|
Comment on this article |
View comments |
Email this Article
|
|
News :: Miscellaneous |
|
Sometimes, Good Guys (and Gals) Wear Black; A case for the Black Bloc. |
Current rating: 0 |
by Robert Kendall
Email: aword (nospam) somethingorother.com (unverified!)
Address: Bloomington, IN |
12 Jan 2002
Modified: 14 Jan 2002 |
|
The Black Bloc is a vital element in the movement, ever reminding those the movement opposes that even the passive resistance could turn toward the extreme. |
Sometimes, Good Guys Wear Black; a case for the Black Bloc
Robert Kendall
aword (at) somethingorother.com
In the past the Black Bloc has gotten a great deal of criticism for its calamitous tactics. Since September 11, the level of denunciation has escalated, and increasingly, the source of complaint is other activists. But those who seek to distance themselves from the movement with differentiating, if not inappropriate, terms like violent and non-violent are missing the benefits the Black Bloc lends to the movement. There are at least two aspects of the Black Bloc that are irreplaceable.
Although the Black Bloc makes up only a small percentage of any protest, their unwavering courage to stand solidly against the police and their non-violent property destruction makes a huge impact at protests. Imagine, for a moment, what New York would look like in February if every person at the World Economic Forum Protest showed up clad in black and waving red and black flags. It is that scenario in the minds of trade negotiators and city officials that makes a non-violent demonstration a force to be heard. The Black Bloc undoubtedly reminds those who promote free-trade that that thousands-strong non-violent demonstrators could suddenly become non-non-violent were all other recourse effectively denied.
Time and again the Black Bloc, by putting their life and freedom in jeopardy, have time and again helped cause the early close of trade negotiations. What more important goal can be achieved than causing the early evacuation of the exploiters? In the six months or year that we have set back their agenda, we can reach more people so that the next meeting draws even more resistance.
Those openly calling for an end to the Black Bloc are inviting infiltrators to manipulate and cause dissension with in our movement. If activists want to be excluded from the Black Bloc’s activities, they have the right to openly distance themselves. In fact they should, only not in a derogatory way. Instead of degrading the group, perhaps, they could try to explain that the Black Bloc makes up only a small portion of the movement. They could go on to explain that as more moderate attempts to be heard are employed and fail, more people will be turning out clad in the distinctive black gear. Hopefully this will encourage more people to help in the more passive demonstrations and attend the accompanying conferences and forums.
When we are out their on the streets, we aren’t just fighting to have our voices heard or to make improvements in our own lives. There are entire cultures and eco-systems that depend on us being successful to prolong their survival. If the more moderate actions like petitions and sign waving don’t accomplish our goals, we can all go home to our warm beds. But the people are still going to be dying and the earth is still going to be being destroyed.
What if those who oppose us quell the entire movement? Then what? Do we collectively join the same system we oppose, only to become our own worst enemy like most of the anti-war movement of the ‘60s?
If the perpetrators of the crimes against humanity see us as being so easily silenced, why in the world would they ever listen to us? And when they see activists openly condemning the more extreme methods our brothers and sisters in black choose to employ, then we are as good as saying that we are afraid to go the distance.
Conversely, if they see us actively supporting the Black Bloc, and at least if they believe we all may become a part of it, they will want listen to us while they still have a bank or a McDonalds to save.
The Black Bloc has the responsibility to employ tactics that benefit the situation. If there is no justification for property-damage to be done, they will justifiably be seen as thugs. Every situation must be evaluated and the most relevant tactics employed. If passive resistance is the most effective strategy for a situation, the Black Bloc should be willing to employ the most effective method. However, if property destruction is the most effective strategy to be used, then the passive resistors must be willing to run with the Black Bloc.
Never forget that in the Bush Klan’s plight for a New World Order, they will stop at nothing to tear this movement apart from the ground up. They will use infiltrators and propaganda. They will attempt to pry us apart by injecting terms like violent and non-violent into the movement’s jargon, as those types of terms cause feelings of separation and superiority in the malleable. But always remember that no matter the methods you choose to employ, remind anyone who opposes or condones us that this is one movement resonating in many different tones.
|
See also:
http://www.bloomingtonweb.com
|
|
"Non-Non-Violent???" |
by Paul Kotheimer
herringb (nospam) prairienet.org (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
14 Jan 2002
|
Please do not mince words when talking about violence.
If you mean "violent," do not use "non-non-violent." If you use "non-non-violent" to mean something other than "violent," please explain.
If you are advocating that I (or we) use physical pain as an instrument to achieve our political or economic aims, then I reply that that is impossible, as one of my aims is that physical pain never be used as an instrument to achieve political or economic aims. |
