In defense of destructive protests
I was in high school in Berkeley when the Rodney King verdict came out. Within about 20 minutes there were angry people roaming the streets. They broke the windows of every store in about a 4 square block area. They were punching white people in the face.
Of course the business owners were upset their windows were broken. But still, the predominant narrative was “this was a grave racist miscarriage of justice.”
Fast forward twenty-plus years and every time there’s a protest instead of expressing sadness about the issue at hand what I mainly hear is a lot of white middle class hand wringing about property destruction.
I could tolerate it better if it was the Republican side labeling us that way or shaming the way we protest. But that’s not what I’m talking about. I’m talking about people on the left who have decided there is a “right” and “wrong” way to protest. Except I think that in this case maybe they don’t actually know what those terms mean.
According to these judges of oppositional behavior the “right’ way to protest is to show up and stand around (or march) with a sign. You can chant. (As long as you don’t do anything like disparage the police.) According to this dipshit in my neighborhood Facebook group the way you’re supposed to protest is by gathering at Lake Merritt and holding hands around it.
The thing is, I don’t see how that is actually a protest. I think it’s a good way to feel solidarity with those around you, just like the women’s march was. But it’s not going to really affect any change. A protest is meant to inconvenience people in order to get their attention. These kind of kumbaya rallies mainly get people to look at them and say “gee isn’t the world swell? And aren’t people great.” No, actually.
There’s this weird groupspeak that says non-destructive protest is more effective. Why do people keep repeating that? It isn’t true. Name a time when the peaceful protests that everyone wants actually stopped fascism. Or police murder. Or war. Or affected policy about anything really.
I can’t name one in the post-Vietnam era.
Remember back when Bush invaded Iraq? Millions of people took to the streets around the world to protest. Bush’s response? That listening to millions of protesters was “like deciding policy based on a focus group.”
Non-destructive protests have been mostly equally ineffective in recent years too, up until the point where they became destructive. After Oscar Grant was murdered by the BART police, the protests were initially peaceful. No response from the establishment. Hearing no response, the protests escalated into vandalism and looting. At that point his killer was at least charged. Although of course, as is always the case, the murderous cop was found not guilty, which led to more destructive protests.
If you want to point a finger somewhere, point it at the powers that be for not paying sufficient attention or taking action UNTIL people start destroying things.
The hand wringers are always smugly proclaiming that the destructive people aren’t the REAL protesters and that they are a small percentage. Most of the protesters are peaceful, they say. What, you get a fucking medal for being peaceful? It’s a PROTEST. You’re out in the street because you’re GOOD AND MAD.
Is it so hard for white hand wringers to accept that maybe black people are so sick of the mainstream American society ignoring the police murders in their community that they want to get out and fuck shit up? Why? *I* feel that way and it doesn’t even directly affect me!
What makes people so smug and sure that the people destroying corporate targets downtown aren’t doing it because of a racist system? That is literally based on nothing but a generalization and judgment clouded by white privilege.
There’s just so much hand wringing about those who commit vandalism during protests. Please notice how I used the word “vandalism” not “violence”. They aren’t the same thing. I’m extremely tired of protests being deemed “violent” when the only violence was directed at a window. Property destruction is not the same as violence against other people. Personally I haven’t seen a lot of violence by protesters directed at other humans.
A lot of focus at all protests but especially the most recent at UC Berkeley is on anarchists and their roles in protests. People have unilaterally decided that because anarchists show up to every protest and destroy things that they just like to fuck shit up because it’s fun.
That is absolutely untrue. Anarchists have reasons for what they do, even if you may not recognize those reasons as valid.
Anarchists practice intersectionality on a large scale. They believe that the system we live under is the root of all problems, so therefore the system must be destroyed. This amounts to them coming to protests and annihilating things they view as representative of the system. Contrary to popular opinion anarchists’ destruction is not typically random. Their targets are typically part of the power structure they view as the problem.
(For the record I’m not an anarchist because we have different end goals. But I do think we can learn a lot from them about cooperation and governing on a local level rather than centrally. The Occupy movement was a good example of that.)
Honestly, I don’t care if they vandalize Bank of America or Citibank. I don’t know why anyone else does either. Those who have more sympathy for Citibank for their vandalized property than they have for the plight of people of color dealing with racism in America have a demented form of Stockholm Syndrome. Those institutions are held up by capitalism and white supremacy and they victimize people every day. Plus it’s not like Bank of America has to pay for its broken windows. Insurance covers it.
I do have sympathy for small business owners, but honestly most of the business owners I’ve talked with in Oakland are much like the Berkeley business owners i mentioned at the beginning of this article. They are bummed about the broken windows but still have a lot of sympathy for the cause.
In terms of the recent Berkeley protests, many people feel that this whole thing with Milo whatshisfuck was set up by the Breitbart gang in order to provoke destruction to make the left look bad.
So what if it was? The argument I’m hearing is that we shouldn’t be destructive during protests because THAT’S WHAT THE ALT-RIGHT WANTS!
What’s the alternative?? We have a nice peaceful protest and…..the alt-right treats us fairly?? Where have progressives been?? The Right lies about the Left constantly no matter what we do! They just got a guy elected based on a bunch of batshit insane lies about Hillary Clinton! They convinced a large part of America that Obama was a Muslim from Kenya! They don’t use real world examples for anything.
Why do people want to placate them? You can’t anyway. “If we just sit here quietly and show we can behave they will respect us.” NO. NO THEY WON’T. This isn’t how fascists work. They aren’t going to be good to us because their main goal is to oppress us.
I’ve also heard this helps the mainstream media make the left look bad. People in Ohio who see us via the mainstream media ALREADY don’t think we have a right to be protesting the things that we do. “They’re protesting against free speech.” They aren’t going to be MORE on our side because we just stood there and chanted. We have to change their minds about white supremacy before they will ever be on our side no matter how we act.
I mean, do you think the media coverage of the school integration during the civil rights era was the reason everyone didn’t jump on board with the movement? NO. They were still too racist to believe in integration.
Or, as Martin Luther King Jr. said “I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice.” Fascists are evil because they’re evil. They will seek to oppress with or without “ammunition” based on our behavior.
It reminds me of the early days in the gay rights movement when people would say “those shirtless guys dancing on floats in the pride parade make gay people look bad to the straight world.” No! Those people didn’t like gay people because they’re homophobic, not because we didn’t subdue our homosexuality enough.
Meanwhile, as white people are sitting around debating if there is anything we can do to get mainstream America and the alt-right to stop talking shit about our movement, people of color CAN’T debate this as they are being called rapists by the US president, being deported for no reason, and being shot by the police. Oh, to have the luxury of this debate.
Honestly instead of condemning those anarchists at the UC Berkeley protest we should be thanking them. Their organized destructive opposition ensured that the university won’t ever book a white supremacist misogynist liar ever again. They made the environment safer for the diverse student body. And an opportunity comes up again the university will say “oh, last time it cost us $10000. no way.” Plus they made that revolting prick run away and hide. That’s how it should be! We need to make those white supremacists afraid of us.