I'm forwarding Michael Chisari's response to Euegene Register Guard columnist Bob Welch, because it demonstrates quick thinking and analysis in response to the boss press.
Chuck0
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: Bob Welch: Anarchists' stance ironic Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 04:31:42 -0400 (EDT) From: dominion <dominion at dojo.tao.ca> To: bwelch at guardnet.com
> June 22, 2000
> Bob Welch: Anarchists' stance ironic
> bwelch at guardnet.com
> Columnist, The Register-Guard
Hello, Mr. Welch! I thought I might respond to this article that you've written.
<SARCASM>
But first, I'd like to let you know that whenever I hear that yet another priviledged columnist for the corporate press has written an editorial about anarchism, I am elated, because then I can hear what wonderful insights you guys have into a movement that is thousands of years old.
And of course, I'm sure that you've done extensive research into anarchism and anarchist theory, and that you definitely wouldn't write the many articles you have written about anarchism in Eugene without having some kind of background as to where the Eugene anarchists are coming from.
Of course you wouldn't. A fine journalist like you is, I'm sure, capable of discussing the theories of Proudhon, Kropotkin, and Bakunin like the best of them. And I'm sure you've read the works of modern anarchist writers such as Murray Bookchin, Eugene's own John Zerzan, and the criticisms of US foreign policy by noted MIT professor and anarchist Noam Chomsky. In fact, I'm positive you have. Haven't you? </SARCASM>
Due to your ridiculous attempts at journalism, I have felt the need to respond to your article, point by point.
> LIKE JUST-RELEASED POWs, they took turns Tuesday in front of the Lane
> County Jail to talk about police brutality, about "ruthless" tactics,
> about being served peanut butter sandwiches in their cells.
Pay attention to your patronizing tone. Mentioning the lack of nutrition available to prisoners is meant to, at this point, discredit the criticisms of those who had been arrested and brutalized. A similar analogy would be to take the account of a vietnam war veteran, and mention, along with the horrible aspects of war, the fact that they had to deal with rain and mud, thus dilluting their struggle. Although a speaker may talks about aspects such as this, they are not the focus of their account. The fact that you printed the sideshow along with the real focal points, as well as putting the word "ruthless" in quotes, only illumates the bias in your article.
And this is why I feel that media is not objective, and not free of bias. You have chosen the side that you are on, Bob. You have chosen corporate america, you have chosen consumer culture, you have chosen the power of the state, and you have chosen all the horrible, unspeakable ills that come with it. It would beseech you and your credibility to admit this fact, along with everybody else at your newspaper, and all those connected with the boss press.
> Anarchists and onlookers, they came to share their tales of woe in the
> aftermath of a weekend confrontation between police and protesters that
> led to 67 arrests.
And how many of those 67 people have you spoken with?
> But as I listened to story after story, I couldn't help but note a
> certain irony: What they were describing was, well, anarchy:
By what definition are you judging by? Anarchy, despite what propaganda and misinformation has led you to believe, is not a society with rules, but a society without rulers. "An archos" (from the greek), which means, "without rulers." It is obvious that the police and those who ordered them to act are in positions of authority, no? Explain to me then, how this is anarchy.
It stupifies me that anyone living in a place like Eugene, Oregon, with the vast amounts of anarchist organizing going on, can have such a simpleminded definition of anarchism and anarchy. It may, in fact, lay on the shoulders of the anarchists in Eugene, that they have failed to provide the education and outreach necessary to undo the lies that government and corporate media have committed in order to maintain the status quo. The other possibility is that it is your own ignorance and blindness that has kept you uninformed.
Regardless of the reason, however, your statement is woefully incorrect.
> Cops breaking the rules. Cops wreaking disorder and violence. Cops
> victimizing innocent people for the sins of the masses.
When those who enforce the rules, and those who make them both feel free to live outside of their own jurisdiction, we do not have anarchy. We have a police state, we have a corporate state, and we have fascism.
In our country, we have a law that states that murder is unacceptable. And yet, Amadou Diallo is dead, and his muderers not only have gone unpunished, but have retained their right to carry a gun, carry a badge, and roam the streets with impunity. They got away with murder, yet can you look into the eyes of any anarchist who is sickened and enraged by Mr. Diallo's death, and tell them that this is anarchy?
My point, Bob, is that when you have a society where certain people take it upon themselves to control the masses, the question that arises is, "Who will control those who control?"
> Sound familiar? It's the stuff anarchy is made of: a disregard for
> rules, a bent toward violence and a justification for victimizing
> innocent people (such as store owners) for the sins of the masses
> (corporate greed).
I am awaiting for your article decrying the violence of the American Revolution. How dare those upstarts disregard the rules, practice violence against boxes of tea, victimize innocent people (such as the British) for the sins of the masses (corporate greed, no less).
Phillip Knight may be a store owner (by loose definition), but he is not innocent. The breaking of a Niketown window does not even begin to compare to the crimes against humanity that Nike has committed. How dare you even begin to casually make such a horrifyingly comparison?
Another point that represents the twisted logic that you resort to quite often, how is corporate greed a result of the sins of the masses? Corporate greed are the sins of the elite, those who have leveraged wealth as a veritable "get out of jail free" card, to be used without hesitation in the quest for more wealth.
And furthermore, I think that the actions of the police in Eugene, as well as in Seattle and D.C. and all over the world, show that it is the state that is based on violence. REAL violence, where people are injured and killed in order to maintain "law and order" and the right of the rich to profit off the backs of the poor and the environment. Simultaneously decrying anarchist "violence" (does a window feel pain? do other windows feel a sense of loss when a window is broken?) and supporting state violence and brutality is a position of utmost hypocrisy.
"The earth is not dying. It is being killed, and those killing it have names and addresses." - Utah Phillips
> "Cops," protester Clayton Beverly told me after the news conference,
> "are incapable of nonviolence."
Henry David Thoreau (an anarchist, by the way) once spoke about the commonality of the state using force. He said that, given dissent and disagreement, the state will never use reason, argument, and discourse to appease it's opponents. It will use violence, oppression, and brutality, because this is all that the state is capable of doing. That is why Mr. Torrey has never debated with anarchists about the role of the state, but instead uses the violence of those at his disposal (the police) in order to protect his interests and the interests of those he works for.
> Hmmm. This from a guy who described last year's anarchist-inspired riot
> - a riot in which windows were smashed, rocks were thrown at police
> officers and a motorist had a knife brandished in her face as a handful
> of protesters pounded her car - as "petty vandalism."
Were you at the protests on June 18, 1999? Or were you watching from home? On television?
Why is it that I'm led to believe that you are not a resident of the Whiteaker neighborhood?
> This is what confounds me about the anarchy movement in general and last
> weekend's confrontation in particular: hypocrisy that justifies the
> anarchists' anything-goes attitude but suggests that others, including
> cops, should have to play by the rules.
What confounds you about anarchism is not anarchism itself, nor it's advocates, but instead your incredible ignorance in regards to the subject at hand. It is your own hypocrisy that blinds you to what is truly occurring in Eugene, Oregon.
I have argued above that anarchy is not a society without rules, but a society without rules. I will expound on this very quickly: "Laws" are arbitrary, at best, and dangerous at worst (which is usually the case). The problem with laws is that very few people are involved with their creation, so they must be imposed on those who had nothing to do with them. Furthermore, those who create the laws are free to bend, twist, and outright break them to serve their interests.
Anarchy is a society that replaces laws with social understandings. There are no courts, no police, no lawyers, no soldiers, and nobody imposing their will on the masses. Chaos, you say? You would be hard-pressed to prove it. Even Thomas Jefferson himself admitted that a society based on commonly held social beliefs had stronger cohesion than a society based on law and order. What society was he referring to? The Native Americans.
> Which is it going to be? Rules or no rules?
Which is it going to be? Corporate rule and a police state, or freedom and peace? Of course, as I've stated before, you've already made your decision. We are all anxiously waiting for you to admit it.
> To its credit, the movement is asking good questions about a society
> that's hell-bent on materialism. To its discredit, the movement shows
> little of the respect for others that it demands for itself.
A bold statement. If, while expressing these views, riot police appeared and lined up in front of you, what kind of respect would you show them?
What kind of respect should anarchists show to those who would beat and imprison them for fighting for what they believe in?
It's good that you admit that the anarchists have a point. We do, and a strong one at that. The problem is not the simple fact of disagreement, but the response that anarchists have recieved when attempting to bring forth their goals.
If the people of Oregon unanimously decided to secede from the USA in order to work towards a society based on anarchy, peace, freedom, and equality, what kind of response do you think the federal government would have? What kind of response do you think Nike or Hyundai would have? Do you think they would let all of you go peacefully?
> DID THE COPS go too far? At times, yes, judging from the nine-minute
> video I saw and the testimonies I heard. But this wasn't Chicago in '68
> or Kent State two years later. This was Riot Response Lite.
And yet, it was still a riot response encompassing force and intimidation, despite the fact that June 18th, 200 was nowhere near the definition of a riot.
> This was angry young people in black bandanas screaming obscenities at
> cops. This was fearful cops using bicycles to herd people off streets
> that, legally, those people had no right to be parading through. This
> was beanbag ammunition. This was some innocent bystanders getting swept
> up in the chaos. This was some officers pushing harder than they should
> have pushed.
This was an unprovoked response to free speech. Using rhetorical language and watered-down statements to prove otherwise is completely ridiculous and an insult to those terrorized by the actions of the police.
In regards to the streets, how do people have no right to parade in the streets? Where else shall we parade? What if we can't all fit on the sidewalk? What if the police suddenly decide (as they did in D.C.) that blocking the sidewalk is now "incommoding" and an arrestable offense? Where, then, shall freedom of speech and assembly be practiced? Our living rooms?
Furthermore, I'd like to point out that, as anyone who has attended driving school will tell you, driving a car is not a right, but a priviledge. Blocking traffic is not violence, or would you now like to add that to your all-encompassing definition of violence?
> Should the city investigate the police response and learn from the
> mistakes? Sure. But let's not be naive. If you wreak havoc on a
> community, as protesters did in June 1999 and, a year later, drop hints
> of a "historic re-enactment" and "chaos days," don't be shocked to find
> the police showing up for the reunion in riot gear.
What do you propose those who were wrongfully arrested do in the meantime, while the city is investigating police response? How does the city claiming "we are investigating" make the actions of the police acceptable?
So, you claim that protestors deserved the treatment they got, simply for speaking a using certain language. What kind of society wold you like to live in, Bob? Because I don't see you as much of a friend of freedom.
> People bent on bullying the world into submission - "You have to break
> laws to make changes," one of those arrested, Carrie Dougherty, told me
> - shouldn't be surprised when they get bullied back.
I know it is hard to see from the position of priviledge that you occupy who the real bullies are, but I ask you to please make an attempt.
"You have to break laws to make changes..." I think that is an attitude that Martin Luther King and Gandhi would have been proud of. Or did you forget that everything that Gandhi did was illegal?
> And, really, wasn't that the whole idea of "chaos days" - to draw cops
> into a confrontation that would paint protesters as victims? A segment
> of protesters dared the cops to cross a line, then cried foul once they
> did. It's the street version of sibling rivalry.
Only one sibling carries weapons, and has the impunity of the state behind them.
> "People need to be shocked to be made uncomfortable," Dougherty said.
> "It might take a little window breaking and sabotage to wake people out
> of their trances."
Well said. Better that the shock be broken glass and blocked traffic than a devastated economy and a fascist dictatorship, no?
> Gallant statements these - and yet, true to this anarchistic irony,
> coming from someone who, in the next breath, complained about having to
> endure peanut butter sandwiches and Muzak in her holding cell.
Again, the peanut butter sandwiches. Does a person who is locked in a 5 star hotel room for the rest of their life have a right to complain? An extreme example, I admit, but it shows the flaws with what you are implying.
And once again, you imply that imprisoning people without reason or justification is "anarchy." Fascinating... The ignorance is truly fascinating...
Out of curiosity, how much does your position at the Register Guard pay?
> It's all a giant conspiracy, we're told, the totalitarian corporate
> state trying to destroy "the movement."
If it isn't, then what is it? Right, we get to that in the next part...
> Suddenly, Rob Thaxton isn't just a guy who broke the law by hitting a
> police officer with a 4-pound rock; he's a "comrade" who was imprisoned
> "to avenge the uprising in the streets."
Seven years for bruising the shoulder of somebody who was charging his way. Seven. Years. Imprisoned.
I ask you, how is the law worth anything when rapists and drug dealers who were arrested on June 18, 1999 will make their re-entry in society long before Robert Thaxton does?
Robert Thaxton recieved an extended sentence because of his political beliefs, no matter what justification the courts used. How well does this bode for those of us who care about challenging a corrupt system?
Or do you even care about challenging said system?
> Suddenly, the police aren't the police but "the fascist underbelly of
> capitalism," out to avenge the 1999 incident.
The police have always been class traitors and protectors of the rich. They protect private property, which is why all societies which are based on private property have police, and all societies which are not based on private property do not have them.
Any questions?
> "It is the job of the police to uphold capitalism," anarchist leader
> Robin Terranova says. "It is the job of the police to rule with an iron
> fist, to silence the movement."
>
> No, it's the police's job to help keep our community safe - for
> everyone, anarchists included. And, frankly, most officers probably
> would have preferred a quiet evening at home rather than trying to
> "silence the movement."
Cambodia is quite safe for those who support the dictatorship. It is the job of the police to make sure that these people are safe from those who do not support the current social system. Does that mean, then, that we should always commend the police no matter the situation?
In other words, it is the job of the police to make the streets of Eugene, Oregon safe for those who are driving home so that they can watch television. It is the job of the police to make sure that those who support the system are not confronted by those who are discontent. "Incommoding", "Disorderly Conduct", "Parading without a Permit", "Criminal Mischief", etc., all of these are simply fancy words for silencing discontent.
> Eugene is one retaliatory incident away from confrontations like last
> weekend's turning deadly; it nearly happened a year ago when an attacked
> motorist retaliated.
Jun 18, 2000 was meant to be non-violent. The police response was unprovoked, and unnecessary. Very simple.
> Nobody wants that. But preventing such a tragedy begins with the
> realization that most rules exist not to oppress us, but to protect us.
I ask you, Bob, to reword that sentence just slightly. In fact, I will do it for you:
"But preventing such a tragedy begins with the realization that most rules exist not to oppress me, but to protect me, and people like me."
What am I implying? I am implying that most people are not you, and do not enjoy the social position that you have. If you want a militarized police presence, and a terrifying show of police force, then request that the police be at your home next time they feel the need to gear up.
Or would the presence of hundreds of riot-clad police officers outside your home make you slightly nervous?
> Unfortunately, from each other.
You may live your life fearing your fellow human beings, but I refuse to use that as a justification for police violence.
Bob Welch, I will remind you that you don't have long to reside in the majority. People, everyday people, are starting to realize that society can work without authority and heirarchy, without violence (REAL violence), oppression, greed, and destruction.
If I were you, Bob Welch, I would come out and admit which side of the fence that I was on, and I would enjoy the position of priviledge that it afforded me, very simply because that position will not exist for long.
Bob, I will see you next year, when I will march with fellow anarchists in Eugene for June 18, 2001. And if anyone in control in Eugene thinks that this year's show of force will stop thousands of anarchists from attending the next J18, they're sorely mistaken.
Maybe the Eugene Anarchists for Torrey were right, maybe Mayor Torrey is the best thing to happen to anarchism in Eugene in a long time...
See you next year, Bob.
--
Michael Chisari, Anarchist.