Log in

View Full Version : Misplaced Violence



Agnapostate
4th December 2010, 00:46
I was reading the "Rumors/Street Stories" section of an issue of the Anti-Racist Action newspaper Turning the Tide, and was somewhat dismayed about what I regarded as the arbitrary and unproductive nature of random attacks, what some people might call "adventurist." Here are a few examples:


New Brunswick, NJ: Anti fascists and pro-choice individuals have been striking back against anti-abortion fundamentalists in their community. Anti-choicers picketing a local clinic during the "40 days for life" were struck by fruit and obscenities by passerby, and a long-standing fake clinic run by anti-choicers had its locks glued and a security camera damaged.

Chicago, IL: Chi-town antifa lured the leader of the city's most active neo-nazi group and one of his crew 3 hours from home after posing as a potential recruit looking to buy a t-shirt. The two Nazis were greeted by a handful of antifa, who treated them to a proper greeting before making a quick escape, leaving the Nazis, who were arrested afterwards, reeling.

[...]

Chicago, IL: Chicago gets a second mention this issue for turning out some hard nose antifa to an outing of local National Socialist Movement (NSM) member Suzy Lenner at her workplace, ironically a head shop called Secrets. A man claiming to be her boss jumped out of a taxi and accosted the antifa, but was met with a barrage of eggs against him and his store. Against, the antifascist ninjas melted into the street and evaded authorities.

Along with this problem has existed indiscriminate attacks that are often the result of mob outrage against racist actions: http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2006/winter/indian-blood


Chili Yazzie, president of the Shiprock Chapter of the Navajo Nation (the equivalent of the mayor of the closest reservation town to Farmington), was himself victimized back in 1978, when a white hitchhiker blew Yazzie's right arm off with two blasts from a .44 Magnum. The first bullet shattered the bones in his arm and continued into his rib cage. "The whole world was the color of a really bad sandstorm," Yazzie recalls. "Out of his poncho I saw a hole and some smoke coming out. I realized that he had a pistol pointed at me all this time from under his poncho." "I asked him, 'What are you doing, you crazy son of a bastard?' Then he shot me again." Yazzie spent a month in the hospital. The shooter served less than five years.

Back then, Yazzie was a member of the radical American Indian Movement as well as the famous rock-and-roll protest band X-IT, which provided the soundtrack for the Red Power movement. Now 56, his black hair is woven with wisps of grey. His tactics have mellowed and his rhetoric has softened, but he remains a dedicated advocate for his people.

In 1974, four years before he was shot, Yazzie took part in a series of dramatic marches organized by Farmington Navajos in response to a brutal triple-murder. Last September, 32 years later, Yazzie found himself leading a similar march of 1,500 Navajos protesting racism and violence after the attack on William Blackie, which occurred just two weeks after an assault on a Navajo undercover police officer by a white man with a knife. Yazzie says tempers ran hot among Navajos.

"There were guys that wanted to come in here and take an eye for an eye. There are people capable of doing that," he says somberly. Yazzie likes to call himself a "reasonable radical," and his cool head calmed an explosive situation.

[...]

The most notorious hate crime in Farmington history occurred in April 1974, during Webb's first term as mayor. Three Navajos, Benjamin Benally, John Harvey, and David Ignacio were found bludgeoned, mutilated and burned in Chokecherry Canyon. "They were tortured. Firecrackers were placed in their noses and anuses," says Yazzie, the Navajo leader. "As they were dying, they were burned. They tried to burn off their privates. Then these young guys got big boulders, basketball-sized, to make sure they were dead."

Three white Farmington High School students were arrested for the murders.

"We wanted to come in and burn the place," Yazzie, then a member of the American Indian Movement (AIM), recalls. "The desire for payback was very strong. People were needing and demanding that something be done."

Something needed to be done, yes, but Yazzie is a person that learned not to indiscriminately attack people that he perceived as his enemies through hasty generalization (i.e. whites), a problem that has existed in modern race relations from the Nat Turner rebellion to the beating of Reginald Denny. The nature of mob outrage is that it's a spontaneous uprising that cannot be predetermined and coordinated (as with the 2000 Ramallah lynching of two IDF reservists), but apart from its immorality in many circumstances, some of these coordinated attacks seem like thrashing and flailing at a well-fortified defense without strategy, when a quick and precise blow at a keystone can bring down the entire enemy structure.

For example, the neo-Nazi Tom Metzger was found to be civilly liable for the hate crime beating death of an Ethiopian immigrant by white supremacists after an incident of racially motivated road rage, and was made to pay substantial damages. Popular opinion was behind the idea that this was not a sufficient punishment, however. In the theoretical sense, a vigilante action against Metzger that involved assaulting and injuring him (but not so severely as to permanently disable him), likely would have drawn widespread public support at the time, though it would do little now. In the sense of describing a theoretical scenario, violence organized along those lines might be productive.

Anarchist Skinhead
4th December 2010, 04:42
I am not really sure what you getting at by showing this "adventurist" attacks. Are you condeming people that lured some nazi scumbag and kicked the shit out of him? Your post is just really unclear ..

Agnapostate
10th December 2010, 04:25
I am not really sure what you getting at by showing this "adventurist" attacks. Are you condeming people that lured some nazi scumbag and kicked the shit out of him? Your post is just really unclear ..

I'm sorry if things were unclear. Essentially, my take is that while violence can be a legitimate and effective mechanism for change in some circumstances, violent assaults on people that have not themselves orchestrated violence and merely espouse racist or fascist doctrines is unethical, and will gain them sympathizers along with confirming their delusions that whites are horribly oppressed. The only possible function I could see it serving is that white supremacists become too fearful to conduct real-life organization and thus lose critical infrastructure, but I haven't seen that happen.

Anarchist Skinhead
10th December 2010, 23:29
Well, I on the other hand have seen that happen very often ;)

Assaulting people actually really rarely gain them sympathisers- perhaps somebody will feel sorry for them, but at the end of the day they promote ideology that is constructed on violence so they shouldnt be surprised when it happens to them. Besides, even when they dont commit violence actsa themselves or orchestrtate them, ideas they promote do it for them. 'Nuff said.

Sasha
10th December 2010, 23:39
I'm sorry if things were unclear. Essentially, my take is that while violence can be a legitimate and effective mechanism for change in some circumstances, violent assaults on people that have not themselves orchestrated violence and merely espouse racist or fascist doctrines is unethical, and will gain them sympathizers along with confirming their delusions that whites are horribly oppressed. The only possible function I could see it serving is that white supremacists become too fearful to conduct real-life organization and thus lose critical infrastructure, but I haven't seen that happen.


look, while i wouldnt loose any sleep of anyone beatting up an ernst zundel or david irving that would be indeed an stupid and counter produtcive thing to do.
but an attack (on the leaders of) fascist/nazi organsiations with an explicit aim to "conquer the streets" not only puts an fash temporarly out of the running and disturbs indeed their infrastructeer (no other way to haul in new recruits than stormfront if you cant step out of the house without havin an conversation with some tarmac) but more importantly it scares away those potential recruits and destroys the carefully cultivated image of top dog hard man.

freepalestine
11th December 2010, 00:25
I'm sorry if things were unclear. Essentially, my take is that while violence can be a legitimate and effective mechanism for change in some circumstances, violent assaults on people that have not themselves orchestrated violence and merely espouse racist or fascist doctrines is unethical, and will gain them sympathizers along with confirming their delusions that whites are horribly oppressed. The only possible function I could see it serving is that white supremacists become too fearful to conduct real-life organization and thus lose critical infrastructure, but I haven't seen that happen.
liberal bollocks

Agnapostate
11th December 2010, 02:45
Well, I on the other hand have seen that happen very often ;)

Assaulting people actually really rarely gain them sympathisers- perhaps somebody will feel sorry for them, but at the end of the day they promote ideology that is constructed on violence so they shouldnt be surprised when it happens to them. Besides, even when they dont commit violence actsa themselves or orchestrtate them, ideas they promote do it for them. 'Nuff said.

Yes, well, what I've seen is no decline in grassroots organization, and on the contrary, an increase because of the fact that these people can depict themselves as persecuted victims, strengthening their collective martyr complex, and insist that they must have some powerful truth if they're not even allowed to express themselves without violent reprisal. And yes, people do tend to condemn the initiation of violence, even against those with unpopular worldviews.

http://laist.com/2010/04/18/nazi_rally_notes_quotes.php

"I have to say, I was a bit disappointed in the counter-protestors who incited violence. While what the Nazi group said is extremely disturbing, they did not lash out and attack anyone yesterday."

"I agree. Everyone has a right to free speech without persecution. Despicable actions from the counter-protestors"

"This is so true. Acts of violence certainly belittle any intended message against intolerance and hate.

I'm glad I left early."

As I said, however, a violent retaliatory assault on a person who had himself incited violent racist/fascist attacks would be significantly better received.


but an attack (on the leaders of) fascist/nazi organsiations with an explicit aim to "conquer the streets" not only puts an fash temporarly out of the running and disturbs indeed their infrastructeer (no other way to haul in new recruits than stormfront if you cant step out of the house without havin an conversation with some tarmac) but more importantly it scares away those potential recruits and destroys the carefully cultivated image of top dog hard man.

That's interesting. Frankly, however, I still see quite extensive infrastructure undisturbed by these essentially adventurist tactics. Could not all these benefits be gained through calculated targeting of key leaders and figures that are themselves known to have incited violence? Bill White would be an example.


liberal bollocks

This is a contradiction, not a refutation.

Sasha
11th December 2010, 11:42
The fash try and build an infrastructure by having meetings, demos, concerts opening shops etc etc.
We have an no platform policy too counter that. Often the only way to force that policy, thanks to the states protection of the fash, violence is the only way.
You have too see this also in the European context. While I admire ARA for their work you can raise the question whether blindly copying European tactics is useful there in the us if it results in 40 masked up ninjas attacking 20 too.stupid to tie their own shoelaces nazis protected by 200 won't take shit cops in the parkinglot of an shoppingmall. It's spectaclism at best i'm afraid. Also because in the eyes of most of the general US public the 1st amendment is holy. This while its quite comon in Germany to have already huge tradeunion protests against Nazi marches that will happily shelter the militant blackblock from cop attacks.

Widerstand
11th December 2010, 11:54
Yup let's have screenings of Holocaust victims and Marx reading circles instead, that'll teach those fuckers not to kick the shit out of black people.