Critical Mass is too much violence now

May 01, 2005

activism and violence

This afternoon, an activist friend of mine who has been very involved in
Critical Mass approached me concerning my stance. Unfortunately, due to the
context of our interaction, the conversation escalated unnecessarily and i
found myself unable to articulate my feelings. So instead, i brought them
home to chew on.
Her key points are all exceptionally valid and i agree with her
wholeheartedly:

1) Critical Mass is an "open source" activity where you cannot have a
central organization with rules.
2) Many people have had their eyes opened by Critical Mass to the issues of
bicycles in cities, probably more than have been negatively impacted.
3) Cars exercise violence on bicycles every day - running them off the road,
not looking when opening doors; car culture also exercises power through the
law and norms.

The combination of her points helped me clarify where i stand on activism in
general these days and why the situation on Friday still upsets me.

I am definitely one of those people who had my eyes opened by Critical Mass'
activities - i learned a lot more about biking laws, situations through 2nd
hand accounts of their activities. Having lived in Amsterdam, i'm
perpetually horrified by the car power that goes on in this country and i'm
very much supportive of non-hierarchical structures of change.

All that said, i can never ever support violence. At the core of my body, i
cannot accept violence because violence has been committed against you. I
will never forget being 13 and deciding to not punch back as one of my
classmates threw punches at me. Nothing would be gained by returning the
blows - only increased hostility, a deepening of sides and an increase in
intolerance. I cannot support activism that permits violence as one if its
tenants. I was so disgusted by some of my classmates who felt as though they
became activists when they brawled with the police; at the last protest i
went to, i gave the police donuts and talked to them about the protest from
their perspective.

No matter how much i believe in revolution, no matter how much i want to see
changes made, i can't accept moving in that direction through deplorable
means. I also cannot support pack behavior on either side - what the crowd
does under and umbrella name is often terrifying. As much as there are
thousands of non-violent Critical Massers, the idea that the name and event
has a violent side to it is enough to alienate me. I can't stand behind
events that accepts violence as even a minority group or where that group
has the right to use the name to instigate their pack behavior. I think that
this is how folks who would believe in the cause of anti-WTO folks get
alienated by the violent protests.

As much as i appreciate my friends' point that i should not disrespect a
movement for the behaviors of some, i have a hard time actually feeling that
way. Those few aggressive voices go far which is why they need to be
actively squelched in a non-violent movement - the two cannot go hand in
hand.
How can we move forward activism that doesn't use violence? Am i a fool for
thinking that's possible and for not supporting groups that allow violence
to occur?
Category: politics

Posted by zephoria at May 1, 2005 10:32 PM | TrackBack

Comments

You seem to be equating agression with violence. Stopping cars? Yelling?
Tapping on a metal machine that weighs hundreds of times of that of a
person? Breaking windows even, are not, in my mind, violent. While it is
unfortunate that you and your fellow motorists got yelled at and surrounded
by bicyclists, I don't think you can make the case that the actions were
violent.

"How can we move forward activism that doesn't use violence? Am i a fool for
thinking that's possible and for not supporting groups that allow violence
to occur?"
That said, my answer to that question is yes. If you don't want to be
associated with violence you should stop paying taxes and living in a
society that is inherently violent. Until you're willing to do that, I think
it's stupid to draw the line at not supporting activists whose general
ideas, if not tactics, you agree with. It's idealistic and it won't get
anything accomplished. However, if you don't want to be associated with
Critical Mass because you don't like some of the people who go, and you're
unwilling to compromise on that. Don't let it stop you from engaging in your
own activism. There are other ways to support cyclists, and if you actually
care about this stuff, you should try to find some.

Your argument really bothers me though. Black politicians are held to a
higher standard than white ones because they have to be seen as above the
dirty political tactics that people have come to expect of politicians. But
the truth of the matter is that people, all people, will do things that you
might find disagreeable. Motorists are not all bad people. Some of them are
respectful of cyclists and other motorists, but some are not. The same can
be said of bicyclists. Why are you insisting on holding ALL bicyclists to a
higher standard that YOU get to dictate?

Posted by: Caitlin at May 3, 2005 02:24 PM
Would you not support the Warsaw ghetto uprising?
I think sometimes non-violence can lead to greater violence.

Posted by: jose at May 3, 2005 07:44 PM

I believe the very act of driving violence in and of itself. That said, I
consider violence natural and in some cases rather productive and positive.
I find the perspective and conclusions, or at least what I read the blogger
wrote about CM pretty naive and myopic along with many of the comments in
the first entry.
Posted by: Larry at May 3, 2005 10:39 PM

Thanks for bringing up this discussion in an openminded way. A few
responses:

No matter how much i believe in revolution, no matter how much i want to see
changes made, i can't accept moving in that direction through deplorable
means.
What is revolution? How do you know when it's happened? It's an easy word to
throw out there, a harder concept to define.

I also cannot support pack behavior on either side - what the crowd does
under and umbrella name is often terrifying.

Fair point. A lot of people go to demonstrations -- both as demonstrators
and as cops -- with the intention of kicking some ass from the anonymity of
the crowd. I think CM has done a good job of calming these people down from
our side. But here's what I hope: I hope you never ever get involved in a
vehicle traffic jam. Because that's a place where you get the most heinous
mob behaviors you'll ever find. In case you don't think it's a "movement"
(maybe because it moves so slowly), you should be aware that it is called
Car Critical Mass and it is organized on identical principles to bike
Critical Mass.

As much as there are thousands of non-violent Critical Massers, the idea
that the name and event has a violent side to it is enough to alienate me.
Cool. I know people who could use your American citizenship papers, so long
as you won't be using them anymore.

I can't stand behind events that accepts violence as even a minority group
or where that group has the right to use the name to instigate their pack
behavior.
Along with the traffic jams I mentioned earlier, you should also avoid
Giants games. And maybe UC Berkeley.

I think that this is how folks who would believe in the cause of anti-WTO
folks get alienated by the violent protests.

Actually, the folks who believe in the cause of the anti-WTO folks take part
in the protests and work to spread their peaceful message. I think it was
Sartre who said that existence precedes essence. Belief without action is --
well -- like this. In other words, belief without action is not belief at
all.

As much as i appreciate my friends' point that i should not disrespect a
movement for the behaviors of some, i have a hard time actually feeling that
way. Those few aggressive voices go far which is why they need to be
actively squelched in a non-violent movement - the two cannot go hand in
hand.

If you have any suggestions of how to go about restraining other people's
obnoxiousness without becoming violent yourself, perhaps you could share
those. I realize much of this note is pretty snarky, but I can tell you're
really struggling with this issue. I hope you recognize that those of us who
go to Mass have also struggled with it and have decided that the best tactic
is constructive engagement. If you don't go to Mass, and neither do the rest
of us who don't support violence, then Mass will be all-violent. Rather
like, say, Wyoming.

If you do come down and take part, I think you'll see a lot of us talking to
the more aggressive and obnoxious guys and trying to get their energy
refocused in more positive ways.

In response to the prior posters: you can define breaking a window however
you want, but if you're in a car when the window gets smashed, you're going
to call that violence. Violence isn't about the specific action, it's about
getting your way through the credible threat of harm -- physical or
otherwise. That means the new bankruptcy law, in that it forces debtors to
pay off loans under threat of starvation and homelessness. Pulling a gun is
violent, even if you don't fire. Breaking windows, if done in order to
affect someone's behavior (and not just an idle prank or an accident), is
violent.

Posted by: zephoria at May 4, 2005 12:38 AM

This is exactly why I had to stop going to the big demos. Busting ass trying
to do street medic work and being just as fearful/unnerved about what the
black bloc was doing as what the police were doing? No thanks. I heard a lot
of feedback on that decision along the lines of Caitlin's response above --
that I'm supposed to accept/tolerate whatever tactics anyone feels like
using as long as we (supposedly) share the same ideals.

Say what?!?

Again, no thanks. I don't believe the end justifies the means -- that's such
a western, reductionist view to imagine that the moment of
arriving/achieving is always more important than all the time and process it
took you to get there. The means are everything. I want the revolution, too,
but I can't subscribe to all these revolutions that promise a glorious and
peaceful future after we get through the "necessary" period of
violence/disrespect/deception. My soul isn't in it and then, what's the
point?
Anyway, I share your idealism. And yes, idealism is equated with naivety,
foolishness -- why? Because people don't believe in
themselves/others/humanity enough to believe we can really break out of the
cycle/habit/pathology of "peace through violence"? Because it's cooler to be
jaded? Because destruction/venting/violence is easier, more obvious and
appears quicker than the slow and quiet work required to build something
radically new? All of the above, likely.

Posted by: barb dybwad at May 4, 2005 09:42 AM

I share your frustration at activist groups who use objectionable means to
work toward ends in which I believe. The justifications for bikers (and I am
one myself) fighting for their rights include the fact that they cause less
damage to the environment and other people than cars do. When activists
behave in violent ways to achieve their goals (and yes, breaking windows is
definitely a violent act), they are actually causing damage, which is
counterproductive to their underlying objective and justification. I'm
always very suspicious of arguments that start with the premise that the
ends justify the means. Violent acts in the name of a good cause have the
unintended consequence of bringing more violence into the world.

Posted by: Laurel at May 6, 2005 10:38 AM

What's frustrating to me is not just the OFFENSIVENESS of the behavior of
many protesters, but the sheer IDIOCY of the tactics of so many protesters
nowadays.
Protests can actually be understated, non-violent, and completely effective,
but too often I see protests that are "in-your-face," and littered with
obnoxious and sophomoric chants, rudeness to police and local shops, and so
on. Anger does not equal persuasiveness; rather, misdirected anger too often
turns the public against one's cause. Breaking windows, kicking drivers,
spitting in their faces, smashing headlights, is all no good.

The turning point for me was when I went to an anti-rape March a few years
back and -- as a white male -- was literally treated as the enemy... snapped
at by women to "get in back!... this isn't about you!"

Yeah, I'm just an evil white male oppressor who has had close friends raped.

I went home. I've been to few protests since, and at this point, I'll do my
civic duty peacefully and productively by writing and calling my
representatives, writing letters to the editor, and -- gasp -- actually
working WITH my neighbors and co-workers and friends amiably to get things
done.

There are simply too many protesters who care more about "sticking it to the
man" and venting steam than they do about sustainable and effective societal
change. Maybe it's only 10%, but that's enough to sour me on the entire
thing.

"Jan Mobely" wrote in message
...
May 01, 2005

activism and violence

This afternoon, an activist friend of mine who has been very involved in
Critical Mass approached me concerning my stance. Unfortunately, due to
the
context of our interaction, the conversation escalated unnecessarily and i
found myself unable to articulate my feelings. So instead, i brought them
home to chew on.
Her key points are all exceptionally valid and i agree with her
wholeheartedly:

1) Critical Mass is an "open source" activity where you cannot have a
central organization with rules.
2) Many people have had their eyes opened by Critical Mass to the issues
of
bicycles in cities, probably more than have been negatively impacted.
3) Cars exercise violence on bicycles every day - running them off the
road,
not looking when opening doors; car culture also exercises power through
the
law and norms.

The combination of her points helped me clarify where i stand on activism
in
general these days and why the situation on Friday still upsets me.

I am definitely one of those people who had my eyes opened by Critical
Mass'
activities - i learned a lot more about biking laws, situations through
2nd
hand accounts of their activities. Having lived in Amsterdam, i'm
perpetually horrified by the car power that goes on in this country and
i'm
very much supportive of non-hierarchical structures of change.

All that said, i can never ever support violence. At the core of my body,
i
cannot accept violence because violence has been committed against you. I
will never forget being 13 and deciding to not punch back as one of my
classmates threw punches at me. Nothing would be gained by returning the
blows - only increased hostility, a deepening of sides and an increase in
intolerance. I cannot support activism that permits violence as one if its
tenants. I was so disgusted by some of my classmates who felt as though
they
became activists when they brawled with the police; at the last protest i
went to, i gave the police donuts and talked to them about the protest
from
their perspective.

No matter how much i believe in revolution, no matter how much i want to
see
changes made, i can't accept moving in that direction through deplorable
means. I also cannot support pack behavior on either side - what the crowd
does under and umbrella name is often terrifying. As much as there are
thousands of non-violent Critical Massers, the idea that the name and
event
has a violent side to it is enough to alienate me. I can't stand behind
events that accepts violence as even a minority group or where that group
has the right to use the name to instigate their pack behavior. I think
that
this is how folks who would believe in the cause of anti-WTO folks get
alienated by the violent protests.

As much as i appreciate my friends' point that i should not disrespect a
movement for the behaviors of some, i have a hard time actually feeling
that
way. Those few aggressive voices go far which is why they need to be
actively squelched in a non-violent movement - the two cannot go hand in
hand.
How can we move forward activism that doesn't use violence? Am i a fool
for
thinking that's possible and for not supporting groups that allow violence
to occur?
Category: politics

Posted by zephoria at May 1, 2005 10:32 PM | TrackBack

Comments

You seem to be equating agression with violence. Stopping cars? Yelling?
Tapping on a metal machine that weighs hundreds of times of that of a
person? Breaking windows even, are not, in my mind, violent. While it is
unfortunate that you and your fellow motorists got yelled at and
surrounded
by bicyclists, I don't think you can make the case that the actions were
violent.

"How can we move forward activism that doesn't use violence? Am i a fool
for
thinking that's possible and for not supporting groups that allow violence
to occur?"
That said, my answer to that question is yes. If you don't want to be
associated with violence you should stop paying taxes and living in a
society that is inherently violent. Until you're willing to do that, I
think
it's stupid to draw the line at not supporting activists whose general
ideas, if not tactics, you agree with. It's idealistic and it won't get
anything accomplished. However, if you don't want to be associated with
Critical Mass because you don't like some of the people who go, and you're
unwilling to compromise on that. Don't let it stop you from engaging in
your
own activism. There are other ways to support cyclists, and if you
actually
care about this stuff, you should try to find some.

Your argument really bothers me though. Black politicians are held to a
higher standard than white ones because they have to be seen as above the
dirty political tactics that people have come to expect of politicians.
But
the truth of the matter is that people, all people, will do things that
you
might find disagreeable. Motorists are not all bad people. Some of them
are
respectful of cyclists and other motorists, but some are not. The same can
be said of bicyclists. Why are you insisting on holding ALL bicyclists to
a
higher standard that YOU get to dictate?

Posted by: Caitlin at May 3, 2005 02:24 PM
Would you not support the Warsaw ghetto uprising?
I think sometimes non-violence can lead to greater violence.

Posted by: jose at May 3, 2005 07:44 PM

I believe the very act of driving violence in and of itself. That said, I
consider violence natural and in some cases rather productive and
positive.
I find the perspective and conclusions, or at least what I read the
blogger
wrote about CM pretty naive and myopic along with many of the comments in
the first entry.
Posted by: Larry at May 3, 2005 10:39 PM

Thanks for bringing up this discussion in an openminded way. A few
responses:

No matter how much i believe in revolution, no matter how much i want to
see
changes made, i can't accept moving in that direction through deplorable
means.
What is revolution? How do you know when it's happened? It's an easy word
to
throw out there, a harder concept to define.

I also cannot support pack behavior on either side - what the crowd does
under and umbrella name is often terrifying.

Fair point. A lot of people go to demonstrations -- both as demonstrators
and as cops -- with the intention of kicking some ass from the anonymity
of
the crowd. I think CM has done a good job of calming these people down
from
our side. But here's what I hope: I hope you never ever get involved in a
vehicle traffic jam. Because that's a place where you get the most heinous
mob behaviors you'll ever find. In case you don't think it's a "movement"
(maybe because it moves so slowly), you should be aware that it is called
Car Critical Mass and it is organized on identical principles to bike
Critical Mass.

As much as there are thousands of non-violent Critical Massers, the idea
that the name and event has a violent side to it is enough to alienate me.
Cool. I know people who could use your American citizenship papers, so
long
as you won't be using them anymore.

I can't stand behind events that accepts violence as even a minority group
or where that group has the right to use the name to instigate their pack
behavior.
Along with the traffic jams I mentioned earlier, you should also avoid
Giants games. And maybe UC Berkeley.

I think that this is how folks who would believe in the cause of anti-WTO
folks get alienated by the violent protests.

Actually, the folks who believe in the cause of the anti-WTO folks take
part
in the protests and work to spread their peaceful message. I think it was
Sartre who said that existence precedes essence. Belief without action
is --
well -- like this. In other words, belief without action is not belief at
all.

As much as i appreciate my friends' point that i should not disrespect a
movement for the behaviors of some, i have a hard time actually feeling
that
way. Those few aggressive voices go far which is why they need to be
actively squelched in a non-violent movement - the two cannot go hand in
hand.

If you have any suggestions of how to go about restraining other people's
obnoxiousness without becoming violent yourself, perhaps you could share
those. I realize much of this note is pretty snarky, but I can tell you're
really struggling with this issue. I hope you recognize that those of us
who
go to Mass have also struggled with it and have decided that the best
tactic
is constructive engagement. If you don't go to Mass, and neither do the
rest
of us who don't support violence, then Mass will be all-violent. Rather
like, say, Wyoming.

If you do come down and take part, I think you'll see a lot of us talking
to
the more aggressive and obnoxious guys and trying to get their energy
refocused in more positive ways.

In response to the prior posters: you can define breaking a window however
you want, but if you're in a car when the window gets smashed, you're
going
to call that violence. Violence isn't about the specific action, it's
about
getting your way through the credible threat of harm -- physical or
otherwise. That means the new bankruptcy law, in that it forces debtors to
pay off loans under threat of starvation and homelessness. Pulling a gun
is
violent, even if you don't fire. Breaking windows, if done in order to
affect someone's behavior (and not just an idle prank or an accident), is
violent.

Posted by: zephoria at May 4, 2005 12:38 AM

This is exactly why I had to stop going to the big demos. Busting ass
trying
to do street medic work and being just as fearful/unnerved about what the
black bloc was doing as what the police were doing? No thanks. I heard a
lot
of feedback on that decision along the lines of Caitlin's response
above --
that I'm supposed to accept/tolerate whatever tactics anyone feels like
using as long as we (supposedly) share the same ideals.

Say what?!?

Again, no thanks. I don't believe the end justifies the means -- that's
such
a western, reductionist view to imagine that the moment of
arriving/achieving is always more important than all the time and process
it
took you to get there. The means are everything. I want the revolution,
too,
but I can't subscribe to all these revolutions that promise a glorious and
peaceful future after we get through the "necessary" period of
violence/disrespect/deception. My soul isn't in it and then, what's the
point?
Anyway, I share your idealism. And yes, idealism is equated with naivety,
foolishness -- why? Because people don't believe in
themselves/others/humanity enough to believe we can really break out of
the
cycle/habit/pathology of "peace through violence"? Because it's cooler to
be
jaded? Because destruction/venting/violence is easier, more obvious and
appears quicker than the slow and quiet work required to build something
radically new? All of the above, likely.

Posted by: barb dybwad at May 4, 2005 09:42 AM

I share your frustration at activist groups who use objectionable means to
work toward ends in which I believe. The justifications for bikers (and I
am
one myself) fighting for their rights include the fact that they cause
less
damage to the environment and other people than cars do. When activists
behave in violent ways to achieve their goals (and yes, breaking windows
is
definitely a violent act), they are actually causing damage, which is
counterproductive to their underlying objective and justification. I'm
always very suspicious of arguments that start with the premise that the
ends justify the means. Violent acts in the name of a good cause have the
unintended consequence of bringing more violence into the world.

Posted by: Laurel at May 6, 2005 10:38 AM

What's frustrating to me is not just the OFFENSIVENESS of the behavior of
many protesters, but the sheer IDIOCY of the tactics of so many protesters
nowadays.
Protests can actually be understated, non-violent, and completely
effective,
but too often I see protests that are "in-your-face," and littered with
obnoxious and sophomoric chants, rudeness to police and local shops, and
so
on. Anger does not equal persuasiveness; rather, misdirected anger too
often
turns the public against one's cause. Breaking windows, kicking drivers,
spitting in their faces, smashing headlights, is all no good.

The turning point for me was when I went to an anti-rape March a few years
back and -- as a white male -- was literally treated as the enemy...
snapped
at by women to "get in back!... this isn't about you!"

Yeah, I'm just an evil white male oppressor who has had close friends
raped.

I went home. I've been to few protests since, and at this point, I'll do
my
civic duty peacefully and productively by writing and calling my
representatives, writing letters to the editor, and -- gasp -- actually
working WITH my neighbors and co-workers and friends amiably to get things
done.

There are simply too many protesters who care more about "sticking it to
the
man" and venting steam than they do about sustainable and effective
societal
change. Maybe it's only 10%, but that's enough to sour me on the entire
thing.



They were good back in the early 80's when there was a real cause, but they
just suck now, only looking for trouble and causing it.