Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 22:16:17 -0800
From: Joshua Houk <jlhouk-AT-uswest.net>
Subject: 12/16 Seattle Weekly Letters Section


>From the Letters section of this week's Seattle Weekly:

http://www.seattleweekly.com/features/9950/letters-readers.shtml


DEAR GEOV

Your views are well publicized and well respected by both liberals and
the radical left in this city. Deciding that you don't want the fucking
Eugene Anarchists and their cohorts in your fucking revolution
("Anarchists, go home!" 12/9) places you, in your mind, as aware of not
only your political zeal, but your position of political power and dare
I say: superiority. As an anarchist of 25 years, that is a sorry
position for you to take. 

Having organized with anarchists on the daily level in Seattle before
this conference, I was well aware that many anarchists attending DAN
meetings were never intending to rely only on civil disobedience to make
their academic point. They were organizing entirely on a consensus basis
in their meetings understanding that black blocs might be formed
autonomously. Clearly DAN was exercising a hierarchical approach to
their organizing by deciding this would be a nonviolent protest, relying
on a majority group to enforce this strategy rather than considering the
opinion of every participant. DAN's method of organizing--however
effective it indeed was and is--creates resentment among its
participants in the long run and is far more immature and naive than any
rage displayed by the Black Blocs. Consider where the rage of the Black
Bloc comes from. Rage comes from not being heard, from being shoved
under the rug, from being intimidated to lie. When a huge majority of
organizers are breathing down your neck telling you to be nonviolent
when they don't even differentiate between buildings and humans, you'd
lie too. Or do you always write what your editor tells you to? Of course
not. That's why your voice has become important in this city. 

You are simply sharpening the knife for the division of the left by
venting your frustration atop such a powerful soap box which is
"Impolitiques." Vent in a bar. 

A social revolution cannot be exclusionary to any degree. Trying to
restrict the many personalities involved in a protest of this scale to
merely one type of expression simply to align ourselves with the status
quo interpretation of an "intelligent statement" is myopic. The
corporate media will always twist its lense. Why be mad at the
protesters? Why defend Nike for any reason? The Downtown Business
Association is doing a fine job of that already. And of course the
insurance companies will pay for the damage, that's the point, it's
simply a gesture. Property destruction creates a direct consumer
response that might take several generations to fully absorb, but it
bypasses politics and bureaucracy which civil disobedience mainly
increases. Both statements can be effective against capitalism. Let's
start working together with more complexity and less xenophobia. 

Anonymous 
Via E-mail 


WHOSE REVOLUTION IS IT, ANYWAY?

I was amazed at the arrogance of Geov Parrish's "Anarchists, go home!"
piece (12/9). Who said the revolution was yours anyway? Who said you or
any group owned the protests against the WTO on November 30th? Your
sensational name-calling ("vandals," "thugs," "parasites," "punks") and
your final "fuck you" did more to serve the interests of corporations
and the state than did the destruction of corporate property during the
protests (as you assert). If your ideas are so closely mirroring those
presented by corporate media, perhaps you should do some deeper
analysis. Corporations could not have written a better piece to prevent
future destruction of their property and work to create divisions among
those of us in the struggle for a just world. 

Destruction of corporate property is not violence: Violence harms
people. The only violence that I know of that occurred on November 30th
was by the police/military and by the "nonviolent" protesters assaulting
people who were breaking the windows of the Bank of America, the Gap,
and NikeTown. Holding a banner up to protect NikeTown is pacifism in its
most absurd and co-opted form. It is not the stuff of heroes. 

There are valid reasons why property destruction is not an effective
means of building a movement for social change. However, it was the
combined efforts and tactics of everyone who took part in the resistance
that led to the globalization of the message that the WTO hurts working
people and the planet. If anything, it was the corporate core of
downtown Seattle left in shambles that catapulted the message of the
protests onto headlines across the world. Corporate media could not turn
its ugly head. 

Whereas we as members of the left need to critically analyze the actions
that took place on November 30th, the Weekly is not the place. It is not
a place where dialogue among those of us involved in efforts for
progressive and radical social change takes place. As with your recent
slam of the tactics of supporters of Mumia Abu-Jamal, you seem more and
more to use your column to chastise the tactics of the left. Most of
your readers are looking for reinforcement of the right-wing assertions
of the strategies and ideas of the left. You are providing them with
exactly that. In this instance, you jumped on the bandwagon of corporate
media with your tirade against the "Eugene anarchists." Clearly everyone
involved in the destruction of corporate property was not from Eugene,
nor were they all anarchists. 

Perhaps you might have better served "your" revolution by actually
sharing your vision of anarchy and the actions of anarchists during the
WTO ministerial that furthered your cause. When chaos is still used
synonymously with anarchy by corporate media, we as anarchists have work
to do. The word "mutual aid" has very little meaning to most people. It
is the language of the left, not of the readers of the Weekly.
Threatening to spit in someone's face (a true act of degrading violence)
is not a step forward in the struggle for democracy--is that what
democracy looks like to you? 

Scott Winn
Seattle


FOUL LANGUAGE, GRAPHIC NUDITY

I greatly appreciate Geov Parrish's long-term commitment to justice and
trying to wake Seattle from its latte-induced sleep in response to the
evils of the global economy. Having said that, however, I think his
foul-mouthed diatribe aimed at the anarchists was misplaced
("Anarchists, go home!" 12/9). 

One of the great chants of the WTO week was "THIS is what democracy
looks like!" Indeed. And sorry to say, Geov, democracy comes complete
with anarchists, both nonviolent and violent. While I am personally
committed to nonviolence from both a tactical and religious foundation,
I recognize that it was a pair of more dangerous types than those we saw
in Seattle who were crucified at the right and left sides of Jesus.
Somehow, our challenge is to recognize even those whose tactics we
deplore as our brothers and sisters.

Geov seems concerned that the anarchistic violence ruined the media
coverage. Come on, Geov, you know better. The corporate media were not
going to put a pretty face on the protests no matter what, even if they
(or Schell's police) had to invent the violence themselves. The truth
will be told and retold on the streets, in living rooms, and on the
Internet.

Finally, let's not be distracted by the predictable infighting among
"revolutionaries" that inevitably spoils most coalitions. Let's keep our
eyes on the ball where it belongs: the Schell-Locke-Clinton troika that
has been graphically shown to wear no clothes. It's corporate
liberalism, not anarchy, which needs the power of Geov's invective. 

Wes Howard-Brook
Seattle

*****

I didn't reprint the sole letter in favor of Geov's editorial because it
was about as rational as Geov's editorial. Sorry.

joshua h