View Single Post
Old 11-30-2011, 05:15 AM   #202
CuckooTuli
 
CuckooTuli's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 708
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saya View Post
Its also a pretty racist country with a currently homophobic government where I wouldn't particularly want to live.
No arguments there. But that doesn’t disprove the link between violent protest & high standard of living, which is what we’re talking about.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Saya View Post
Yeah, threatening violence sometimes gets you your way. Not anymore there, though, and it hasn't really worked here. What benefits have you noticed since the London riots?
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.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Saya View Post
It becomes too exclusive for certain marginalized populations to participate in if it is made difficult for them, and becomes a farce of "true democracy" that way. Its true that movements that weren't inclusive went on to get things done, like the second wave of feminism, but the criticisms of homophobia and racism in the movement are well deserved and I certainly can't blame lesbian women and women of colour for not wanting to participate in organizations where white middle class women defined the issues.
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?”

Quote:
Originally Posted by Saya View Post
I haven't stopped supporting Occupy since, but I will if it becomes violent. One thing that people forget when it comes to violence is that in the end it easily backfires on women and children. When violent revolutions happen, when wars happen, sexual assault rates skyrocket. Its easy to talk of violence when we think of innocent casualties as poor people merely caught in the crossfire, but no one talks about the real risk of **** casualties. And I'm not particularly willing to cause violence and destruction that will harm so many innocents in such a way for men who dismiss other's rights as "pet issues".
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.

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.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Saya View Post
Generally by the public and the police but pacifist movements have had diverse opinions on the issue.
Well, of course. However we weren’t talking about pacifist movements – you told me I was confusing my definitions when I referred to its general classification as violent crime, and I’m merely pointing out that actually, I didn’t.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Saya View Post
And if property damage constitutes an act of violence, is graffiti violent?
You would need to ask someone who knows British criminal law a lot better than I do re: its technical classification. Personally I wouldn’t accept that it does. There’s actually a guy in London who calls himself Banksy, and works anonymously making street art to that effect. Check him out: http://www.stumbleupon.com/su/2KwXuo...raffiti-artist

(He’s worth a google if you like - not all his stuff is on his site, and he spawned some pretty decent imitators too.)


Quote:
Originally Posted by Saya View Post
Throwing that bomb won't get you your pension back. I would sympathize with someone who did so out of frustration, but I don't think a whole lot of other people would, I very much doubt the media would report that was even your reason. What revolution could you hope to accomplish that way if the popular discourse is against you?
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.

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 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'.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Saya View Post
The thing about using that kind of violence is that its hard to know what you're achieving by doing so. In the end, what are the long term consequences of tipping over a police car or bombing a bank? The bank can probably afford to close the branch or repair damage, the police can probably now justify brute force and cracking down.
As I said above – context counts.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Saya View Post
The quote you made was specifically saying that nonviolent protest is something the establishment loves and encourages.
To be honest, I was more about the "people in power are not going to disappear voluntarily" part. Apathy drives me crazy.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Saya View Post
They're not ignoring it. They're doing everything in their power to make it go away and discredit them, and they become justified if there's a riot. And the thing about what Versus was saying is true, a lot of people were unaware and/or okay with the police being able to pepper spray at will for years and years and years, and now only because white middle class kids are getting it in the face is anyone upset.
And that’s wrong. But it doesn’t make this right.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Saya View Post
Pepper spray actually is considered very low on the range of force police are allowed to use, and I tried to find stories where it was used against Native protesters like that and had no one complain, but sadly I couldn't find a story involving Native protesters that didn't also involve beatings. Its shocking to look at but as far as police violence goes, its really tame. Its not right but its been tolerated til now, I can only hope this makes people rethink about the ways we empower police to use violence.
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.


I'll respond to Versus when I get time for another long-haul one.
CuckooTuli is offline   Reply With Quote