Defacing Websites, "Stealing" Free Papers

[Kelley Walker]

At 02:12 PM 3/29/01 -0500, Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
>Dennis P. wrote:
>
>>Yoshie wrote:
>>
>>  > I can imagine myself  as a black student who has to hear a white 
>> student saying, "They
>>>  don't like it?  Quit school, get a working-class job, etc."
>>
>>I wasn't talking to black students at Brown. I was talking to you and
>>reacting to a specific thing YOU said. You are not all students of color,
>>Yoshie -- or are you?
>
>It is *not* I *but* the organized Brown students of color & their white 
>comrades who took copies of the Brown _Daily Herald_. Naturally, your 
>remark applies to *them*, not me, since I'm not even a student at Brown.
>
>>  > >What kind of workers do you hang around? I'm around workers 5 days a 
>> week
>>>  >and I doubt many of them would be put off by resisting scabs.
>>>
>>>  Evidence?
>>
>>You want my fellow workers names? SS #'s? Would you like me to conduct a
>>poll while we're dragging garbage bags to the dumpster?
>
>I'm talking about evidence that the _majority of today's workers_ (not 
>just your co-workers in your anecdote) approve of resisting scabs by 
>force.  Your co-workers are a tiny minority of today's American proletariat.
>
>>  > How do you undermine "mainstream assumptions" while agreeing with
>>>  Horowitz that what happened is a violation of his "free speech" when
>>>  it isn't, not even by standards of liberal democracy?  The first
>>>  amendment doesn't protect free newspapers from being picked up
>>>  wholesale by activists & getting trashed.
>>
>>Yoshie, for the FOURTH fucking time I did not say that Horowitz's "free
>>speech" was violated.  I said that the Brown paper had a right to accept or
>>not accept the ad, and I questioned the Brown students' tactics in reaction
>>to it.
>
>If not "free speech," upon what basis do you object to their tactic? 
>Because the "majority" don't approve of it?
>
>>Years ago, when I was involved in Central American activism, I knew a guy
>>(still know him, in fact) who went through the NY subways and bus terminals
>>and slightly, artfully altered Coors ads from "Ride the Silver Bullet" to
>>"Ride the Contra Bullet." The word "Contra" was spelled out in the same
>>typset, so it looked original; and it pointed to Coors' support for the
>>contras. Was Coors' "free speech" violated? Not in my view. This was a true
>>act of culture jamming. It altered the meaning of Coors' propaganda and made
>>a political point that all could see. All the students at Brown did was to
>>grab a bunch of newspapers and run off. Not the best example of "culture
>>jamming" that I've seen. Perhaps you're more easily impressed.
>
>Until you told me of the above anecdote, I didn't know that anyone had 
>done such a thing.  How many people got to see the changed Coors ads & 
>_understand_ the intended meaning of the change, not to mention approving 
>of it?  And any empirically observable effect of the changed ads?
>
>>  > The masses are not homogenous.  The Brown students of color evidently
>>>  didn't persuade you & in fact made you despise them, but they
>>>  probably found many allies among blacks.  Likewise, what you have
>>>  been saying won't persuade many blacks & may anger many of them.
>>
>>I don't despise them. I questioned their tactics. And if the "masses are not
>>homogenous," then how do you know that what I've been saying won't persuade
>>"many blacks & may anger many of them"? (Also, weren't the students who
>>pulled this stunt of a variety of hues?)
>
>I'm making a prediction based upon what I have seen, heard, & read on this 
>topic, reparations, affirmative action, etc.

<...>


>Your objection to the Brown students' action is lacking in clearly stated 
>reasons, then.  You claim not to base your judgment upon the grounds of 
>"free speech" & white approval.  What are your grounds, then?  Do you have any?
>
>Yoshie

one could equally likely predict more of a backlash. i reserve judgment, 
myself, but i see no reason to assume that one outcome is more likely than 
the other.

furthermore, Dennis's comment to you was to *you* as a member of academia 
who snipes at others from the sidelines and makes dubious claims about how 
others ought to shut up if they are not "in the struggle".  the demand for 
activist street cred is as dubious as the demand for academic cred to 
justify one's presumed superiority in a conversation.

also, as Carrol frequently remarks, no one can really know that much about 
what any of us does.  but, even if we do accept and trust one another's 
claims in this regard, it is not a sufficient reason to denounce others 
comment.

we all have busy lives. we all prioritize. some of us are working on other 
things and have experience in other, similarly crucial struggles. our 
insights from those struggles may be useful here. or not. telling people 
that they should be ashamed and shut up because they aren't working their 
asses off on the reparations issue assumes too much. furthermore, it 
assumes that their is a theoretical logic that justifies what one should 
prioritize. if you, yoshie, have an explanation of a justification, please 
share. i would surely like to know how you manage to avoid essentialism.

kelley