Older Peaceniks and Anarchy Kids

This was in The Oregonian's Letters to the Editor section today, regarding the march in Portland last Sunday (15,000 strong!)

Your decision to print an editorial about a disrespectful minority of war protesters was extremely disapointing, not to mention counterproductive.

As we peace rally veterans know quite well, these "anarchy kids" are not motivated by a sincere desire for peace. Like most adolescents, they revel in the idea that they are rebels fighting "The Man". They make spectacles of themselves in the naive belief that their antisocial behavior demonstrates some kind of uniqueness or individuality or moral righteousness.

We older peaceniks, recognizing their behavior for the teen drama production it is, just roll our eyes and continue with the less glamorous work of peaceably assembling.

Unfortunately, the news media give these kids acting out just what they wanted in the first place: attention. Why should it come as a surprise that people equate both Portland and peace protests with these thoughtless kids, when newspapers give them so much ink? -Name withheld

He's referring to a splinter group who burned a soldier in effigy close to the protest march. Yes, I admit I'm posting this in an attempt to stir things up. Personally I mostly agree with this guy, though he comes across as kind of self-righteous. And I do take exception to his saying "we older peaceniks". I was there and I can tell you there were plenty of young people peaceably assembling.

 

Well, how many "now older" peace activists started going to rallys and protests to "be rebelious", piss of their parents or meet liberal chicks? But, the words we heard (and chanted back) resonated with us and here we are, writting self-righteous letters to the editor.
My concern is that the younger crowd don't seem to have the hope that we had. Oh, well, they will learn that they are wrong to the same degree that we were.

 

personally i feel violence is a tool. at certain protests. demostrations, etc. it is very valuable. for example i think everyone knows abotu the anarchists in seattle in 99. was breaking windows and fighting cops actually going to change the minds of the people in the WTO? no. of course not. but it make every city in the world rethink on whether it should hold a WTO meeting.

 

No, it made them rethink the level of security necessary at WTO meetings. Do you actually think they'll run out of places to accomodate them? A couple years ago they held it at an island resort with no one but attendees allowed ashore!

Get it through your head kid, the revolution will not be televised because it will not happen, at least not an armed revolution. Violence at demonstrations hurts the cause a lot more than helps it.

 

A fair number, but they were in the minority. Most young people, then and now, acted responsibly while attending demonstrations. I don't agree with the letter writer when he says, 'Like most adolescents, they revel in the idea that they are rebels fighting "The Man".' With most adolescents, their idea of rebellion is confronting authority and speaking their minds, not smashing storefront windows and throwing rocks at cops.

I assume you mean we were wrong if we resisted violently, not wrong to resist in the first place. Societal change often begins with the young.

 

they ignore peaceful protest. at least more than violent protest. peaceful protest has long become part of the status quo. its expected that groups of older moderates show up and sit there with their signs and chants. at the most its a minor annoyance.

this (for me) isnt about a full on revolution. its about showing those motherfuckers in the WTO that as long as they are around, theyll have people strongly and violently opposing them. its like fighting nazis. the antifascists that show up at nazi rallies arent really there to change the minds of the Fash (although when it happens, it is grand), theyre there to show the fascists that people on the streets oppose them 110%. and again if so much chaos and violence is started because of a nazi rally, a city is less likely to let them host such a gathering. its all about making a statement.

and last time i checked property doesnt have feelings so i dont see how immoral it is to destroy the property of those who have acrued so much of it.

 

I don't think violence solves anything. It obviously makes people judge them and any other war protestor, as seen in the first post. Violence for peace is contradictory, get it?
That guy in the first post though is judgemental and obviously not for peace if he is saying these things about war protestors.

 

There is a famous military quote from Vietnam War which goes:
"We had to destroy the village to save it".

How is that any different from you saying?
"Violence for peace is contradictory".

This is exactly what the U.S. military is doing.
They are the bigger perpetrator of violence that destroys an entire country, kill hundreds of thousands of people in order to bring "peace, freedom, democracy, win their hearts and minds."

What a piece of nonsense.

 

During Viet Nam, there was a saying, " Fighting for peace, is like fucking for virginity".

 

How true. Violent demonstrations turn people away from a movement. That's why cops have been known to try to provoke violence at these demonstrations, in order to make the protesters looks bad. The fact is for a movement to be successful it needs the support of the majority of the people, until we're out there in numbers too big to ignore, anarchypeace!

No, he's for peace, he's just against violent protest. He is rather judgemental towards young people though.

 

violence towards property isnt violence.

 

That's right.
George Bush doesn't see anything wrong with the illegal invasion of Iraq either.

Young people learn from their elders, so if you're gonna arrest the young punk who spray paints a wall with graffiti, you should arrest the bigger idiot in the White House who destroyed an entire country and killed thousands of people, for a bunch of lies.

 

the invasion of iraq is wrong because it is for selfish reasons and people are dying because of it. civilians AND soldiers.


smashing the windows of a GAP building is right because GAP uses sweatshop labor to produce its over priced goods.

they also have a crappy marketing campaing. what the hell is peace love and GAP?

 

im feeling quite a bit of hostility from some of the older posters. activists of today, of the younger generation are willing to go to more extremes to get points across. i think the older activists need to embrace this as a positive change for the movement.


if you think about, what the hippies did in berkely back in the 60s is just as extreme in proportion to what the anarchists have done in seattle and cancun and the cascade mountain range.

 

I was thinking more along the lines of "if everyone took acid there will be world peace" and other foolishness. Societal change begins ONLY with the young.

I am a non-violence kid o' guy, so I wanted to add two things:

Violence agaist property may not be "real" violence, but it leads the owner of the propery closer to violence towards people. Destruction of property does not advance the goal of avoiding personal violence.

Also, at a WTO protest in Sacremento a few years ago, the Black Block and Pagans were paired. So the black block would overturn a dumpster and move on and the pagans would put the trash back in the dumpster. A nice solution to the problem of not alienating the locals.

 

Thankyou so very much xD

Smashing a window is a violent action, even if the window is an inanimate object. Its still the expression of violence, and well...violence is immorale, in all cases, and not at all progressive.

No kind of violent vandalism is progressive, I think. It doesnt get any sort of point across...People wont listen if you smash their windows >.> It'll make them want to stop you.

 

how do you guys feel about the boston tea party?

 

Lol xD

The Boston Tea Party wasnt exactly violent. Though it was still a kind of needless act >.<

There are better ways to protest. Destruction and violence are never needed.

Meh...Well, im a Gandhi guy. If I continue posting, someones gonna end up starting more arguments (which also get nothing done xD).

 

it was violent in the same way smashing a window is. they took someones property (and the amount of property the people who own GAP and Starbucks have is rediculous and it should be almost obvious to everyone that its not right) and destroyed it for, what was at the time, a good cause.

 

I feel the Boston Tea Party is history. I do not critisize the long dead for the choices they made in an era that I don't understand. (Hence, my lack of interest in Sally Hemmings and that flap.)

I do not damage property jsut to make a point. That's what my mouth and my words are for. I am not right enough that my rightness entitles me to damage something that someone else doesn't want damaged.

Damaging property to hurt the owner is either a childish fit or an excersize in the "might makes right" attitude that I oppose. I don't do it.

Damaging property to help someone (tear a sheet to make a bandage, break a lock to free a prisoner.) People are more important that stuff. Easy desision. (easier to make than to spell)