Showing posts with label Takin it to the Streets. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Takin it to the Streets. Show all posts

Sunday, September 20, 2015

Tenten



I recorded the video above last night outside the Embassy Suites in Albuquerque. It's part of the talk by Corrina ("Tenten") Shoemaker, the sister of Victor Villalpando, a youth shot and killed by Espanola, NM, police a year ago last June. I had just heard about Victor's killing when I headed out that day to a meeting to discuss a protest march planned for later in June to highlight the continued police killings in Albuquerque and elsewhere despite the scathing DoJ report on the city's pattern and practice of unconstitutional policing.

When I heard about Victor's death, I was shocked. At the time, it was not at all clear what had happened. There were news stories that the boy had threatened the police with a gun, and thus he "needed killing," but there was something clearly off about that. We hear those kinds of stories in the aftermath of police shootings all the time, and very often they later turn out to be untrue. There were stories that someone had called police from a fast-food joint in Espanola saying there was a young male outside waving a gun around. Then there were stories that Villalpando himself had been the caller. Thus, in some people's eyes, this was clearly an incident of "suicide by cop." The video of the killing itself, however, showed that that wasn't the case. The video showed him attempting to flee when he was shot and killed. He was not threatening the police in any way. Nevertheless, the Rio Arriba County grand jury ruled the homicide "justified" because Villalpando was "armed" with a cap gun, and how were the police to know it wasn't real?

Perhaps Victor lacked wisdom, but since when is a sixteen year old expected to be wiser than the supposed adults, like the police involved in his killing?

There was a march last evening in Albuquerque to protest -- yet again -- the city's hosting of what I call the Killer Kop Kompetition, an elaborate, multi-day shooting contest by Albuquerque's and the nation's "finest."

 Last year's Killer Kop Kompetition was won, we were told, by an APD officer who would later go on to some notoriety when he shot and severely wounded an undercover officer engaged in a drug sting. The shooter was the supervisor...  It was quite a remarkable situation and starkly demonstrated how trigger-happy and out of control APD's officers had become. On the other hand, it was one of very few police involved shootings by APD after July of 2014 when such shootings -- once commonplace -- came to an abrupt halt. At least for several months, there were no killings by APD.

Then, the day after the shooting of the undercover officer by his supervisor, John Okeefe was shot and killed by APD after a foot chase down an alley. The police claimed that Okeefe was shooting at them, and a stolen revolver was recovered at the scene beside Okeefe's body. The revolver, it turned out, had been stolen from the home of a sheriff's deputy a few days before, a factoid that set off an alarm bell or two among police-watchers, as did the fact that this killing took place almost coincidentally with the shooting of an undercover cop by his supervisor ("Ooops!") and the announcement that Dominque Perez and Keith Sandy, the killers of James Boyd, were being charged with Murder 2 by the Bernalillo County DA.

A lot of threads were woven together in last night's march and protest. Initially, I didn't intend to march with the rest of the protesters as I am still kind of lame from the episode of sciatica almost two years ago now. The march route was said to be a mile and a half through downtown Albuquerque, but it looked farther than that to me, and the tail end of it was uphill. I don't do uphill well at all.

Nonetheless, when I heard Victor Villalpando's mother and sister talk to the assembly prior to the march, I knew I had to go on the march with the rest, no matter whatever difficulty in doing so I might encounter. I'm glad I did.

The march was one of the most orderly protests I think I've ever been involved in. There were perhaps 100 or so participants, no police escort -- and if there were undercover officers seeded among the marchers, I didn't notice any. We marched in the street or on the sidewalk, depending on the preference of individual marchers. I carried the "Abolish Police Departments" sign -- in part because I am an abolitionist rather than a reformer these days (I've done my time as a police reformer... and found the results to be.... less than I had hoped.)

Signs prior to the march

Medics on foot and on bikes accompanied the march, and monitors with caution tape controlled the traffic while the marchers passed. Many, many drivers honked their support for the marchers. There were water stations set up along the route, and the medics distributed water to anyone who asked. Organizers let people know what was going on and how the march would proceed. Everyone felt comfortable and protected. It was the formation of a spontaneous community, something that will become increasingly necessary as the efforts to end violent policing continue.

While the uphill climb to the Embassy Suites was a bit tough for me, I made it, and the sunset view from the top of the ridge was spectacular. (I wanted to capture it in paint or pastel, and I still may try... the art-part of my life coming close to an obsession these days...)

As we reached the turn into the hotel driveway, a couple of bicycle officers appeared to help with traffic control. They were the first uniformed officers we had seen, even as we marched past the sheriff's and police departments downtown. These bicycle officers together with some other uniformed APD officers would form a phalanx protecting the lobby of the hotel from the protest rabble outside.

After reading the names of the dead at the hands of APD ("Presente!") about half the marchers made their way toward the lobby of the hotel. Access was denied. However, during the protest, a number of the participants in the shooting competition came out to observe the proceedings, and one even had himself photographed with the protesters.

Tenten wanted to talk to a police-officer competitor and to anyone associated with Embassy Suites, but the police inside were too afraid of her, and the hotel refused to send out a representative (at least this was my impression from observations and talking with some of the participants.)  Eventually, an APD officer (along with a backup officer "just in case") spoke with Tenten outside the lobby, but nothing was resolved. My video above starts just after the APD officers retreated back to the lobby.

Fear. The officers were so frightened... I call them cowards. They see the public -- at least an expressive portion of the public -- as their enemies, and they live in constant mortal fear of those enemies, and so they lash out, sometimes murderously, when confronted with protest, demands, or disobedience.

Last night, for the most part, they hid.

There was no hint of violence within the crowd of protesters last night, but at one point I was told that the officers inside the hotel were demanding that the protesters pledge to be "peaceful" if they wanted to speak to an officer inside. It was a ludicrous demand given the nature of the event being protested, but it was an example of kind of fear the police have of any expression of public outrage at their behavior. The same fear is seen among the occupying armies of our nation's vast overseas imperial adventures. It's inculcated from the top down.

Ultimately, the point was made -- that this competition is an insult to the many hundreds, indeed thousands of dead at the hands of police, and it is not wanted in the city of Albuquerque, not after everything that has happened, the piles of dead bodies, the protests, the pain and the outrage.

Victor Villalpando's sister and mother brought those points home to me more strongly than I think I have felt them up to now, and I've been involved in the protests against violent policing for many a long year.

We marched back to Robinson Park in the downtown area, and I slowed down the closer we got. A kind driver asked if I'd like a ride for the last few blocks, and I said yes. Well, I coulda made it on my own, but it would have taken me probably another half hour or so. Had a great talk with the driver, Sara Ruth (I think), someone who feels like I do that the context of policing, the culture, and the behavior of police must change or be abolished.


Thursday, January 29, 2015

"We Support! Our Police!"

Public authority is breaking down in St. Louis. I've witnessed it through a number of livestreams, but Bassem Masri's has been among the most compelling, in part because he puts himself in the middle of the action and comments fearlessly and fiercely while he's documenting the events he's very much a part of.

During a rally at the St. Louis County (In)Justice Center in Clayton the other day, Bassem waded in to an almost entirely white and hostile "Pro-Police" crowd of a few dozen, maybe 100, chanting "We Support! Our Police!" and was set upon by the crowd which was turning into a mob. I have little doubt that they would have killed him if they thought they could get away with it -- if they had "permission," in other words --  just like a lynch mob. And Bassem got it all on video:



Broadcast live streaming video on Ustream

It's long, an hour and forty minutes, so feel free to scroll.

As Bassem suspects, these people are not really supporting the police at all. Instead, they're expressing their contempt and outrage for the protesters who have been disrupting their little lives since Mike Brown was killed by Darren Wilson in August. They'd be happier if the police would withdraw and let them handle the thugs* themselves. But the police on that day (Monday) intervened to prevent the mob from following through on its implicit threats of harm to Bassem and the others there to counter their.... for lack of a better word.... bullshit.

*"Thug" is the new N-word it would appear. 

The people in the streets love them some Bassem, his stature rises with every action he is a part of. He always claims he's not a leader of the protests, and that's true enough from the evidence of his livestreams. He doesn't lead the protests, but he often inspires the protesters with his personal bravery and his unshakable sense of justice. 

And then, on Monday, he let it be known that he was a heroin addict in recovery, that he's been clean -- and more or less sober -- for the last 16 months.

Oh my.

Well, I'm neither surprised nor horrified. Years ago, I dealt with addicts of all sorts when our theater company was "adopted" by an NA/AA group. One of them (that I know of) was a heroin addict, and he was the one who raised the most ruckus, caused the most problems, and did some of the most astonishing -- and often very brave -- work of any of the others.

When I see Bassem's livestreams and hear and read his commentary, I am reminded...

Heroin, they tell me, is one of the most difficult drugs to get off of, and even when an addict is able to get free from it, there are often irreversible changes in personality, behavior, and perspective that come about due the addiction and stay with the addict for the rest of their life. It's not necessarily a bad thing, it's simply something to notice. Heroin changes addict's personalities, but not necessarily in a bad way.

One of the consequences of heroin addiction -- at least in some cases -- is bravery in the face of injustice, and empathy for those who suffer. I really can't object to those consequences. Some of the people at the rally documented above could learn from them.

When Bassem told his story of addiction and recovery on Twitter, there was an immediate outpouring of love from his many followers and fans. It was remarkable to see, but not surprising.

He made his case that he's changed his life, and now he's on a new path, a path of service to his people. That would be the people in the streets of St. Louis and so many other cities where opposition to police violence is a matter of principle and a matter of community building and a matter of strength. That would also be the Palestinian people (Bassem is a Palestinian-American) who are under brutal Israeli occupation.

Like many others, Bassem sees direct parallels between the Israeli occupation and oppression of Palestinians and the widespread police violence and murder in the United States. They're not the same by any means, any more than the Apartheid regime in South Africa was the same as Jim Crow in the American South. But they echo one another, and there are direct interactions between the Israeli oppressors and the American police forces.

Those who support their police are simply and directly saying to those who protest police violence, "You don't count matter."

That's it in a nutshell. You don't count matter .

One man at the rally insisted that everyone killed by police in the recent past  -- all those names of men and women and children who have died in repeated hails of police gunfire -- deserved to die.  And a big reason why? They showed disrespect.  Their pants were too low, they threw gang symbols, they had guns or knives or something that a police officer interpreted as a threat, they insulted an officer, they disobeyed, they were black, they were standing there, they were advancing, they reached for something... etc, etc. In every case, the killing was justified in the eyes of most of those rallying on Monday primarily because the victim showed disrespect, contempt of cop.

Not much different than whistling at a white woman in Money, Mississippi, is it?

You do that -- boy -- and you deserve to die.

If one of the ralliers showed similar disrespect for authority -- as many of them no doubt do in their daily lives -- of course it would be different, and it would be different because they are white and right, and authority must yield to their demands.

That's the proper way of the world.

"We Support! Our Police!" 

And you don't matter.

Tuesday, December 23, 2014

DeRay McKesson Issues Beatitudes on the Twit Machine

Monday, December 15, 2014

Impunity vs Inconvenience

During the latest round of protests against police violence, murder and impunity, activists have repeatedly shut down freeways through many cities as well as taking over major intersections for anywhere from a few minutes to an hour or more.

There have been nearly constant complaints that these tactics of inconvenience are alienating would-be supporters. It may or may not be true, but the simple fact is that the inconveniences of freeway shut-downs and other roadway difficulties are commonplace, everyday occurrences. They're routinely caused by construction and reconstruction, wrecks, police chases, loose dogs or cattle, you name it. One's convenience is forever being messed with, and most people long ago came to grips with it.

Yet when protesters shut the freeways down or hold a die-in at the shopping mall or disrupt a meeting of the powerful to ensure their voices are heard, pearls are clutched and garments are extensively rent over the inconvenience these dambed protesters cause and how much trouble they're making to no object whatsoever.

It's bizarre. Especially in contrast to the complete impunity with which police and many of the high and mighty seem to operate. Compared to the injustice of that impunity, the inconvenience of a protest shut-down ("If we don't get it, shut it down!" "Who shuts shit down? We shut shit down!") is as nothing. Compared to the looting of the entire economy and everybody's pocketbooks conducted by the titans of finance, the sporadic and mostly targeted looting that took place in Ferguson and a few other places is nothing. Compared to the destruction of whole communities caused by both the police and the titans of finance, the arson that took place during some of the protests (attributed to the protesters but without evidence or proof) was nothing.

Impunity is the keyword here. Some people, agencies and institutions seem to have it. Others do not. The police get away with mayhem and murder all the time, and they are celebrated and praised for it. The financial sector loots with complete impunity -- and they are rewarded when they do something particularly outrageous particularly well.

The military seemed to set the standard in Iraq and Afghanistan for the use of force and impunity we see among police. In Iraq, any Iraqi seen with a weapon was subject to summary execution. Hundreds or thousands of Iraqi civilians attempting to protect their homes and property from the invaders or from criminals were shot on sight. In Iraq and Afghanistan, if a military transport was caught in traffic or a native-driven vehicle or pedestrian was in the way of a military transport, crushing the vehicle and everyone in it, running down the pedestrian, or what have you to get through to their destination was routine. Check-point murders were almost too frequent to count. If the Iraqi or Afghani native didn't instantly obey the commands of the checkpoint officers, and the officers perceived any kind of threat from the native, lethal force was authorized and employed with some relish. If there was a resistance attack on troops, troops were authorized to open fire on everyone in the vicinity, and in "clearing" buildings, everyone found inside, regardless of status, was subject to immediate execution. Every Iraqi and Afghani male between the ages of 16 and 60 was usually seen as a threat and a combatant, again, regardless of status, and many were killed simply because of their gender and age.


Iraqi and Afghani dogs and donkeys were considered existential threats and were often shot on sight. Wounded civilians and fighters were often left unattended, and in one particularly horrifying incident in Fallujah documented by Kevin Sites, a line of wounded men sitting against the wall of a mosque were shot to pieces by brave American soldiers, and one was shot dead lying on a stretcher as the hopped up troop who killed him screamed "He's faking he's dead!!!"

These and many, many other murders during the invasions and occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan were considered "justified" so long as those committing them were following the rules of engagement, rules that were never clearly articulated to the local population, rules that could always be invoked and interpreted to absolve the killers of culpability. Thus many thousands died most of them innocent of any transgression they knew of, and the troops committing the homicides got away with it.

The situation is not exactly analogous among domestic police forces, but it is very similar. Similar enough for the comparison between domestic police and an occupying army to be frequently noted.

The only time troops were seriously held to account was over sexual offenses and issues. And so it seems to be among domestic police forces as well. Those who are caught in sexually compromised situations may well wind up in court for their trouble, but let them kill someone or run them down, or otherwise leave a trail of blood behind them, and they might just get a medal and a parade. It's a totally screwed up institutional situation in which there is no justice -- at least no justice by any definition the victims and survivors would recognize.

And yet the perpetual injustices of a warped and insensitive system are somehow to be endured by the victims and survivors while a few minutes' inconvenience caused by those protesting this insanity is considered intrusive and alienating, even by many "good liberals."

It's bullshit.

People are dying and there is no justice. Individuals, families, and whole communities are being destroyed by police and by policies of those on high, and there is no justice.

The fact that someone might have to wait a while during a protest against injustice and impunity is just too damn bad. Deal with it.

"No justice, no peace! No racist police!"

From what I've seen, the protests have been remarkable in many ways. The numbers getting out into the streets to protest police impunity and injustice and demand police accountability are impressive. As I've said, we've -- finally -- reached the tipping point on the issue of police violence and murder, and changes will come.

How it will resolve is still something of a mystery, though, and I don't trust those in power and authority to do the right thing. They certainly won't do so on their own, and they will only do as little as possible under pressure. They seem to revel in the mock-military bloodshed they commit and do not want to give it up willingly. So we'll see.

In the meantime, abundant respect and praise to the protesters. Solidarity!


Friday, December 12, 2014

The Protests Will Continue

Tomorrow is a National Day of Resistance, National Day of Action, with demonstrations announced for dozens and dozens of cities.

The video below is one of many that have been produced and posted on behalf of the victims of police violence and the growing resistance movement.



It is our duty to fight
It is our duty to win
We must love each other and support each other
We have nothing to lose but our chains
Assata Shakur -- "To My People" 1973 

Sunday, September 14, 2014

Killer Kop Protest



From the Journal:
“We have 27 killings since 2010, and I believe they should have another venue, another state, with all due respect,” demonstrator Nora Anaya said.
Other activists at the protest called it “ironic” and tone deaf for the competition to be held in Albuquerque. In April, the U.S. Department of Justice concluded its investigation into the police department and found that a majority of shootings it examined were not constitutional and that the department had gaps in training, accountability and organization.
Protesters also said they would have preferred a competition that instead rewards officers for successfully de-escalating situations that could otherwise end in an officer-involved shooting.
“It’s not about who can get the better shot and kill the most people,” protester Renee Garcia said as gunfire rang out from competitors at the shooting range.
The apologists for the Killer Kop Kompetition beg to disagree. For them, it is very much about that "better shot" and killing more people more efficiently, doing the best job possible by eliminating all those many threats and keeping us safe.

I think I posted a link to the story of the shooting of John Rogers in Bloomfield, and it's really quite shocking how cavalier and almost casual the department and the media has been about killing this man who was just going about his business according to his family when he was accosted by armed men, one of whom shot him in the upper body, killing him. According to his family members who were there, Rogers was not armed and he was not threatening police. It didn't matter. He "reached" for what they said was a gun in the glove compartment of his truck. Bam! There is no way to prove whether he "reached for a gun" or not, however. Why, in any case, should "reaching" be a death sentence?

The Bloomfield police department describes the internal investigation of the shooting:
“It's more of an internal check to see what we can do to make our department the best it can be.”
How much better can they get at killing people? Oh. Well. I'm sure they can get much better at it if they really put their minds to it. What nonsense.

And they use the incident as a means to recruit officers, as their current numbers are somewhat down:
 
The two officers called to the scene of the shooting were placed on paid administrative leave, pending the outcome of the investigation. Three more officers have recently left the department or retired, reducing the number of active officers from 20 to 15.
Foster said his department is currently accepting applications for two open positions. He said he hopes to have the positions filled in the next few weeks.
OK then. Priorities, I guess. And routines. And procedures.

Rogers is dead, so he can't complain about it, and his family, well... too bad for them. You know if they didn't want this to happen, they shouldn't have called the police... it's their fault, right? If a neighbor called, it's still the Rogers family's fault. It was, after all, the second time police had been out there that day. They don't have time to deal with trouble making Indians in the middle of the day. It's their own fault, right?

Rogers "reached into the glove box of his vehicle and pulled out a .40-caliber semi-automatic pistol". Given the annoyance he'd already caused, who wouldn't shoot him, right?  Police start yelling, "gun! gun! gun!" and bam! bam! bam! they drop the guy like a deer.

Except New Mexico is an open carry state, isn't it? Well, so what? Dude was Navajo, never mind he owned a trucking business and was well regarded, yadda yadda, open carry doesn't ever really apply to non-anglos, does it? Indian with a gun! Kill! Kill! Kill! Bam!

This is what the training and conditioning at the Killer Kop Kompetition is all about. The Kops are being conditioned to see threats everywhere, especially guns and weapons of all kinds in the hands of myriad "types" -- Outlaws one and all -- which include just about everyone who isn't white, and who isn't at least upper middle class, and who isn't instantly obedient. Are you deaf? Too bad for you. Bam!

Those who threaten suicide, the mentally ill, the homeless, Indians, Blacks, Mexicans and other sorts of brown people,  the poor, the marginal, the outspoken, the disobedient and the defiant, all are designated Outlaws by the authorities, and all are subject to summary execution. The Killer Kop Kompetition going on now in Albuquerque is one of the many means by which the police condition their minds and hone their skills to eliminate threats from these Outlaws -- by shooting and killing them. Bam!

The thing of it is, most are ordinary people trying to go about their lives as best they can. Some of them have difficulty doing so for all kinds of reasons, but that shouldn't mean they are eligible for summary execution. Some get into squabbles with family or neighbors. That shouldn't make them eligible for summary execution. Some use drugs or alcohol. Yes? Does that automatically make them eligible for summary execution? A few become suicidal -- again, for all kinds of reasons. Why do the police so often feel it is their job to help these suicidal people along by shooting and killing them? Why are police so frightened of the public -- ordinary people -- that when they perceive someone "reaching" they believe their lives are endangered and they must shoot to kill? Why? It's insane. Crazy. Mindless.

Why does the sight of a gun -- which is probably perfectly legal to possess and show -- make them so fearful they believe they must shoot to kill (assuming of course the gun is in the hands of one of the categories of designated Outlaw)?

And why, ultimately, are the police protected when they kill? Yes, I know the law protects them, but departments can have policies that curb the killing. Why don't they? Why do they encourage officers to react to the kinds of scenarios that are part of the Killer Kop Kompetition?

These Killer Kop policies can and must change.

The killing must stop.

At least 1519 dead since May 1, 2013.

Friday, May 2, 2014

Horrible and Stupid

While the focus was on the Ukrainian Junta Military advancing -- or not -- on Slavyansk and Kramatorsk, it appears the real action was in Odessa, where street fighting between pro- and anti-Kiev activists became intense and bloody, leaving perhaps 40 or more dead, dozens or hundreds injured.

The fighting went on all day and climaxed with an assault by pro-Kiev activists on the Trades Union building, where -- apparently -- 30 or more died from gunshots, injuries and smoke inhalation when the building was firebombed with Molotov cocktails.

I watched a good deal of it on the UStream. It was awful. Some are suggesting that what happened in Odessa today will be the pretext for a Russian invasion. Maybe, maybe not.

But what happened will not be soon forgotten.

Howard Amos was live tweeting throughout the mayhem and has written his impressions for the Guardian:

Ukraine clashes: dozens reported dead after Odessa building fire

Police say people choked to death on smoke or were killed jumping out of window after assault on trade union building
Fire in trade union building in Odessa
People wait to be rescued from the trade union building in Odessa, after it was set alight during chaotic clashes. Photograph: Reuters

More than 30 people were reported to have been killed in violent and chaotic clashes in the southern Ukrainian city of Odessa on Friday as pro-Ukrainian activists stormed a building defended by protesters opposed to the current government in Kiev and in favour of closer ties with Russia.
Odessa's large Soviet-era trade union building was set alight as pro-Ukrainian activists mounted an assault as dusk fell. Police said at least 31 people choked to death on smoke or were killed when jumping out of windows after the trade union building was set on fire.
Bodies lay in pools of blood outside the main entrance as explosions from improvised grenades and Molotov cocktails filled the air. Black smoke from the building and a burning pro-Russian protest camp wreathed the nearby square.
Pro-Russian fighters mounted a last-ditch defence of the burning building, tossing masonry and Molotov cocktails from the roof on to the crowd below.
Medics at the scene said that the pro-Russian fighters were also shooting from the roof. At least five bodies with bullet wounds lay on the ground covered by Ukrainian flags as fire engines and ambulances arrived at the scene.
Some people fell from the burning building as they hung on to windowsills in an attempt to avoid the fire that had taken hold inside. Pro-Ukrainian protesters made desperate efforts to reach people with ropes and improvised scaffolding.
More.

Not getting better out there...

Wednesday, May 30, 2012

Pots and Pans

The viral video of the moment:



http://vimeo.com/42848523

During the Bushevik years, the Ché household often wondered why the People did not take to the streets with pots and pans the way the babushkas did in the Eastern Europe and the Old Soviet Union.

When I brought this question up in online fora, of course, it was ridiculed and denounced as if it were the query of an idiot. People cannot bring down governments or affect them in any way by banging on pots and pans! Everybody knows that. Besides, the babushkas had nothing to do with the collapse of tyrannical rule in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. The idea is absurd.

"Elections" were/are the only way to make political changes in this country.

The Casserole Manifestations are in Quebec, a foreign land, somewhere north of America, Land of the Free and Home of the Very Brave Indeed. The issue is vastly increasing higher education tuition along with something called Public Law 78 -- which needs more explanation than I can give it here, so read this:

http://www.quebecprotest.com/post/23710777930/law-78-a-heinous-deviation-from-the-spirit-of-the

(On the other hand, maybe not. It's translated from the French, and to say the issue remains somewhat obscure is to point out the obvious. Let's just say Public Law 78 is an extreme repressive measure designed to quash student protests. Another expression of Solidarity with Quebec students.)

Hundreds of thousands of Québécois are said to take to the streets nightly to manifest their disapproval of these measures. It's been going on for weeks.

It may go on till the Quebec government falls or the measures are rescinded.

These protests may not be successful in the short run, as governments all over the world have shown a distinct disinterest in the People's Will, especially when it comes to issues of War and Peace, privatizing education, public services and the public commons, and anything else that has to do with interference in the looting, plunder, and pillage of the Many by the Few.

Governments, by and large, do not care if the People take to the streets in their multitudes; governments will do what they and their owners and sponsors want, the People Be Damned.

The only time the People are listened to is when they support the neo-liberal, neo-colonial enterprise, viz: TeaBaggers, and unwittingly (or sometimes wittingly) the Revolutionaries who followed the Gene Sharp formulae.

The babushkas brought down the Soviet Empire, or at least the incessant racket of their pots and pans helped to destabilize it enough to precipitate its collapse, but neo-liberal regimes of plunder that replaced it are not exactly beloved.

In Quebec, at least, they know what they are fighting and fighting for.

May the rest of us learn.

Saturday, February 4, 2012

Nonviolence in Today's Struggle

This is not violence. Wearing bandanas is not violence. Carrying signs is not violence. Using them as shields against police armed assault is not violence. Defiance of authority is not violence. Marching in the streets is not violence. Confrontation is not violence. Breaking free of police cordons is not violence. Throwing back munitions fired by police at demonstrators is not violence. Protecting oneself and assisting the injured is not violence. Attempted possession and reuse of vacant buildings is not violence.... Image from Indybay.org



Proposition: Taken as an organic whole, the entire Occupy Wall Street Movement in the United States, together with its many affiliates abroad, constitutes a Nonviolent Resistance Campaign by definition. Even its hotbed outposts of assertive activism, such as Occupy Seattle and Occupy Oakland, are by definition nonviolent resistance campaigns.

This simple fact often gets lost amid all the fretting and handwringing over a few broken windows back in November, or a flag burned in front of an AP camera in Oakland a week ago.

Let's define our terms, shall we?

A Nonviolent Resistance Campaign is characterized by a strategy of disobedience and unarmed confrontation with illegitimate authority.

A Violent Resistance Campaign on the other hand is characterized by a strategy of armed insurrection and use of deadly force against illegitimate authority.

See the difference? Armed/unarmed? Insurrection/disobedience? Deadly force/confrontation? They're not the same thing. What is the same is the object of the resistance campaign: illegitimate authority.


How then did it come about that resistance itself is called "violence," and confrontation and disobedience are seen as "tactics of violence?" To whom?

A Bit of History

[Note: I'm concentrating on these incidents because I'm closer to them; there have also been clearly nonviolent resistance incidents in Seattle that have been grossly characterized by authorities and media as protester "violence."]

We all saw incidents during the fall of last year at both UC Berkeley and UC Davis in which UC and allied police forces beat, pepper sprayed and violently arrested Occupy demonstrators who disobeyed police demands and linked arms in solidarity and defiance. And we heard and read, many of us to our shock and disbelief, administrators and police supervisors on these campuses declare those classic tactics of nonviolent resistance to be "not-nonviolence."

These events in Berkeley and Davis followed on one another, and they in turn followed on the spectacular events of Occupy Oakland's General Strike on November 2, 2011.

During the course of the day's activities in Oakland, a Black Bloc contingent (we assume that's who they were) committed acts of vandalism on selected targets such as Whole Foods, several banks and some other businesses in Oakland, by spraying graffiti and breaking a few windows. Later, as part of an attempt to liberate the vacant Traveler's Aid Building, several makeshift barricades were erected in the streets and were set alight.

There were, as I recall, about 100 arrests that night and the Traveler's Aid Building was restored to its official higher use as a vacant building. This is America; one does not "liberate" vacant buildings. It's just not done!

The Black Bloc actions during Oakland General Strike Day were defined by media and officials as "violence." No doubt, vandalism occurred and graffiti was sprayed. As many have noted, there was nothing special about this; it happens practically every day in Oakland, and it is not called "violent." It is called "vandalism." Or most often, "mischief."

It is rare in Oakland or anywhere else in America for vacant buildings to be liberated for the People's use through taking possession and squatting but even in those rare instances when it happens, possession-taking and squatting -- which generally means gaining access to the building without the use of arms or injury to people and moving in -- is not an act of "violence" by any remote definition of the word. Likewise the building of makeshift barricades from urban debris and setting them alight. It's not a "violent" act.

Clue: unarmed defiance is not the same thing as armed insurrection; vandalism is not the same as the use of deadly force.

But imaginations have been stretched to the point that simple disobedience and acts of solidarity are declared to be "not-nonviolence" and acts of vandalism or building liberation are declared to be the equivalent of "violent insurrection."

This is absurd. I use the term of art: "Absurdity on stilts."

And yet it is happening, absurdities upon absurdities adopted not just by officials and the media, but adopted by some of those involved in the Occupy Movement itself, leading to considerable internal dissension, tension and strenuous divisions among Occupy participants, factors that can lead to fragmentation and dissolution -- which is also a clue to what might really be going on. But I'll get to that.

There have been endless calls by well-meaning handwringers for Occupy Oakland, especially, to "renounce violence" and "officially declare themselves nonviolent" as if somehow their campaign of nonviolent resistance is not in and of itself sufficient. No, they must do more. They must RENOUNCE. Then they must OFFICIALLY DECLARE. Finally, as proof of their commitment to nonviolence, they must EXPEL "The Anarchists."

This has become, for many of those within Occupy Oakland (as it did in Seattle) The Most Important Thing In The Whole Wide World.

All Right, What's Really Going On Here?

Taken as an organic whole, the Occupy Movement is by definition a nonviolent resistance campaign. There is no hint of armed insurrection or use of deadly force to achieve political objectives anywhere within the Movement at all. (Sorry if I'm repeating myself, but these things have to be made crystal clear so that people in general and the handwringers especially begin to get it.)

No one within the Movement -- at least no one I'm aware of -- has advocated or attempted to precipitate or participated in armed insurrection or use of deadly force as part of the Occupy Movement.

Despite intense official violence and brutality used against Occupy Oakland and Occupy Seattle participants (as examples), there has never been a hint of adopting or using violent resistance tactics in response, even though participants in both cities, and especially in Oakland, are frequently accused of being "violent" and using "violent tactics."

Despite extraordinary levels of official violence and brutality against the Occupy demonstrators in many places in this country and abroad, the Movement remains dedicated to nonviolent resistance.

We've seen how classic nonviolent resistance tactics have been redefined by officials as "not-nonviolence." In a previous essay, I argued that the Overclass in effect has become the teacher of nonviolence, and therefore gets to determine the definition and allowable scope of nonviolence and nonviolent resistance. This has led to the notion that nonviolence must "look like" King's or Gandhi's campaigns: focused on marches, rallies and charismatic leaders. Appearance above substance, in other words.

When that is what is taught about "proper" nonviolent resistance, that is what participants are going to expect the Movement to look like. But as we saw with the Anti-Iraq War marches and rallies, "looking like" nonviolent resistance movements of the past doesn't work. It has become completely ineffective.

The Occupy Movement doesn't "look like" King's or Gandhi's resistance campaigns, and it is constantly sniped at from within and without partly because of that. It's also far more effective and on a far more elemental level than any of the activism against the Iraq War.

The Occupy Movement is actually forcing political and social change in real time, almost unprecedented since I was a young sport. And because it is effective it is dangerous to our Overclass -- and to those who seek to join the Overclass.

The effectiveness of Occupy Oakland is truly astonishing: they have succeeded in almost completely delegitimizing the rule of the city's elected and appointed leadership as well as their elite controllers, and they have succeeded in delegitimizing the authority of the police. And they've done this through a brilliant nonviolent resistance campaign that has almost no precedent in America.

Thus, Occupy Oakland especially, but Occupy in general as well, is a potent threat to the continued rule of an implacable, indifferent global elite, an elite Overclass whose rapine extractions and misrule have given rise to misery and global opposition.

This, I believe, is the key to understanding why there is so much internal dissension and external sniping over the "question" of using violent or nonviolent tactics by Occupy Oakland. I argue that there is no real question at all; the decision is plain to see: Occupy Oakland is, like all the rest of the Occupy Movement, intrinsically and by definition a nonviolent resistance campaign. A very effective one, perhaps the most effective one in the country at the moment.

OO's effectiveness in delegitimizing the authority of of officials, their police forces and the Overclass that runs them is a profound lesson that the Overclass does not want the masses to learn. My goodness no!

So rather than pay attention to what OO is doing right and well, and the actual nonviolent resistance tactics they are employing in doing so, nearly all the mass media focus and the attention they are getting from the outside, and nearly all the internal dissension that has accompanied their success in delegitimizing authority in Oakland has focused on phony charges of "violence," a largely irrelevant "debate" over whether to "renounce violence," and constant catcalling from within and without to expel "the anarchists."

As David Graeber (an anarchist, btw) has pointed out in a different context, the success of the Movement is a real problem for many people inside and outside the Movement.

What Do You Do Now?

I'm not sure there is an answer yet. But Occupy Oakland shows the way to effectively delegitimizing the authority of a civic leadership and their hired guns that has abandoned and is overtly oppressing the People. They have done it through a purposeful, directed, and completely nonviolent resistance campaign that doesn't look like the campaigns of Martin Luther King or Mahatma Gandhi because it is not obsessed with the appearance of things, it's focused on the substance of political, social and economic justice.

Conclusion: The entire Occupy Movement is by definition a Nonviolent Resistance Campaign. Occupy Oakland has conducted an extraordinarily effective Nonviolent Resistance Campaign that has successfully delegitimized the ruling authorities in Oakland. At no time has Occupy Oakland -- or any other Occupation -- become or even hinted at becoming a violent resistance, not in the United States nor anywhere in the world. Calls for Occupy activists to renounce violence are superfluous, and demands that "the anarchists" be expelled are absurd.

One. More. Time: the Occupy Movement is by definition a Nonviolent Resistance Campaign. None of its activists have engaged in Violent Resistance, nor has any affiliate, nor has any Violent Resistance Campaign been proposed or adopted by any Occupation. At all. Anywhere.

Any questions?