In many students’ eyes, the war in Gaza is linked to other issues, such as policing, mistreatment of Indigenous people, racism and the impact of climate change.
I can understand that, but they need to focus right now. Broadening into a larger movement needs to wait until the genocide is over. Otherwise it ends up getting diluted as people splinter off for different causes.
The occupy wall street movement failed partly due to a similar issue. There were no set demands and kind of ballooned out in terms of set of issues to be addressed.
It happened before that too. I remember during an anti-Iraq war march before the war in 2003… a massive march in L.A. People were chanting anti-Bush and pro-peace slogans, and then the chants changed into things about Palestine and Haiti. And I was there thinking, “I sympathize with both of those issues, but I thought we were here to protest an upcoming war in Iraq?” And then the anarchists took over and started smashing things and the cops came in and the helicopter started flying low and it all went to shit. When we were supposed to be marching for peace on the eve of war.
Edit: And then there was the guy on the sidelines with a bullhorn chastising all of the people marching with, “how can you be in favor of peace if you eat meat?” Again- I don’t eat meat but pick a better time.
Not only is it a bad idea from within, it looks bad from the outside too. People think that your cause isn’t enough, that you have to find other things to get worked up about. Maybe it’s not that big a deal in that case…
And then the anarchists took over and started smashing things and the cops came in and the helicopter started flying low and it all went to shit.
Do you realize that the common trait between all of those protest movements is that they unabashedly
portrayed themselves as nonviolent?
There’s some level of irony in blaming anarchists for giving cops an excuse to turn things violent, in a conversation about nonviolent protestors, demonstrating in support of violent protestors in another country, getting violently dispersed by the cops. Nonviolent protest has never engendered lasting, meaningful change. People are certainly welcome to choose only nonviolent action for themselves if that is what fits their personal ethical framework, but they shouldn’t dismiss violent action as being action that separates their causes.
Nonviolent action, paired with the vilification of violent action, is one of the ways the status quo is maintained.
Hopefully we can learn from past movements like Occupy, which were unfocused, and apply the lessons learned to future protests, like this Gaza one. It kind of scared me when they said larger struggle, because it brought me immediately back to Occupy, like you said.
I can understand that, but they need to focus right now. Broadening into a larger movement needs to wait until the genocide is over. Otherwise it ends up getting diluted as people splinter off for different causes.
Absolutely.
The occupy wall street movement failed partly due to a similar issue. There were no set demands and kind of ballooned out in terms of set of issues to be addressed.
It happened before that too. I remember during an anti-Iraq war march before the war in 2003… a massive march in L.A. People were chanting anti-Bush and pro-peace slogans, and then the chants changed into things about Palestine and Haiti. And I was there thinking, “I sympathize with both of those issues, but I thought we were here to protest an upcoming war in Iraq?” And then the anarchists took over and started smashing things and the cops came in and the helicopter started flying low and it all went to shit. When we were supposed to be marching for peace on the eve of war.
Edit: And then there was the guy on the sidelines with a bullhorn chastising all of the people marching with, “how can you be in favor of peace if you eat meat?” Again- I don’t eat meat but pick a better time.
Not only is it a bad idea from within, it looks bad from the outside too. People think that your cause isn’t enough, that you have to find other things to get worked up about. Maybe it’s not that big a deal in that case…
Do you realize that the common trait between all of those protest movements is that they unabashedly portrayed themselves as nonviolent?
There’s some level of irony in blaming anarchists for giving cops an excuse to turn things violent, in a conversation about nonviolent protestors, demonstrating in support of violent protestors in another country, getting violently dispersed by the cops. Nonviolent protest has never engendered lasting, meaningful change. People are certainly welcome to choose only nonviolent action for themselves if that is what fits their personal ethical framework, but they shouldn’t dismiss violent action as being action that separates their causes. Nonviolent action, paired with the vilification of violent action, is one of the ways the status quo is maintained.
Well, the cops didn’t move in until they started smashing windows.
I was there, you weren’t.
Do tell me though, how did smashing windows in Hollywood help the cause for peace?
Give The Failure of Nonviolence by Peter Gelderloos a read. To make it ridiculously easy here’s a copy: http://libgen.rs/search.php?req=the+failure+of+nonviolence&lg_topic=libgen&open=0&view=simple&res=25&phrase=1&column=def
+1
Hopefully we can learn from past movements like Occupy, which were unfocused, and apply the lessons learned to future protests, like this Gaza one. It kind of scared me when they said larger struggle, because it brought me immediately back to Occupy, like you said.