What Does It Take To Make An Effective Boycott Or Demonstration?
- Thread starter geechiedan
- Start date
I Have Not Read All The Posts Here But.............
Any Time You Have A Protest It Is Necessary To Have A Goal.
You Can Not Negotiate Out Of Fear
But We Should Never Fear To Negotiate
The Black Out Is An Opening Offer For Equal Justice And For The Most Part To Put The Government On Notice That People Are Tired.
Not Just Black People Either.
Im Sure That When The Stakes Are Made Higher There Will Be A Counter Offer And So On.
No One Is Going To Just Do The Right Thing.
That Requires Coersion So Let The Games Begin
This Will Not Be An Overnight Thing
This Is An Ongoing Movement. It Wont Just End After Nov2
The Same Way It Didnt End After Jena
Washington D.c. Is The Next Big March....ill Be There To Lend My Services As A Soldier In The War On Us And Our Children.
Most Will Sit At Home And Catch The Shit On Cnn.
I Wont Go To My Grave And Be Able To Say I Didnt At Least Try To Help.
If The Founding Fathers Of These United States Didnt Have The Spirit Of Protest We Would Not All Be Here As We Know It Now.
Admittedly What We Know As Democracy And Free Enterprise Has Become The A Bastard Child Of What It Was Supposed To Be But We Still Have The Ability To Change Things.
The Squeaky Wheel Is The One That Gets The Oil.
We Are Just Begining To Squeak
We Will Either Recieve The Oil Or We Will Only Squeak Louder
And Soon Cause Such An Annoying Sound That They Will
No Longer Be Able To Ignore The Noise.
This Is A Resurgence Of An Era Long Past.
I Hope We Can Gain The Support And Momentum To Continue This And
Not Follow In Our Ancestors Footsteps And Become Discouraged And Druged .
I Hope That We Wont Fall For The Okydoke And Let Them Drive A Wedge Between Us And Use Their Devicive Tactics To Infiltrate The Ranks To Cause Distention And Division.
They Used Those Methods Before And We Should Be Able To See It Clearly This Time So That We Dont Fall Victim To The Bullshit.
Thats A Whole Other Story Though.
Im Trying To Stay On Topic.
An Effective Boycott Requires Support From Those That Will Be Effected
Weather They Realize It Or Not.
It Requires Resources To Help Maintain The Objective And Make Its Presence Known Or Felt.
It Requires Commitment And Sacrifice By
The People Making Their Dispute Known.
It Will Require Strength , Pride And Integrity Unfortunately Too Many Black People Have Lost Or Never Knew What Any Of That Means.
I Hope That The Events Of The Near Future Will Make Those Things Rise Up In More People Of Color .
Pride Alone Will Change The Face Of The Community.
The Problem Right Now Is , Many Of Us Are Proud Of Too Many Of The Wrong Things.
Time Of A Boycott
Where Its Held And More Of The Logistic Aspects Are Unimportant
When The People Dont Support It
With The Support Of The Whole Black Community
Nov 2 Would Rock The Retail Stores, Services And Advertisers Which Will Effect The Stockmarket .
Margin Call Is A Bitch When You Lose It All In One Day.
It Happens All The Time, Especially When Events Effect The Way Trading Is Handled For Just One Day.
This Will Get Attention And The Next Time It Will Be For A Week Or A Month Or At The End Of A Quarter.
However We Know That Too Many Of Us Dont Give A Fuck So , Most Likely That Wont Happen.
I Will Not Give Up Regardless
Im Holding My Money For Several Days Surrounding That Day.
If Black People Cared Or Were Thinking At Allthey Wouldnt Have To Be Told To Hold Their Money For More Than One Day
They Would Just Do It.
Which Proves How Sheepish Irresponsible And Shortsighted We Really Are
Yet You Have People In Other Threads Talking About A Race War
Thats Laughable.
We Have Too Many Chiefs And Not Enough Indians
Anyone That Doesnt Support A Cause That Effects Them
Is Essentially Against That Cause And Might As Well Be On The Other Side.
WHAT IS THE FIRST THING A KIDNAPPER DOES ?
HE KIDNAPPS THE SUBJECT....IN THIS CASE THE MONEY.
THEN HE MAKES HIS DEMANDS.
IN THIS CASE.......EQUAL JUSTICE,AMONG OTHER THINGS.
FEDERAL INTERVENTION TO ELIMINATE SITUATIONS LIKE JENA
CERTAIN LAWS THAT PREVENT PERSECUTION AND OVER PROSCUTING
OF YOUNG BLACK MEN AND WOMEN.
THATS JUST FOR STARTERS.
Support Support Support
Thats What Makes A Great Protest.
Any Time You Have A Protest It Is Necessary To Have A Goal.
You Can Not Negotiate Out Of Fear
But We Should Never Fear To Negotiate
The Black Out Is An Opening Offer For Equal Justice And For The Most Part To Put The Government On Notice That People Are Tired.
Not Just Black People Either.
Im Sure That When The Stakes Are Made Higher There Will Be A Counter Offer And So On.
No One Is Going To Just Do The Right Thing.
That Requires Coersion So Let The Games Begin
This Will Not Be An Overnight Thing
This Is An Ongoing Movement. It Wont Just End After Nov2
The Same Way It Didnt End After Jena
Washington D.c. Is The Next Big March....ill Be There To Lend My Services As A Soldier In The War On Us And Our Children.
Most Will Sit At Home And Catch The Shit On Cnn.
I Wont Go To My Grave And Be Able To Say I Didnt At Least Try To Help.
If The Founding Fathers Of These United States Didnt Have The Spirit Of Protest We Would Not All Be Here As We Know It Now.
Admittedly What We Know As Democracy And Free Enterprise Has Become The A Bastard Child Of What It Was Supposed To Be But We Still Have The Ability To Change Things.
The Squeaky Wheel Is The One That Gets The Oil.
We Are Just Begining To Squeak
We Will Either Recieve The Oil Or We Will Only Squeak Louder
And Soon Cause Such An Annoying Sound That They Will
No Longer Be Able To Ignore The Noise.
This Is A Resurgence Of An Era Long Past.
I Hope We Can Gain The Support And Momentum To Continue This And
Not Follow In Our Ancestors Footsteps And Become Discouraged And Druged .
I Hope That We Wont Fall For The Okydoke And Let Them Drive A Wedge Between Us And Use Their Devicive Tactics To Infiltrate The Ranks To Cause Distention And Division.
They Used Those Methods Before And We Should Be Able To See It Clearly This Time So That We Dont Fall Victim To The Bullshit.
Thats A Whole Other Story Though.
Im Trying To Stay On Topic.
An Effective Boycott Requires Support From Those That Will Be Effected
Weather They Realize It Or Not.
It Requires Resources To Help Maintain The Objective And Make Its Presence Known Or Felt.
It Requires Commitment And Sacrifice By
The People Making Their Dispute Known.
It Will Require Strength , Pride And Integrity Unfortunately Too Many Black People Have Lost Or Never Knew What Any Of That Means.
I Hope That The Events Of The Near Future Will Make Those Things Rise Up In More People Of Color .
Pride Alone Will Change The Face Of The Community.
The Problem Right Now Is , Many Of Us Are Proud Of Too Many Of The Wrong Things.
Time Of A Boycott
Where Its Held And More Of The Logistic Aspects Are Unimportant
When The People Dont Support It
With The Support Of The Whole Black Community
Nov 2 Would Rock The Retail Stores, Services And Advertisers Which Will Effect The Stockmarket .
Margin Call Is A Bitch When You Lose It All In One Day.
It Happens All The Time, Especially When Events Effect The Way Trading Is Handled For Just One Day.
This Will Get Attention And The Next Time It Will Be For A Week Or A Month Or At The End Of A Quarter.
However We Know That Too Many Of Us Dont Give A Fuck So , Most Likely That Wont Happen.
I Will Not Give Up Regardless
Im Holding My Money For Several Days Surrounding That Day.
If Black People Cared Or Were Thinking At Allthey Wouldnt Have To Be Told To Hold Their Money For More Than One Day
They Would Just Do It.
Which Proves How Sheepish Irresponsible And Shortsighted We Really Are
Yet You Have People In Other Threads Talking About A Race War
Thats Laughable.
We Have Too Many Chiefs And Not Enough Indians
Anyone That Doesnt Support A Cause That Effects Them
Is Essentially Against That Cause And Might As Well Be On The Other Side.
WHAT IS THE FIRST THING A KIDNAPPER DOES ?
HE KIDNAPPS THE SUBJECT....IN THIS CASE THE MONEY.
THEN HE MAKES HIS DEMANDS.
IN THIS CASE.......EQUAL JUSTICE,AMONG OTHER THINGS.
FEDERAL INTERVENTION TO ELIMINATE SITUATIONS LIKE JENA
CERTAIN LAWS THAT PREVENT PERSECUTION AND OVER PROSCUTING
OF YOUNG BLACK MEN AND WOMEN.
THATS JUST FOR STARTERS.
Support Support Support
Thats What Makes A Great Protest.
Last edited:
I Have Not Read All The Posts Here But.............
Any Time You Have A Protest It Is Necessary To Have A Goal.
You Can Not Negotiate Out Of Fear
But We Should Never Fear To Negotiate
The Black Out Is An Opening Offer For Equal Justice And For The Most Part To Put The Government On Notice That People Are Tired.
Not Just Black People Either.
Im Sure That When The Stakes Are Made Higher There Will Be A Counter Offer And So On.
No One Is Going To Just Do The Right Thing.
That Requires Coersion So Let The Games Begin
This Will Not Be An Overnight Thing
This Is An Ongoing Movement. It Wont Just End After Nov2
The Same Way It Didnt End After Jena
Washington D.c. Is The Next Big March....ill Be There To Lend My Services As A Soldier In The War On Us And Our Children.
Most Will Sit At Home And Catch The Shit On Cnn.
I Wont Go To My Grave And Be Able To Say I Didnt At Least Try To Help.
If The Founding Fathers Of These United States Didnt Have The Spirit Of Protest We Would Not All Be Here As We Know It Now.
Admittedly What We Know As Democracy And Free Enterprise Has Become The A Bastard Child Of What It Was Supposed To Be But We Still Have The Ability To Change Things.
The Squeaky Wheel Is The One That Gets The Oil.
We Are Just Begining To Squeak
We Will Either Recieve The Oil Or We Will Only Squeak Louder
And Soon Cause Such An Annoying Sound That They Will
No Longer Be Able To Ignore The Noise.
This Is A Resurgence Of An Era Long Past.
I Hope We Can Gain The Support And Momentum To Continue This And
Not Follow In Our Ancestors Footsteps And Become Discouraged And Druged .
I Hope That We Wont Fall For The Okydoke And Let Them Drive A Wedge Between Us And Use Their Devicive Tactics To Infiltrate The Ranks To Cause Distention And Division.
They Used Those Methods Before And We Should Be Able To See It Clearly This Time So That We Dont Fall Victim To The Bullshit.
Thats A Whole Other Story Though.
Im Trying To Stay On Topic.
An Effective Boycott Requires Support From Those That Will Be Effected
Weather They Realize It Or Not.
It Requires Resources To Help Maintain The Objective And Make Its Presence Known Or Felt.
It Requires Commitment And Sacrifice By
The People Making Their Dispute Known.
It Will Require Strength , Pride And Integrity Unfortunately Too Many Black People Have Lost Or Never Knew What Any Of That Means.
I Hope That The Events Of The Near Future Will Make Those Things Rise Up In More People Of Color .
Pride Alone Will Change The Face Of The Community.
The Problem Right Now Is , Many Of Us Are Proud Of Too Many Of The Wrong Things.
Time Of A Boycott
Where Its Held And More Of The Logistic Aspects Are Unimportant
When The People Dont Support It
With The Support Of The Whole Black Community
Nov 2 Would Rock The Retail Stores, Services And Advertisers Which Will Effect The Stockmarket .
Margin Call Is A Bitch When You Lose It All In One Day.
It Happens All The Time, Especially When Events Effect The Way Trading Is Handled For Just One Day.
This Will Get Attention And The Next Time It Will Be For A Week Or A Month Or At The End Of A Quarter.
However We Know That Too Many Of Us Dont Give A Fuck So , Most Likely That Wont Happen.
I Will Not Give Up Regardless
Im Holding My Money For Several Days Surrounding That Day.
If Black People Cared Or Were Thinking At Allthey Wouldnt Have To Be Told To Hold Their Money For More Than One Day
They Would Just Do It.
Which Proves How Sheepish Irresponsible And Shortsighted We Really Are
Yet You Have People In Other Threads Talking About A Race War
Thats Laughable.
We Have Too Many Chiefs And Not Enough Indians
Anyone That Doesnt Support A Cause That Effects Them
Is Essentially Against That Cause And Might As Well Be On The Other Side.
The First Thing A Kidnapper Does is............. Do The Kidnapping.
Then He Makes His Demands.
We Have To Take Something First Then We Will Talk About What We Want.
Hold Your Money
Support Support Support
Thats What Makes A Great Protest.
Any Time You Have A Protest It Is Necessary To Have A Goal.
You Can Not Negotiate Out Of Fear
But We Should Never Fear To Negotiate
The Black Out Is An Opening Offer For Equal Justice And For The Most Part To Put The Government On Notice That People Are Tired.
Not Just Black People Either.
Im Sure That When The Stakes Are Made Higher There Will Be A Counter Offer And So On.
No One Is Going To Just Do The Right Thing.
That Requires Coersion So Let The Games Begin
This Will Not Be An Overnight Thing
This Is An Ongoing Movement. It Wont Just End After Nov2
The Same Way It Didnt End After Jena
Washington D.c. Is The Next Big March....ill Be There To Lend My Services As A Soldier In The War On Us And Our Children.
Most Will Sit At Home And Catch The Shit On Cnn.
I Wont Go To My Grave And Be Able To Say I Didnt At Least Try To Help.
If The Founding Fathers Of These United States Didnt Have The Spirit Of Protest We Would Not All Be Here As We Know It Now.
Admittedly What We Know As Democracy And Free Enterprise Has Become The A Bastard Child Of What It Was Supposed To Be But We Still Have The Ability To Change Things.
The Squeaky Wheel Is The One That Gets The Oil.
We Are Just Begining To Squeak
We Will Either Recieve The Oil Or We Will Only Squeak Louder
And Soon Cause Such An Annoying Sound That They Will
No Longer Be Able To Ignore The Noise.
This Is A Resurgence Of An Era Long Past.
I Hope We Can Gain The Support And Momentum To Continue This And
Not Follow In Our Ancestors Footsteps And Become Discouraged And Druged .
I Hope That We Wont Fall For The Okydoke And Let Them Drive A Wedge Between Us And Use Their Devicive Tactics To Infiltrate The Ranks To Cause Distention And Division.
They Used Those Methods Before And We Should Be Able To See It Clearly This Time So That We Dont Fall Victim To The Bullshit.
Thats A Whole Other Story Though.
Im Trying To Stay On Topic.
An Effective Boycott Requires Support From Those That Will Be Effected
Weather They Realize It Or Not.
It Requires Resources To Help Maintain The Objective And Make Its Presence Known Or Felt.
It Requires Commitment And Sacrifice By
The People Making Their Dispute Known.
It Will Require Strength , Pride And Integrity Unfortunately Too Many Black People Have Lost Or Never Knew What Any Of That Means.
I Hope That The Events Of The Near Future Will Make Those Things Rise Up In More People Of Color .
Pride Alone Will Change The Face Of The Community.
The Problem Right Now Is , Many Of Us Are Proud Of Too Many Of The Wrong Things.
Time Of A Boycott
Where Its Held And More Of The Logistic Aspects Are Unimportant
When The People Dont Support It
With The Support Of The Whole Black Community
Nov 2 Would Rock The Retail Stores, Services And Advertisers Which Will Effect The Stockmarket .
Margin Call Is A Bitch When You Lose It All In One Day.
It Happens All The Time, Especially When Events Effect The Way Trading Is Handled For Just One Day.
This Will Get Attention And The Next Time It Will Be For A Week Or A Month Or At The End Of A Quarter.
However We Know That Too Many Of Us Dont Give A Fuck So , Most Likely That Wont Happen.
I Will Not Give Up Regardless
Im Holding My Money For Several Days Surrounding That Day.
If Black People Cared Or Were Thinking At Allthey Wouldnt Have To Be Told To Hold Their Money For More Than One Day
They Would Just Do It.
Which Proves How Sheepish Irresponsible And Shortsighted We Really Are
Yet You Have People In Other Threads Talking About A Race War
Thats Laughable.
We Have Too Many Chiefs And Not Enough Indians
Anyone That Doesnt Support A Cause That Effects Them
Is Essentially Against That Cause And Might As Well Be On The Other Side.
The First Thing A Kidnapper Does is............. Do The Kidnapping.
Then He Makes His Demands.
We Have To Take Something First Then We Will Talk About What We Want.
Hold Your Money
Support Support Support
Thats What Makes A Great Protest.
But the biggest problem to that end in the Black Out is that ultimately it doesn't hurt those its intended to affect...
The Black Outs and Buy Black boycotts are intended to affect the white corporate power structure. The problem is that structure is so ingrained in the fabric of our community that we can't separate whats ours and whats theirs.
While you may decide to shop only at Abdullahs FoodMart and not at the Shoprite..but Abdullahs is STILL supplied by Coke and Beatrice and whatever white corporation that makes 40s (aka liquid crack) so while the ShopRite may suffer from no black business...the white corporate power structure isn't effected much all.
Thats the biggest reason people are skeptical...not unwilling to do anything..but skeptical that that particular effort won't have the desired effect.
Those demads could be achieved more directly by us exercising our power to vote and installing OUR OWN politicians and DA and judges.
You don't have to make demands on the white power structure if you set out to CHANGE the composition of that structure.
Thats the difference in attacking the weeds at the ROOT rather than just trimming the surface and watching the weeds grow again (altho there is an agenda to keep that happening as it keeps certain people employed).
next year is an election year THATS the time to make our voice heard but more than that..put OUR people in the seats to make and change POLICY...not negotiate with the same power structure in the HOPES that our displays of outrage will scare them into reacting positively.
THOSE were the next steps the MLK generation was hoping we would have taken in the last 40 years.
The Black Outs and Buy Black boycotts are intended to affect the white corporate power structure. The problem is that structure is so ingrained in the fabric of our community that we can't separate whats ours and whats theirs.
While you may decide to shop only at Abdullahs FoodMart and not at the Shoprite..but Abdullahs is STILL supplied by Coke and Beatrice and whatever white corporation that makes 40s (aka liquid crack) so while the ShopRite may suffer from no black business...the white corporate power structure isn't effected much all.
Thats the biggest reason people are skeptical...not unwilling to do anything..but skeptical that that particular effort won't have the desired effect.
Those demads could be achieved more directly by us exercising our power to vote and installing OUR OWN politicians and DA and judges.
You don't have to make demands on the white power structure if you set out to CHANGE the composition of that structure.
Thats the difference in attacking the weeds at the ROOT rather than just trimming the surface and watching the weeds grow again (altho there is an agenda to keep that happening as it keeps certain people employed).
next year is an election year THATS the time to make our voice heard but more than that..put OUR people in the seats to make and change POLICY...not negotiate with the same power structure in the HOPES that our displays of outrage will scare them into reacting positively.
THOSE were the next steps the MLK generation was hoping we would have taken in the last 40 years.
UNITY
http://www.counterpunch.org/neumann02082003.html
Sometime in the early 1960s, I decided I was too scared to participate in the Freedom Rides. I have neither the moral standing nor the slightest desire to disparage the courage of those who engage in non-violence. But non-violence, so often recommended to the Palestinians, has never 'worked' in any politically relevant sense of the word, and there is no reason to suppose it ever will. It has never, largely on its own strength, achieved the political objectives of those who employed it.
There are supposedly three major examples of successful nonviolence: Gandhi's independence movement, the US civil rights movement, and the South African campaign against apartheid. None of them performed as advertised.
Gandhi's nonviolence can't have been successful, because there was nothing he would have called a success. Gandhi's priorities may have shifted over time: he said, that, if he changed his mind from one week to the next, it was because he had learned something in between. But it seems fair to say that he wanted independence from British rule, a united India, and nonviolence itself, an end to civil or ethnic strife on the Indian subcontinent. What he got was India 1947: partition, and one of the most horrifying outbursts of bloodshed and cruelty in the whole bloody, cruel history of the postwar world. The antagonism between Muslims and Hindus, so painful to Gandhi, still seems almost set in stone. These consequences alone would be sufficient to count his project as a tragic failure.
What of independence itself? Historians might argue about its causes, but I doubt any of them would attribute it primarily to Gandhi's campaign. The British began contemplating--admittedly with varying degrees of sincerity--some measure of autonomy for India before Gandhi did anything, as early as 1917. A.J.P.Taylor says that after World War I, the British were beginning to find India a liability, because India was once again producing its own cotton, and buying cheap textiles from Japan. Later, India's strategic importance, while valued by many, became questioned by some, who saw the oil of the Middle East and the Suez canal as far more important. By the end of the Second World War, Britain's will to hold onto its empire had pretty well crumbled, for reasons having little or nothing to do with nonviolence.
But this is the least important of the reasons why Gandhi cannot be said to have won independence for India. It was not his saintliness or the disruption he caused that impressed the British. What impressed them was that the country seemed (and was) about to erupt into a slaughter. The colonial authorities could see no way to stop it. What they could see was the increasingly violent antagonism between Muslims and Hindus, both of whom detected, in the distance, the emergence of a power vacuum they rushed to fill. This violence included the "Great Calcutta Killing" of August 1946, when at least 4000 people died in three days. Another factor was the terrorism--and this need not be a term of condemnation--quite regularly employed against the British. It was not enough to do much harm, but more than enough to warn them that India was becoming more trouble than it was worth. All things considered, the well-founded fear of generalized violence had far more effect on British resolve than Gandhi ever did. He may have been a brilliant and creative political thinker, but he was not a victor.
Well, how about the US civil rights movement? It would be difficult and ungenerous to argue that it was unsuccessful, outrageous to claim that it was anything but a long and dangerous struggle. But when that is conceded, the fact remains that the Martin Luther King's civil rights movement was practically a federal government project.
Its roots may have run deep, but its impetus came from the Supreme Court decision of 1954 and from the subsequent attempts to integrate Central High School in Little Rock, Arkansas. The students who braved a hell to accomplish this goal are well remembered. Sometimes forgotten is US government's almost spectacular determination to see that federal law was respected. Eisenhower sent, not the FBI, not a bunch of lawyers, but one of the best and proudest units of the United States Army, the 101st Airborne, to keep order in Little Rock, and to see that the 'federalized' Arkansas national guard stayed on the right side of the dispute. Though there was never any hint of an impending battle between federal and state military forces, the message couldn't have been clearer: we, the federal government, are prepared to do whatever it takes to enforce our will.
This message is an undercurrent throughout the civil rights struggles of the 1950s and 1960s. Though Martin Luther King still had to overcome vicious, sometimes deadly resistance, he himself remarked that surprisingly few people were killed or seriously injured in the struggle. The surprise diminishes with the recollection that there was real federal muscle behind the nonviolent campaign. For a variety of motives, both virtuous and cynical, the US government wanted the South to be integrated and to recognize black civil rights. Nonviolence achieved its ends largely because the violence of its opponents was severely constrained. In 1962, Kennedy federalized the National Guard and sent in combat troops to quell segregationist rioting in Oxford, Mississippi. Johnson did the same thing in 1965, after anti-civil rights violence in Alabama. While any political movement has allies and benefits from favorable circumstances, having the might of the US government behind you goes far beyond the ordinary advantages accompanying political activity. The nonviolence of the US civil rights movement sets an example only for those who have the overwhelming armed force of a government on their side.
As for South Africa, it is a minor miracle of wishful thinking that anyone could suppose nonviolence played a major role in the collapse of apartheid.
In the first place, the ANC was never a nonviolent movement but a movement which decided, on occasion and for practical reasons, to use nonviolent tactics. (The same can be said of the other anti-apartheid organizations.) Much like Sinn Fein and the IRA, it maintained from the 1960s on an arms-length relationship with MK (Umkhonto we Sizwe), a military/guerrilla organization. So there was never even a commitment to Gandhian nonviolence within the South African movements.
Secondly, violence was used extensively throughout the course of the anti-apartheid struggle. It can be argued that the violence was essentially defensive, but that's not the point: nonviolence as a doctrine rejects the use of violence in self-defense. To say that blacks used violence in self-defense or as resistance to oppression is to say, I think, that they were justified. It is certainly not to say that they were non-violent.
Third, violence played a major role in causing both the boycott of South Africa and the demise of apartheid. Albert Luthuli, then president of the African National Congress, called for an economic boycott in 1959; the ANC'S nonviolent resistance began in 1952.* But the boycott only acquired some teeth starting in 1977, after the Soweto riots in 1976, and again in 1985-1986, after the township riots of 1984-1985. Though the emphasis in accounts of these riots is understandably on police repression, no one contests that black protestors committed many violent acts, including attacks on police stations.
Violence was telling in other ways. The armed forces associated with the ANC, though never very effective, worried the South African government after Angola and Mozambique ceased to function as buffer states: sooner or later, it was supposed, the black armies would become a serious problem. (This worry intensified with the strategic defeat of South African forces by Cuban units at Cuito Cuanavale, Angola, in 1988.) In addition, violence was widespread and crucial in eliminating police informers and political enemies, as well in coercing cooperation with collective actions. It included the particularly gory practice of necklacing.
Though much of the violence was conducted by gangs and mobs, it was not for that any less politically important: on the contrary, it was precisely the disorganized character of the violence that made it so hard to contain. And history of the period indicates that the South African government fell, not under the moral weight of dignified, passive suffering, but because the white rulers (and their friends in the West) felt that the situation was spiraling out of control. Economic problems caused by the boycotts and the administration of apartheid were also a factor, but the boycott and the administrative costs were themselves, in large measure, a response to violent rather than nonviolent resistance.
In short, it is a myth that nonviolence brought all the victories it is supposed to have brought. It brought, in fact, none of them.
How does this bear on the Israel-Palestine conflict? At the very least it should make one question the propriety of recommending nonviolence to the Palestinians. In their situation, success is far less likely than in the cases we have examined. Unlike Martin Luther King, they are working against a state, not with one. Their opponents are far more ruthless than the British were in the twilight of empire. Unlike the Indians and South Africans, they do not vastly outnumber their oppressors. And neither the Boers nor the English ever had anything like the moral authority Israel enjoys in the hearts and minds of Americans, much less its enormous support network. Nonviolent protest might overcome Israel's prestige in ten or twenty years, but no one thinks the Palestinians have that long.
But the biggest myth of nonviolence isn't its supposed efficacy: it's the notion that, if you don't choose non-violence, you choose violence. The Palestinians, like many others before them, find a middle ground. They choose when and whether to use violence and when to refrain from it. Many many times, they have chosen non-violent tactics, from demonstrations to strikes to negotiations, with varying but certainly not spectacular success. And their greatest act of nonviolent resistance is, as Israel Shamir points out, their stubborn determination to remain on their own lands despite repeated attacks from armed settlers, which Palestinian farmers are in no position to counter.
The Palestinians will continue to choose, sometimes violence, sometimes nonviolence. They will presumably base their choices, as they have always done, on their assessment of the political realities. It is a sort of insolent naïveté to suppose that, in their weakness, they should defy the lessons of history and cut off half their options. The notion that a people can free itself literally by allowing their captors to walk all over them is historical fantasy.
Sometime in the early 1960s, I decided I was too scared to participate in the Freedom Rides. I have neither the moral standing nor the slightest desire to disparage the courage of those who engage in non-violence. But non-violence, so often recommended to the Palestinians, has never 'worked' in any politically relevant sense of the word, and there is no reason to suppose it ever will. It has never, largely on its own strength, achieved the political objectives of those who employed it.
There are supposedly three major examples of successful nonviolence: Gandhi's independence movement, the US civil rights movement, and the South African campaign against apartheid. None of them performed as advertised.
Gandhi's nonviolence can't have been successful, because there was nothing he would have called a success. Gandhi's priorities may have shifted over time: he said, that, if he changed his mind from one week to the next, it was because he had learned something in between. But it seems fair to say that he wanted independence from British rule, a united India, and nonviolence itself, an end to civil or ethnic strife on the Indian subcontinent. What he got was India 1947: partition, and one of the most horrifying outbursts of bloodshed and cruelty in the whole bloody, cruel history of the postwar world. The antagonism between Muslims and Hindus, so painful to Gandhi, still seems almost set in stone. These consequences alone would be sufficient to count his project as a tragic failure.
What of independence itself? Historians might argue about its causes, but I doubt any of them would attribute it primarily to Gandhi's campaign. The British began contemplating--admittedly with varying degrees of sincerity--some measure of autonomy for India before Gandhi did anything, as early as 1917. A.J.P.Taylor says that after World War I, the British were beginning to find India a liability, because India was once again producing its own cotton, and buying cheap textiles from Japan. Later, India's strategic importance, while valued by many, became questioned by some, who saw the oil of the Middle East and the Suez canal as far more important. By the end of the Second World War, Britain's will to hold onto its empire had pretty well crumbled, for reasons having little or nothing to do with nonviolence.
But this is the least important of the reasons why Gandhi cannot be said to have won independence for India. It was not his saintliness or the disruption he caused that impressed the British. What impressed them was that the country seemed (and was) about to erupt into a slaughter. The colonial authorities could see no way to stop it. What they could see was the increasingly violent antagonism between Muslims and Hindus, both of whom detected, in the distance, the emergence of a power vacuum they rushed to fill. This violence included the "Great Calcutta Killing" of August 1946, when at least 4000 people died in three days. Another factor was the terrorism--and this need not be a term of condemnation--quite regularly employed against the British. It was not enough to do much harm, but more than enough to warn them that India was becoming more trouble than it was worth. All things considered, the well-founded fear of generalized violence had far more effect on British resolve than Gandhi ever did. He may have been a brilliant and creative political thinker, but he was not a victor.
Well, how about the US civil rights movement? It would be difficult and ungenerous to argue that it was unsuccessful, outrageous to claim that it was anything but a long and dangerous struggle. But when that is conceded, the fact remains that the Martin Luther King's civil rights movement was practically a federal government project.
Its roots may have run deep, but its impetus came from the Supreme Court decision of 1954 and from the subsequent attempts to integrate Central High School in Little Rock, Arkansas. The students who braved a hell to accomplish this goal are well remembered. Sometimes forgotten is US government's almost spectacular determination to see that federal law was respected. Eisenhower sent, not the FBI, not a bunch of lawyers, but one of the best and proudest units of the United States Army, the 101st Airborne, to keep order in Little Rock, and to see that the 'federalized' Arkansas national guard stayed on the right side of the dispute. Though there was never any hint of an impending battle between federal and state military forces, the message couldn't have been clearer: we, the federal government, are prepared to do whatever it takes to enforce our will.
This message is an undercurrent throughout the civil rights struggles of the 1950s and 1960s. Though Martin Luther King still had to overcome vicious, sometimes deadly resistance, he himself remarked that surprisingly few people were killed or seriously injured in the struggle. The surprise diminishes with the recollection that there was real federal muscle behind the nonviolent campaign. For a variety of motives, both virtuous and cynical, the US government wanted the South to be integrated and to recognize black civil rights. Nonviolence achieved its ends largely because the violence of its opponents was severely constrained. In 1962, Kennedy federalized the National Guard and sent in combat troops to quell segregationist rioting in Oxford, Mississippi. Johnson did the same thing in 1965, after anti-civil rights violence in Alabama. While any political movement has allies and benefits from favorable circumstances, having the might of the US government behind you goes far beyond the ordinary advantages accompanying political activity. The nonviolence of the US civil rights movement sets an example only for those who have the overwhelming armed force of a government on their side.
As for South Africa, it is a minor miracle of wishful thinking that anyone could suppose nonviolence played a major role in the collapse of apartheid.
In the first place, the ANC was never a nonviolent movement but a movement which decided, on occasion and for practical reasons, to use nonviolent tactics. (The same can be said of the other anti-apartheid organizations.) Much like Sinn Fein and the IRA, it maintained from the 1960s on an arms-length relationship with MK (Umkhonto we Sizwe), a military/guerrilla organization. So there was never even a commitment to Gandhian nonviolence within the South African movements.
Secondly, violence was used extensively throughout the course of the anti-apartheid struggle. It can be argued that the violence was essentially defensive, but that's not the point: nonviolence as a doctrine rejects the use of violence in self-defense. To say that blacks used violence in self-defense or as resistance to oppression is to say, I think, that they were justified. It is certainly not to say that they were non-violent.
Third, violence played a major role in causing both the boycott of South Africa and the demise of apartheid. Albert Luthuli, then president of the African National Congress, called for an economic boycott in 1959; the ANC'S nonviolent resistance began in 1952.* But the boycott only acquired some teeth starting in 1977, after the Soweto riots in 1976, and again in 1985-1986, after the township riots of 1984-1985. Though the emphasis in accounts of these riots is understandably on police repression, no one contests that black protestors committed many violent acts, including attacks on police stations.
Violence was telling in other ways. The armed forces associated with the ANC, though never very effective, worried the South African government after Angola and Mozambique ceased to function as buffer states: sooner or later, it was supposed, the black armies would become a serious problem. (This worry intensified with the strategic defeat of South African forces by Cuban units at Cuito Cuanavale, Angola, in 1988.) In addition, violence was widespread and crucial in eliminating police informers and political enemies, as well in coercing cooperation with collective actions. It included the particularly gory practice of necklacing.
Though much of the violence was conducted by gangs and mobs, it was not for that any less politically important: on the contrary, it was precisely the disorganized character of the violence that made it so hard to contain. And history of the period indicates that the South African government fell, not under the moral weight of dignified, passive suffering, but because the white rulers (and their friends in the West) felt that the situation was spiraling out of control. Economic problems caused by the boycotts and the administration of apartheid were also a factor, but the boycott and the administrative costs were themselves, in large measure, a response to violent rather than nonviolent resistance.
In short, it is a myth that nonviolence brought all the victories it is supposed to have brought. It brought, in fact, none of them.
How does this bear on the Israel-Palestine conflict? At the very least it should make one question the propriety of recommending nonviolence to the Palestinians. In their situation, success is far less likely than in the cases we have examined. Unlike Martin Luther King, they are working against a state, not with one. Their opponents are far more ruthless than the British were in the twilight of empire. Unlike the Indians and South Africans, they do not vastly outnumber their oppressors. And neither the Boers nor the English ever had anything like the moral authority Israel enjoys in the hearts and minds of Americans, much less its enormous support network. Nonviolent protest might overcome Israel's prestige in ten or twenty years, but no one thinks the Palestinians have that long.
But the biggest myth of nonviolence isn't its supposed efficacy: it's the notion that, if you don't choose non-violence, you choose violence. The Palestinians, like many others before them, find a middle ground. They choose when and whether to use violence and when to refrain from it. Many many times, they have chosen non-violent tactics, from demonstrations to strikes to negotiations, with varying but certainly not spectacular success. And their greatest act of nonviolent resistance is, as Israel Shamir points out, their stubborn determination to remain on their own lands despite repeated attacks from armed settlers, which Palestinian farmers are in no position to counter.
The Palestinians will continue to choose, sometimes violence, sometimes nonviolence. They will presumably base their choices, as they have always done, on their assessment of the political realities. It is a sort of insolent naïveté to suppose that, in their weakness, they should defy the lessons of history and cut off half their options. The notion that a people can free itself literally by allowing their captors to walk all over them is historical fantasy.
Last edited:
Props to the thread starter. I'm no expert on boycotts and on what it takes to make an effective one but common sense tells me that it needs to be more focused and longer term. Having said that I'm still in on Nov. 2 and will put in my 2 cents after it's over with an eye on estimates on how many participated and any effect it had, including negative. I'll pretty much be a follower on the boycott issue whether this one or another.
bump
violence and bloodshed...
that seems to be the more historically accurate way of looking at it...
who's willing to die for the cause (not talking about the Black Out per se but ANY cause)?
Does anyone think that violence and rioting are a realistic measure that may happen in the future concerning the issues surrounding the jena 6?
bump
The main point with this approach is never take it off the table.Let your adversary know that they can never be totally safe. If they feel that no retribution will ever come to them or their famalies then they have the freedom to do as they please including being violent towards you.
I believe that we are not yet at this point but always having it in your mind as an option will enable a faster mobilization of resources and when your adversary see you are knuckled up they'll think many times over before they come at you with some bullshit.
but unfortunately that violence isn't going to be against the adversary..more than likely it will be in the streets of your own neighborhood.
There are parts of the black community that have never properly recovered from the riots of 60s..to this day.
If you want a lasting, effective demonstration you need a unifying belief, a cause is not strong enough but a ideology like Christianity, Islam, democracy is something people will fight and die for.
You need a strong message and messenger. MLK could move the people with his words but it was his beliefs and the conviction he conveyed them with that made people take action.
Most importantly though is the institution. Institutions have the power to keep the people informed and motivated, they can put out consistent messages whereas a messenger can only speak to a handful of people at a time. American institutions are what makes this country great.
This blackout might make a statement but it will just be symbolic because it is not built on the foundation it needs to make a lasting impression. Blacks are going to have to find a way to organize our community, build new institutions and strengthen the ones we got.
You need a strong message and messenger. MLK could move the people with his words but it was his beliefs and the conviction he conveyed them with that made people take action.
Most importantly though is the institution. Institutions have the power to keep the people informed and motivated, they can put out consistent messages whereas a messenger can only speak to a handful of people at a time. American institutions are what makes this country great.
This blackout might make a statement but it will just be symbolic because it is not built on the foundation it needs to make a lasting impression. Blacks are going to have to find a way to organize our community, build new institutions and strengthen the ones we got.
I've gone back and read about 90% of the replies you and many more posters in this thread really laid it out. I think the MOST IMPORTANT thing for a boycott or most any other kind of action is: Knowing what do you expect to accomplish. It the goal is unreasonable or unreachable, ultimately the cause will suffer; unity gained will likely mean unity lost; and people will be less inclined to participate in the next venture because of the lack of results from the last one.geechiedan said:
I'm not sure at all that I understand what is expected to be accomplished in the Blackout; and, whether its goals can reasonably be expected to be attained.
QueEx
okay...so here's the problem to be solved.
How do you compel the gov't (federal, state, local) to balance the racial disparity in the judicial system?
What methods are most effective in bringing this issue and solutions to the forefront?
Boycotts
Physical Demonstrations
Civil Disobedience
something outside the box
How do you compel the gov't (federal, state, local) to balance the racial disparity in the judicial system?
What methods are most effective in bringing this issue and solutions to the forefront?
Boycotts
Physical Demonstrations
Civil Disobedience
something outside the box
Outside of the box. I doubt seriously that major change of laws, as far as civil rights are concerned, will come via boycotts, demonstrations or civil disobedience. Look at the 60's: we faced physical as well as psychological violence on a mass scale in attempting to exercise our constitutional rights; the open and obvious violence and the institutional denial of rights FUELED the will and desire to go to extreme means over an extended period of time, to effect change.
In my opinion, the fuel that fed the fire is absent now, hence, boycotts, demonstrations and civil disobedience are unlikely to burn with the required fervor over an extended period of time to effect change. The fuel, the things that push people to action over a long and persistent period of time, just isn't present.
The judicial system is set up by the federal and state constitutions and statutory laws. Both were created before Black Rights were taken seriously and, generally, those laws are designed to preserve and protect the status quo: white and land. If you look back a bit in history, the landed and white were the monied.
In my opinion, changing the judicial system means changing or amending the law by Congress and state legislatures. I also believe that court challenges using sophisticated legal reasoning would be a good approach. Both means of attack, however, are being crippled because of a simple phenomena: Black Voter Apathy. When we fail to appear on election day, we fail to give those a chance who 'might' see things differently. In large part, we allow the status quo to remain the status quo. The status quo will appoint som bitches to the U.S. Supreme Courts that seek to preserve the status quo; and the status quo will be elected/appointed to state supreme courts and preserve the status quo.
You want mass-action? Get mass action to get our Black masses off our Black asses to register and cast our Black Votes.
QueEx
One of the rights Blacks got from the Civil Rights Movement was to be self-defining. Throughout our history Whites told us who we where and what we could have. The Movement changed that we got the right to move freely as well as the right to vote. In our defense after 400yrs of oppression you don't just up and become self reliant that takes time. I remember when I got out of the Air Force it took me 2 yrs to adjust to civilian life. But we don't have to lobby the court for civil rights anymore because we have them, what we need is identity and direction as well as an clear explanation about what we're dealing with.
If we didn't learn one thing from the Movement it was civil disobidence works both ways. When Barry Goldwater stood up during the Rep Convention and said "You can't make people like each other" he basically gave whites a way to ignore new civil rights laws, they would just not obey them. Now we are not dealing with segregation or racism we are dealing with civil disobedience by some whites.
But we can counter that now because we have the same rights as they do, we don't have to sit back and take it. We could be lobbying the NAACP and SCLC to combine their organizations to form a Black government. It wouldn't have the power of the fed but it could give us structure and direction. They could focus on making sure the community got the funds earmarked for it by the govt. They could make sure the community is properly protected by cops. They could partner with Black sororities and frats to form a economic platform and bring knowledge and business back to the community.
We here on this board could use the various post as a blueprint for organizing our community, we have discussed all the issues and formed something of a consensus. If we could organize it we could lobby the government, affect change and make some money from the comfort of our homes.
Point is we now have the Right to decide what happens to us we just need to use it.
If we didn't learn one thing from the Movement it was civil disobidence works both ways. When Barry Goldwater stood up during the Rep Convention and said "You can't make people like each other" he basically gave whites a way to ignore new civil rights laws, they would just not obey them. Now we are not dealing with segregation or racism we are dealing with civil disobedience by some whites.
But we can counter that now because we have the same rights as they do, we don't have to sit back and take it. We could be lobbying the NAACP and SCLC to combine their organizations to form a Black government. It wouldn't have the power of the fed but it could give us structure and direction. They could focus on making sure the community got the funds earmarked for it by the govt. They could make sure the community is properly protected by cops. They could partner with Black sororities and frats to form a economic platform and bring knowledge and business back to the community.
We here on this board could use the various post as a blueprint for organizing our community, we have discussed all the issues and formed something of a consensus. If we could organize it we could lobby the government, affect change and make some money from the comfort of our homes.
Point is we now have the Right to decide what happens to us we just need to use it.
If you take a completely non violent stance then yes it will only occur where you live. but if those that would come in your community with a violent intent know that their own community may be under attack at the same time they're in yours then maybe a light will go off in their head saying maybe fuckin with these people ain't the best place for me to be.
Edit: addition to post
I've been reading the post and while i have alot of questions and some doubts about this Blackout let me say this:
We have to stop over analyzing everything we do before we even do it. Lets do the damn thing then critique it afterwards with an eye towards either making changes so it would be more effective, suchas, a multi-pronged approach ( targeted boycotts along with carefully staged mass protests,etc. nationwide) or, if said critique points toward scrapping it then so be it move on to the next idea or set of ideas.
Last edited:
it definitely starts with voting and using the civic system. But I'm talking putting our own people in the system.
Also I understand that the industry basically outsourced the factory jobs and such to other countries...how can we bring those jobs BACK to the community?
Im speaking in terms of rioting and unrest along those lines...look at the LA riots in 92..the trial was in simi valley..the people were angry that the white rule there YET the riots were nothing but black neighborhoods..simi valley was untouched yet thats where the people who created the problems lived.
But the game is chess..not checkers. Making moves and then looking at the result risks expending time and energy in wasted efforts...when you could just PLAN and come up with contingencies and be prepared for whatever fallout may happen.
Those riots like all others were spontaneous, unplanned, uncoordinated, self inflicted wounds. If any group of people desire to lash out they must be more disciplined.
as in chess you contemplate a move, plan for it, consider alternatives, consider the possible counter moves of your opponent, make contingencies, check all of them several times. but eventually you gotta put your hand on your piece and move it then see what happens. Then you evaluate the efficacy of your move, analyze your opponents counter move, then start the process all over again. It seems alot of people want a iron clad gaurantee of success before they put their hand on the piece. They aren't gonna get one.
IMO...no
while i'm sure plenty of people are going to be doing it. It just isn't hitting the people its intended to effect hard at all.
Its tantamount to a hunger strike...or if you really want to get insulting about it..a child holding its breath to get its way..all they have to do is wait you out and you'll come around eventually...
A black out boycott is just not a very realistic way of trying to impact the country unless you can import goods directly from a place and completely bypass the myriad of white businesses in the progress...
I was thinking the same thing; though I am hoping for just the opposite.
Realistically, it will certainly get some attention but I think thats really all its designed to do -- be an attention getter. For the reasons you stated, I doubt it has much else promise. Nevertheless, and for whatever its worth, I'm going to do my part.
QueEx
to get me wrong...if you (or anyone) feels the need to do something then by all means try it...it just MAY work. But I think we should be beyond the attention getting marching on washington phase in showing our dissapproval and demanding results on a situation.
Thats the main reason i came up with the thread to so just that..this was/is never intended to shoot down or complain about any type of action. But to come up with doable alternatives and viable solutions.
Its time we took the next step and thats a 2 part plan.
One is getting ourselves in places to CHANGE policy rather than ASKING for policy to be changed.
And second is cleaning up our communities so that when some shit does happen its not to a guy thats got previous convictions already. Thus making it harder to have sympathy for someone who seems to have trouble NOT getting in arrested.
Last edited:
A boycott should have specific goals, there has to be a way to measure progress. Compare the Duke rape case to the Jenna 6. Even though the charges in the Duke case were dropped the DA ended up losing his job, got disbarred, spent some jail time and might get sued. In the Jenna case 30 thousand Blacks showed up and nothing happened to the DA even though he was guilty of the same thing as the Duke DA, Bell is doing 18 months. There has to be results or these things are just for show.
I couldn't agree with you more. On the other hand, there are those times and those issues where voicing disapproval has its utility. I would suggest, however, that showing our disapproval would be far more effective if 'they' know that the warning WILL be, if not heeded, followed by more drastic action. Right now, for the most part, 'they' know about how long we're willing to hold out (not long) and how short our collective and unified attention span is on a specific issue is (rather short).
I agree that these are two prongs of the plan, though there may be others. I spoke to your first prong earlier: we must become registered in higher numbers; and we must vote early and often. Elections certainly aren't the ONLY way; but it is, in my opinion, a very important way.
As to your second prong, that was part of the approach used by the NAACP during the 50's and early 60's. They filed 'test cases' using plaintiffs selected because of their background, i.e., Rosa Parks was not the first person to refuse to yield her seat on a bus, but she was one with the character and fortitude to challenge the system.
Cleaning up our communities is a task that we all have responsibility. I think its already happening but maybe not at the rate we would like. We didn't get into this shape over night and it can't be cleaned up in a day. Society moves sometimes in tiny steps, in the midst of which, progress is hard to see. Over time, however, we get to look back and measure or assess the progress. I think the "Cosby-Dyson" debate/discussion is evidence that we're working on the problem, though the perspectives may be different.
QueEx
The new era of Black activism has to be organized and goal oriented. Instead of boycotts against the 'government' or 'white people' we need to have specific targets and hold people accountable for their actions. The first targets should be Black politicans. Any incumbent who's been in office more than 8 years should be voted out if they don't have an acceptable record of improving their district. The days of the lifetime politican should be over. Maxine Waters, John Lewis and the like should be replaced with new blood. The internet is the best option for bringing in the new era, serious minded people should start drawing up plans to out some people in 2008. The first step would be finding 3-4 people to do research, after the track records are reviewed then you could start assembling a team to vote out ineffective Black Congressmen.
This only raises the question: What is an effective Black representative.
The reason I say that is because the people you're talking about were "elected" to those offices by people who, by their vote, have determined that for whatever reason, they are effective enough for them.
Effective is a subjective term unless you add or impose some kind of standard by which effectiveness is to be judged. If you're going to judge the effectiveness of the representative, doesn't that mean you have to educate the electorate, as well ??? - which raises the queston: What is an educated electorate?
QueEx
Deciding who's effective and who's not is one of the burdens of leadership. A new Black gentry would have to set the standards for our reps and if they don't meet them then it's up to the new leaders to get rid of them. Lets face it our Black reps have sold us out. They have become part of the problem, most of them get re-elected because they have the civil rights groups, churches, frats and sororities backing them, too many of us stay away from the polls because we lost faith. A new era of Black leadership has got to challenge the status quo, they have got to assert themselves I didn't say it would be easy but it can be done. Matter of fact if we don't do it nobody else will.
Like I said if you had the records of those Reps and did a survey of their districts you could see who's working and who's not. You could then assemble a online team to register new voters in those districts and vote in new leaders. If just one pol was voted out it would send a message to both political parties and they would change the way they do business.