World Bank Protesters

[BlueStar]

Barely 8:30am and already 65 arrests, smoke bombs, suspicious packages, street closings, etc. Today is not the day to wander around DC.

------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

[BlueStar]

This shit is so crazy! I've never lived here before when this stuff was going on.

------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

[Elvis The Fat Years]

go down there and try to get some head.

[O'Doyle Rules]

have they ever protested in a civilized manner. no intelligent person would associate themselves with a bunch of heathens.

------------------
"When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so that its professors are obliged to call for help of the civil power, 'tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one." -- Benjamin Franklin

[Samsa]

http://www.abolishthebank.org/en/index.html

http://www.netphoria.org/wwwboard/rolleyes.gif

[lawson]

the world bank is such shit. i really dont feel like talking about it anymore than that right now

[Samsa]

and setting fires to cars and chaining yourself to shit really solves shit. they keep trying to pull the gandhi/mlk jr shit when they don't fucking realize that the word 'civil' plays a major part in 'civil disobedience' i don't fucking know. i just think if you don't approve of something there are more productive ways of changing it than antagonizing the general public.

[DeviousJ]

Originally posted by Samsa:
and setting fires to cars and chaining yourself to shit really solves shit. they keep trying to pull the gandhi/mlk jr shit when they don't fucking realize that the word 'civil' plays a major part in 'civil disobedience' i don't fucking know. i just think if you don't approve of something there are more productive ways of changing it than antagonizing the general public.

Being 'civil' has nothing to do with civil disobedience. That's like saying everyone has to be nice to each other in a civil war. I don't agree with the people who decide protesting is a good excuse to cause as much damage as possible, but thankfully they're usually in the minority. The main point is they have to make themselves visible - and if that involves disruption, then so be it. The right to protest is pretty fundamental to democracy

[Samsa]

well of course the concept of 'civil disobedience' is literally not obeying the law, but i think over generations it's sort of become obvious that the 'correct' means of civil disobedience is simple nonviolent protest. and if you go to their website you'll see what i'm talking about. they some shit about police brutality against hundreds of people who were doing nothing illegal. they're basically trying to imitate mlk or whatever, and they don't fucking realize that the whole point of mlk is that you don't fucking set fire to buildings, you sit in them and ask to be served. or some shit. nevermind. they're just bullshitting and claiming oppression when they're really just being idiots. they're not fucking oppressed. they themselves are not being oppressed by the world bank or capitalism, so it's stupid to pull the civil disobedience trick. what they should really do is start writing letters or making speeches or some shit. if they really wanna change something.

[opel]

a classic example of the media's presentation of protests here (and most other places, for that matter)

the fact remains that the vast majority of those protesting do so in a peaceful manner, and many times the police instigate some of the violence; this protest in particular seemed to be a semi-exception

not only is destroying property and injuring people morally wrong, but tactically wrong too; but this is all pretty much arbitrary talk; why can't the message be what everyone argues about, instead of the tactics?

however, it's very understandable that some would resort to violence; if you just can't get yourself heard (for countless reasons; i mean, if people like daschle and ed kennedy are considered "left-wing", then there's obviously a huge amount of the population not being represented in the media, govt, etc.), other means then become legitimate in some people's minds

kinda funny, though, how we can paste babies thousands of miles away with jellied gasoline until they can't scream, be held unaccountable and even applauded by most, and then condemn protesters for "violence;" god bless democracy...

[sawdust restaurants]

Originally posted by Samsa:
and they don't fucking realize that the whole point of mlk is that you don't fucking set fire to buildings, you sit in them and ask to be served. or some shit.

I agree with what you said, but it's interesting to note that even King himself, towards the end of his life, became disheartened and called for "militant" non-violence. People get frustrated with traditional means, because they usually don't work.

Then again, neither do violent means.

I know I just concluded that nothing works, but I think that's true. Oh well.

[DeviousJ]

Originally posted by Samsa:
well of course the concept of 'civil disobedience' is literally not obeying the law, but i think over generations it's sort of become obvious that the 'correct' means of civil disobedience is simple nonviolent protest. and if you go to their website you'll see what i'm talking about. they some shit about police brutality against hundreds of people who were doing nothing illegal. they're basically trying to imitate mlk or whatever, and they don't fucking realize that the whole point of mlk is that you don't fucking set fire to buildings, you sit in them and ask to be served. or some shit. nevermind. they're just bullshitting and claiming oppression when they're really just being idiots. they're not fucking oppressed. they themselves are not being oppressed by the world bank or capitalism, so it's stupid to pull the civil disobedience trick. what they should really do is start writing letters or making speeches or some shit. if they really wanna change something.

Suze, you seem to misunderstand. The whole point of these organized protests, is to draw attention to a cause. This is done through rallies, marches, sit-ins etc. Once you have people's attention in this way, then you can present speeches, and get your point across. MOST protestors are non-violent, and there are often cases of the police being very heavy-handed with them. People get hit with batons, gassed, and even shot with rubber bullets sometimes. Sometimes it's in response to trouble, but there are also times when innocent groups are attacked. And I don't think any of them are 'trying to be mlk' - and they don't think they're personally being oppressed either. They're drawing attention to the huge national debts facing other countries - some people are able to consider the plight of others, you know.

[sleeper]

Originally posted by opel:
a classic example of the media's presentation of protests here (and most other places, for that matter)

the fact remains that the vast majority of those protesting do so in a peaceful manner, and many times the police instigate some of the violence; this protest in particular seemed to be a semi-exception

not only is destroying property and injuring people morally wrong, but tactically wrong too; but this is all pretty much arbitrary talk; why can't the message be what everyone argues about, instead of the tactics?

however, it's very understandable that some would resort to violence; if you just can't get yourself heard (for countless reasons; i mean, if people like daschle and ed kennedy are considered "left-wing", then there's obviously a huge amount of the population not being represented in the media, govt, etc.), other means then become legitimate in some people's minds

kinda funny, though, how we can paste babies thousands of miles away with jellied gasoline until they can't scream, be held unaccountable and even applauded by most, and then condemn protesters for "violence;" god bless democracy...

amen, bother

Originally posted by opel:
a classic example of the media's presentation of protests here (and most other places, for that matter)

the fact remains that the vast majority of those protesting do so in a peaceful manner, and many times the police instigate some of the violence; this protest in particular seemed to be a semi-exception

not only is destroying property and injuring people morally wrong, but tactically wrong too; but this is all pretty much arbitrary talk; why can't the message be what everyone argues about, instead of the tactics?

however, it's very understandable that some would resort to violence; if you just can't get yourself heard (for countless reasons; i mean, if people like daschle and ed kennedy are considered "left-wing", then there's obviously a huge amount of the population not being represented in the media, govt, etc.), other means then become legitimate in some people's minds

kinda funny, though, how we can paste babies thousands of miles away with jellied gasoline until they can't scream, be held unaccountable and even applauded by most, and then condemn protesters for "violence;" god bless democracy...

This is a great point. As I recall, civil rights crusaders as well as the anti-war protestors in the 60s were always portrayed in the same manner. Mass protests get violent, but most of the people there have a goddamn point.

------------------
Sometimes I think I'd be better off dead. No, wait, not me, you.

[Undone]

Opel rocks my world.

[Samsa]

Originally posted by DeviousJ:
Suze, you seem to misunderstand. The whole point of these organized protests, is to draw attention to a cause. This is done through rallies, marches, sit-ins etc. Once you have people's attention in this way, then you can present speeches, and get your point across. MOST protestors are non-violent, and there are often cases of the police being very heavy-handed with them. People get hit with batons, gassed, and even shot with rubber bullets sometimes. Sometimes it's in response to trouble, but there are also times when innocent groups are attacked. And I don't think any of them are 'trying to be mlk' - and they don't think they're personally being oppressed either. They're drawing attention to the huge national debts facing other countries - some people are able to consider the plight of others, you know.

did you go to their website? it reeks of 'how horrible of the police to oppress us even though we were being perfectly lawful'

and i understand they're doing this to draw attention to their cause. however they don't seem to understand that they're not drawing favourable attention. they're making people go 'what stupid immature idiots' not 'jee maybe the world bank is bad'. there are better ways to fix things and this isn't it.

[Samsa]

Originally posted by Mr. Rhinoceros:
This is a great point. As I recall, civil rights crusaders as well as the anti-war protestors in the 60s were always portrayed in the same manner. Mass protests get violent, but most of the people there have a goddamn point.

there's some semi-famous life magazine cover photo dealing with the columbia protests, like how students would like camp out in front of buildings and people couldn't get to class or something? and in this photo some angry student who wants to get into his dorm is punching some protestor. and my dad is in the **********

[DeviousJ]

Originally posted by Samsa:
did you go to their website? it reeks of 'how horrible of the police to oppress us even though we were being perfectly lawful'

and i understand they're doing this to draw attention to their cause. however they don't seem to understand that they're not drawing favourable attention. they're making people go 'what stupid immature idiots' not 'jee maybe the world bank is bad'. there are better ways to fix things and this isn't it.

The worst thing I saw on that site was the 'Is there a possibility of violence?' where they stated that if there was any, it would be the fault of the police, neglecting to mention that some people would go along specifically to cause trouble. The problem is, when you start to account for these problems by blaming *everyone*, then you're obviously not going to recognize any merit in what people are trying to do at these rallies. This is exactly why opponents of these movements are quick to brand them as troublecausers and violent criminals - it takes focus away from the actual message, and devalues the efforts of those who are actually trying to achieve something positive

[O'Doyle Rules]

gandhi was a brilliant man, wasn't he?

[This message has been edited by O'Doyle Rules (edited 09-29-2002).]

[Undone]

Oh. Yeah I agree with Suze too.

[jared]

next year im going to get about 50 people with me to protest the protestors HEYHEY HOHO THIS HIPPIE SHIT HAS GOT TO GO and throw buckets full of glitter and freshly wet whitout on them

man the cops wont know WHO to arrest!

[Undone]

Originally posted by bittertrance:
man the cops wont know WHO to arrest!

That's what tear gas is for.

[mpp]

Originally posted by sawdust restaurants:
King

yeah what a great role model

i love to infuriate