| |
|
Lurid, you say that you agree with a direct action which consists of tearing down a fence in a concentration camp (I assume you include such refugee camps as Woomera in Australia under this heading). At the same time you would, apparently, condemn the same action if done in anger. Am I understanding you correctly?
If the people doing the "tearing down"-action are white activists from a privileged background, they could probably keep a distance from the horrors of a camp and do the tearing down of fences without anger or passion. However, the people directly affected by the fence, the people on the inside, if they are the ones taking the action, would they be expected to keep the same calm, the same distance from the event as their privileged well-doers? Probably not. Does that make their protest less valuable, more condemnable? If so, why?
Also, if the privileged who are not locked into camps were to use methods and passion that the people they are showing solidarity with would agree with, and would use themselves if they were not under-privileged, repressed, guarded and imprisoned, is that a problem? Why?
The movement of the last few years, pretty much starting with Seattle, has been acting on the premises that we live in a global world, where many people are oppressed. It has also taken as a basis for various actions the requests of the Zapatista comandancia of Chiapas, Mexico, that the people inspired by their writings and actions not limit themselves to "traditional" solidarity work such as sending money, bandages, TV-teams, but instead feel a part of and take part in a global movement, demanding global rights.
They know that the rights of the indigenous people in Chiapas are not the only rights to be fought for, and they know that a global movement and global actions are required to change things in a relevant way, since that is the level of the power oppressing them. This is most clearly said in the communiqués of Subcommandante Marcos, The Seven Loose Pieces of the Global Jigsaw Puzzle, analyzing the way the first and third world coexist side by side in every city in the world.
Of course, if we axcept this analysis, we axcept that in some circumstances, strong struggle may be necessary, both in direct action to affect situations and solidarity with the situations of others.
I also feel there are much more important issues to discuss than that of violence/non-violence, for instance whether it is more important for the "Youthful Urban Radicalist" people in Western Europe/North America to act directly to improve situations of oppression that face themse or in solidarity with the struggles of others? Do we concentrate on cannabis legalisation or water privatisation? Both, of course, but to what degree? If the people in Cochabamba, Bolivia, stop the privatisation of their water by rioting for months, what do we do to support them: send a fax, make a demonstration, a blockade, an office occupation, a riot? Which would the people that "we" are acting in solidarity with appreciate the most? Who are the people in Cochabamba that we are in solidarity with: the rioters in the street, the labour unionists, the labour union bosses, the radical parties, the social democratic parties, the NGOs?
This is the world we live in, and I personally find it very hard to offhand condemn all violence. In nearly all situations, there are better alternatives than violence, yes. I will criticize the people who use it, both publicly and privately, but not condemn it. The people who are angry, who feel strongly, they are the essence of any movement, violent or not. If you condemn them, you are splitting up the protesters into Good Guys and Bad Guys, and that is not a proper representation of the movement, in my opinion. |
|
|
