In a recent debate at diablog over respecting soldiers here and here, Glynsky accused me of being an "arm chair general". So, for Glynsky's benefit and yours, let me explain.
I have the utmost respect for the Occupy Wall Street protesters. Because they are peaceful and non-violent. Let me emphasize this:
The protests are peaceful and non-violent.
If I participated, I would not be able to remain peaceful.
I was a violent teenager. Because, Smiles, that's what you become from birching. Violent parents produce violent kids.
My self-control isn't sufficient.
If I see something like this from Berkeley :
I was a violent teenager. Because, Smiles, that's what you become from birching. Violent parents produce violent kids.
My self-control isn't sufficient.
If I see something like this from Berkeley :
where a policeman pepper sprays a protester into her open mouth.
Or this 84 year old protester after being pepper sprayed in Oakland:
Or this 84 year old protester after being pepper sprayed in Oakland:
I could not stay calm.
If this happened next to me, I would get into a fight with those cops. I am very likely to give those cops a bit of their own medicine.
I cannot stand bullies. And bullying is what the police is doing. They are beating and pepper spraying peaceful protesters, who are exercising their constitutional rights.
I am incapable of protesting like those students in California, being pepper sprayed:
It is easy to be violent. It is tough to be peaceful.
Could you take this and remain calm?
As part of our civilization, we as citizens refrain from physical violence. The government has the exclusive right to use force.
In what is by now evidently a concerted campaign, police all over the country is going after protesters. They came at night, like thugs, so the media cannot film them. They come in riot gear, ready to brutally violate peaceful people.
In the face of politicians and police abusing the exclusive right to use force, I would become violent.
And through this I would compromise the protests.
So, yes, Glynsky, I am not going down to Wall Street. For the benefit of the protesters. And I am supporting them through other means.
Stay engaged,
Engine Room
1 comment:
I find this very interesting.
First, I (to pursue the thread of the post) respect the right of anyone to protest - preferrably as unthreateningly (deliberate choice of word) as possible - and have not meant to accuse you of being an 'armchair general' in this particular matter, mainly as, despite all else, we all have a life to lead and more importantly, fulfil our potential.
This however leads to a number of paradoxes:
1. When did 'peaceful' protest ever get anyone anywhere? It draws attention to a problem but does not have a guaranteed or even implied outcome, this usually only comes from 'violence' - vide Egypt/Syria - and that I honestly think is going nowhere. A new regime will just carry on with the old
2. I cannot comment on the American protesters as I know little of what they say, want or do - but of those in London I know a little more. That is that they want what to most of their British co residents is a rather woolly (as in not well defined) 'egalitarian' (in their eyes only) social order - and only on their terms. Assuming this is not acceptable to all, where is the room for a typically British compromise?
3. The St. Paul's 'group' have been asked very nicely on 3 occasions by the church (not the state) to leave as their point has been made and noted but it is now time for the cathedral to continue with what it regards as 'normal life'. The answer, to date, is to ignore the requests - what is egalitarian here and to whom? I shan't indulge in all the reasons given for asking them to move away as they range from the obvious to the rather parlous - the point I would like to make is 'when is enough, enough'? After a week, month, year, century? And who or what is going to mediate on 'whether enough change has been done'? There is no answer - which then questions the question in the first place.
Ask 20 people the same question and you get 30 answers - that doesn't make necessarily any of them right as it could be the 31st.
4. Is this not just a parallel with 'green' thinking? At first it was regarded as crackpot (and much of it still is) but it organised itself into a 'political pressure group' which then began to form a party and which, in any democracy, can argue its case to an electorate. Sitting on the pavement does not do this and goes nowhere.
5. As to the police behaviour I am in a quandary - as must be the individual policemen themselves. If my job were to have to remove a large crowd who patently do not want to move and are making my job really difficult (maybe cussing and swearing, maybe more) I ask myself the difficult question as to what would I do? I should like to think that pepper spray, truncheons or whatever are not necessary, but......
It is easy to set out to pick cases of individual violence - and who picks them out and shouts about them, do they have their own axe to grind here? - which should be deplored, reviled and acted against, but anyone pushed too far will react - ER's own admission. Again, no answer - but the police are in a no win area.
All this should be in a post of its own, but I cannot find on any side a balanced request with reasonable response or an obvious outcome. Some of the ideas are good, some should be adopted as soon as possible, but this anarchic mess asks lots, answers nothing and will, unless it sorts itself out, be consigned eventually to the 'wellmeaning but pointless' memory of Aldermaston marches.
Post a Comment