Pot calls kettle black
Related Content
More About
I was pleased by some of the informative articles in the December 9 issue covering the events of WTO. (I hadn't been very optimistic, given the less-than-objective cover illustration two weeks earlier.) However, the articles by Eric Scigliano, Roger Downey, Rick Anderson, and Nina Shapiro were all excellent. They exposed some of the complexities of the issues involved, which weren't heard on the streets where "Hey hey ho ho . . ." was the standard lead.
As for Geov Parrish, I can only hope "Anarchists, go home!" (12/9) was intended as satire. It's pretty amusing that the pot is calling the kettle black over tactics during the week. Funny thing about groups that take to the streets believing they have some sort of divine mandate to shut things down and force their opinions on the majority . . . they have a tendency to disintegrate into factions who each believe they have heard the REAL TRUTH. Geov, look at the photo accompanying the article: none of the four destroying the NikeTown entry are black-hooded black bloc. And, though the camera angle is pretty narrow, I don't see a lot of action among the other nonanarchists to discourage them. My experience from walking among the crowd leads me to believe there wasn't much.
PETER KRON
SEATTLE
Anarchist antics
Thank for the insight in your article about the so-called anarchists and their antics during the WTO protest ("Anarchists, go home!" 12/9). The fact that this small, misguided, and politically ignorant group destroyed much of the work of true change agents needs to be remembered. It is incumbent on those of us determined to bring about change through nonviolence to develop plans and methods to deter and thwart violent individuals and groups when they try to use our activities as a stage for their theater of the absurd. The violent fringe group of so-called revolutionaries did more to promote the goals of the WTO than all 135 trade delegates combined.
DANIEL NORTON
SEATTLE
Dear Geov
Your views are well publicized and well respected by both liberals and the radical left in this city. Deciding that you don't want the fucking Eugene Anarchists and their cohorts in your fucking revolution ("Anarchists, go home!" 12/9) places you, in your mind, as aware of not only your political zeal, but your position of political power and dare I say: superiority. As an anarchist of 25 years, that is a sorry position for you to take.
Having organized with anarchists on the daily level in Seattle before this conference, I was well aware that many anarchists attending DAN meetings were never intending to rely only on civil disobedience to make their academic point. They were organizing entirely on a consensus basis in their meetings understanding that black blocs might be formed autonomously. Clearly DAN was exercising a hierarchical approach to their organizing by deciding this would be a nonviolent protest, relying on a majority group to enforce this strategy rather than considering the opinion of every participant. DAN's method of organizing—however effective it indeed was and is—creates resentment among its participants in the long run and is far more immature and naive than any rage displayed by the Black Blocs. Consider where the rage of the Black Bloc comes from. Rage comes from not being heard, from being shoved under the rug, from being intimidated to lie. When a huge majority of organizers are breathing down your neck telling you to be nonviolent when they don't even differentiate between buildings and humans, you'd lie too. Or do you always write what your editor tells you to? Of course not. That's why your voice has become important in this city.
You are simply sharpening the knife for the division of the left by venting your frustration atop such a powerful soap box which is "Impolitiques." Vent in a bar.
A social revolution cannot be exclusionary to any degree. Trying to restrict the many personalities involved in a protest of this scale to merely one type of expression simply to align ourselves with the status quo interpretation of an "intelligent statement" is myopic. The corporate media will always twist its lense. Why be mad at the protesters? Why defend Nike for any reason? The Downtown Business Association is doing a fine job of that already. And of course the insurance companies will pay for the damage, that's the point, it's simply a gesture. Property destruction creates a direct consumer response that might take several generations to fully absorb, but it bypasses politics and bureaucracy which civil disobedience mainly increases. Both statements can be effective against capitalism. Let's start working together with more complexity and less xenophobia.
ANONYMOUS
VIA E-MAIL
Whose revolution is it, anyway?
I was amazed at the arrogance of Geov Parrish's "Anarchists, go home!" piece (12/9). Who said the revolution was yours anyway? Who said you or any group owned the protests against the WTO on November 30th? Your sensational name-calling ("vandals," "thugs," "parasites," "punks") and your final "fuck you" did more to serve the interests of corporations and the state than did the destruction of corporate property during the protests (as you assert). If your ideas are so closely mirroring those presented by corporate media, perhaps you should do some deeper analysis. Corporations could not have written a better piece to prevent future destruction of their property and work to create divisions among those of us in the struggle for a just world.
