Sunday, March 14, 2004

'Let’s Put on a Show!'

By Pattrice Jones

Read full article...

Posted 03/14 | Add a Comment

    Comments:

    You must register to comment.

    Login | Register

  1. I agree that parading around the almost empty business/government sections of Washington on a Sunday has very limited impact on the broader population.  Obviously that is the Authorities’ intention in granting permits, along with their desire to maximally protect commerce.  But this weakness would have been overcome had the number of protesters had been much larger.  The largest anti-Iraq-invasion march in Washington, on a cold January day, drew perhaps 250,000.  Protests in several cities of Europe and Australia against the invasion drew 1-2 million each.  Admittedly most of those were in countries whose leaders went ahead and supported the invasion anyway, but I believe they still had a mitigating effect overall in Europe.  The spectacle of people pouring out of the focal point in all directions, virtually taking over a city by sheer volume of flesh, is a powerful image. 

    With numbers only in the 100,00-250,000 range, one of the main effects is to make other countries’ populations falsely believe that there was a substantial anti-war movement in the U.S., and thus feel more positive about the American people and brand image.  The reality from here was that, given the sole-instigator status of the U.S., the U.S. anti-war movement was miserably small.  Many people may have finally had second thoughts shortly before the invasion: wanting to wait a while before being led off the cliff.  But before then, I sensed little interest in getting beyond Saddam-BinLaden demonization.  Few Americans wanted to probe at all into two incontrovertible areas that would lead most rational people to question the government’s and media’s hardline position:  the particular ethnic-geographic structure of Iraq; and the way that we had already severely weakened Iraq’s capabilities through years of sanctions, bombing, and intrusive inspections.  If they did secretly doubt, for most Americans the social pressures were always to accept the party line and stay in attack mode.

    Posted by Dennis Harketts from  on  03/14  at  11:16 AM

  2. I hope I’m not missing something in Dennis’ comments.  I trust that it’s clear that if the number of marching protesters had doubled or tripled...policy would have remained the same; that’s not to say larger numbers have NO impact whatsoever.  Finally, I pray that that segment of the American population that is truly against our abominations will see that the vast majority of Americans --for any number of reasons-- are NOT
    “on our side,” so to speak.  That, left undisturbed by us, they will --one way or another-- continue to contribute to our abominations at home and abroad.

    Best, Richard Oxman

    Posted by Richard Oxman from  on  03/14  at  03:15 PM

  3. This is a well-written, well-argued article and kudos to Patrice.  I think, however the hair of the premise deserves further splitting.  Although protests, marches, demonstrations are certainly not the only means of resistance, I think they are certainly an important one, and in my opinion the most effective.  Noam Chomsky has preached for years that mass demonstrations are the one thing that strike fear into the governing elite, and make them stand up and take notice.

    The protest in Seattle in 1999 against the WTO if my memory serves, were probably the most hopeful sign I’ve seen in fifteen years or more.  It was only a beginning whose momentum was tragically interrupted by 9/11.  Would Patrice go so far as to say those protests were counterproductive?  I heartily agree with her suggestions of direct action but am unsure of how to take it without breaking the law and risking arrest.  I feel for example, very conscientous about the fact that the Pentagon hasn’t seen a nickel of my money for going on 20 years.  It is what I silently point to as my proudest achievement, and yet, it would be embarrassing for me to admit to how I can get away with it.  I hope nobody will call me on this because it would be very difficult for me to talk about.  But I would ask Patrice and all others interested in these issues how they can square their anti-Pentagon, anti-war, pro-peace position with paying taxes into the US war machine.

    Thank you for letting me be part of a great website.

    Posted by Tracy McLellan from  on  03/16  at  04:57 PM

  4. I think that one of the most important points made by Pattrice is that the marches --whatever value they have-- tend to put the masses to sleep in terms of additional activism.  It’s kind of like that syndrome that kicks in when someone puts some money in the church kit y.  Having contributed something, the person feels it’s kicking back time.  If nothing else, I’d like people to really sit down and take a hard look at the pros and cons about marching; they aren’t doing that.  The vast majority of people on the huge marches are counting on their own “showing up” as being sufficient...as a main contribution...much like the vast majority of people who vote walk away from the booths/machines feel like they’ve done their part.  Consider the person who does both!  With the pressures of time on people today, you tell me how much energy, etc. is left over for those who participate in the marches...for other fundamental work.  One question --when you sit down to make your determination on this matter-- must be whether or not the marching serves as an opiate of sorts --again, regardless of benefits-- much in the way religion has served so many.  Much else to address, but I’ll limit myself to just one more point:  What makes you think Pattrice pays taxes, Tracy?  Did I miss something?  Best, Richard Oxman

    Posted by Richard Oxman from  on  03/16  at  06:55 PM

  5. No, but most people do.  I understand that people who refuse to pay taxes over this issue are running a huge risk.  I don’t necessarily refer to refusing to pay taxes as such, which I believe can be very valuable in providing the social services that only government can, but the half of federal taxes that go to the war machine.  This is something needs more exposure.

    Indeed, I am a huge recipient of government largesse.  And guilty of not paying my fair share.  But in order to pay my fair share, I’d have to also pay the war taxes, and I find that unconscionable.  Perhaps someday I can find a common ground.

    I do know some octagenarians in Kentucky, two splendid people, a minister emeritus and his activist wife, who withhold half of their federal taxes, without significant repercussion to date.
    I am at a point where if I got to work and started paying taxes, I could feel essentially discharged of paying war taxes, in considering I was paying back a loan to the government.  But I have no problem with being a disproportionate recipient of government aid.  Not when this country spends a billion dollars a day on its military, more than all other countries combined, and upwards of $60 million a day on nuclear weapons. 

    You make some interesting p’ints here, Richard.  Ones I hadn’t thought about and that seem entirely legitimate and worthy of meditation.

    Love Press Action.  Peace,

    tm

    Posted by Tracy McLellan from  on  03/18  at  03:56 PM
    6. Commenting is not available in this weblog entry. {/if}

    Next entry: ‘Depraved Indifference’

    Previous entry: Driven to Tears: Getting Stung by Terror

    [ads]

    Support Press Action