Chuck,
I seem to notice an inherent acquiescence to ANSWER or UFPJ's ownership (for want of a better word) of the space/event that took place because they got the permit. I personally think otherwise...they got the permit, but the event, whatever it was in the end, was the collective act of everyone that was there. And I am sure that most of the people there weren't really there in solidarity with ANSWER per se, or even really aware who ANSWER is and what they stand for. The fact that they also 'went with the program' as ANSWER laid it out, was perhaps problematic, but wasn't inevitable.
You write:
> I would have much
>> more respect for an organization or coalition that was mixing up mass
>> protests with civil disobedience and other risky and non-risky tactics.
Well, I don't know how much pre-notice that they gave about the demo...how much time other organizations, or yourself, would have had to think up different types of actions that could take place before, during and after the one that ANSWER organized. Seems to me an even where there are tens of thousands of people who are politically interested enough in protesting the war that some of them came thousands of miles to be there, was a perfect venue to have other types of actions take place, to take the space that ANSWER opened and make it into something else. Not letting them 'own' it. And not doing it IS giving them the event as their own, and letting them hegenomize the discourse.
That it didn't happen is a problem, but perhaps in part of it stems from a mindset that unconsciously sees their permit as a form of ownership of the event.
And this assumption is something I would think, you of all people would reject.
Bryan
Chuck0 wrote:
>
> I may be wrong, but most civil rights marches and protests were illegal.
> There was an element of risk to those protests--people put their lives
> on the line.
>
> Nobody at ANSWER or UFPJ is even risking arrest when they organize these
> permitted spectacles. This is my chief beef with these groups, because
> their only strategy is to organize safe, permitted events. Perhaps we
> should give them credit for doing this well, but they don't deserve any
> kind of leadership role for this one note strategy. I would have much
> more respect for an organization or coalition that was mixing up mass
> protests with civil disobedience and other risky and non-risky tactics.
> The Mobilization for Global Justice, for example, organized both
> permitted rallies, educational events, and civil disobedience.
> Chuck