PGHIMC - Pittsburgh Independent Media Center

thoughts on the anti-war protests
by zack Monday, Mar. 24, 2003 at 11:37 AM

there are problems that must be addressed regarding recent anti-war protests (i know it's long but please read it)

hi there,

following some of the recent news on the site, i think it's important to point out that there are LOTS of people who have been participating in Pittsburgh peace events who have some legitimate grievances with how things have been proceeding. I have read a number of people's comments that are insightful because they point to a number of unresolved issues that challenge the effectiveness of pittsburgh peace protests.

despite the fact that i am a biker, anarchist, punk, graduate student, and teacher, i have been thoroughly frustrated with the actions of certain people at these events. while it's not expected that everyone at an event must act in a uniform manner, there are expectations that i have of other people at a protest. first and foremost, if you want to protest the Gap and sweatshop labor, then organize a protest for it. similarly, if you want to organize a protest against cars, go to a critical mass event, or plan a protest against automobiles. when people harass motorists, shout slogans at SUV drivers, and disturb businesses during a march, they make it much easier for police to justify their actions, and more importantly, the meaning behind these messages is NOT being communicated to people. before i get a mini-lecture about the interconnections of various socioeconomic problems from some political newbie on the next thread, please understand that there are many of us who are highly aware of the links between capitalism, corporations, car culture, the police, and the war. despite these connections, there is a time and a place for appropriate actions. it's totally naive to think that shouting at drivers will somehow make them rethink their position about owning a car, similarly, it's naive to think that disorderly behavior at a peace rally (regardless of how insignificant the action) will not bring more negative attention from the police. i agree with dan kyle's statement that pittsburgh is unique because we use a combination of tactics in our protests, but i also think it's fair for people to express their displeasure when a handful of egotistical children use the protests as a forum for their own personal political agenda. nobody gives a shit if you're an anarchosyndicalist, a conservative businesswoman, or a communist...the point of the protest is to bring people together in a message of peace. i have grown extremely tired of people showing up to these events in some feeble effort to act out a scene from the Seattle WTO protests, complete with facial bandanas and gasmasks. despite the fact that i sing in a punk band and have lots of friends in the punk community, the sight of a dirty kid dressed in all black with 4 bandanas tied around his face, shouting in the face of SUV drivers does not send a peaceful message to people in the community. furthermore, it doesn't communicate a damn thing to anybody else, other than reaffirming their opinions that punk-looking people dress funny and shout loudly.

i'm not telling people how to dress, or how to behave when you are in your house, or at a show......but have some respect for the fact that mass media has the ability to present the protest in any manner they see fit. as individuals such as martin luther king, saul alinsky, ceasar chavez, and angela davis have shown, the media can be a powerful tool when it is used in the right way. why don't we try to use this to our advantage and take some of the following things into consideration:

-people expect protestors to look like punks and hippies. perhaps it would be a good idea to have parents, older folks, and other straight looking people leading the way during the next march. peace protests are acts of symbolism that attempt to get others to change their mind about war. if we recognize the fact that people have a stereotyped view of what protestors look and act like (young, dreadlocked, long hair, tattoos, etc.) then we should try to disrupt that image by having older folks, families, and anti-war veterens leading the way. this sends a symbolic message to people in the community that "regular folks" are concerned about the war. this sort of strategy makes it more difficult for the media to portray protestors in a stereotypical manner. i am not suggesting that people cut their hair, or that people like myself should cover our tattoos. such suggestions would be absurd. what i am suggesting is that when you are dealing with a symbolic action, appearances do play a role in the way that the public perceives the event. for this reason, when all the dress-up revolutionaries cover their faces in an attempt to look like some hybrid between old school cowboys and the Zapatistas, they must realize that many people in the public are scared by this imagery. as a result, this can send a negative message to the public, and give the impression that the event is being led by "radicals." i'll be the first to admit that encouraging "radical looking" people to not lead the march is conforming to societal standards of dress/appearance and elite norms, but when we are trying to persuade people in the general public of our views, we must acknowledge the connotations that people attach to appearances. if people have problems with this idea, they should consider what is more important, trying to send the most powerful message we can to the public, or using protests as a revolutionary fashion show. on a more cynical note, and this is my own personal opinion, there is no reason why anyone should hide their face at a protest. people should be proud to be seen exercising their civil liberties and speaking out against injustice, rather than hiding their identity behind a makeshift mask.

-in keeping with the notion that peace protests are symbolic acts, i think it is an incredibly irresponsible idea to organize protests at the federal building, especially during rush hour. i understand the desire to shut down the federal building and send a message to the federal government, but with the passing of the Patriot acts, federal agents and police have the ability to SEVERELY crack down on individuals who pose a clear and present threat to federal institutions. while everyone involved knows that peaceful protestors are not a threat to public safety, this is not the view of the federal government. attempting to shut down federal institutions is an extremely risky idea, and it puts people in danger of being arrested and made examples of----namely, by utilizing aspects of the Patriot acts in order to charge people with more severe charges, such as conspiracy to commit a terrorist act, conspiracy to start a riot, trespassing on federal property, and the list goes on and on. while this may not a concern to a lot of people out there, i think it is irresponsible to put people in a situation in which they are at the mercy of a police force and juridical system that has been greatly enhanced by the Patriot acts. in terms of the media, protests at federal facilities can easily be construed as threats to public safety, and reporters are more prone to focus on this aspect during their coverage---sending out the message that there are threats to federal employees and facilities during a state of High terrorist alerts. i have emphasized the fact that peace protests are symbolic because nobody expects that the president is going to get on national TV and say, "people of the united states, i have just heard that there was a protest in downtown pittsburgh against the war, and for this reason we are stopping all operation in Iraq." the reason we protest is to send a message to the public in order to try to build a stronger movement. if we organize people to protest at federal institutions and expect the police not to utilize the Patriot acts against us, then we are as naive as we are careless.
Furthermore, the idea that stopping traffic will somehow jolt people out of their war-soaked, consumer consciousness is giving ourselves a little too much credit, and not paying enough attention to the lack of communication taking place. i am sympathetic to the idea that we can't let people think that it is "business as usual," but people are NOT going to be persuaded to our side when we turn the situation into an immediate battle of Us vs. Them. the attitude i have heard thus far is that a few minutes of traffic is nothing compared to the loss of life taking place in Iraq. in other words, the people driving home are immediately on the WRONG side of the issue, and WE need to tell them what the real deal is. it is a big assumption to suggest that everyone driving home is automatically a war supporter, and this antagonism is fueled by people who want to use the peace rally as a forum against car culture. how about having some solidarity with the people driving home from their shitty jobs? instead of shouting in their face and causing traffic and frustration downtown, maybe we should make people small care packages to pass out to people in traffic. we could fill them with candy and write a note like this:

"We sympathize with the fact that you have probably had a tough day at work, and we want to let you know that there are thousands of people in Pittsburgh who are against the war in Iraq. We are trying to spread a message of peace and we encourage you to learn more about the situation in Iraq, and to talk with peace activists in order to learn more about what they represent. Thanks for your time and enjoy the candy."

How could people refuse?? I know that this is only example of what could be done instead of shutting down traffic, but at least it's an idea that doesn't alienate people downtown, encourage the use of police violence, and make protestors look exactly like their slogan shouting conservative opponents.

if people want to continue gathering at the federal builiding, you are putting your own safety and the safety of those around you in jeapordy. being arrested without the conscious intent of breaking an unjust law is not an act of civil disobedience....it's just a stupid way to give the cops extra money in fines, the chance to slap protestors around, and the opportunity to allow peaceful folks to be brought up on federal conspiracy charges. i understand that people who were arrested the other day were not doing anything wrong, but what i am suggesting is that planning to shut down a federal institution is not is simple as it may seem, and it greatly increases the chance that people will be arrested without just cause. i know this doesn't sit well with some people, but for those of you that want to rot in jail as a martyr, go right ahead. avoiding jail whenever possible seems to be a smart idea, and future planning for peace events should take this sentiment into consideration. what not have rallies in oakland? in the park?
aside from the sense of personal (some would argue egotistical) satisfaction that comes along with protesting a federal building, what will it actually achieve? the best case scenario is that we disrupt them for a few hours. the worst case scenario is that people get the shit kicked out of them by police, and potentially brought up on charges that are more stringent than those faced by protestors at any other time in recent US history.

my two main point are as follows:
1) it's important to consider how we are representing ourselves to the public, and we should do everything in our power to appeal to the masses of Pittsburghers who are on-the-fence about the war. Pittsburgh is a pretty conservative city, and it might be useful to play to this factor and put a attach a more conservative face to the peace efforts. if this offends people who want to wear their punkest outfit out to the protests, replete with pseudo-cowboy bandanas and black flags, then your attachment to your appearance is as obsessive as the yuppies you love to hate. in addition, we must stay focused on the issue at hand and avoid meaningless and impotent attacks on corporate chain stores and automobile drivers while we are marching for peace. these are important issues, but they deserve their own protest/march.

2) attempting to shut down federal facilities is extremely dangerous, and with the advent of the Patriot acts, could potentially be followed by federal charges related to terrorism (or the conspiracy to committ terrorist acts). organizers should consider different venues for protests despite the fact that the federal builiding is an obvious choice for symbolic dissent. i firmly believe that protests in another site will draw more people out to the events, and will spread a more positive message about the peace movement. in addition, protests in another area will dramatically lessen the ability for police to utilize the patriot acts in prosecuting protestors who are arrested, and it will likely cut down on the number of folks arrested in the first place. finally, blocking traffic downtown at rush hour does not communicate a clear message to the public, it gives people downtown an excuse to take an anti-protest stance (which then spreads through stories at work, and those written in the newspaper), and ultimately it puts people in danger of getting hit by cars (which would definitely result in a riot).

i firmly believe that people should be protesting this war and i also believe in the power of protest to change public opinion, governmental policy, and corporate activities. However, there are ways in which we can organize ourselves that will take the fuel away from those who oppose us. If we want to stop the war, this is the challenge we must face.

thanks to everyone who contributes to independent media and anyone who read this long winded message,

peace,
zack

add your comments