March organizers failed to protect message

I was reading your comment and I can't help but wonder where the hell you were and what you saw? Anarchist groups had a Spokes the night before the Poor People's March and it was decided, in accordance with the St Paul principles, that the tone of the organizing of the event was to be respected--therefore there would be strong efforts to avoid police confrontation and no black blocs. During the rally before the march, police snatched an Indymedia reporter (and tased her on the street) and another individual in an attempt to incite a situation in which the police could attack and prevent the march. No one tried to "unarrest" them and these people were essentially sacrificed to the police to try and maintain a relative calm. The only militant action during the entire deal was soon after the snatches, a man had a seizure and people created a circle to keep reporters out and let medics in; one cameraman even beat up my friend and I in order to get through but was still unsuccessful. Soon after, the march started. It was pretty peaceful, by all accounts. The Rage concert was cut off right as the PPM was walking through that area, and a bunch of people tagged on. Still, no police violence, no breaking shit, no blocking up and locking arms. Once the march got to it's end outside the Xcel Center, lead organizer Cheri Honkala gave a letter under the fence, and people started to disseminate. It seemed like a lot of radicals stayed behind as the main march walked back over a bridge to safety, Cheri and others thanked bandanna-clad folx on the way out for a successful and peaceful march. Before the march it was a worry that some radicals might break off and not follow the organizational tone, but those worries were not realized. It felt really good and unifying to be able to pull that off together. After the exit, the police went raw on all the protesters who were left, told people to go down St Peter to leave when St Peter had cops blocking every exit. They moved in on people and brutalized them, making hardly any arrests. There was a newsflash at one point that referenced information from a police radio: "Police 'going in for the kill' because they're 'sick of this shit.'" If you are looking to bash a militant group, bash the police; bash torture, rapes, beatings, harassment. THAT'S "being angry and violent without thinking." Don't jump on the corporate media train and believe everything you hear there. Why don't you contact the organizers of the Poor People's March before and see how they felt about things before you make all these egregious assumptions?

From the Minnesota Independent: "Honkala said anarchists, who have been blamed for much of the tumult on the streets of St. Paul during the RNC, were not at fault for last night’s trouble. “No fringe group took away from what happened yesterday,” she said. “It was those guys dressed all in black — I mean the police officers all dressed in black — that took away from our message.” More than 300 people have been locked up during the first two days of the RNC, but Honkala dismissed the arrests as primarily trumped up allegations. “I highly doubt that they’ll get any convictions from any of these arrests,” she said. “Most of the folks were participating in using their First Amendment rights and practicing their right to assemble.” Her comments were backed up by others at the press conference. Shamako Noble, an activist from San Jose, California, said police actions actually prevented the crowd from peacefully dispersing last night. “They almost trapped people in,” he said. “It seems to me that you have to justify $50 million somehow. I don’t think it was anything that we actually did.”" http://www.minnesotaindependent.com/7201/activists-decry-police-tactics

As someone who organized with the Coalition to March on the RNC and Stop the War, I can say that the writer of this post is misinformed and out of touch with the unity we were worked hard to create between all those who took action against the RNC September 1-4. We were fully aware of well developed plans to engage in direct action and civil disobedience at the RNC. We were not surprised this took place and have no regrets about our message being "highjacked" by anarchists. We actually worked in coalition with the RNC Welcoming Committee to establish principles of unity that would prevent the counter-productive, "good protester-bad protester" labeling advocated by this article. The "St. Paul Principles" we signed onto included a respect for a diversity of tactics (not just peaceful, legal ones) and we agreed that different tactics would be separated by time or space so that we could complement, not interfere with each other. We also explicitly agreed to avoid any public or media denunciations of fellow activists, and to oppose all forms of state repression. This was achieved with great success. On September 1st, 30,000 people from a diversity of backgrounds, income levels, ages, and struggles marched together under one banner: U.S. Out of Iraq Now; Money for Human Needs Not War; Peace, Justice, and Equality for All. Also on September 1st, a significant number of people chose to directly confront those most responsible for war, poverty, and injustice by engaging in blockades and other methods of direct action. Organizers of the permitted march supported their decision to do so. Many of us believe that elements of civil disobedience and direct action are acceptable and necessary for any movement attempting to mount a serious challenge to the the violent, imperialist forces that are exploiting and destroying the lives of millions. Like the author of this post, I also read the RNC Welcoming Committee's website for months leading up to the question and I never read anything that indicated a desire for "violent confrontation." Anyone who was present in downtown St. Paul during the RNC could see that it was the police who were eager for violent confrontation. Who was it that brought riot gear, tasers, rubber bullets, batons, and chemical weapons to the streets of St. Paul? It was the police, whose only mission was to protect power and privilege and crush anyone in their path. The very use of the word "violence" to describe the actions of protesters in the face of the police state we witnessed is ridiculous. Pepper spraying a girl repeatedly in the face after she attempted to hand a fower to a police officer is violence. A broken Macy's window is not. And even though some activists don't prefer property damage as a tactic, some amount of perspective is important. What is a broken window compared to a million Iraqis killed, or entire cities destroyed by the U.S. occupation forces? A whole lot of windows get broken when the U.S. drops bombs. Which is the bigger concern? Which is a real reason to be pointing fingers? I and other members of the Coalition to March on the RNC stand in solidarity with all who spoke and acted against the Republican agenda in St. Paul. We didn't denounce each other before the action and we aren't going to start now. And we would never, EVER stand side by side with the police at a press conference and denounce our fellow activists. The very suggestion is absurd after the systematic way the police attempted to violently shut down ALL dissent at the RNC. Anyone professing a sincere commitment to justice should put their efforts into holding the police accountable for their crimes at the RNC, rather than criticizing march organizers for failing to shun our fellow activists. We are committed to building and strengthening a diverse movement for just social change, not in betraying and judging one another. The author of this post needs to wake up. Instead of criticizing everyone who took action against the RNC, open your eyes! The most dangerous people in St. Paul on September 1-4 were the delegates to the RNC. If you're concerned about people who believe in violence and property destruction to achieve their political goals, TAKE A LOOK AT THEM. They do it every day.

I think many of us were too quick to judge the actions of our fellow comrades during the RNC protests. Mahatma Gandhi once said that doing something - be it nonviolent or not - is better than doing nothing at all. While we may disagree on tactics I think it is important to recognize the awareness that these protests awakened within our community. Although I do believe that nonviolence is a better alternative to violent action I am open to discussion about new tactics in advancing social change. Social change is not quick and easy like many of us would hope. It is a slow and steady process that requires patience and understanding. I ask you to consider the tactics of others with an open mind as we look back and try to learn from our mistakes. Then remember who were the ones with pepper spray, concussion grenades and batons trying to intimidate our freedom of expression on the streets.

These comments are missing the point of my earlier criticism, which is that the stated main purpose of the Sept 1st March was to give a message to the RNC that their policies and fascist ideology were not welcomed. Tens of thousands of people from all walks of life joined to deliver a MESSAGE, and the ONLY purpose of the march should have been to make sure that the MESSAGE would be heard loud and clear. If the organizers had indicated that the goal of the March was to storm the Xcel and beat up the Republicans then they should have said so, but if the goal was truly to speak up, then ALL the activities of the March MUST have been done in order to maximize effectiveness of the message. The anarchists had other ideas, and these clearly stole the spotlight from the main MESSAGE. To deny this fact is definitively not helpful. Now, I personally do not need lessons on resistance or how to confront oppression from anyone. To put it bluntly, if armed resistance or revolutionary action was needed and feasible, I would be the first one to become an insurgent. However gallant and forward-thinking the anarchists may think they are, burning trash cans and cursing at cops, or getting maced and arrested in downtown St. Paul is not the same as joining a Sandinista band in the jungles of Nicaragua or a Machetero cell in the slums of Puerto Rico. Direct action may feel good and empowering, but will NOT topple the regime and will not help to advance the political message. Many immigrants and people of color cannot afford to get arrested and deported by acting up against the system. They can ONLY participate and can ONLY contribute to a struggle for justice that is POLITICAL and EFFECTIVE, as opposed to confrontational and counterproductive. The stakes are too high to give-in to nihilistic impulses. We can only change the system from the inside, by working within the system, under the systems, rules. I do not like it, but then the only other alternative is a revolution. Are you ready for that?

I consider myself an anarchist but I have never destroyed property and I marched in the permitted march on the first day of the RNC as well as a nonviolent unpermitted march. I am not writing this post in order to debate tactics for creating social change or what kind of society I want to create. Those are larger debates to have in our communities and throughout our lives. In reading Mr. Gonzalez's posts, I felt compelled to respond to his authoritarian comments about "the MESSAGE" of protestors and his characterization of direct action as "mindless," "unnecessary," and “nihilistic.” However, I want to first briefly say that I appreciate Mr. Gonzalez’s statement that “many immigrants and people of color cannot afford to get arrested and deported by acting up against the system.” This is all too true. I’ve never heard any anarchists denounce anyone for not taking risks that they don’t want to take, especially those who face intense state repression. But this does not mean that those who are in a position to take greater risks or feel that these risks are necessary despite the consequences should not take these risks. They must of course take into account how their actions will affect others and plan accordingly. We are all working together to fight state repression and we are responsible for the foreseeable consequences of our actions. Back to “the message.” No one owns "the message" of any protest and there is no single message that has the right to trump any other. You have your message, Mr. Gonzalez, and the Coalition to March on the RNC had theirs, but there is no way that the thousands of people in the permitted all agreed on exactly the same message. As you pointed out, there were many contingents in this march with various messages, be they pro-immigrant, anti-war, pro-Palestinian, etc. I was personally very happy to see so many people bring their own messages, their own creativity, and their own energy to this demonstration. That is precisely what made it a successful show of force for progressive social movements. The media of course did not portray all of these messages, but that is a problem with corporate media and not any protesters. We can't count on corporate media to deliver our messages; we have to deliver them ourselves (through a variety of means including independent media, talking to people in our communities, etc.). The above also applies to black bloc participants and others utilizing direct action. They too have their own messages and the right to deliver them as they see fit. They are not "hijacking" "the MESSAGE" or detracting from some official message that they were not allowed to decide on. They are delivering their own. If the corporate media gives their message more press (which they don't - they just deliver a police message calling these actions violent and they never explain why people are doing what they are doing), denounce the corporate media not the anarchists. This brings me to my other point of contention with Mr. Gonzalez. Just because the police and the corporate media like to portray direct action and property destruction as "mindless," that does not mean it is actually the case. Planned property destruction is indeed well thought out and generally does have a specific "message." Acts of random destruction are likely the acts of police provocateurs and not anarchists, but if this ever occurs it is not due to illegitimate rage. In a world of exploitation, oppression, war, and state repression, anger at the way things are is completely justified and is a productive emotion. As the old slogan goes: "If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention." Obviously I cannot speak for "the anarchists" and there is no one unified message that we all agree on. And I don't think there should be. Nevertheless, I think some quotes from the anthropologist David Graeber's excellent essay "On the Phenomenology of Giant Puppets: Broken Windows, Imaginary Jars of Urine, and the Cosmological Role of the Police in American Culture" (published in his 2007 anthology "Possibilities: Essays on Hierarchy, Rebellion, and Desire" published by AK Press) will help clarify some of the common misperceptions about acts of property destruction: "Such acts are anything but random. They tend to follow strict ethical guidelines: individual possessions are off-limits, for example, along with any commercial property that's the base of its owner's immediate livelihood [i.e. not "mom and pop" shops]. Every possible precaution is to be taken to avoid harming actual human beings [or animals]. The targets - often carefully researched in advance - are corporate facades, banks and mass retail outlets, government buildings, or other symbols of state power... Consumer capitalism renders us isolated passive spectators...property destruction, then, is an attempt to 'break the spell,' to divert and redefine. It is a direct assault on the Spectacle...[it] is a matter of taking an urban landscape full of endless corporate facades - and flashing imagery that seems immutable, permanent, monumental - and demonstrating just how fragile it really is. It is a literal shattering of illusions" (380-381). This is not nihilism! It is both intentional and productive. If you don't think direct action is "needed" or "effective" then don't do it, but let others decide for themselves. I have never heard a black bloc participant tell peaceful protestors that they shouldn't be marching in a permitted march even though many feel it is ineffective, let alone physically try to prevent anyone from protesting in a certain area or publicly condemn their actions afterword. Everyone has a right to decide what is right, necessary, and effective for themselves. On another note, I disagree with Mr. Gonzalez's insinuations that we should confine ourselves to tactics used by other movements in the past or in other countries. While I am all for learning from these movements and embracing their legacy of struggle, I don’t believe that the solutions for our own context are already written or have already been demonstrated. If that were the case, there would be no need to keep struggling. These movements and ideas had successes, but we have not ultimately been successful in creating a world free from exploitation and oppression -yet. We have to continually re-examine our assumptions and invent new tactics and modify our ideologies if we are to find solutions to our problems. We must carry the past with us as we create worlds of possibility in the present.

The Anarchists carry a new world in their hearts. That world is growing this minute. My name is Buenaventura Durruti and I approve this message.

Its good to see that tens of thousands of young people, families, senior citizens, children in strollers can indeed march peacefully through downtown St. Paul and confront the opposing side. It is sad to see though how often times people who simply want to have their voices heard, herded off like cattle to an un-visible side parking lot where no one can see or hear them and have them told that "you can only protest here". I understand where this makes sense from a security standpoint, but it ends up trampling down free speech when no one can hear or see an opposing view. This is true for what ever party you do not agree with. Free speech is a right we all enjoy, when it is trampled on for a political agenda of either party, both parties loose, and we as Americans loose. Tony