So I'm not sure what my personal views are on the "black bloc" protests during the G20 summit. I am not opposed to violence for political or moral ends, but I am also unsure what situations call for it.
The police were numerous, and they were overly aggressive towards peaceful protests and even people simply living in the area. Obviously, some people have good experiences, but that means they are doing their job. The startling number of negative stories is troubling.
Furthermore, it's a technological world an estimated cost of over a billion is associated with the summit. The summit's primary "success" was that world leaders agreed to reduce debt "at a pace they find acceptable." Given the obvious reluctance of of America to do so, I'm skeptical of the free world having the tenacity to actually place the States in a situation where they would be economically vulnerable. It's not a success unless people with credibility are making an agreement. Politicians have little, especially with respect to a struggling economy that "had they been doing their jobs" wouldn't have occurred in the first place.
Now people are confused as to what the anarchists hope to accomplish. Some of them just like smashing things and calling themselves anarchists. Let's be honest, it's no more fair to consider all conservatives racists than it is to claim all anarchists are a bunch of rowdy teens. The anarchists wanted to send a message. Now I don't know what they would've actually done had they succeeded, but I suspect there would be fewer politicians.
People are worried about their safety. Excuse me? Have you read even five minutes worth of material on anarchism? They were smashing the windows of major businesses that exploit workers, the environment, the third world, and just about everything they have the opportunity to exploit.
The idea is to achieve the elimination of government because governments are inherently corrupt. By definition, the anarchists don't accept parading around singing songs as effective protest. You can cite MLK and Gandhi all you want, but there were other people around them using violence. Furthermore, the fact that a few protests succeeded with non-violence means nothing. Why should people subject themselves to violent assault if they can achieve their goals with violence. Better a peaceful and equitable society as the result of the perpetrators getting roughed up than at the expense of those who were the victims in the first place.
People are so politically ignorant it's disturbing. I will respect a thoughtful opinion on anarchist action as I'm not sure, again, whether the violence was necessary. However, I've never see a single insightful point on any forum, news article, news program, social medium, etc. I'm sure there are some out there, but everyone else is just uninformed. "Violence is bad and not needed." The anarchists already thought about the non-violent position and rejected it, by default, as it's a social standard that needs to be actively rejected. Everyone else hasn't given the opposing side real consideration - as is evident by their complete lack of argumentation and appeal to mere sentiment.
I guess this has turned into a complain about propaganda and emotion. I despise how people turn to these things during conflicts and tragedies. The police department and politicians are all shouting slogans and using strong tones. Both sides do it. How about either doing something or arguing reasonably. Like it or not, the police and the anarchists were the only people actually standing up for what they believe. Nobody would've gives a shit about the opinion of people who aren't even willing to stand up to authority. What are you going to do? Vote for another party that will still do the exactly same thing? The system is the problem.
No comments:
Post a Comment