This afternoon, an activist friend of mine who has been very involved in Critical Mass approached me concerning my stance. Unfortunately, due to the context of our interaction, the conversation escalated unnecessarily and i found myself unable to articulate my feelings. So instead, i brought them home to chew on.
Her key points are all exceptionally valid and i agree with her wholeheartedly:
1) Critical Mass is an “open source” activity where you cannot have a central organization with rules.
2) Many people have had their eyes opened by Critical Mass to the issues of bicycles in cities, probably more than have been negatively impacted.
3) Cars exercise violence on bicycles every day – running them off the road, not looking when opening doors; car culture also exercises power through the law and norms.
The combination of her points helped me clarify where i stand on activism in general these days and why the situation on Friday still upsets me.
I am definitely one of those people who had my eyes opened by Critical Mass’ activities – i learned a lot more about biking laws, situations through 2nd hand accounts of their activities. Having lived in Amsterdam, i’m perpetually horrified by the car power that goes on in this country and i’m very much supportive of non-hierarchical structures of change.
All that said, i can never ever support violence. At the core of my body, i cannot accept violence because violence has been committed against you. I will never forget being 13 and deciding to not punch back as one of my classmates threw punches at me. Nothing would be gained by returning the blows – only increased hostility, a deepening of sides and an increase in intolerance. I cannot support activism that permits violence as one if its tenants. I was so disgusted by some of my classmates who felt as though they became activists when they brawled with the police; at the last protest i went to, i gave the police donuts and talked to them about the protest from their perspective.
No matter how much i believe in revolution, no matter how much i want to see changes made, i can’t accept moving in that direction through deplorable means. I also cannot support pack behavior on either side – what the crowd does under and umbrella name is often terrifying. As much as there are thousands of non-violent Critical Massers, the idea that the name and event has a violent side to it is enough to alienate me. I can’t stand behind events that accepts violence as even a minority group or where that group has the right to use the name to instigate their pack behavior. I think that this is how folks who would believe in the cause of anti-WTO folks get alienated by the violent protests.
As much as i appreciate my friends’ point that i should not disrespect a movement for the behaviors of some, i have a hard time actually feeling that way. Those few aggressive voices go far which is why they need to be actively squelched in a non-violent movement – the two cannot go hand in hand.
How can we move forward activism that doesn’t use violence? Am i a fool for thinking that’s possible and for not supporting groups that allow violence to occur?
You seem to be equating agression with violence. Stopping cars? Yelling? Tapping on a metal machine that weighs hundreds of times of that of a person? Breaking windows even, are not, in my mind, violent. While it is unfortunate that you and your fellow motorists got yelled at and surrounded by bicyclists, I don’t think you can make the case that the actions were violent.
“How can we move forward activism that doesn’t use violence? Am i a fool for thinking that’s possible and for not supporting groups that allow violence to occur?”
That said, my answer to that question is yes. If you don’t want to be associated with violence you should stop paying taxes and living in a society that is inherently violent. Until you’re willing to do that, I think it’s stupid to draw the line at not supporting activists whose general ideas, if not tactics, you agree with. It’s idealistic and it won’t get anything accomplished. However, if you don’t want to be associated with Critical Mass because you don’t like some of the people who go, and you’re unwilling to compromise on that. Don’t let it stop you from engaging in your own activism. There are other ways to support cyclists, and if you actually care about this stuff, you should try to find some.
Your argument really bothers me though. Black politicians are held to a higher standard than white ones because they have to be seen as above the dirty political tactics that people have come to expect of politicians. But the truth of the matter is that people, all people, will do things that you might find disagreeable. Motorists are not all bad people. Some of them are respectful of cyclists and other motorists, but some are not. The same can be said of bicyclists. Why are you insisting on holding ALL bicyclists to a higher standard that YOU get to dictate?
Would you not support the Warsaw ghetto uprising?
I think sometimes non-violence can lead to greater violence.
I believe the very act of driving violence in and of itself. That said, I consider violence natural and in some cases rather productive and positive.
I find the perspective and conclusions, or at least what I read the blogger wrote about CM pretty naive and myopic along with many of the comments in the first entry.
Thanks for bringing up this discussion in an openminded way. A few responses:
No matter how much i believe in revolution, no matter how much i want to see changes made, i can’t accept moving in that direction through deplorable means.
What is revolution? How do you know when it’s happened? It’s an easy word to throw out there, a harder concept to define.
I also cannot support pack behavior on either side – what the crowd does under and umbrella name is often terrifying.
Fair point. A lot of people go to demonstrations — both as demonstrators and as cops — with the intention of kicking some ass from the anonymity of the crowd. I think CM has done a good job of calming these people down from our side. But here’s what I hope: I hope you never ever get involved in a vehicle traffic jam. Because that’s a place where you get the most heinous mob behaviors you’ll ever find. In case you don’t think it’s a “movement” (maybe because it moves so slowly), you should be aware that it is called Car Critical Mass and it is organized on identical principles to bike Critical Mass.
As much as there are thousands of non-violent Critical Massers, the idea that the name and event has a violent side to it is enough to alienate me.
Cool. I know people who could use your American citizenship papers, so long as you won’t be using them anymore.
I can’t stand behind events that accepts violence as even a minority group or where that group has the right to use the name to instigate their pack behavior.
Along with the traffic jams I mentioned earlier, you should also avoid Giants games. And maybe UC Berkeley.
I think that this is how folks who would believe in the cause of anti-WTO folks get alienated by the violent protests.
Actually, the folks who believe in the cause of the anti-WTO folks take part in the protests and work to spread their peaceful message. I think it was Sartre who said that existence precedes essence. Belief without action is — well — like this. In other words, belief without action is not belief at all.
As much as i appreciate my friends’ point that i should not disrespect a movement for the behaviors of some, i have a hard time actually feeling that way. Those few aggressive voices go far which is why they need to be actively squelched in a non-violent movement – the two cannot go hand in hand.
If you have any suggestions of how to go about restraining other people’s obnoxiousness without becoming violent yourself, perhaps you could share those. I realize much of this note is pretty snarky, but I can tell you’re really struggling with this issue. I hope you recognize that those of us who go to Mass have also struggled with it and have decided that the best tactic is constructive engagement. If you don’t go to Mass, and neither do the rest of us who don’t support violence, then Mass will be all-violent. Rather like, say, Wyoming.
If you do come down and take part, I think you’ll see a lot of us talking to the more aggressive and obnoxious guys and trying to get their energy refocused in more positive ways.
In response to the prior posters: you can define breaking a window however you want, but if you’re in a car when the window gets smashed, you’re going to call that violence. Violence isn’t about the specific action, it’s about getting your way through the credible threat of harm — physical or otherwise. That means the new bankruptcy law, in that it forces debtors to pay off loans under threat of starvation and homelessness. Pulling a gun is violent, even if you don’t fire. Breaking windows, if done in order to affect someone’s behavior (and not just an idle prank or an accident), is violent.
testing posting….
This is exactly why I had to stop going to the big demos. Busting ass trying to do street medic work and being just as fearful/unnerved about what the black bloc was doing as what the police were doing? No thanks. I heard a lot of feedback on that decision along the lines of Caitlin’s response above — that I’m supposed to accept/tolerate whatever tactics anyone feels like using as long as we (supposedly) share the same ideals.
Say what?!?
Again, no thanks. I don’t believe the end justifies the means — that’s such a western, reductionist view to imagine that the moment of arriving/achieving is always more important than all the time and process it took you to get there. The means are everything. I want the revolution, too, but I can’t subscribe to all these revolutions that promise a glorious and peaceful future after we get through the “necessary” period of violence/disrespect/deception. My soul isn’t in it and then, what’s the point?
Anyway, I share your idealism. And yes, idealism is equated with naivety, foolishness — why? Because people don’t believe in themselves/others/humanity enough to believe we can really break out of the cycle/habit/pathology of “peace through violence”? Because it’s cooler to be jaded? Because destruction/venting/violence is easier, more obvious and appears quicker than the slow and quiet work required to build something radically new? All of the above, likely.
I share your frustration at activist groups who use objectionable means to work toward ends in which I believe. The justifications for bikers (and I am one myself) fighting for their rights include the fact that they cause less damage to the environment and other people than cars do. When activists behave in violent ways to achieve their goals (and yes, breaking windows is definitely a violent act), they are actually causing damage, which is counterproductive to their underlying objective and justification. I’m always very suspicious of arguments that start with the premise that the ends justify the means. Violent acts in the name of a good cause have the unintended consequence of bringing more violence into the world.
What’s frustrating to me is not just the OFFENSIVENESS of the behavior of many protesters, but the sheer IDIOCY of the tactics of so many protesters nowadays.
Protests can actually be understated, non-violent, and completely effective, but too often I see protests that are “in-your-face,” and littered with obnoxious and sophomoric chants, rudeness to police and local shops, and so on. Anger does not equal persuasiveness; rather, misdirected anger too often turns the public against one’s cause.
The turning point for me was when I went to an anti-rape March a few years back and — as a white male — was literally treated as the enemy… snapped at by women to “get in back!… this isn’t about you!”
Yeah, I’m just an evil white male oppressor who has had close friends raped.
I went home. I’ve been to few protests since, and at this point, I’ll do my civic duty peacefully and productively by writing and calling my representatives, writing letters to the editor, and — gasp — actually working WITH my neighbors and co-workers and friends amiably to get things done.
There are simply too many protesters who care more about “sticking it to the man” and venting steam than they do about sustainable and effective societal change. Maybe it’s only 10%, but that’s enough to sour me on the entire thing.