Back in the late 50's and into the mid 60's, I worked for Bartmann and
Bixer, a drapery factory on Seattle's waterfront.
Very often I dropped over to George's Cafe Tavern, a hole in the wall
joint that was mostly a hangout for local longshoremen and long haul
truckers. All White.
Those were the years of unrest and protest in the South and in some of
the Northern cities ghettos. As the "boys", as George called us,
read the news of demonstrations and violence, I remember clearly some
of the remarks made over coffee and beer. "I don't know why they just
don't stay in their place", or, "Why do they want to move into our
neighborhoods?" Of course I didn't challenge them in George's place.
Most of them could mop the floor with the likes of me.
It was a favorite statement by my Grandma Jarvis. "They're all right,
in their place".
I would ask, "Where is their place, Grandma." Notice how I spoke
right up to a little old lady?
Grandma had been raised in Missouri by a Black nanny, whom she loved
dearly...in her place.
So what if all those marchers and sit-inners, and demonstrators in
front of official government buildings and schools all stayed in their
places?
What if none of them "broke" the laws? Would they have been rewarded
by being given first class status? Could they have bought the house
next door? Or been hired at the same wage as you, in a job just like
yours? Or marry your son/daughter?
I often wonder what would have happened if all those Revolutionaries
had just stayed in their place and did not raise a single protest.
Would King George have rewarded them by handing over the government?
Change does not occur by folks staying home and hunkering down.
Since we're talking among friends here, I'll tell you about my most
difficult prejudice to overcome.
I was raised in a day and time when any man who showed feminine
tendencies was called some very ugly names. And treated in like
manner.
I was a product of this culture, and went along for many years. The
very idea of another man approaching me in a sexual manner, raised
instant rage. So long as Gays stayed in the closet, we all got along
just fine. At least it didn't get in the way of my rights. Or my way
of life.
What if Gays had not "come out" and demonstrated and made people like
me feel uncomfortable? What if they had not challenged my long
established beliefs?
I will most likely go to my grave still harboring some discomfort when
I'm around Gays and Lesbians, etc. But through their bravery, I have
come to understand and accept who they are. If I'd not been
confronted and made to think, I would still be living in my cave. And
I'd have missed out on some very wonderful friendships.
Carl Jarvis
On 12/16/14, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@optonline.net> wrote:
> Ted,
>
> You have a tendency to misinterpret a lot of what I write. I didn't say
> that
> I prefer that kind of protesting. You both take things very literally. What
> I did mean is that if people are passive and aquiescent, if they march
> peacefully within designated areas, if they leave at the designated time,
> then they will be expressing their feelings, but they will not make clear,
> the intensity of their feelings or the need for change. What they do will
> not be noticed. What made our protests against the Vietnam War effective
> was
> the vast numbers of people who were involved. The media and, therefore, the
> rest of the population, could not ignore what we were saying. What made the
> Civil Rights movement effective in the early 60's was the bravery of the
> young people involved, the fact that they were willing to break the law by
> being where they weren't wanted, sitting at lunch counters, marching,
> organizing people to vote. When you were a young black person sitting at an
> all white lunch counter, you were disruptive, "in your face". Had they not
> done things that made people uncomfortable, the southern United States
> would
> still be segregated. When people fought for decent working conditions as
> union members, they were disruptive. They disrupted the facdtories. They
> picketed so people wouldn't enter businesses. And many paid with their
> lives. But they won decent working conditions and respect, a 40 hour week,
> paid vacations, health care, pensions, no child labor, at least for a
> while.
> People do keep fighting because it's necesssary in order for them to live,
> to have some dignity. Sometimes, it takes a long time for some of us to
> understand why they're fighting. It took me almost a whole lifetime to
> understand what the Palestinians were fussing about. They were just like
> this annoying fly, buzzing in the background until one day, I began to
> understand. But had they not kept fighting, I never would have opened mye
> eyes and looked.
>
> Miriam
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Blind-Democracy [mailto:blind-democracy-bounces@octothorp.org] On
> Behalf Of ted chittenden
> Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2014 1:46 PM
> To: Blind Democracy Discussion List
> Subject: Re: Peaceful or Violent To demonstrate or not to demonstrate, that
> is the question?
>
> Carl and all:
> While it is true that I am not a fan of protests (they tend to accomplish
> less and polarize more), what I was writing about here was the style of
> in-your-face inconvenience protesting preferred by Miriam which magnifies
> the disadvantages of protests without gaining many, if any, new advantages.
> --
> Ted Chittenden
>
> Every story has at least two sides if not more.
> ---- Carl Jarvis <carjar82@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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