Tove Reads Books
I'm currently reading Uri Gordon's Anarchy Alive! and I need a break. My head is muddled with self-discussion. I realise I should write notes while reading, even though I'm not studying for a test, simply to make it easier to remember what I've read and what certain passages made me think of. I'm too lazy to have developed this habit yet, though. Maybe later 8D
I'm on Gordon's chapter on anarchists and violence now (Peace, Love and Petrol Bombs), and that's when I needed a break. With the recent Oslo riots fresh in my mind, it's easy for me to look back at media's reaction (and my own reaction for that matter) and flesh out his theories with my own experiences and thoughts. His arguments for violent acts are good, and actually something I could find myself agreeing with, but I still don't see how property damage done here would possibly have any effect on what's going on over there. If that makes sense. Of course, had our protest (to use the recent protests on the war on Gaza as an example) been a protest against globalisation, I think I'd maybe feel different about the vandalism D: This is a tricky subject. Especially since I've always thought of myself as strictly non-violent but here I find myself sort of agreeing that property destruction can be justified ... buhbuh. Either way, I really liked this passage;
We contend that property destruction is not a violent activity unless it destroys lives or causes pain in the process. By this definition, private property - especially corporate private property - is itself infinitely more violent than any action taken against it ... When we smash a window, we aim to destroy the thin veneer of legitimacy that surrounds private property rights ... Broken windows can be boarded up (with yet more waste of our forests) and eventually replaced, but the shattering of assumptions will hopefully persist for some time to come.
- ACME collective 2000
Of course defining property destruction as a non-violent act is rather ridiculous, but this is at least a reasoning I can get behind, as opposed to the "we're just so fucking frustrated!"-reasons we were given by vandalisers after the recent protests here in Oslo.
Another quote I liked was this;
When asked about violence during George W. Bush's upcoming visit to Rome, Luca Cassarini, a leader of the non-anarchist disobedienti (formerly the 'White Overalls') replied: 'If a criminal of the calibre of Bush is given the red carpet treatment, then rage is the right reaction' (BBC News, 28 May 2004), adding that 'compared to a hundred thousand civilian deaths in Iraq, a few broken windows are hardly what will bother the Italian public'.
... Oh really? See, I like this thought. That people breaking windows because of something they're frustrated with wouldn't bother the citizens of a city where such actions take place... but that's not the case, is it? With this logic, no one in Oslo would be bothered to report the acts of vandalism during the recent protests, because what are a few shattered windows compared to the inhumane acts of violence taking place in Gaza? Fact of the matter was, instead of bringing focus on the war on Gaza, professors, experts and other betterwissers got fuelled by the media to discuss why young kids went out and did things like this (poor integration into the Norwegian society? Troubles at home? Mistrust of the police? Anti-social behaviour? Copying what they've seen on tv?). They started comparing it to the riots in France, calling it "un-Norwegian", and it all ended up in a debate about what people really think of the police. Sure, I'm glad we got a debate like that going... but it effectively pulled focus away from the heart of the matter. Not to mention the fact that the stores who got their windows smashed up didn't have anything to do with the conflict in Gaza (though I guess some of them do sell Israeli products). In any case, I see those acts of vandalism as unjustified. They definitely shouldn't have done it. Then again, the vandalisers here probably weren't anarchists, and they probably didn't give their actions much thought, but there probably are anarchist groups who'd condone the vandalism, calling it justified when looking at the big picture.
I guess in the eye of the public, though, there'll never be such a thing as a justified act of violence.
Unless, of course, this act of violence involves the government killing "terrorists, communists or other undesirables" over there :(
... why do I have the feeling that I just wrote an essay to be graded? D: I've got too much time on my hands these days. Jeez.
I'm on Gordon's chapter on anarchists and violence now (Peace, Love and Petrol Bombs), and that's when I needed a break. With the recent Oslo riots fresh in my mind, it's easy for me to look back at media's reaction (and my own reaction for that matter) and flesh out his theories with my own experiences and thoughts. His arguments for violent acts are good, and actually something I could find myself agreeing with, but I still don't see how property damage done here would possibly have any effect on what's going on over there. If that makes sense. Of course, had our protest (to use the recent protests on the war on Gaza as an example) been a protest against globalisation, I think I'd maybe feel different about the vandalism D: This is a tricky subject. Especially since I've always thought of myself as strictly non-violent but here I find myself sort of agreeing that property destruction can be justified ... buhbuh. Either way, I really liked this passage;
We contend that property destruction is not a violent activity unless it destroys lives or causes pain in the process. By this definition, private property - especially corporate private property - is itself infinitely more violent than any action taken against it ... When we smash a window, we aim to destroy the thin veneer of legitimacy that surrounds private property rights ... Broken windows can be boarded up (with yet more waste of our forests) and eventually replaced, but the shattering of assumptions will hopefully persist for some time to come.
- ACME collective 2000
Of course defining property destruction as a non-violent act is rather ridiculous, but this is at least a reasoning I can get behind, as opposed to the "we're just so fucking frustrated!"-reasons we were given by vandalisers after the recent protests here in Oslo.
Another quote I liked was this;
When asked about violence during George W. Bush's upcoming visit to Rome, Luca Cassarini, a leader of the non-anarchist disobedienti (formerly the 'White Overalls') replied: 'If a criminal of the calibre of Bush is given the red carpet treatment, then rage is the right reaction' (BBC News, 28 May 2004), adding that 'compared to a hundred thousand civilian deaths in Iraq, a few broken windows are hardly what will bother the Italian public'.
... Oh really? See, I like this thought. That people breaking windows because of something they're frustrated with wouldn't bother the citizens of a city where such actions take place... but that's not the case, is it? With this logic, no one in Oslo would be bothered to report the acts of vandalism during the recent protests, because what are a few shattered windows compared to the inhumane acts of violence taking place in Gaza? Fact of the matter was, instead of bringing focus on the war on Gaza, professors, experts and other betterwissers got fuelled by the media to discuss why young kids went out and did things like this (poor integration into the Norwegian society? Troubles at home? Mistrust of the police? Anti-social behaviour? Copying what they've seen on tv?). They started comparing it to the riots in France, calling it "un-Norwegian", and it all ended up in a debate about what people really think of the police. Sure, I'm glad we got a debate like that going... but it effectively pulled focus away from the heart of the matter. Not to mention the fact that the stores who got their windows smashed up didn't have anything to do with the conflict in Gaza (though I guess some of them do sell Israeli products). In any case, I see those acts of vandalism as unjustified. They definitely shouldn't have done it. Then again, the vandalisers here probably weren't anarchists, and they probably didn't give their actions much thought, but there probably are anarchist groups who'd condone the vandalism, calling it justified when looking at the big picture.
I guess in the eye of the public, though, there'll never be such a thing as a justified act of violence.
Unless, of course, this act of violence involves the government killing "terrorists, communists or other undesirables" over there :(
... why do I have the feeling that I just wrote an essay to be graded? D: I've got too much time on my hands these days. Jeez.