A recently released Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) document titled “Domestic Terrorism Symbols Guide”* links common protest symbols to “terrorism” — another marker in a common theme of conflating militant protest for social justice with deadly terrorist violence within the United States. Groups like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Brennan Center have raised warnings about such documents, citing inadequate protections for people’s constitutional rights.
Your first half was good, but impugning terrorist actions on them wasn’t the way to go.
I do agree though: setting fire to courthouses, or creating an environment of lawlessness that guarantees small mom and pop businesses get looted is also not a winning cause. Protesting and counter-protesting where normal operations can continue is essential. The moment you start fucking with people’s day-to-day is where you lost.
Isn’t protest supposed to make things inconvenient for people and to make them uncomfortable? I agree that local small businesses should not be wrecked because that just makes you the bad guy, but if people are able to go about their day without having to make any adjustments, then is the message being properly conveyed?
Exactly, that’s literally the point of protesting. To inconvenience people and make them aware of the issues. And to show those in power that you’re not just going to go away if they ignore you. “Peaceful” protests are the show of force in the same way that worker strikes are the compromise workers and bosses agreed to to voice issues instead of going straight to dragging the bosses out of the factory and beating them to death in the streets.
The same things they’re saying today about protesters are the exact same things they said about MLK and the Civil Rights Movement. The hand-wringing about protesting “the right way” has always been about making it easy to sweep the issues under the rug. And that’s not even getting into the number of times stuff like undercover cops were found attempting to instigate violence during Anti-Fa protests so they could justify using violence against the protesters.
The Million Man March on Washington wasn’t a “peaceful protest,” it was a statement. It disrupted the entire city and made white people across the country afraid. Because if black people could assemble a million people to “peacefully” march across the city, disrupting the entire life of the city, what would they be willing and capable of doing if things got worse?
Even Gandhi has been misunderstood on this subject. I see people cite him very vaguely as a way of trying to get people to “quiet down and be peaceful (obedient and subservient)” but Gandhi, while non-violent, didn’t avoid confrontation. He just didn’t use violence to achieve it. He absolutely had an end goal of change, and did not accept the law as a barrier to achieve it.
We don’t have to accept war for change, but we often have to accept some form of confrontation.
This is just another reason why the left continues to lose the working class. Poor working people are not going to react well when you are fucking with their livelihoods. I’ve seen it first hand as a union organizer.
If there is something fascists really hate are peaceful protests, in fact peaceful protests have better impact into society than violent protests and they don’t give any reason to the fascists in turn to use violence and backup behind that pretext. Fascists love to push “legal” use of the force.
Lol! You think fascists need an excuse to use violence?
They don’t but when it’s a matter of being better equiped in a protest usually the state have better chances.
There are ways to be smart about how you do it. I live in Portland and the way Antifa did it here was singularly successful at turning a majority of the city’s population against them and their cause.
And keep in mind that Portland is very much a left-leaning city who’s voters would otherwise have been quite sympathetic to the cause of police reform.
Make who uncomfortable though? Those you are protesting against? Ok sure maybe.
Other citizens that don’t have an interest/stake in the matter? Getting them involved isn’t wise.
Everybody. Getting the general populace that has no interest/stake in the matter involved is literally the point of protesting. The oppressor doesn’t care if you make a racket about the boot on your neck, they’re not going to lift their foot because you asked nicely.
But if you make enough noise that everybody has an opinion on it/gets involved, now they can’t just sweep it under the rug and wait until the oppressed run out of resources to keep up the protests.
Civil Rights didn’t get passed because a bunch of people handed out pamphlets or something, they got passed because a million people ground the entire city of Washington D.C. to a halt. They got passed because a black WW2 vet trained a militia in the Bible Belt to protect black kids and their families using sandbag emplacements and machine guns to keep them from getting killed by the KKK for daring to go to white kids’ schools. They got passed because several billions worth of property was burnt to the ground across the entire nation after MLK was assassinated. Years of protests got politicians to wring their hands. A week of burning cop cars and city districts had the bills drafted, voted on, and passed.
If you can’t get the attention of the people who don’t have an interest and at least attempt to change their minds, then you’ve failed. You may end up turning people against you, but I guess that’s a risk you need to take. Part of the point of protest is to bring injustice into light so people who haven’t been paying attention may finally do so.
You mean the people who don’t mind fascism?