in defense of disobedience Re: [Peace-discuss] The case against anti-war adventurism

[Ricky Baldwin]

I agree with Mort.

Howard Zinn wrote, during the Vietnam conflict, that
our problem is not disobedience but too much
obedience.  Raimondo is advocating obedience in the
face of major crimes against humanity, which I  think
calls for a much better argument than his (calling
those who take action "narcissicists" and
manufacturing farcical statistics.)

I do think that blocking traffic is not the best
choice, but wearing peace t-shirts or leafletting in
the mall alienates no one.  Beyond that, sit-ins at
*relevant* sites, like military recruitment centers
(or at the VA to demand recognition of the true costs
of war?), are just and fair.  And folks who invade
military installations and destroy military hardware
deserve our praise and thanks.  These illegal actions
do convert people, but not to the pro-war camp, as
Raimondo says.  Think of Gandhi and Martin Luther King
- did their nonviolent civil disobedience "alienate"
-- or win?  

And if Raimondo is afraid of repression, he had better
give up all hope of effectiveness.  It is true that
violent tactics also invite repression, and those
tactics do alienate many people - but whenever
nonviolent protest has met violent repression, public
sympathy for the protest has always increased, not
decreased.  During the black liberation movement in
the 1950s and 60s, organizers went out of their way to
choose tactics and places that invited the crudest
repression.  Those images of water cannons, police
dogs, beatings, etc., are unforgettable to anyone who
has seen them.  They challenged the conscience of a
nation.  Many are planning to do the same in the event
of war with Iraq and we should support them in every
possible way.

Ricky

 

--- "Morton K.Brussel" <brussel4 at insightbb.com> wrote:
> I, for one, am all for supporting those who engage
> in civil non-violent 
> disobedience to protest this dreadful war. They may
> make a positive 
> impact, by their selfless example and commitment, on
> national discourse 
> and policy, the author's (Justin Raimondo)
> assertions to the contrary 
> notwiithstanding. At the least, they can be a symbol
> and rallying point 
> of our opposition.
> 
> The author minimizes the number of people who are
> anti-war, but in fact 
> we don't know the depth of opposition and
> uncertainty to the war in the 
> general population. His is a narrow, self-defeating,
> and insulting 
> polemic against those who are willing to accept the
> risks of overt 
> opposition to this war.
> 
> To oppose this war is also to resist the repressive
> state that 
> inevitably accompanies it. We ought not disparage
> (e.g., in using the 
> pejorative word "adventurism") those willing to
> sacrifice their comfort 
> and (even) freedoms in the cause of righting the
> terrorble (sic) wrongs 
> of this government.
> 
> Think of the haunting image of the Chinese student
> confronting the 
> tanks in Tianimen Square in Beijing. Or of the
> recent American women 
> tragically overrun by Israeli bulldozers defending
> the homes of 
> Palestinians.
> 
> MKB
> 
> 
> On Monday, Mar 17, 2003, at 10:21 US/Central, C. G.
> Estabrook wrote:
> 
> > [I'm not entirely comfortable with the following
> piece (particularly 
> > the
> > penultimate paragraph), but it raises the question
> of what to do on 
> > "the
> > day after," and I think the suggestion is on the
> right line.  --CGE]
> >
> > March 17, 2003
> >
> > THIS ISN'T ABOUT YOU
> >
> > Antiwar movement should shut up about 'shutting it
> down' - before the
> > state shuts us down  ...
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.cu.groogroo.com
>
http://lists.cu.groogroo.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
> 


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!
http://platinum.yahoo.com