Adherents to “non-violent” protest methods preach against targeting corporate property. We feel that giving private property a higher value than life is an uncritical acceptance of the dominant value system of American consumer society. As activists we feel that we need to debate these issues further amongst ourselves. The problem we are addressing immediately is that these “non-violent” activists used their numerical advantage to isolate and dominate practitioners of alternate protest philosophies: most visibly, the black block anarchists.
As a spectrum of protest activities manifested themselves, scenes we witnessed included “non-violent” activists linking arms to protect the corporate theme store Nike Town from the aggressive acts of a black block. Riot police soon replaced the “peace advocates” as if to say, “We’ll take over now. You’re only volunteering to protect property; we do it for a living.” Elsewhere throughout the day “non-violent” activists de-masked, and on at least one occasion beat an individual who was acting against property.
Many elements of the broad Left, anti-corporate, pro-livable world community have been alarmingly willing to distance themselves from direct, militant forms of protest. The World Trade Observer, a daily tabloid published by a network of mainstream environmental and fair trade organizations, which features the writing of prominent figures such as Ralph Nader and Norman Solomon, offers one example. In describing the previous day’s festivities in their Wednesday, December 1 issue, they identified as a “troubling theme” the practice of “the police singling out peaceful demonstrators for gassing and beating... while ignoring black-clad hooligans breaking windows and spraying paint.” We witnessed other “non-violent” protesters criticize the police, not for waging chemical warfare to cleanse the streets of protesters, but for failing to enter into the crowd and extract the practitioners of militant protest. The implication of these statements is that the crowd would have handed over some of its members to the police, if the police had only asked. We strongly urge progressive activists to reconsider this stance.
There will undoubtedly be repercussions from the fact that we took control of a major city for 12 hours as the leading administrative body of global capitalism met to brainstorm for the next millennium. It is unfair, and irresponsible, to offer “the Anarchists from Eugene” to the state as scapegoats. Without the support of the rest of the WTO protesters, the direct action practitioners are at great risk. Grand juries have become common in the militant animal rights and environmental movements: We would not think it a surprising development for there to be an inquisition exploring “conspiracy to riot” charges for the days of well-directed rage in Seattle. Gas-masks were declared illegal under Mayor Schell’s martial law, and the donning of hoods is being explored by prosecutors in Eugene as a possible excuse for sentence enhancement. The price of protecting oneself and one’s identity from police violence is rising. As people who are interested in counteracting the ill effects of globalization and ensuring a livable new millennium, we need to consciously confront the criminalization of radical political philosophies.
We feel that those who belittle and distance themselves from the actions of “the Anarchists from Eugene” have either ignored or simply did not realize the level of contributions anarchists—black-clad and otherwise—made toward bringing the November 30 Festival of Resistance into reality. These include the innovative and joyful protest methods of the Direct Action Network, a sustained consciousness-raising effort from Left Bank Books, alternative social structures offered by Food Not Bombs and Homes Not Jails, the anarchist hotline, housing networks and so on. It also should not go unsaid that developing a community able to produce several hundred predominantly white youths with middle-class backgrounds to take militant action against their real enemy, is no small feat. It has taken years of sowing and tending to seeds of awareness and resistance, and we, at least, appreciate that effort.
If the Left activist community is to be united and strong, more communication and internal discussion around strategic issues is necessary.
This article was written by Daniel Burton-Rose, (206) 324-8165, ex. 1, Ward Churchill, (303) 492-5066, Robin Hahnel, (202) 885-2712, rhahnel@american.edu, Kent Jewell, (206) 324-8165, ex. 3, George Katsiaficas, (617) 989-4384, Christian Parenti, (415) 626-4034, seapea@juno.com and Robert Perkinson, (203) 772-1600, robert.perkinson@yale.edu.
