what my honest observataions were, in response to a direct inquiry seeking this response in an effort to refine the message of the peace organizaiton here in Pittsburgh, without getting set upon as being uncivil, then I guess I will go to CNN and leave you all to your own devices and demise. However, I (or you) may have just provided the best evidence in support of my observations.
I thought I offered a voice of responsibility and reasonableness. I also thought that this was exactly what was requested of the posters here. I apolofize. But I will say that you Troy, do frighten me and I hope tha tyou can find a way of getting your messsage acros without scare tactics and bullying. Clearly you do not want my opinino here, even if I am someone who actuallly supports your cause -- or more corrrectly I shoudl say that I support the casue of peace, but I am not at all clear what your casue as a group is so I can not say that I support it.
Goodbye.
Violence
by man in black
Sunday, Mar. 23, 2003 at 12:04 AM
The violence was initiated by the sheriff's deputies. They rioted. They had gone so berserk, they were hitting and shoving each other. Yes, they were wearing black, but the next day at ACJ they were back in khaki.
We could have flipped every dumpster for miles and it would not have helped. We were outnumbered, split up, we wandered into a side street, at night. Darkness is great for certain forms of protest, but marching is not one of them.
We should have scattered and fallen back.
response to fear
by Jeff Mann
Sunday, Mar. 23, 2003 at 1:08 AM
whirlwind29@alltel.net
Did Abbie Hoffman ever suggest destroying things? Or getting in people’s faces and screaming? I have to say I’ve not followed much of Abbie Hoffman so I can’t answer that. But it seems to me that the people that fought for change thru peaceful disobedience, people like Martin Luther King and Gandhi made more of an impact on this world that Abbie Hoffman ever has or will. Getting the government to fear is isn’t the answer. Getting the government to listen to us is. You do that by getting by getting the word out. You win other people to your side. You do that with logic and facts, not fear. You help your movement grow to the point where there are so many people putting so much pressure on the government that they have to respond. Fear is what the government is using to get people on its side. Fear of people from the Middle East. We are fighting fear, not trying to increase it. Fear and suspicion only breed hate. We have enough of that right now and we don’t need more. I think we would do better to educate others on the issues in a peaceful manner than starting a riot. Our strength is in numbers, not in how much of a mess we can make. I’m all for disrupting the system a little to get attention, but I think you can do that in peaceful means. We’ve seen it work time and time again. Purposely looking for a riot is just wrong and really hurts our message. Sorry but you’ll never get me to agree to creating conflict as a means of fighting for peace. That’s too much like what Bush is doing.
Bullying?
by Troy Shelley
Sunday, Mar. 23, 2003 at 5:08 AM
axelfear@yahoo.com
James,
I am not the whole crowd, nor am I an anarchist. I believe that there should exist a diversity of tactics when it comes to activism. Some things that people did during the march I didn't agree with. I am sorry you seem to like to group all of us together as one large cluster-fuck. I upheld my place as a protesters without EVER resorting to violence. I can't speak for everyone in every way. Individualism does still exist.
Labels are gentrified forms of judgement. Don't single me out because I post, defending BB and the others. I am defending them as people, not their actions. I mean how much are you going to blame on me? Can you please realize I am not the "ringleader" of the anarchist movement in Pittsburgh?
Love
Troy
www.geocities.com/axelfear/axel_fear
fear of what?
by a dissenter
Sunday, Mar. 23, 2003 at 3:43 PM
yes, abbie hoffman did advocate property damage. and i believe that he and his collaborators made a positive difference. so did martin luther king and ghandi (diversity of tactics anyone?) i don't necessarily think that it's reasonable to make a comparison between these people (i wish i were more up on my race relations history, because i do believe that more militant elements deserve some credit there that often goes only to king because his tactics were more acceptable to the mainstream)
i don't want anyone to fear for their personal safety. but fear for their unjustly privileged position in a violent world? hell yes, unless they're willing to give it up voluntarily.
Please don't lose sight of the goal
by Dan Kyle
Sunday, Mar. 23, 2003 at 3:46 PM
Hey yall,
I am a bit concerned with some of the comments made here. I would ask those who believe the property distruction led to the mass arrests to look at what has happened on a national scale in the past two days. Hundreds of peaceful protesters have been rounded up in Chicago, San Francisco, and most other major cities. To say the actions of a few people in Pittsburgh escaladed police aggression would not explain this trend happening everyhwere. I am certain mass arrests were going to happen in any major city which mobilized against the war on Thursday, no matter what tactics were used.
The property damage which took place included two individuals overturning a city paper and Pulp distro box and one individual reportedly jumping on a car, no more. According to my knowledge of the law, and assuming different individuals did these three acts, that equals three arrests the police should have made.
By mass arresting people on the sidewalk (a legal place to gather) and telling them to disperse while at the same time not allowing them to cross the street when a walk sign is given, the police were actually STOPPING people from dispersing. This is illegal and unethical. Since legal observers who did nothing remotely close to civil disobedience were among those beated and arrested, the law will most likely reflect how badly the police overreacted. Why overrreact then? To divide one of the US's most successful anti-war movements. Pittsburgh has been recognized as one of the smaller cities who are doing it right, and DOING IT TOGETHER. Not dividing the less radical from those who want to commit civil disobedience, not dividing older activists from younger activists, but allowing different tactics to work hand in hand. Its called a united movement: and it has made us strong.
Please do not overlook the reasons this movement
has been so strong. Remember that younger activists have been among the hardest working for this movement locally (POG played the biggest role in planning the framework for the regional convergence and has organized rallies and marches VERY well since). To abandon the younger activists now will cripple an amazing movement.
I am on the board of the Thomas Merton Center. These are my views and do not necessarily reflect those of the whole board. However, I would like to remind people that the Plowshares 8 were heavily criticized for breaking into a military camp and banging on nuclear warheads, but those actions essentially built the TMC. Seattle in '99 caused major property damage, but it marked the return to massive mobilizations in activism which was previously invisible to an entire generation. Civil disobedience is and always will be devisive, but has been a major component of building a movement throughout history.
Lets not divide over diversity of tactics, lets all contribute in the way which best utilizes our individual talents!
pl@r
by a dissenter
Sunday, Mar. 23, 2003 at 3:48 PM
many students were out of school because there was a general strike against the war. many workers were also out of work (many others came after school or work since the march didn't start until after five)
your comments seem informed and reasonable, but do you know anything about anarchists? anarchy actually has everything to do with peace, at least in the anti-war sense. without nations there could be no war as such, and it would be very difficult for small independant groups to muster such massive displays of force.
protest and communication
by zack
Monday, Mar. 24, 2003 at 10:54 AM
hi there,
following some of the last few comments, i think it's important to point out that there are LOTS of people who have been participating in Pittsburgh peace events who have some legitimate grievances with how things have been proceeding. Quinn's comments are insightful because they point to a number of unresollved issues that challenge the effectiveness of pittsburgh peace protests. despite the fact that i am a biker, anarchist, punk, graduate student, and teacher, i have been thoroughly frustrated with the actions of certain people at these events. while it's not expected that everyone at an event must act in a uniform manner, there are expectations that i have of other people at a protest. first and foremost, if you want to protest the Gap and sweatshop labor, then organize a protest for it. similarly, if you want to organize a protest against cars, go to a critical mass event, or plan a protest against automobiles. when people harass motorists, shout slogans at SUV drivers, and disturb businesses during a march, they make it much easier for police to justify their actions, and more importantly, the meaning behind these messages is NOT being communicated to people. before i get a mini-lecture about the interconnections of various socioeconomic problems from some political newbie on the next thread, please understand that there are many of us who are highly aware of the links between capitalism, corporations, car culture, the police, and the war. despite these connections, there is a time and a place for appropriate actions. it's totally naive to think that shouting at drivers will somehow make them rethink their position about owning a car, similarly, it's naive to think that disorderly behavior at a peace rally (regardless of how insignificant the action) will not bring more negative attention from the police. i agree with dan kyle's statement that pittsburgh is unique because we use a combination of tactics in our protests, but i also think it's fair for people to express their displeasure when a handful of egotistical children use the protests as a forum for their own personal political agenda. nobody gives a shit if you're an anarchosyndicalist, a conservative businesswoman, or a communist...the point of the protest is to bring people together in a message of peace. i have grown extremely tired of people showing up to these events in some feeble effort to act out a scene from the Seattle WTO protests, complete with facial bandanas and gasmasks. despite the fact that i sing in a punk band and have lots of friends in the punk community, the sight of a dirty kid dressed in all black with 4 bandanas tied around his face, shouting in the face of SUV drivers does not send a peaceful message to people in the community. furthermore, it doesn't communicate a goddamn thing to anybody else, other than reaffirming their opinions that punk-looking people dress funny and shout loudly.
i'm not telling people how to dress, or how to behave when you are in your house, or at a show......but have some respect for the fact that mass media has the ability to present the protest in any manner they see fit. as individuals such as martin luther king, saul alinsky, ceasar chavez, and angela davis have shown, the media can be a powerful tool when it is used in the right way. why don't we try to use this to our advantage and take some of the following things into consideration:
-people expect protestors to look like punks and hippies. perhaps it would be a good idea to have parents, older folks, and other straight looking people leading the way during the next march. peace protests are acts of symbolism that attempt to get others to change their mind about war. if we recognize the fact that people have a stereotyped view of what protestors look and act like (young, dreadlocked, long hair, tattoos, etc.) then we should try to disrupt that image by having older folks, families, and anti-war veterens leading the way. this sends a symbolic message to people in the community that "regular folks" are concerned about the war. this sort of strategy makes it more difficult for the media to portray protestors in a stereotypical manner. i am not suggesting that people cut their hair, or that people like myself should cover our tattoos. such suggestions would be absurd. what i am suggesting is that when you are dealing with a symbolic action, appearances do play a role in the way that the public perceives the event. for this reason, when all the dress-up revolutionaries cover their faces in an attempt to look like some hybrid between old school cowboys and the Zapatistas, they must realize that many people in the public are scared by this imagery. as a result, this can send a negative message to the public, and give the impression that the event is being led by "radicals." i'll be the first to admit that encouraging "radical looking" people to not lead the march is conforming to societal standards of dress/appearance and elite norms, but when we are trying to persuade people in the general public of our views, we must acknowledge the connotations that people attach to appearances. if people have problems with this idea, they should consider what is more important, trying to send the most powerful message we can to the public, or using protests as a revolutionary fashion show. on a more cynical note, and this is my own personal opinion, there is no reason why anyone should hide their face at a protest. people should be proud to be seen exercising their civil liberties and speaking out against injustice, rather than hiding their identity behind a makeshift mask.
-in keeping with the notion that peace protests are symbolic acts, i think it is an incredibly irresponsible idea to organize protests at the federal building, especially during rush hour. i understand the desire to shut down the federal building and send a message to the federal government, but with the passing of the Patriot acts, federal agents and police have the ability to SEVERLY crack down on individuals who pose a clear and present threat to federal institutions. while everyone involved knows that peaceful protestors are not a threat to public safety, this is not the view of the federal government. attempting to shut down federal institutions is an extremely risky idea, and it puts people in danger of being arrested and made examples of----namely, by utilizing aspects of the Patriot acts in order to charge people with more severe charges, such as conspiracy to commit a terrorist act, conspiracy to start a riot, trespassing on federal property, and the list goes on and on. while this may not a concern to a lot of people out there, i think it is irresponsible to put people in a situation in which they are at the mercy of a police force and juridical system that has been greatly enhanced by the Patriot acts. in terms of the media, protests at federal facilities can easily be construed as threats to public safety, and reporters are more prone to focus on this aspect during their coverage---sending out the message that there are threats to federal employees and facilities during a state of High terrorist alerts. i have emphasized the fact that peace protests are symbolic because nobody expects that the president is going to get on national TV and say, "people of the united states, i have just heard that there was a protest in downtown pittsburgh against the war, and for this reason we are stopping all operation in Iraq." the reason we protest is to send a message to the public in order to try to build a stronger movement. if we organize people to protest at federal institutions and expect the police not to utilize the Patriot acts against us, then we are naive as we are careless.
Furthermore, the idea that stopping traffic will somehow jolt people out of their war-soaked, consumer consciousness is giving ourselves a little too much credit, and not paying enough attention to the lack of communication taking place. i am sympathetic to the idea that we can't let people think that it is "business as usual," but people are NOT going to be persuaded to our side when we turn the situation into an immediate battle of Us vs. Them. the attitude i have heard thus far is that a few minutes of traffic is nothing compared to the loss of life taking place in Iraq. in other words, the people driving home are immediately on the WRONG side of the issue, and WE need to tell them what the real deal is. it is a big assumption to suggest that everyone driving home is automatically a war supporter, and this antagonism is fueled by people who want to use the peace rally as a forum against car culture. how about having some solidarity with the people driving home from their shitty jobs? instead of shouting in their face and causing traffic and frustration downtown, maybe we should make people small care packages to pass out to people in traffic. we could fill them with candy and write a note like this:
"We sympathize with the fact that you have probably had a tough day at work, and we want to let you know that there are thousands of people in Pittsburgh who are against the war in Iraq. We are trying to spread a message of peace and we encourage you to learn more about the situation in Iraq, and to talk with peace activists in order to learn more about what they represent. Thanks for your time and enjoy the candy."
How could people refuse?? I know that this is only example of what could be done instead of shutting down traffic, but at least it's an idea that doesn't alienate people downtown, encourage the use of police violence, and make protestors look exactly like their slogan shouting conservative opponents.
if people want to continue gathering at the federal builiding, you are putting your own safety and the safety of those around you in jeapordy. being arrested without the conscious intent of breaking an unjust law is not an act of civil disobedience....it's just a stupid way to give the cops extra money in fines, the chance to slap protestors around, and the opportunity to allow peaceful folks to be brought up on federal conspiracy charges. i understand that people who were arrested the other day were not doing anything wrong, but what i am suggesting is that planning to shut down a federal institution is not is simple as it may seem, and it greatly increases the chance that people will be arrested without just cause. i know this doesn't sit well with some people, but for those of you that want to rot in jail as a martyr, go right ahead. avoiding jail whenever possible seems to be a smart idea, and future planning for peace events should take this sentiment into consideration. what not have rallies in oakland? in the park?
aside from the sense of personal (some would argue egotistical) satisfaction that comes along with protesting a federal building, what will it actually achieve? the best case scenario is that we disrupt them for a few hours. the worst case scenario is that people get the shit kicked out of them by police, and potentially brought up on charges that are more stringent than those faced by protestors at any other time in recent US history.
my two main point are as follows:
1) it's important to consider how we are representing ourselves to the public, and we should do everything in our power to appeal to the masses of Pittsburghers who are on-the-fence about the war. Pittsburgh is a pretty conservative city, and it might be useful to play to this factor and put a attach a more conservative face to the peace efforts. if this offends people who want to wear their punkest outfit out to the protests, replete with pseudo-cowboy bandanas and black flags, then your attachment to your appearance is as obsessive as the yuppies you love to hate. in addition, we must stay focused on the issue at hand and avoid meaningless and impotent attacks on corporate chain stores and automobile drivers while we are marching for peace. these are important issues, but they deserve their own protest/march.
2) attempting to shut down federal facilities is extremely dangerous, and with the advent of the Patriot acts, could potentially be followed by federal charges related to terrorism (or the conspiracy to committ terrorist acts). organizers should consider different venues for protests despite the fact that the federal builiding is an obvious choice for symbolic dissent. i firmly believe that protests in another site will draw more people out to the events, and will spread a more positive message about the peace movement. in addition, protests in another area will dramatically lessen the ability for police to utilize the patriot acts in prosecuting protestors who are arrested, and it will likely cut down on the number of folks arrested in the first place. finally, blocking traffic downtown at rush hour does not communicate a clear message to the public, it gives people downtown an excuse to take an anti-protest stance (which then spreads through stories at work, and those written in the newspaper), and ultimately it puts people in danger of getting hit by cars (which would definitely result in a riot).
i firmly believe that people should be protesting this war and i also believe in the power of protest to change public opinion, governmental policy, and corporate activities. However, there are ways in which we can organize ourselves that will take the fuel away from those who oppose us. If we want to stop the war, this is the challenge we must face.
thanks to everyone who contributes to independent media and anyone who read this long winded message,
-zack-
.
by Evan N
Monday, Mar. 24, 2003 at 2:01 PM
Before you do civil disobediance, prepare youself by reading some King or Ghandi and understand what it is all about. Overturning pulp boxes is not civil disobediance. The goal of civil disobediacne is to provoke negotiations with the other side (read letter from a birmingham jail by King, one of the best things to read to understand true CD). Overturning pulp boxes wont prompt negotiation, rather violence.
hmmm
by a dissenter
Monday, Mar. 24, 2003 at 2:14 PM
i think that you assume a lot when you assume that the point of the protest is symbolic only. for many people that isn't the case. i agree that the government isn't going to suddenly turn around and care what a small group of protesters think. you said that the point of a protest is building more support, but to what end? what if we had twice as many people, or ten times as many? i still don't think that peaceful legal protests would necessarily change policy� to me it seems that the point of having more support would be to make civil disobedience more effective. i agree that effective civil disobedience involves breaking unjust laws, for example, some might feel that breaking the laws of the patriot act would be an important action. still, most people that i know who protest don't want or try to get arrested. i saw lots of running away on thursday, where possible. which brings me to the masks. you may well know this, given your background, but the utilitarian point of the masks is twofold: 1) sometimes in combination with all black clothing to avoid specific targetting of certain people including leaders, which was definitely happening on thursday, and 2) to partially filter chemical attacks, which were definitely happening on thursday.
personally, i don't necessarily think that the invonvenienced motorists are all pro-war, but i do hope that those who aren't understand the importance of what we were doing to some extent. i think the candy, or something along those lines, is a good idea though for next time.
what is the discussion?
by Jake
Monday, Mar. 24, 2003 at 3:04 PM
I was one of those in black and every car I passed I told the driver sorry for the inconvienence. Every single person I talked to gave a peace sign, said no problem/I understand, or told me good luck. I think many people are understanding of the need to disrupt things in protest of injustice. I don't think a 5 minute wait is going to turn a lot of potential allies off.
I really don't see what there is to discuss. Some people support attempting to non-violently disrupt the functioning of things and some don't. That is what diversity of tactics is based on. If you are not comfortable participating in an event that supports a diversity of tactics then don't participate! It's really not in solidarity with others to take part in an event organized under a agreed upon and announced framework, and then complain when people utilize that framework.
i hear you
by zack
Monday, Mar. 24, 2003 at 6:46 PM
i appreciate both responses that people wrote to my message. let me address a few things that were brought up.
first of all i agree that protest is not only symbolic. protest can, and has dramatically changed things for the better in this society. the efforts of civil rights activists, feminists, animal rights advocates, union organizers have made this country a better place. my intention in talking about the symbolic aspects of protest were specifically related to the anti-war campaign right now. when we're dealing with a movement that is as wide spread and diverse as the anti-war movement, we must pay attention to the ways in which we are represented, and the way in which we are representing ourselves. i'm not trying to take anything away from direct action campaigns, in fact, i'm just trying to offer some reflexive criticism about what's going on in hopes that our movement will become stronger.
secondly, i understand the functional aspect of wearing masks, but whether or not you agree with wearing them, you still have to admit that other people may interpret your purpose in a different way that you intended. my gripes about people wearing masks and acting particular ways at a protest is not intended to be a slam on the people themselves. i don't attach any value to who the person is just because they present themselves in a certain way at a protest. i was trying to offer some criticism where i felt it had previously been lacking. it's not about my personal feelings about people dressing or acting a particular way, it's about thinking critically about the actions that people are taking in hopes of producing the most powerful message possible.
finally, in respone to jake, i think it's awesome that you took the time to explain to drivers what exactly was happening. i think that there are a lot of people who were also being considerate with people in traffic. my problem with the action is that the issue isn't just between protestors and drivers--we also have to take the media into consideration. despite the fact that things might go over fairly well, when the media gets ahold of the story, they can put an extremely negative spin on it. mass media has the tendency to do this anyway, so i believe it's crucial that we try to use the media coverage to our advantage rather than hope they focus on the nice exchanges that people like yourself had with drivers. in that sense, i think you're correct to say that a 5 minute delay in traffic won't detract from future supporters, but it certainly doesn't encourage more people to join our side---which is what the protests should hopefully be about. in addition, despite the fact that the 5 minute driving delay won't hurt the cause, a five minute news story will. and that's exactly what happened that night; news coverage on every station in pittsburgh focused explicitly on the fact that traffic was stopped, drivers were harrassed, and people got out of hand. in turn, hundreds of thousands of people received a message that was damaging to the movement. i have no doubts that the media spun this story in order to make protestors look bad, but when we organize actions without taking these factors into consideration, then we put the ball in the media's court--hoping that they will be fair and somewhat accurate. since we both know that this usally doesn't happen, then we should organize in a manner that gives us the best opportunity for decent news coverage.
in regard to your last point about the diversity of tactics, i think you are interpreting diversity in an extremely limiting way. when i think about diverse tactics, i think about people being creative---using theatre, puppets, satire, humor, music, dancing, etc. etc. etc. we need MORE diversity and creativity in our expression, rather than having to make a forced choice between marching and/or disrupting traffic.
the whole reason why i wrote what i did was to vent some frustration and to offer a critical perspective from someone is already down with the cause. maybe you should take that sort of thing into consideration before you tell other people that if they don't like what they see then they should stay home. if we can't be reflexive and critical of what we're doing then we are bound to fail.
and furthermore, having a diversity of tactics at a protest doesn't mean that an exclusive few can do as they please while implicitly forcing everyone else to deal with the consequences. if you can't even manage to communictate with a fellow activist about these issues without resorting to an idiotic choice between "accept it or go home" than i feel sorry for you. by forcing people to either agree to the tactics of an exclusive few or stay home, you put an unnecessary pressure on them, and you create an environment that is extremely undemocratic. we're supposed to be reaching out to more and more people in the community, not weeding out everyone that doesn't agree with our opinions. if you really believe that protests are a fucking free for all, then i wish you luck in convincing other people in the community to get on board.
despite the fact that we seem to disagree on tactics, i appreciate you taking the time to read what i wrote, and i'm glad you offered me a different perspective on the issue.
take it easy,
zack
Stepping on a bug is violent
by Ahimsa
Sunday, Mar. 30, 2003 at 10:51 PM
Peace to all living beings.
![[masthead]](/images/masthead_140.png)