> Undocumented migrants, new immigrants, international students,
> Arab-Americans, Muslim-Americans, African-Americans, Latinos, the poor
> who can't afford expensive lawyers, parents with young children,
> individuals with health problems, etc. have good reason to seek to avoid
> possibilities of getting arrested if they can help it. I'm not from the
> Middle East, but I've been told (long before 9.11) by local civil
> liberties lawyers that what the state could do to me if I got arrested
> would be different from what they could do to an American-born citizen.
> Organizers who seek to recruit activists for civil disobedience and
> other actions that can get them in trouble with law should be honest
> about possible consequences of such actions.
Of course these groups have concerns about not getting arrested! I won't deny that. But there are some people in these groups who ARE willing to take some risks, thus this blanket characterization of people in these groups invalidates their agency in protests. My point here is that sectarian groups (who are mostly comprised of people not in these groups) seek to avoid risk and arrest and have turned to this excuse that we can *never* do anything risky on confrontational because people from these groups might be present.
This argument is especially obnoxious when it implies that all African-Americans need to be protected from arrest. Or international students. We've had African-Americans and international students in the black bloc. Obviously there are some people from these communities who aren't shy about marching down the street!
> Moreover, why fetishize "high-risk events"? Get yourself arrested, and
> you'll likely put yourself out of circulation for some time (sometimes
> for a long time) at least, having to go through the hassles of criminal
> justice system, expenses, etc. (I've seen this happen myself); you'll
> also likely cost your friends time, money, and energy, to serve as
> witnesses, etc.; and depending on your circumstances, you might get
> yourself deported or locked up for a long time. "High-risk events" may
> worth the risks sometimes, but it all depends on whether the benefits
> outweigh the costs.
Yoshie, I agree with you here. Fetishizing high risk actions is a bad tactical and strategic mistake. I've always argued that we need to conduct a variety of tactics, hopefully that are in tune with the circumstances. But the status quo among American leftists before Seattle was that *all* risky actions were to be avoided at all costs, including civil disobedience.
> It's not as though we were on the eve of social revolution. A couple of
> thousands of people getting arrested won't stop the war. Those who want
> to organize "high-risk events" might at least make clear what they hope
> to accomplish by increased risks.
We may not be on the eve of social revolution, but risk-takers have this annoying habit of advancing our movements towards our goals.
Chuck0
------------------------------------------------------------ Personal homepage -> http://chuck.mahost.org/ Infoshop.org -> http://www.infoshop.org/ MutualAid.org -> http://www.mutualaid.org/ Alternative Press Review -> http://www.altpr.org/ Practical Anarchy Online -> http://www.practicalanarchy.org/ Anarchy: AJODA -> http://www.anarchymag.org/
"The state can't give you free speech, and the state can't take it away. You're born with it, like your eyes, like your ears. Freedom is something you assume, then you wait for someone to try to take it away. The degree to which you resist is the degree to which you are free..." ---Utah Phillips