"It was important for me to know that fighting back was O.K. because it made it O.K. not to fight back too, and a choice - my choice. In "How Nonviolence Protects the State" (South End Press, 2007) Peter Genderloos makes a pretty convincing argument that not only is the cult of pacifism delusional but it is ineffective. On some deep level we knew that hippies were full of shit, and that even efficient nonviolence requires a confrontation with a violent opponent before the tactic can even be recognized, let alone taken seriously. Kind of a scary concept, but one that, as I said, seemed to be intuitive on our parts."
To read her entire letter, click here.
The writer chose not to post it as a comment, because she says she wasn't entirely sure that she agreed with one of the conclusions she reached. I'm not sure I agree with it either but it certainly is worth discussing, especially in light of this week's violent protests against the G8 summit taking place in Germany. Basically, the question is whether non-violent protest plays into the hands of those in control.
After all, as we have seen time and time again, the authorities have no qualms about using force to disperse a lawfully assembled crowd, even going so far as to suggest that photo-journalists will not be allowed at future demonstrations to avoid documentation of their crowd control methods. Not that we need to worry about the U.S. media serving as watchdogs. They're too busy being lapdogs.
A quick bit of history here: the G8 (Group of Eight) evolved from an informal gathering of senior financial officials from The U.S., U.K., West Germany and Japan that took place in 1974. They became known as the Library Group. Over the years, the heads of state of the participating nations have continued to meet to discuss issues of global significance. The number of participating countries has grown from the original to include France, Canada, Italy and Russia.
The leaders of the 8 most powerful economies are meeting to discuss issues of vital importance to the planet, whether or not we realize it. The mainstream media in the U.S. seems to be doing their best to ensure that we don't. The top story on CNN yesterday? Paris Hilton going to jail. I feel like I'm watching a very bad magic show where the magician is attempting to distract me with a shiny object in one hand, while the real action is taking place in the other hand I'm not keeping an eye on. While we’re watching Paris Hilton pack her toiletries for her stay in the big house, an estimated 520 demonstrators have been reported injured and dozens of people have been imprisoned in what began as peaceful demonstrations to coincide with the G8 summit. The elite will meet behind a barbed wire barricade designed to keep the masses and the prying eyes of the rest of the world out.
At stake here is our future, not just as Americans but as human beings. This year’s G8 summit is expected to attract demonstrators opposed to capitalism, globalization and the war on Iraq. This is stuff that concerns me. Another important topic to be discussed is global warming and the reduction of greenhouse gases. I want to know about this - don’t you?
The real news dealing with issues that affect the whole world is being buried under infotainment. Are we really so stupid or so complacent that we can’t see what’s happening in the world? Do we want to live in our little gilded Eden in peaceful ignorance until the whole thing goes down the toilet?
A friend of mine once joked that she didn’t care what was going on in the rest of the world as long as she could have her 500 cable TV channels. I think there’s a bit of truth to that and I think it's more common than we'd like to believe. But I also believe that there are things worth fighting for and this is where Tamara’s letter struck a chord with me. On some deep level, we have to question whether the hippies were naive in putting all their trust in peaceful demonstrations. Punks, on the other hand, did seem to intuit that confrontation - even violent confrontation - was sometimes necessary and even justified.
I just want to clarify that I’m not advocating anyone throw rocks at police during a peaceful demonstration. That is a terrible idea that endangers innocent people and will probably lead to your being clobbered and arrested. Peaceful demonstrations can work and can accomplish much but they depend on public opinion and on being able to gather support by inviting the media to publicize your plight around the world. If our access to information is being curtailed, the success of peaceful demonstrations is being subverted. If the powers that be wish to subvert our ability to convey our wishes and demands in nonviolent ways then they are effectively pushing us towards more aggressive options.
As poverty and hunger around the world and global warming threatens our very existence we can’t afford to be ignored.
Penelope Houston of the Avengers once wrote:
"Open your eyes, open your eyes
You don't see what's going on
Come on, open your eyes, open your eyes
you watch TV to find out what's right and wrong, yeah
Open your eyes well, they tell you lies and you sing along
Open your eyes to what you respected
Open your eyes and you can reject it."
Postscript added by Alice on 6/7/07:
This post elicited several responses. I'd like to share a couple more links for those of you who'd care to read some other views on the subject:
Arms and the Movement by Peter Gelderloos
Protest Is Dead. Long Live Protest by Joseph Hart
11 comments:
Awesome blog entry, Alice and thought provoking to say the least. I will be sharing this with my friends.
Hi Jenny,
I'm fairly confident that Alice is far from condemning the hippies or what they achieved. I know from reading her other blogs that she feels there is alot in common between the punk generation and the hippies of the 60's and early 70's. Shared ideals, values...just different approaches towards making the world better.
I think both Alice and Tamara were uncomfortable with the conclusion that non-violence doesn't work because it clearly has in the past (e.g., Ghandi and MLK). But bear in mind that there is much more empirical evidence for the argument that violence works too (e.g., American and Mexican Revolutions to name a few.)
Either way, it takes a galvanized, mobilized group of committed individuals to effect massive change, like ending the war or stopping global warming. The only way masses of people can become galvanized is through awareness. When the powers that be control the news and information we receive, then we become docile sheep and no longer a threat to those who would control us.
First Amendment - anyone???
Thanks Mark and Jenny for your comments.
I don’t want to give the impression that I don’t appreciate the contributions of Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr, the 60's hippies and civil right movements. My intention is to question whether the methods that were used in the past are still effective today given the level of disinformation that we are experiencing. Knowing your opponent’s strategies is crucial to defeating them and it seems that our opponents have figured out how to thwart the success of our peaceful demonstrations. I have not forgotten the past. The people that inspired you also inspired me. But the times they are a changing...
Not sure how you're defining "hippies." Seems to me there was plenty of violence coming from the 60s counterculture. The government was genuinely worried about revolution, as I understand...
Anyway, my only problem with pacifism is that I'm generally averse to universal principals as a way to avoid thinking about unique situations, but, without bothering to back this up with examples, it seems to me that, in the overwhelming number of cases, violence does more harm than good, and even when the direct results are relatively good, the indirect result is the justification of violence as a useful tool, which goes back to my previous point. The threat of violence seems to be useful though, as long as it doesn't cross over into actual violence. There's a thin line between clever and stupid.
The classic anti-pacifism essay, of course is Orwell's "Reflections on Gandhi" http://www.readprint.com/work-1260/George-Orwell
...incidentally, I was trying to google a Lester Bangs piece about how "gentle" most punks were in reality, but couldn't find it...anyway, it seems to me that the main difference between the 60s counterculture and the punks is that the former quickly became a popular movement, while the latter failed to, at least in the U.S., which is part of the reason the former accomplished so much more.
It is odd how news media show the same events so differently.
Over here (Oxford England) G8 is top of the news with reporters camped outside breathlessly promising they will will give us the inside track on developments (its even on the radio in the background as I write this).
My understanding was that the first few meetings in the 1970s were genuinely unpredictable discussions, but in the last few years the events have become much increasingly stage managed.
I'm equivocable about the protesters, their aims are laudible but I believe trade probably benefits the poorest in Africa. Getting rid of trade barriers would give them the opportunity to sell their products to richer countries.
And the violence of the protests means the leaders now meet behind barbed wire, well away from the rest of us. That doesn't seem a successful outcome.
btw...on second reading that Orwell essay doesn't look quite as anti-pacifist as I thought...maybe I was thinking of this one: http://www.resort.com/~prime8/Orwell/nationalism.html
I think what I wanted to say is that nonviolence is one tool in a pretty big box. When it works, great. But I think a lot of hippie-types still think that if they ask really, really nicely everything will be o.k.
Going back to Gelderloos, he pretty much destroys the argument about protesters ending the Vietnam war by pointing out that thousands of armed Vietnamese did more to end the war than any sit-down strike ever did. And as for Gandhi and King, they wouldn't have gotten any
praise at all if there weren't other armed groups like the Black
Panthers and radical Indian revolutionaries to pick up the slack where they left off.
I think one of the best things the punk movement did was to move us away from a permission culture and into a D.I.Y. environment. And as
author Derrick Jensen says, a failure to react is simply a failure to love. No mother animal just stands by while someone goes after her children. He argues that if we don't defend what and who we love, then we're already defeated.
By the way, you may have noticed from your link that Peter Gelderloos is facing some pretty serious charges in Spain--so we might get a chance to see how effective his arguments really are.
I just have to say that the notion that the N. Vietnamese ended the war by continuing to fight it is...Orwellian.
BTW, one example I'd been thinking of: it's kind of a shame that the old Crips website no longer exists, because it included a really useful history of L.A. gangs; the Crips were apparently originally formed as a way to provide protection against crime, and were even fairly idealistic (inspired by the Black Panthers); the Bloods were formed to defend against the Crips, and were more violent to compensate for their smaller numbers. This just strikes me as analagous to, well, all sorts of things.
OK, last comment: I guess the word "violence" has gotten my mind going off into all sorts of tangents - violence in war, violent revolution, etc. - which maybe aren't exactly relevant to the topic at hand (discussed in those newest links that Alice added)... I guess the ultimate point is that I believe in Karma...well, that's not the kind of word I usually use...let's say "blowback."
All done.
Post a Comment