Thoughts: Violence/Non-Violence/Terrorism/Revolution

I started writing this years ago, lost what I was writing, and then started again a few months ago based on something I heard on the news. I then left it sitting for a while and picked it up again today to try to wrap it up. That ended up being literally impossible as I just asked myself more questions than I could even answer and realised that I could just go on forever asking the same questions. So I just closed it out with a "To be continued..." and will continue on my musings, probably after I have finished Mark Kurlansky's Non-Violence: The History of a Dangerous Idea, as this may give me further ideas to discuss.



Every day you switch on your television, phone, computer or radio and you hear the word “terrorist” in all types of news flashes. It will be used in connection with any act of violence committed against a government or a country, or on a group of people by another group of people. We hear about demonstrations and protests and tear gas and violence and non-violence and rebellion and oppressing governments and public uprisings. We hear about sit-ins in public squares, of students being arrested and of protestors being shot at. We hear about air strikes in other countries, about dictatorships being brought down from the inside and from the outside, about dictatorships being pandered to and blind eyes being turned. Public uprisings become acts of terrorism and lawful mass murder gets swept under the carpet. Acts of terrorism are stopped in their tracks while others are successful. Successful democratic elections are held in war-torn countries while at the same time in others women are still not allowed to leave the house without a male companion. One day you will hear about the Palestinian terrorist who blew himself up on the bus on the way to Tel Aviv, but the people who in return pounded Gaza with an airstrike are called soldiers. Gaddafi called the rebels seeking to bring him down terrorists, but to the rest of the world they were portrayed as saviours, and were given the help they needed to fight for and win their cause. Where can you even start discussing this topic? Words are open to a different interpretation by each individual. One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter; one man’s popular uprising is another man’s violent revolution. The main keyword here is “violence”.

Oxford Dictionary definitions:

- Terrorism: the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

- Terrorist: a person who uses terrorism in the pursuit of political aims. (Origin: late 18th century: from French terroriste, from Latin terror (see terror). The word was originally applied to supporters of the Jacobins in the French Revolution, who advocated repression and violence in pursuit of the principles of democracy and equality).

- Freedom Fighter: a person who takes part in a violent struggle to achieve a political goal, especially in order to overthrow their government.

- Demonstrator: a person who takes part in a public protest meeting or march.

- Protestor: a person who publicly demonstrates strong objection to something; a demonstrator

- Violence: behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something; the unlawful exercise of physical force or intimidation by the exhibition of such force.

- Non-violence: the use of peaceful means, not force , to bring about political or social change.

I remember having these thoughts going over and over in my brain years ago, through many an occasion. In the past, or more my past, so the late 70’s and the 80’s, even maybe the early 90’s too, it seems that the media had a specific group of terrorists that it had pointed out and referred to: Palestinian (or more specifically, Hamas or Hezbollah), IRA, Libyan. Nobody (in the general public) cared or really knew about anything else – these were the organized groups that blew people up (including themselves in some cases) and spread fear across countries. Small to large acts of violence that were sure to make it to the newsreels as soon as they happened. I’m not saying that this really was all that there was, but this is what we were fed by the media. IRA bad, Palestinians bad, Libyans bad (or were they always bad – I know that the US government supported Gaddafi at some point in time, but then turned around at another point, but that is a little off-topic for now). “Good” was what was called “Democracy” and “Freedom”; “Bad” was anything that we couldn’t fit into the definitions of “Democracy” and “Freedom”. This didn’t always match with the real definitions of these words, but yet again, semantics are the main tool in politics: words take on meaning in the way you choose to interpret them. Social uprisings against totalitarian governments are applauded, and aided in some cases. People fighting for freedom are called rebels, and rebels are considered revolutionaries. But of course revolutionaries can be good or bad, depending on how it is portrayed to you in the media and how you interpret it. If I had stood on CNN or BBC and tell you in a deeply emotional speech how good Saddam Hussein was for Iraq and how much he had done for the US, instead of hearing the words “weapons of mass destruction” and “nuclear war” thrown about, the public opinion on the man himself may have been different. It’s all about what you see and what you read about. Seeing as most people get their news from the most popular channels on television and maybe a newspaper or two, you can only expect most people to believe what they read and see. Not that our media is always wrong, but it’s not always right either. In the end it is just a form of communication, and also a form of propaganda, because communication via the media is the best way to get a message/thought/intent across to the general public. So, in the end, it is up to us to make our own opinions up, and to research alternative viewpoints and ideas.

I myself define freedom as the right to live in the way I want to, within the boundaries of society – meaning that I, as a person, respect the lives and lifestyles of others, and expect the same in return. Freedom means the right to free speech and education, the right to worship any god I want to (or don’t want to) without persecution. Freedom also means the equality of all human beings, no matter where they come from and where they end up. Freedom means that I can portray my thoughts and opinions without worrying about being persecuted. Freedom does not mean that I can kill another human being and/or many human beings because I do not agree with what he/she or they believe in, or just because I don’t like them. But I do rebel against the society I live in, in a non-violent fashion. I disagree with many of the politics of the country I live in, I pretty much always have, no matter what country I have been in. There is always something I will disagree with and want to fight against. But I have mainly lived in countries where I can open my mouth and protest about something that I think is wrong – I don’t know what I would have done if I had grown up in a country where I was openly oppressed and where I could not speak my mind. How would I have rebelled against this? Would I have just tried to live my life within the boundaries set for me or would I have tried to break away and change things, by any means possible?

During WW2 the French Resistance and the Russian partisans blew up buildings and strategic areas that would damage the German advances and army (trains, ammunition dumps, prisons etc), killed traitors who worked with the Germans and basically did anything they could to revolt against the German occupation. I feel that I would have done the same. These days with the technology that we have it would probably be a lot more difficult to actually rebel/revolt in the same fashion and stay in hiding, so if this type of war were ever to occur again, how would the people stand up and fight? How would one fight against an occupation? This al comes back to the same topic I started off with in the beginning… What can be considered an occupation, a revolution, an act of terrorism and an act of rebellion? In the end, where violence is used the result will always be the death of one or multiple people, innocent or guilty, and that is something that those committing acts of violence, those living through them, and those dealing with the aftermath will always have to deal with. Terrorism is always going to hurt the “innocent” first, because the “innocent” are the ones targeted and the ones who will be damaged. While typing this another thought comes to mind… If a group of people planning to blow up a subway station in NYC are considered a group of terrorists then why aren’t a group of government army fighters in Sudan considered terrorists when they destroy a village and kill all of the inhabitants by locking them in a house and setting it on fire? I feel that once I started writing this piece it just opened a bottomless can of worms, as one idea comes up, followed by several contradicting ideas, and more images and questions that anyone can really answer. Words are simple, but once they are used to determine a specific group of people or a specific act become complex. As I have said before… It all comes down to your own interpretation, and how you are then going to portray this interpretation to others.

To be continued…

Occupy Wall Street occupies Times Square

Occupy Wall St to Times Sq, a set on Flickr.

I left Times Square sometime after 6pm, as I was beginning to feel faint and nauseous due to the sheer amount of people crammed into a small space. The NYPD cordoned off most of the area and basically herded all of us into a confined area. I don't know what the tactics were with this, but wouldn't that logical create a more dangerous environment? If they had left us alone we would have left space for people to pass through and the area would have been occupied peacefully. In any case, it was. I have never seen such a display of community and solidarity coupled with complete adherence to the demonstration rules that were set 9yes, we all kept to the sidewalks, all how many thousands of us that happened to have joined the march).
Anyway, I was able to make my way out and I have not looked at any media portraying today's events before writing this. These are just my own images, thoughts and feelings, mainly captured with my camera. I feel that these photos that portray the entire movement: people of all ages and backgrounds and opinions coming together to display a communal request for CHANGE.

I heard a few people tell us to "Get a job" when we walked past. I think we all have jobs Mr or Mrs I-Don't-Think-The-System-Affects-Me, actually some of us have 2 or 3 jobs to actually make ends meet. I am lucky because I was educated in a country where education is free, yes, FREE, and I will not be paying off student loans for most of my adult life, unlike many of my friends, but what would I have done if I had? I wouldn't have been able to go to university, it's as simple as that. None of my family could have afforded to pay for my tuition and I doubt that I would have got the loans that I would have needed... Anyway, OWS is about this and so much more. I'll probably have more to say tomorrow, once I have read all of the different media reports on today, but I am going to bed now.

Join in - this affects everyone.

Occupy Wall Street - some more opinions

I was chatting to a friend about the whole Occupy Wall Street movement last night and he said the following to me: "I will go there tomorrow, when all of the non-professional protesters have gone home.". Professional VS non-professional protesters? The whole point of a social uprising is that a large portion of the population is complaining that it is unhappy and that people want change, no matter where you come from, what colour your skin is, what you earn and where you earn it. It's about coming together as a group with one message.
Elitist protesting? That's about as hypocritical as it gets, no?
Yes, there are people who started the movement, and who have been there since Day 1. These people may or may not make political actions and protesting part of their daily life. There are also people who have joined halfway and are getting involved and helping. But there are also people who are hanging out on the fringes, trying to understand what is going on, interested but a little scared. This is NORMAL. There is always going to be a mix of people with different attitudes, characters, goals and faces, but in the end, the more people who come, the more people who join and the more people who state their interest make for a larger and more popular movement. The more people, the louder the voice.

Last night I was reading this blog post HERE. There is only one point that I slightly agree with (the need for a goal), but I completely disagree with the rest of the points. I know that I am further left than most people I know, but I really wouldn't consider demonstrations without permits, occupying a space to protest, not resisting arrest and being non-violent "anarchist". Far from it, it's actually organised and super smart! And... Democratic. I feel that people tend to label others as anarchists or communists way too easily in this country. That said, I do not want to bash the person who wrote the blog I mentioned - she has her ideas and is very eloquent in providing her opinions and thoughts. It was good to read something that helped me confirm my own opinions even more.

Discuss. Or just go down to Wall Street to see what is happening.

Occupy Wall Street

Occupy Wall St , a set on Flickr.

I grew up in a country where protests are the norm: you aren't happy with the the amount of hours you are working? Get out into the streets and protest! The government is too right-wing? Set up a demonstration down the main streets of the city. You aren't getting paid enough? Go on strike! I, for one, completely agree with popular uprising. If your voice is too quiet to be heard, then group together and shout louder together. I've always been lucky enough to live in countries where I am allowed to voice my opinion and go out onto the streets and demonstrate if I want to. And if I don't feel like demonstrating outside on the streets, there are other ways to do it nowadays: blogging, Facebook, Twitter... We don't need to wait for the main media sources to come in and start talking about it.
But (and there is always a but), in France, strikes, protests and demonstrations had become the norm so much, that they started to become a running joke in other countries. It was as if no one took popular uprisings seriously anymore. And then they started to become violent. Demonstrations became coupled with burning cars and police using tear gas, peaceful protests became riots and so forth, bringing up a multitude of questions on why there was such underlying anger and violence in today's youth, why the need to destroy and hurt, rather than build and grow? Look at what started in London and spread to other places in England just this last August. Once the riots were over, the kids were jailed and something more important happened in the world (maybe George W Bush choked on a pretzel again or something), the story disappeared. So what happens next? We just clamp it down to a few shitty days in England, and continue to move forward in the same way that we were before the riots happened? I cannot stand violence, and do not think it is in any way or form a way to make anything better, but come on, it happened for a reason, and if the root cause isn't dug up, analyzed and then destroyed, how can we stop it happening again in the future? No wonder the kids of today are disgruntled: nobody cares about what they have to say!
Violence is definitely not the answer, so this is why I am becoming more and more interested in the Occupy Wall Street movement that started about 3 weeks ago, and is growing rapidly (not just in NYC, but all around the country). For a few weeks there was no media coverage on the movement, only Twitter and Facebook posts from different people involved and bystanders. Without smart phones and portable video cameras we would not have seen the images of the women being fenced in by the police and maced for no reason apart from the fact that they were part of a demonstration. Peaceful demonstration may I add. Or how about the 700 or so people who were arrested walking over the Brooklyn Bridge last week. What did they do wrong? There has still not been ONE incident of violence or intent to riot, the only violence that seems to have happened comes from the police trying to police the demonstrations. I am not going to bash the police on the streets right now, they are obviously following orders from above, but come on, spraying mace on a group of screaming girls?!
In any case, the movement is growing, and doesn't seem ready to disappear just yet. I finally made it to a gathering yesterday, and am glad I did. The General Assembly was held in Washington Square Park at 3pm. People gathered there, and others marched up from Zuccotti Park (renamed Liberty Park). The park was full of people, groups sitting down in front of the speakers and everyone else standing behind them. The speakers are not allowed to use microphones, so the crowd repeats each sentence in waves so that everyone can hear what each speaker has to say. Different groups introduced themselves, and explained what their role was and where to find them, and then a speaker called Mohamed from Egypt said a few words. He actually brought tears to my eyes, just because he was passionate and inspirational. I know that the movement here is not the same as the Arab Spring uprisings, but in the end the message is the same: WE WANT CHANGE.
So this brings me to my only real concern: we know what the message is, and it's coming across loud and clear. But without a concrete list of what needs to change I worry that the message will get lost in the melee and people will lose interest. A revolution needs to start small, gain momentum and bring actual change. What do you want from this? The same as what I do: to live in a world that is a better place for all of us. How can WE make that change? This is the message that we need to get across to the government and anyone in charge. The voices are finally being shown by the media, so now is the time to get the real points across to those who aren't listening.
And this is exactly why I will be going back again. Because I HAVE a list of things that I KNOW need to change, and I want to talk about them to a group of like-minded people.

For more information please grab an Occupy newspaper at one of the gatherings (available in English and Spanish) or visit the following websites:
www.nycga.net
www.occupywallst.org
www.takethesquare.net
wwwoccupytogether.org
wearethe99percent.tumblr.com

This is not the last post I will be writing on this subject. I need to limit myself otherwise I will literally write all day.