Ted does put his finger on the pulse of a great many Americans.
"Don't bother me or get in my way with your troubles".
But to suggest that protesting will accomplish nothing, and even
backfire, is to ignore much of the Working Class gains over the years.
Read the history of the social movement in this nation, and you will
be met by hundreds of protest marches and demonstrations.
To those who become impatient and angry over the inconvenience of
demonstrations, I can only say, your turn is coming. And when it is
your job, home, pension, health care, or freedom that is under attack,
how will you behave? Will you simply take it? Suck it up? Or are
there really folks who believe they are never going to be effected?
"I dreamed I saw Joe Hill last night.
Alive as you and me.
But Joe, I said, you're ten years dead.
I never died, said he.
The copper bosses got you, Joe,
They got you, Joe, I said.
They framed you on a murder charge,
Said Joe, but I ain't dead,
Said Joe, but I ain't dead.
Carl Jarvis
On 12/14/14, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@optonline.net> wrote:
> OH Yes, you're correct. Americans don't want to be inconvenienced. If one
> is
> on his way to work or home or to the supermarket, one certainly doesn't
> want
> to be inconvenienced by people protesting because black people whom one
> doesn't know or care about are being killed by white cops who won't be held
> accountable. And if you need to shop at Walmart, you don't want to be
> inconvenienced by a picket line because why should it matter to you if
> workrs aren't paid a living wage and don't have health benefits. If you
> happen to be young, poor and black, it's so much wiser to just try to stay
> out of trouble, to not be noticed, and to be sure not to do anything that
> will anger white Americans. After all, if they become angry enough at you,
> they might sanction police shooting you if they see more than 5 of you
> standing on a street corner holding signs.
>
> Miriam
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Blind-Democracy [mailto:blind-democracy-bounces@octothorp.org] On
> Behalf Of ted chittenden
> Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2014 1:41 PM
> To: Blind Democracy Discussion List
> Subject: Re: Peaceful or Violent?
>
> Miriam:
> The vast majority of middle-class U.S. citizens do not want to be
> inconvenienced by protest demonstrations. If you believe that you are going
> to convert some guy who is driving to work to your side by laying down in
> front of his car, you've got another thing coming to you!
>
> It reminds me of the native American protests when the railroads were being
> built. What the protesters would do would be to sit or lay down on the
> railroad tracks with the idea that by sitting or lying there, they would
> force the trains to stop because the engineers and conductors didn't want
> to
> kill another human being. Unfortunately for those sitting or lying on the
> tracks, that didn't happen, partially because those driving the iron horses
> (as trains were called by the native American protesters) didn't see them
> until it was too late to actually stop the trains and partially because the
> engineers and conductors were under orders to make sure to get the freight
> and/or passengers to a specified destination by a specified time, no matter
> what!
>
> Frankly, I think that it's about time to recognize that protesting to make
> people inconvenienced or uncomfortable is more likely to bring about the
> kind of changes the protesters don't want, especially when it comes to free
> speech issues.
> --
> Ted Chittenden
>
> Every story has at least two sides if not more.
> ---- Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@optonline.net> wrote:
> In the article which I just posted, the following sentence appeared.
>
> The rallies were mainly peaceful, though police in Boston said they
> arrested
> 23 people who tried to block a highway.
>
> This sentence gives me pause. It implies that if demonstrators block a
> highway or the entrance to a building, if they sit down in a location and
> refuse to move, if, in other words, they do anything which disrupts the
> usual course of events and inconveniences anyone, they are being violent.
> But when people demonstrate in order to protest injustice, the point is to
> disrupt the normal course of events so that everyone, especially the
> powerful, will be forced to take notice. It seems to me that we have been
> brainwashed to believe that a proper demonstration is supposed to be a
> purely cosmetic event, people walking in an orderly manner in a location
> previously approved by government officials, in sukch a way that no one
> will
> be inconvenienced. Demonstrations have come to be accepted as exercises in
> emotion, a way for people to purge their feelings without actually
> affecting
> anyone or making anyone uncomfortable. Peaceful now means being passive and
> acquiescent. Allowing this kind of demonstration allows America to claim
> that it is a democratic society which permits dissent. Demonstrations are
> therapeutic exercises for disgruntled citizens which do not disrupt and do
> not effect change.
>
> Miriam
>
> _______________________________________________
> Blind-Democracy mailing list
> Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
> https://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Blind-Democracy mailing list
> Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
> https://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
>
> _______________________________________________
> Blind-Democracy mailing list
> Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
> https://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
>
No comments:
Post a Comment