Why OWS Needs to Denounce Violent Tactics on Display at Occupy Oakland

[SunsetDreams]

Why #OWS Needs to Denounce Violent Tactics on Display at Occupy Oakland
Occupy is not an armed conflict – it's a PR war. And images of violence undermine the movement.

The Occupy Movement, “the 99 percent,” has, ironically, been hijacked by a small minority within its ranks. I speak of a small percentage of Occupiers who are okay with property destruction. As we saw in Oakland over the weekend: They’re okay with breaking windows, trashing city buildings and throwing bottles at the police. In short: They are not nonviolent. They are willing to commit petty criminal acts masked as a political statement.

Here’s the key point: Occupy is not an armed conflict – it’s a PR war. Nonviolent struggle is a PR war. Gandhi had embedded journalists on his Salt March. He wasn’t a saint. That was a consciously cultivated media image. He used the press and its power to gain sympathy for his cause. What he didn’t do is say he was nonviolent “unless the cops are d*cks,” a sentiment voiced at Occupy. Nonviolent struggle has nothing to do with how the cops react. In actual nonviolent movements they welcome police overreaction because it helps the cause they’re fighting for.

(snip)

Violent tactics taint everyone involved evenly – consenting or not.

Property destruction is not only a bad PR move (it costs taxpayers and small business owners money) it’s not constitutionally protected Free Speech. It’s also not what democracy looks like. The First Amendment specifically states the right to peaceably assemble to redress grievances.

Moreover the destruction of property is exactly what Occupy is protesting against; it’s what the banks took from us. Occupy has pointed out the criminality of the banks and the seeming collusion with government to take wealth and property away from working people and give it to the wealthy. So protest property crimes, by committing crimes against property? It's nonsensical.

More here: http://www.alternet.org/occupywallst/153954/why_%23ows_needs_to_denounce_violent_tactics_on_display_at_occupy_oakland/#disqus_thread

Excellent Article!






Police officers stand near graffiti reading "stab a cop" outside Oakland City Hall on Sunday after an Occupy Oakland protest Saturday.

[Luminous Animal]

1. FYI, burning a flag is not violence. As for denouncing violence, OWS has over and over again.

Thank you for your concern.

[SunsetDreams]

3. Thank the author for her concern as well?

[Luminous Animal]

9. You are welcome to thank her on my behalf. I find her concern over a piece of cloth...

rather than for human beings life and liberty, a 1% pettiness. I find her ignorance of the PEACEFULNESS of 99.99% of those protesting willful ignorance.

[SunsetDreams]

10. It's not just about the flag, if you

read the article, you would know that.

[Luminous Animal]

13. I read it. It ignores the thousand who protested PEACEFULLY. It ignores the 100s arrested

for protesting PEACEFULLY, and pretends that OWS in every GA and in every protest planning and during every protest asserts ad nauseum does not emphasize that this is a PEACEFUL movement. The onus is on the .001% who choose to ignore one of the main messages of this movement to include the vast majority and articulate their plight. And the some odd % who choose to concentrate on that .001% are serving the interests of the 1%.

[October]

54. Yes. It PURPOSEFULLY ignores the thousands who are/were peaceful. /nt

[Joe the Revelator]

4. Stealing someone else's flag and burning it may not be violent...

...but it won't win you friends.

[Luminous Animal]

5. 10s of thousands have been attacked by the police. Hundreds beaten. Thousands arrested.

Apparently, the 1% has a lot more friends on this board over a piece of cloth.

[SunsetDreams]

8. "Apparently, the 1% has a lot more friends on this board over a piece of cloth."

If it was just a piece of cloth, why didn't they burn a towel?

I guess it doesn't make the same sort of statement. It's not just about the flag burning, it's the fact that it was property that was stolen! Burn your own flag, but don't steal one. Why the need to destroy property? If OWS stands for the 99%, like I know it does, then they should speak out against the destruction of property that cost the Oakland taxpayers money in order to fix the damages.

Just because people are speaking out against the actions of a few OWS Protesters, does not mean they represent the 1%, or that they are against OWS. That is laughable.

[Luminous Animal]

11. That the cloth is a symbol does not negate that it is a piece of cloth. That the hue & cry over this

piece of cloth over the past 3 days far out numbers the hue & cry over the very real brutality against human beings that was happening concurrently is telling. That people are not posting numerous protests about the fact that 400 of our fellow human beings were arrested for PEACEFULLY protesting reveals that the inconsequential actions of a few dozen are of more importance than the loss of liberty of hundreds.

[SunsetDreams]

14. OWS shouldn't be about either/or

You can still support OWS, and decry destruction of property at the same time. It wasn't just about the flag, it was about the graffiti, breaking into City hall, taking property, and destroying other property. Why the need to destroy property and cost the 99% money in tax dollars? Destruction of property is breaking the law, and is not inconsequential. I don't know why each person of the 400 was arrested, do you? I highly doubt they were ALL peacefully protesting.

[Luminous Animal]

17. They didn't break into City Hall. They walked in the door was unlocked. And where is the

concern for the millions upon millions spent on police actions against PEACEFUL protesters that surely cost the taxpayers 99.99% more than the City Hall vandalism.

Why the need to endanger PEACEFUL protesters life and liberty that cost the 99% money in tax payer dollars?

Thousands protested in Oakland. 400 PEACEFUL protesters were kettled. They were kettled and many of those up against the wall of the YMCA building a were so brutalized with police batons that people inside the YMCA witnessing that brutality opened up the doors to offer the protesters sanctuary.

Yes. Those 400 were peacefully protesting.


This focus on several dozen who burned a flag while downplaying the full force of the state with all it's weapon being brought to force against your fellow citizens is the focus of the 1%.

[SunsetDreams]

21. A crowbar was used on a fire escape door, they didn't just walk in

You keep focusing on just the flag, again this isn't just about the flag.

It isn't about what costs more, it's about costing the 99% any more money than they already pay. Why cost them any more? Why justify destruction of property? Those 400 were not ALL peacefully protesting...if they were ALL peacefully protesting, then no property would have been PURPOSEFULLY destroyed. You can keep saying they were ALL peacefully protesting if you want, but the evidence says otherwise.

[Luminous Animal]

28. No. A crowbar was not used on a fire escape door. Even Jean Quan couldn't present that evidence...

and first it was reported that protesters had used a crowbar on the front door. When it was clear from the video evidence that no such thing had happened, they changed their story to the fire escape door.

Nobody is justifying destruction of property. I will put it into perspective about all the hand wringing of what it costs the tax payers. The couple of thousand that it will cost the taxpayers to clean up City Hall is a drop on the bucket compared to the estimated 58 million that it has cost the city to suppress OWS Oakland thus far. 58 million that has been PURPOSELY spent to destroy a people's movement. And yes, those 400 people out of several 1000 were peacefully protesting. They were marching. The cops kettled them. They drove a few up against the wall of the YMCA and started beating them with their batons. Their brutality was so appalling to those who witnessed it from inside the YMCA, that those inside opened up the doors to offer the protesters sanctuary.

[LanternWaste]

47. Neither will sitting at a whites-only lunch counter in protest...

If that's the only qualifier you have for what is or is not acceptable civil disobedience...
"may not be violent but it won't win you friends..."


Neither will sitting at a whites-only lunch counter in protest. Very bad form and very unpopular to the mainstream also. Didn't win many friends. But I suppose being popular is more important than maintaining personal convictions for many people...

[October]

55. You don't know that.

I remember I thought it was awful when tea partiers wore purple band-aids on their faces making fun of John Kerry.

Hah. Was I ever naive.

[jwirr]

53. Not to you but it can influence many of the 99% who think it is. I am not one of those but I have

been trying to get OWS protesters to see that there are many in this country that do not see it that way.

[LetTimmySmoke]

2. I agree. This needs to stop.

[Luminous Animal]

6. Where is your concern for those who were trapped against the wall of the YMCA building

and beaten by the police. The people inside the building were horrified enough to open up the doors to give the PEACEFUL protesters sanctuary.

Spleens ruptured, teeth knocked out, women forced to pee in cups, people dragged around by their hair... meanwhile the cops guarding City Hall stood by and watched a couple of dozen people walk into City Hall (the door was unlocked), watched them vandalize City Hall, watched them burn a stolen flag and did nothing. Meanwhile, 400 PEACEFUL protesters were kettled and arrested.

[October]

57. Apparently these types of posters disappear or have no voice/opinion when OWS members are abused.

More concern over the stars and stripes -- and supposed worry over images.

Don't they know the PR/Media is bought and paid for -- and the lemmings who watch FOX will never be friends of the LEFT?

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

7. Burning the flag? Come on people, use your brains.

Who here believes that this act would help Occupy achieve their goals?
Think before you act, violence is not good for any movement.
Let me be clear here, I am very pro Occupy, it's probably our best last chance to bring about meaningful change not only for the US, but for the entire world as well.
But it sounds like a lot of folks are accustomed to fast food and want an instant fix for problems that took decades to reach this point.
To work, Occupy MUST REMAIN NONVOILENT.
The Occupy movement must win over the hearts and minds of a lot more people, including the police.
It can only do this by using brains instead of brawn and not burning flags.
OCCUPY EVERYWHERE !

[Luminous Animal]

12. Burning a flag is not violence. Arresting hundreds of peaceful protesters is brutality.

The police have NEVER given way to the interests of the 99%. They are now, as they have always been, the enemies of the 99%.

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

27. Burning the flag may not be violence, but it is destruction

and it plays into the hands of the 1% and it wont make us converts for the Occupy movement, just the opposite.
Why can't you understand that?

[Luminous Animal]

29. And taking away a human beings liberty for exercising their Constitutional rights

is not destruction?

I put people over property any day. Any day. From my point of view, by decrying the actions of a few dozen while ignoring the point of thousands is playing into the hands of the 1%.

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

32. We need to say to the rest of the 99% that, that destruction wasn't done in our name

and when it happens we need to literately turn our backs and walk away from it.
Taking away people that are peaceably exercising their rights is a separate issue.
We will fight them on this and we will win!

[Luminous Animal]

34. We do. And yet people keep pretending we don't.

We do while planning. We do during and after.

If all the keyboard Church Ladies would spend an hour or two a week participating in OWS, they would know this.

[Scootaloo]

37. Property > Human life and freedoms

Even on DU.

[Luminous Animal]

38. About a quarter of those who marched on Saturdy were robbed of their liberty

for exercising their Constitutional right. Everyone on the ground was arrested for PEACEFULLY protesting. They were handcuffed and searched and loaded on buses and went to jail.

[rhett o rick]

18. I hope you dont think this article represents anything other than one person's slanted

opinion. OWS is dedicated to non-violence. THere are thousands all around the country and in other countries being non-violent. The right wing wants everyone to think that the evidence shown is a reflection on all OWS. Shame on them and shame on those in DU that side with the right wing.

[emilyg]

15. I agree.

[TheMastersNemesis]

16. Just Plain Bull

The Oakland cops are just a bunch of RW PIGS. They are protecting the kind of politicians who would rob them of their pensions and give them a 401 K. I went to Veitnam. And we were treated like scum when we cam back and the same vets from Iraq were treated like scum. The American people are great at talk but abandon vets as soon as they come home. I am sick of all of this phony flag waving patriotism. The American people are just plain stupid who vote for any scumbag Republican. And there are some Democrats who are no better. Wait and see what happens to these cops when that asshole Romney privatizes them.

This situation stinks like a dead fish. It was set up. The police attacked and left no exit. And did not order them to disperse. As a veteran screw all you phony patriots. I wonder how many of you leeches ever served. Put you money where you mouth is and enlist if you are so damned smart. I am just plain sick of you. I support OWS.

We are a ship of fools. If I could go back in time I might just burn my draft card.

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

30. The Oakland cops may be just a bunch RW PIGS.

But it,s not the purpose or the job of the Occupy movement to go fight the Oakland cops.
We have a much larger task in mind.
To take charge of our future.

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

19. In our little town of 1200 people, we have had Occupy demonstrations of over 100 persons.

That's 12% of the entire towns population.
All 3 of the towns cops have stated that they support the Occupy movement.
The Mayor and town council members have participated in the demonstrations.
We stretched for 300 feet on Highway 101 and most people in cars passing by, waved and honked in support.
We knew that we were the 99% and have the common sense too not damage our own property.
We know were not going away.
How about the rest of you?

[JDPriestly]

35. The problems in Oakland are unique to that city.

I'm not exonerating anyone, but the tension in Oakland has built up over the years. This is not the first situation in which the police have over-reacted, become outrageously violent and elicited a counter-reaction from citizens that got out of hand.

Burning a flag is insulting and not in the spirit of non-violence. But it does not cause harm to any human being.

Entering the City Hall or other buildings does not cause harm to any human being.

Police officers beating up protesters does cause harm to human beings.

That someone is disobeying a regulation about where to place a tent, where to spend the night or whether to walk in the street or on the sidewalk may justify an arrest, but not the kind of violent police action we have seen in Oakland.

The police are the authorities -- sort of like parents. Parents do not have the right to beat a child up just because the child is throwing a tantrum or violating some relatively unimportant rule.

In my opinion, the Oakland police used excessive force considering the violations with which they were dealing. The courts will make the final decision about this.

[rhett o rick]

20. The article and the OP are aimed at discrediting OWS.

OWS does not condone violence and vandalism. To try to paint the thousands of non-violent OWS members around the world because of a few miscreants is shameful here in DU. OWS has time and time again run the violent out of their ranks. But there are those that only want to see OWS dissolve. I understand the agenda of Fox News and the corporate-media, but why would Democrats here in DU be so determined to destroy OWS?

[SunsetDreams]

23. "The article and the OP" lol

So you can decry actions of some things regarding OWS and be accused of not supporting them?

Really?

That's silly. I don't have to approve of destruction of property, and yet I can still support OWS. What I do not support is the actions by SOME on Saturday night in Oakland, and the actions of SOME to make excuses for them.

[rhett o rick]

42. Sorry, apparently I misunderstood. It is not clear to me that you consider the

violence as perpetrated by miscreants and not by OWS as a group. There was another OP showing similar pictures and trying to discredit the whole OWS movement.

Personally, I am very much against violence against persons. However, minor violence against property isnt near as bad as violence against persons.

The brutality by the police working for the state and not The People, is clearly terrorism aimed at intimidation of The People.

[Cali_Democrat]

24. Your concern is noted. n/t

[SunsetDreams]

25. thanks :)

[joshcryer]

26. Check out Ward Churchill's Pacifism as Pathology.

I posted a link to a pamphlet about it (third hit on Google), but I decided to self-delete that post because I don't want to be misrepresented. Advocating violence is against the ToS, I am merely trying to suggest that civil disobedience is necessary. I do not consider burning a flag a violent act. Or using graffiti.

I do, however, consider rubber bullets and tear gas violent acts.

[msongs]

31. apologists for the police and military oppressors are not interested in your view lol nt

[tiny elvis]

33. demand identification and arrest of city hall vandals

Some have emailed me and asked if the people who autonomously did these acts of vandalism and violence were “undercovers” or extreme anarchists. My response has been their goal is the same and their tactics are the same, so why does it matter? If they’re undercovers trying to undermine the movement then disavow them. If they’re anarchists who believe they are a part of Occupy, disavow them. The distinction means little if the endgame and the solution are the same.

this is wrong in several ways
it makes a big difference who did the damage, as the writer herself calls for ows to disown occupy oakland

ows only needs to ask what happened to the vandals while 400 people were being arrested
after the mayor said that the police were singling out troublemakers
then demand police make a consistent effort to arrest those people who committed a crime beyond gathering together

tina dupuy does not write a word of care for who the vandals are,
though she thinks they have done a terrible thing
tina dupuy is confused and insincere

[Scootaloo]

36. Did you know not everyone enjoys the luxury of wagging fingers?

Last edited Wed Feb 1, 2012, 02:45 PM - Edit history (1)

Know why people are getting violent? Decade after decade after decade of being shit on, followed by being brutalized whenever you dare to speak up.

How very nice that all of us have the luxury, and the self-granted authority to say "don't be mad, bro. Don't hit back. It makes ME look bad! Fuck you, think about my image, and what you're doing to ME!"

I'm sorry people, but Occupy IS an armed conflict - it's being attacked by men with weapons, chemical arsenals, vehicles, armor, and unlimited authority over your life and limbs. And contrary to the well-wishers, these men are NOT going to lay down their batons in shame, if only you take enough of them being rammed up your ass.

The Author brings up a point - Gandhi had journalists with him on his salt march. Where are ours? Where is the sympathetic media for OWS? Where are the muckrakers, the story-breakers, the shit-shakers? Where is the representation of the Occupy point of view? This was, frankly, a luxury that Gandhi had that we no longer have. Really? it's a PR move? PR disseminated by who? By the media outlets that are owned and beholden to in total to the people you are speaking against. 3,000 people not breaking windows will become 3,000 people setting cars on fucking fire. Or perhaps it'll be "three people marched today." You cannot rely on bought-and-paid operatives.

So what now, the people in Oakland "don't count" because they kicked some shit back? They get disowned? Oh, I'm sorry. The term the author uses is actually purged.

THOSE PEOPLE need to be purged

Because they "made me look bad."

Maybe rather than beating your breasts in self-righteous, "look at me I'm so motherfucking Gandhi right now" indignation and calling for everyone in occupy to drop what they're doing and waggle their fingers at the very very naughty people of Oakland, and then, you know, excommunicating them entirely, maybe some consideration should be given to why this happened in the first fucking place.

Am I saying everyone should go out and, ahem, "stab a cop?" Of course not. I'm saying that it's really nice to have the privilege to tell brutalized people to not defend themselves. It's nice to have the authority to tell the victims of theft to respect the property of the thieves. Must be nice, is all.

[Luminous Animal]

39. This is the best post I've seen addressing this issue.

And welcome to the board.

(PS... please reread your last paragraph... usually I can figure out a misspelling in context but "tepp" has me flummoxed.)

[Robb]

43. Wait, you think Gandhi had the local press on his side?

If you're going to rationalize violence, you don't get to revise history while you do it.

[Scootaloo]

44. The author of the alternet article made the claim

I picked it up. If the author is wrong, then I suppose I am as well.

As for rationalizing violence? Yeeeeah. Friend, I'm not the one running around telling the victims of abuse to keep on taking the abuse for the sake of "PR." I'm not the one who is more concerned about the image of protestors bringing shields to an event, rather than being concerned about why they need to. I'm not the one calling for people to be fucking PURGED for not fitting the shiny happy image of the protest favored by a few hipster pieces of shit, whose only stake in this is looking good on a fucking internet thread.

People are allowed to be human, Robb. There is no expectation of sainthood. People get angry. Angry people lash out. And while people like you are clucking your tongues and making sad eyes at someone spray-painting a wall, that dude with the spray can just saw dozens of people get their asses kicked by Oakland's finest. Which is apparently okay with you, just as it's great for the author in the OP, since lots of people getting mauled by the cops is "good PR."

[Robb]

45. Still rationalizing violence. It's idiotic.

If you want to get violent, go join a militia. Plenty out there.

[Scootaloo]

46. Still putting words in my mouth

Good to know that the argument I present you is so unimpeachable that your only option is to lie through clenched teeth and rebut stuff I'm not saying, though.

[patrice]

49. It appears you're avoiding Scootaloo's central point: NOTHING but appearances, Left:Center:Right,

APPEARANCES, is the same bullshit that got us all into this situation and throwing people out of the movement, because of appearances, is that same bullshit in spades.

We NEED to address ROOT CAUSES and the best way to do that is TOGETHER.

[Kellerfeller]

58. If everyone who felt they were abused

"lashed" out, we wouldn't have much of a society.

The laws and rules are in place. There is a mechanism for getting EVERYTHING you want to not feel abused. The trick is getting enough people to agree with you.

If you claim you can't get enough people to agree with you because the deck is stacked against you then

A) the people deserve what they want or get. Sorry, you just don't get to determine what is best for people. If they "fall for" advertising that you can't afford to counter, then you must think people are really stupid and need your guardianship. No thanks. I don't want to trade the old boss for the you boss.

B) Maybe your idea isn't as great as you think it is.

And no I'm not saying the OWS ideas aren't great. I'm talking about feeling abused, lashing out, and trying to get things changed in general.

[patrice]

48. I strongly agree with this.

Not just because of what I know about Occupy, but from a lifetime of experiences.

We've been bullshitted into ignoring and avoiding and demonizing root causes; the way out is going to be long and VERY hard, but we MUST go . . .

[redqueen]

50. Welcome to DU. nt

[MrCoffee]

51. Hear hear!

[Odin2005]

40. That graffitti is obviously agent provocateur BS.

Way to stereotyped to be real.

[limpyhobbler]

41. I agree that looks fake as hell.

[AZ Progressive]

52. You guys think that the Media and the Republicans aren't having a field day with that image?

2599 news articles on google news results in one grouping, and another 765 news articles in another grouping. Occupy Oakland, or rather probably the anarchists, are tarnishing the movement.

[JackRiddler]

56. The violence was by the police. Flag burning and property destruction are not violence.

Even if you don't like them.

Your concern is noted - as being in clear hostility to Occupy.

You want to see it divided and arguing about bullshit.

While the authorities are rolling up everyone's constitutional rights into a body bag.

[EFerrari]

59. The people who were clubbed and gassed and shot in the face

would probably disagree that this isn't an armed conflict.