On Mon, 28 Jan 2002, Doug Henwood wrote:
> If the broader public thinks that demonstrators = al Qaeda, then
> agitation and sloganeering have to correct the impression, not reinforce
> it. Make the guys inside the Waldorf into the real perpetrators of
> violence. Talking about burning banks is exactly the wrong thing to do.
> I think militancy itself can be made plausible, if not acceptable. If
> it's done right.
Personally I incline to the belief that the most creative thing protesters could have done was skip this meeting without making a statement and hit the next one. It would have shown that they weren't tropistic, and it would have dramatically avoided falling into the waiting trap set by what I think was a very inspired (but one-shot) move on the WEF's part. And all without having to dilute their message a bit.
But I have to admit, it brought a smile to my troubled face to read Chuck0's voice of sweet anarchist reason. And I have to admit further that my idea of the most creative tactical response is limited by the fact that tactically I'm not very creative.
Michael
__________________________________________________________________________ Michael Pollak................New York City..............mpollak at panix.com