View Single Post
Old 11-30-2011, 04:30 PM   #203
Saya
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 9,548
Quote:
Originally Posted by CuckooTuli View Post
No arguments there. But that doesn’t disprove the link between violent protest & high standard of living, which is what we’re talking about.
Violence can get you something really quickly sometimes, but it is from far from the only means of achieving an end. If its not necessary, why do it, especially when you live in a society where it isn't acceptable like it is in France? Why do we continue to discredit love and nonviolence as detrimental to the cause like your quote has, when it has served women particularly well (has there ever been a feminist riot? Would France allow Muslim women to dress themselves if they riot?), but goes outside the patriarchal definition of revolutionary force.
Quote:
Well, they didn't even begin as protests anywhere but Tottenham, where Mark Duggan was shot. By the time it had snowballed to other cities, they weren’t really “about” anything. This kind of aimless rioting is a totally different animal to a longstanding cultural tradition French protests.

Again, not saying violence is the answer too all problems or that the French model fits all situations. Just saying, you can’t deny there are situations in which it has served a positive purpose.
Do the ends justify the means? And has it really made it that much better? After the 2005 riots, life has been much harder for immigrants and immigration became harder. Its kind of hard to say it got better when it only got better for people who were allowed to stay and were acceptably white and French.

Quote:
So surely if the movement itself has merit in its conception and intent, the answer is to interrogate, improve and hold it to account when moving forward, as is now being done with 2nd wave feminism in a way that influences present-day theory and gender studies, rather than to write it off. The issue shouldn’t be “We’ve just realised our organization is directed mostly by white and middle-class concerns, so the whole thing is worthless”. It should be “So we’ve got this idea, but it’s not as inclusive as it needs to be. What can we do about that?”
In order for that to happen, those with privilege need to make an honest effort to discuss difference and become inclusive rather than pay lip service and fall into the temptation of tokenizing. It can't be the 99% if only the 33% get a strong voice. Until then, its going to remain flawed. I never said it can't change, it just I remain wary until it does.

And no, the second wave was far from useless, but it was racist, homophobic and transphobic so god knows if I was around then if I would be included in the mainstream movement.

Quote:
Neither am I. As I already said, this is discussion about the theoretical utility of violence (including, though not limited to, property damage) – which, in the eyes of the establishment, can and often does include active resistance. This encompasses acts that many of us would not define as violence; not everyone arrested at protests is arrested for kicking off. You can be arrested or refusing to move (or, in the States, pepper-sprayed) or for ‘obstructing’, which with some police officers can mean being close by and getting in their way when something does kick off. I know several people this has happened to. A major reason it tends to happen to individuals or smaller groups is sheer logistics – it’s impractical with large groups of people. It is therefore frequently arbitrary in its application. Yet to resist arrest on this basis is a crime.
But most people never had problems with the criminalization of protesters before. Hell even with G20 I knew a lot of people who complained and said the protesters got what they deserved. I hope it changes, but its not like attacking police at this point is going to win the hearts and minds of the people, who are badly needed for direct democracy. Unless you think a minority movement should overthrow the government with violent means, this is the other option.

Quote:
Definitions of violence are not limited to the really destructive stuff in the eyes of the police. What you seem to be saying is “I can get behind the breaking of a kettle because the whole idea is stupid as fuck, but I don’t support **** and forms of violence which seriously harm people”. Good. We’re on the same page.
I probably wouldn't break through the kettle though. There's nothing the establishment loves more is a unruly riot and I would think kettling protesters is an attempt to basically troll them into becoming violent and unruly. I can't blame people for being herded and responding to the provocation, but I don't think its the totally correct response even yet.

Quote:
Well, again – the popular discourse would usually require some common cause with you. It’s most common for people who have been affected by an issue to support efforts to remedy it, whether that’s donating to cancer research or marching against university cuts in the UK (marches were overwhelmingly attended by university lecturers, students, and younger students who would probably never reach university under the cuts). But when everyone’s in the shitter, this stuff has a way of spreading. And to return to the example which sparked this whole thing off, the popular discourse in France is very much with the protesters. It also marginalizes those who live outside this mainstream discourse, as you point out; that’s wrong and I agree with your complaints of racism and homophobia against the French gov, but still, you can’t claim that it has therefore achieved nothing.
It hasn't achieved nothing, but again, its not like there was no other option and underprivileged populations were left to face the consequences. If I were to riot in the name of aboriginal rights, for example, guaranteed the already brutal racist oppression against aboriginal people would clamp down further. It is incredibly acceptable in Canada to oppress aboriginal peoples, so public discourse would be against me and support the actions against natives. We're outnumbered, we're going to lose. Movements that do not have large public sway usually do need to be nonviolent to change bigoted minds, and movements that are large enough to use violence don't really consider the consequences it would have for the people they continue to enjoy to completely ignore.

Quote:
The utility of protests of any kind varies according to location, culture, sociohistorical background and more of each society… no single example will suit all cultures (or even all protests). Another reason I am not suggesting we all start rioting or smashing shit up; I can see how I might have sounded like that early on, but I hope that’s clear now. I don’t think we can write off active or even violent resistance, however, or deny that it can actually bring positive results depending on exactly what’s up. Don’t forget that forcibly breaking a kettle, which you didn’t seem to take issue with on the grounds that it’s a fucking stupid way of trying to defuse heated situations, is considered an act of violence for which you can be arrested.
I'm not opposed to being arrested and I don't blame people who are goaded into playing into the police's hands. What I take issue with is the idea that nonviolence and love are not revolutionary forces, which again is what you suggested with your quote. Its a pet peeve of mine; the face of nonviolence typically are men of colour who we love to discredit and dismiss (Martin Luther King Jr. or Gandhi for example), but people forget how the feminist movement was compromised of many pacifists (eg Virginia Woolf) and exploded out of the anti-war movement in the 60s. We forget the German revolution and dismiss revolutions and resistances in other countries and I think it comes from a sexist, racist view that is afraid that might doesn't make right. Violence is the very predictable response to oppression that is gladly met with more of the same medicine, and to challenge the idea that violence is effective is to challenge the means of oppression that we all turn to in times of supposed need.

Quote:
I guess what I'm really saying is that obeying the police in injustice just because they're the police is pretty much the death-knell of citizens' rights. However, resisting them often veers into what they would term violence in examples like the above. And I'm whole-heartedly okay with that kind of 'violence'.
That kind of violence is easy, and obeying the police isn't what I'm arguing for AT ALL. Again, people lit themselves on fire, suffragists starved themselves, people are braving the elements all just to make their voices heard and their point made. Why are they the silly naive "passive" ones who merely comply and get nothing done?

Quote:
To be honest, I was more about the "people in power are not going to disappear voluntarily" part. Apathy drives me crazy.
They aren't, but you know, putting a pig in power instead of the farmer isn't so great either.

Quote:
Then I think we’re pretty much concurring on the core of the matter here. Only difference is that you’d say “It’s not right but it’s still pretty tame” whereas I’d say “It’s pretty tame but it’s still not right.” On the point that ALL of this shit needs looking at, and not just that which affects the white middle-classes, I agree whole-heartedly.
All I'm saying is that relatively speaking, its a small thing to get angry about when so much worse shit has happened that we gladly ignore.
Saya is offline   Reply With Quote