[Peace-discuss] Rethinking Oct. 27

[LAURIE SOLOMON]

Stuart,

Good reply!  I actually accept and agree with most of what you have noted;
we may disagree as to when each of these factors are or are not concretely
and practically appropriate.  Some I have reservations with and think that,
while they may be legitimate reasons, I might not give them priority over
the others.

>      We frequently get thanked, at protests, at the Farmer's Market
>      and elsewhere, for speaking out.   We are *not* just part of the
>      landscape, for many people who sympathize with our causes.

This reason does not do much for me since I do not see this as indicating
that you are not being viewed as part of the landscape.  Rather than
thanking you for stating or doing things that these sympathizers with your
causes wish they could or would do but did not, they should be making their
own statements and become active.  If the protests were effective, they
would at least be generating more members and participants rather than
"thanks."  Offering thanks lets those people off the hook and allows them to
take the easy way out, lowering levels of guilt for not taking the risk of
action. It is like throwing money at a problem rather than rolling up one's
sleeves and getting dirty actually helping to solve the problem where one
would have to come in close contact with those that one's friends might find
undesirable.

>    - It legitimates the point of view.  It's harder to say,
>      as establishment pundits often try to do,
>      that "X is only the view of the extreme whatnots"
>      if lots of ordinary people are out on the streets -- or,
>      even better, composing well-written letters to the newspapers --
> saying X.
> 
>    - Legitimating the point of view makes it easier for
>      politicians to act, if they're inclined to.

Here I have mixed feelings. It only legitimizes the point of view for those
who are already inclined to support it; otherwise, it may not legitimize the
point of view to those who choose not to recognize the protest as
significant or meaningful (i.e., they will continue to ignore the protest
and see it as the view of some extreme crazies or well-intentioned but
uninformed ordinary people; or cognitive dissonance may come into play in
which they will deny that the protest was what it was and ascribe other
motivations and reasons for it).  

I do not believe that rational argumentation or well written letters and
articles carry much weight in practical real world politics when compared to
other non-rational factors, vested interests in power, influence, money, and
economic position of advantage.  If rational argumentation and well reasoned
and written letters/articles/documentation have any currency it is to
rationalize and intellectualize decisions and actions that have been or are
being made on other grounds.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net [mailto:peace-discuss-
> bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Stuart Levy
> Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2007 11:30 AM
> To: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Rethinking Oct. 27
> 
> On Wed, Oct 10, 2007 at 11:31:01PM -0500, Laurie at advancenet.net wrote:
> 
>  [...]
> >   I think you are being overly optimistic.  Besides is the
> > objective of the protests to get attention and noticed or to produce
> actual
> > concrete changes in policies, actions, and events.
> 
> Yes, this is a good question.  I think protest is valuable for several
> reasons beyond simply being noticed (which it does get to be),
> or being enjoyable (which it often is).
> 
>    - It gives other people, who have feelings about an issue but
>      don't find them reflected in (say) the mainstream media,
>      the sense that *they're not alone*.  This is very important.
> 
>      We frequently get thanked, at protests, at the Farmer's Market
>      and elsewhere, for speaking out.   We are *not* just part of the
>      landscape, for many people who sympathize with our causes.
> 
>    - It legitimates the point of view.  It's harder to say,
>      as establishment pundits often try to do,
>      that "X is only the view of the extreme whatnots"
>      if lots of ordinary people are out on the streets -- or,
>      even better, composing well-written letters to the newspapers --
> saying X.
> 
>    - Legitimating the point of view makes it easier for
>      politicians to act, if they're inclined to.  They know they've
>      got support.
> 
>      I still wish we'd done more to support him after Sen. Durbin,
>      appalled at (I think) an FBI agent's account of Guantanamo
> treatment,
>      compared it with actions of countries we revile.  He should not
> have
>      had to back down from that statement.  If he'd felt more clearly
>      that many constituents were behind him, maybe he would have stuck
> by it.
> 
>    - Protesting legitimates the whole notion of protest.  If almost no
> one
>      stands up in public to say that Y is wrong, that opens the way for
>      saying that any protest of Y, or of anything else, is immoral,
>      unpatriotic, impairs our "efficiency" (love that
>      expression in Mark Thompson's letter), etc.
> 
>    - It gives us as protestors a way to gauge the feelings of our
>      fellow citizens.  I find watching the changes, from month to
> month,
>      very valuable.
> 
> So protests are a lot more than friendly social occasions.
> 
> And of course they're not all we do.
> 
>    Stuart
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss