Direct Action Ain't Pretty
I think a lot of people in America think protest is supposed to look pretty. You march down a street, you wave a sign, snicker at the witty (and not so witty) messages, smile, vent, pat each other on the back because you all showed up, and then return home like good little lemmings.
Then there is what's called "direct action". They are equally peaceful, but they are less pretty, sometimes downright ugly. African-Americans did it by sitting in at lunch counters (yes, on PRIVATE PROPERTY) and were arrested (sometimes beaten) for doing so during Civil Rights. Now, people sit-in at banks to protest egregious predatory and manipulative financial actions from Wall Street. They get pepper-sprayed, cuffed, charged, and tried. It is always non-violent. The process is a symbol: they live by the rules of society and take what it metes out but they are disobedient and bring attention to the things that are reprehensible.
Simply because it looks uglier, it doesn't mean that it is suddenly less legitimate. It's equally as legitimate as marching down the street.
I think that my generation doesn't realize it or doesn't know that. We've seen protest but we've never seen real society-changing, honest, visceral protest. We all grew up with Iraq protests, Gulf War protests, WTO protests, and other things that looked pretty (maybe not the case in some cities during WTO protests, but you get the point). I think our parent's generation never knew that, either. I think the generation before that who marched in Civil Rights protests forgot that.
Changing the system isn't comfortable, easy, convenient, or make for a rosy, positive news headline that makes us all feel good about ourselves. Sometimes it stresses resources of local and state governments. It costs money and time. It's going to grate on the nerves of people who knee-jerk dislike anyone or anything that doesn't accept the current state of things. It shuts down streets and bridges. There will be that one unruly rogue who throws punches at cops when the other 500, 2,000, or 10,000 protesters are peaceful. One unruly protester doesn't suddenly make boxers out of the other 499. Remember that out there all of you who think that sit-ins and other forms of direct action, that inevitably lead to clashes with authorities, are "stepping over the bounds".
I think that those of you calling out peaceful protests and criticisms of the system and spreading the idea that they don't have the right to address grievances are in the wrong. If you don't like civil disobedience or protest, then there are plenty of authoritarian countries around the world that you could move to. Good riddance.
Then there is what's called "direct action". They are equally peaceful, but they are less pretty, sometimes downright ugly. African-Americans did it by sitting in at lunch counters (yes, on PRIVATE PROPERTY) and were arrested (sometimes beaten) for doing so during Civil Rights. Now, people sit-in at banks to protest egregious predatory and manipulative financial actions from Wall Street. They get pepper-sprayed, cuffed, charged, and tried. It is always non-violent. The process is a symbol: they live by the rules of society and take what it metes out but they are disobedient and bring attention to the things that are reprehensible.
Simply because it looks uglier, it doesn't mean that it is suddenly less legitimate. It's equally as legitimate as marching down the street.
I think that my generation doesn't realize it or doesn't know that. We've seen protest but we've never seen real society-changing, honest, visceral protest. We all grew up with Iraq protests, Gulf War protests, WTO protests, and other things that looked pretty (maybe not the case in some cities during WTO protests, but you get the point). I think our parent's generation never knew that, either. I think the generation before that who marched in Civil Rights protests forgot that.
Changing the system isn't comfortable, easy, convenient, or make for a rosy, positive news headline that makes us all feel good about ourselves. Sometimes it stresses resources of local and state governments. It costs money and time. It's going to grate on the nerves of people who knee-jerk dislike anyone or anything that doesn't accept the current state of things. It shuts down streets and bridges. There will be that one unruly rogue who throws punches at cops when the other 500, 2,000, or 10,000 protesters are peaceful. One unruly protester doesn't suddenly make boxers out of the other 499. Remember that out there all of you who think that sit-ins and other forms of direct action, that inevitably lead to clashes with authorities, are "stepping over the bounds".
I think that those of you calling out peaceful protests and criticisms of the system and spreading the idea that they don't have the right to address grievances are in the wrong. If you don't like civil disobedience or protest, then there are plenty of authoritarian countries around the world that you could move to. Good riddance.