[I originally posted this in chapotraphouse, but it was deleted for being “pro-cop” even though that very much wasn’t the case. (I believe PSL was actually involved in organizing the protest if I’m not mistaken.) The mod that deleted it openly broke the sectarian rule too.]
Been seeing a lot of people hating on what the protest marshals did during the pro-Gaza protests at the DNC and I feel they definitely did the right thing. Instigating stuff like going up against the cops under the guise of “revolutionary” action just gets a lot of people arrested and doesn’t accomplish anything.
EDIT: Users who were present at the protests have said, counter to what is claimed in the screenshot, that the protest marshals did NOT call for the police. Thank you for clearing this up, comrades!
The approved-route protest where protestors mustn’t get too close TO A FUCKING FENCE or else the cops need to be called
I feel like both your positions are valid and this discourse is as old as time, but this person on twitter is making the optics argument.
The optics are there’s a fucking ongoing genocide and we’re causing it. People have the right to do whatever they think will stop it. There’s no right way to protest.
The only right way to protest is the effective way
So not a peaceful march that doesn’t even get that close to the convention?
Effectiveness of protest can only really be judged after the protest. One constant is that the less disruptive a protest is, the less effective it is though.
Non-violent protest isn’t necessarily undisruptive, but “peaceful” protest where you avoid disrupting anything is fruitless. It’s only really effective when your sole goal is to build awareness and your organization can’t take the hit of a large portion of it’s membership being arrested or detained.
Once a movement has grown past the need for awareness, it needs to begin engaging in only disruptive forms of protest. A combination of violent and non-violent depending on the circumstance.
If getting too close to the DNC’s fence is “wrecker activity” and “adventurism” now, then what’s it going to be in a few years?
“Protesting in public is adventurism! Don’t you know a quiet inside protest is the respectable thing to do now?”
I mean, they wanted to confront the police head-on and implicate a bunch of people in the process. It isn’t just “going up to the fence” lol
The issue is that in the US it’s gotten to the point where being too close to a cop is “confrontation,” and protestors in the US keep ceding more ground each time. You’re going to end up in a situation where any form of civil disobedience is considered “too confrontational”
Even MLK’s civil disobedience was seen as “too confrontational.” People threw a shitfit over sit-ins, freedom riders, bus boycotts, and the Million Man March lol
It’s only not too confrontational if it’s quiet and out of the way and able to be ignored completely
@SxarletRed@twitter.com is the kind of person who would have taken down the tents and moved them off the quad in compliance with campus police, for the sake of “keeping activists safe”.
Fighting the police in a position they’ve got extremely well-fortified is silly, but turning on anyone who wants to do that is ten times worse.
I mean they actually went to the encampments, posted about what they saw and supported them, so your analogy doesn’t work lol
“Nooooooo you’re ruining my designated pressure outlet where I get a feeling of catharsis from doing something purely performative! How dare you give people a practical introduction to escalation, that wasn’t in the plan!”
Nobody called the cops. There were 17k people there because it was planned as a peaceful march by a coalition of groups and those groups worked to keep it peaceful. People brought their kids. You’re not going to get these numbers at for violent confrontation with the police.