Mirzoeff introduces some useful vocabulary for discussion of protest. It is protest more than violence that is the subject of this interview. Among these terms are "structural violence", improper restrictions applied by the state, "click-tivism" versus "activism", "visionary organizing" versus "following" based simply on outrage.
It seems that Mirzoeff sees tweeting as a weak form of protest that easily comes and then goes. The more effective form of protest is recommended as organization of large groups around positive goals (just how to do that is not so clear) and to use the power of these groups, peacefully apparently, but just how is again not so clear.
It seems likely that such groups will be seen as a threat by the state, and as to just how the state's intervention is to be countered, the main suggestion seems to be passive resistance, whose value returns to the role of publicity in raising mass awareness.
Unfortunately, although the conversation has advanced, it remains far from any practical advice.
It seems that Mirzoeff sees tweeting as a weak form of protest that easily comes and then goes. The more effective form of protest is recommended as organization of large groups around positive goals (just how to do that is not so clear) and to use the power of these groups, peacefully apparently, but just how is again not so clear.
It seems likely that such groups will be seen as a threat by the state, and as to just how the state's intervention is to be countered, the main suggestion seems to be passive resistance, whose value returns to the role of publicity in raising mass awareness.
Unfortunately, although the conversation has advanced, it remains far from any practical advice.
2
"...because when a person deemed black, Palestinian or any number of other designations appears in public, they may be killed."
And if I walk out the door I "may" get struck by lightning. Mirzoeff goes off the rails at this point--as happens in nearly every one of these Stone pieces (or should that be "Stoned").
And if I walk out the door I "may" get struck by lightning. Mirzoeff goes off the rails at this point--as happens in nearly every one of these Stone pieces (or should that be "Stoned").
6
Whether an act be termed violent and defiant or not depends on which side of the law the person concerned is present.
1
“Hands up, don’t shoot” is a myth, a hoax. It is sad to see this professor buying into and perpetuating that myth. Why am I not surprised.
3
A "hoax"? Do you mean that no demonstrators ever said this in recent "Black Lives Matter" protests? And yet I saw videos of exactly this being said and chanted (and written on T-shirts) in demonstrations around the country. Your comment is nonsense.
3
Hm, The pictures of Aylan Kurdi's body may have called to mind the pieta to Mr. Mirzoeff; but that Pieta is more a reflection of a parent's anguish over a child's death. That is what people responded to. That the image isn't enough to sustain personal involvement and support for refugees is probably in part a consequence of the continual, 24/7 presentation of suffering world wide, combined with strong sense of impotence even at solving local issues.
Social media seems better at stimulating anger over individual issues, made simple, but seems to quash broader discussion and fails at creating larger communities of people willing to work together for purposes that require knowledge and commitment -where the "exchanges [which] are horizontal, requiring a good deal of time and energy to sustain." People who organize around images alone are open to manipulation.
There are, to my mind, too many references corralled here without a really a truly unifying thread....
Social media seems better at stimulating anger over individual issues, made simple, but seems to quash broader discussion and fails at creating larger communities of people willing to work together for purposes that require knowledge and commitment -where the "exchanges [which] are horizontal, requiring a good deal of time and energy to sustain." People who organize around images alone are open to manipulation.
There are, to my mind, too many references corralled here without a really a truly unifying thread....
3
The space between violent protest and riot is a short and dangerous one. And innocent people are injured and killed in riots. We now have police officers being targeted for execution.
The old adage--your rights end where my rights begin--is an important and powerful one.
The old adage--your rights end where my rights begin--is an important and powerful one.
3
@Siobhan, I disagree with your concluding comment. In America, we have low tolerance for public protest, even though we have a strong rights oriented Constitution and say we believe in the right of people to assemble and seek change. You have a right to drive to work, to walk from point A to point B, but that right must, of necessity, be flexible when people choose that particular route for protest. Everything can be classified as law breaking. Standing on a street corner holding a sign, for example. The slightest inconvenience to people driving or walking, a bit of noise (disturbing the peace).
If there is no capacity to protest in the public square, especially by means that others might find objectionable, then free speech can be shutdown easily and silenced. By definition, people who seek to assemble in the public square lack other means of brining attention to their cause. To have freedom, democracy and peaceful change, we have to tolerate those who disagree and who might be disagreeable in the process. In many cases, let by police enforcement, the rights of those who want no disruption whatsoever, not even minors ones, have surpassed those of dissenters.
If there is no capacity to protest in the public square, especially by means that others might find objectionable, then free speech can be shutdown easily and silenced. By definition, people who seek to assemble in the public square lack other means of brining attention to their cause. To have freedom, democracy and peaceful change, we have to tolerate those who disagree and who might be disagreeable in the process. In many cases, let by police enforcement, the rights of those who want no disruption whatsoever, not even minors ones, have surpassed those of dissenters.
3
"Your rights end at the point where your fist connects with my nose" is probably a better analogy, or perhaps "Your right to free speech ends when you yell fire in a crowded theater and I am stampeded by the panicked mob." Legally, protesters can stand in a public space and peacefully picket. They can stand on a public sidewalk or in front of a courthouse, so long as they do not block pedestrian traffic or block someone from entering a building. They do not have a legal right to stand in the middle of the roadway and block traffic. They do not have a right to lay hands on someone else to physically assault or intimidate them. They do not have a right to force a passerby to listen to their messages. There is a right to speak in the public square, but no right to be heard. They have no right to protest in a private space, such as a shopping mall or someone's home. They probably have no right to march down a street if they didn't first file for a permit. They have no right to incite violence with a speech calling for murder or mayhem. Illegal immigrants who are protesting risk greater surveillance under the Patriot Act. And no, they have no right to inconvenience people going about their day by blocking sidewalks or access to entrances or to thoroughfares. Any protester who does any of the above risks being charged with disorderly conduct or disturbing the peace or simple assault or harassment or the like.
3
And I disagree with you, Doug Terry. Any group can get a permit to protest lawfully, and peaceably. When a group just decides to block a major freeway--as BLM has done in this area--then all bets are off and they must be willing to accept the consequences of their actions. Not only that but the protestors here were clearly not the "disenfranchised," powerless people you seem to have in mind: they were mostly white, and middle class.
3
Another boring lecture on violent protest from its academic defenders. Tired emotions and tactics from the sixties and the more recent Occupy movement, now recycled in BLM, inspire nobody. Everybody remembers what succeeded the violent street carnivals of the sixties: conservative retrenchment, five decades of nearly unrelieved Republican rule and ever-increasing income disparity. Maybe it’s time to try something else. Philosophy should be a source of new ideas, if nothing else.
13
Nicholas Mirzoeff
"A few months later, however, Britain voted to leave the European Union, largely because of intense resentment of all immigrants, including refugees."
Just as it is wrong to equate protest with violence, it is also misleading to gloss over BREXIT as an act of bigotry and racism. Police brutality as well as nefarious reframing of movements for a better world are but two symptoms of a much larger threat of a monolithic approach to a global wide systematic oppression of the masses by a few powerful actors with the help of pliable institutions of government. Britain is figuring this out, and we should be paying attention for our own well-being. How is labeling something as nuanced as BREXIT racist any different than pigeonholing BLACK LIVES MATTER as a terrorist organization?
We, the people, are ALL affected when humanitarian movements are misinterpreted and misrepresented though a complicit media and subgroups are cordoned off by skin color and oppressed with violence and incarceration. United, we are a much larger threat to oppression and as human beings that should be our common goal.
"A few months later, however, Britain voted to leave the European Union, largely because of intense resentment of all immigrants, including refugees."
Just as it is wrong to equate protest with violence, it is also misleading to gloss over BREXIT as an act of bigotry and racism. Police brutality as well as nefarious reframing of movements for a better world are but two symptoms of a much larger threat of a monolithic approach to a global wide systematic oppression of the masses by a few powerful actors with the help of pliable institutions of government. Britain is figuring this out, and we should be paying attention for our own well-being. How is labeling something as nuanced as BREXIT racist any different than pigeonholing BLACK LIVES MATTER as a terrorist organization?
We, the people, are ALL affected when humanitarian movements are misinterpreted and misrepresented though a complicit media and subgroups are cordoned off by skin color and oppressed with violence and incarceration. United, we are a much larger threat to oppression and as human beings that should be our common goal.
6
So your idea of a humanist movement is to prevent decent human beings from working to achieve things like job security, clean water and bathroom facilities by denying them benefits of inclusion in the European Union. If so, a pox on Brexit.
2
Natasha Lennard got this part exactly backwards: "Brexit showed that the defense of what W.E.B. Du Bois called the psychological “wage” of whiteness, its relative privileges, was more important to the majority population than actual economics. If Hillary Clinton fails to realize that it is no longer “the economy, stupid,” a second reactionary victory might occur."
--No, the Brexit vote was very much filled with economic motivation, by the part of England that had been ravaged by the corporate trade deal nature of EU economics that parallels the working class destruction of NAFTA and the horrible proposed TPP.
If Hillary doesn't get that it IS the economy, stupid, then Trump will be the only candidate (besides Jill Stein) pointing out the reality of what remains the Clintons' biggest contribution to the US so far: adding a new phrase to American English, "The Rust Belt."
--No, the Brexit vote was very much filled with economic motivation, by the part of England that had been ravaged by the corporate trade deal nature of EU economics that parallels the working class destruction of NAFTA and the horrible proposed TPP.
If Hillary doesn't get that it IS the economy, stupid, then Trump will be the only candidate (besides Jill Stein) pointing out the reality of what remains the Clintons' biggest contribution to the US so far: adding a new phrase to American English, "The Rust Belt."
9
When I read statements like, “when black people get free, everybody gets free," I must confess I'm at a loss. Perhaps I'm a definite Mensa reject in these affairs. I must say, it reminds me of tax laws and financial statements, in which only the tax attorneys and stockbrokers seem to be the winners, and everybody else (as in any zero sum game), the losers. And possibly this is the way it’s meant, as a zero sum game where only some ‘segments’ of our population win. How else can we interpret it? As an end? Or perhaps, more as a means? This makes much more sense, as the entire politics of ‘race,’ predicates itself on a lack of understanding exactly what the word race means. Of course, genetically, there’s no such thing. However, culturally, it’s a firestorm in which some stand to gain, and most stand to lose (paradoxically, of all races). But keep up the good fight, and never back down, as how can you once you’ve (like Macbeth), ‘...Stepped in so far that, should I wade no more, returning were as tedious as go o’er.’
5
Like a previous commenter observed, this is academic gibberish. The state, to be legitimate, must monopolize the use of violence for achieving political ends. If another political entity arises that can impose its will by violence in contravention of the state's, the state then collapses.
The Black Lives Matter protests don't remotely approach this level of violence. The government knows as much, and allows them to occasionally blow off steam, so long as the violence is directed at property and not people. Property violence is of magnitudes less concern than violence directed at people. A few burnt cars, a few broken storefront windows...if it lets the steam out of the pressure cooker, it's well worth the cost. So they allow it.
When the BLM protesters start killing people is when the state will crack down on protests. Had the BLM protesters killed those cops in Dallas and Baton Rouge, there'd be no more protests. The BLM movement hasn't the political power to protest without the which the state, through its police force agents, allows it.
Using violence as a means to an end is about exerting power. People without power do use violence to achieve their ends at their own peril.
The Black Lives Matter protests don't remotely approach this level of violence. The government knows as much, and allows them to occasionally blow off steam, so long as the violence is directed at property and not people. Property violence is of magnitudes less concern than violence directed at people. A few burnt cars, a few broken storefront windows...if it lets the steam out of the pressure cooker, it's well worth the cost. So they allow it.
When the BLM protesters start killing people is when the state will crack down on protests. Had the BLM protesters killed those cops in Dallas and Baton Rouge, there'd be no more protests. The BLM movement hasn't the political power to protest without the which the state, through its police force agents, allows it.
Using violence as a means to an end is about exerting power. People without power do use violence to achieve their ends at their own peril.
4
The article says, "when the term violence is used, it now signifies a moral and political failing by the “people,” those not authorized to use force." Yes, and we can all celebrate our ability to speak out loudly through social media of all kinds. We used to have to rely on movies, books and news articles to "inform us" of events and often didn't equate what was happening in another part of America with our own lives. No more. Viral videos posted on social media are changing the conversation about racial hatred in America and the vast majority of American are opposed to racial discrimination. Social media is helping women speak out loudly about attacks on their rights to manage their own bodies and lives and are instrumental in helping all women realize how important is is that they will get to vote for a highly qualified female for President of the United States for the first time in our 240 year HIStory. Average Americans, working together for a better country for all, will be the change makers and our future looks brighter than ever.
4
I want to focus on two points made by Prof. Mirzoeff : In a democratic society, individuals have a legitimate right to protest. Second, the State has a monopoly on the use of legitimate violence.
Police protection, and in extreme cases, proportionate force against violent protesters is legitimate. Criminalizing the actions of protesters exercising democratic rights is not. This is the challenge of policing in a democratic, as opposed to an authoritarian society.
Understanding the dynamic between legal protest and the police abuse of its monopoly on violence is the key to understanding the power of Martin Luther King or Gandhi. Both leaders sought to contrast their actions of peace with the state's illegitimate use of violence.
The power of this type of protest was captured in the iconic photo of the protester in Tiananmen Square staring down the gun barrel of a tank as well as in a more recent photo on a Black Lives Matter's protester smiling in front of a phalanx of police armed to the teeth in riot gear.
I once heard a leader of the African National Congress during the height of the struggle against apartheid in South Africa. He was missing an arm. He began his talk by saying: "I did not choose violence. Violence chose me. One day, I opened up my car door in and a bomb exploded and tore off my arm." The ANC, he asserted, had a legitimate right to defend itself, but its preference was for a peaceful and negotiated solution.
Police protection, and in extreme cases, proportionate force against violent protesters is legitimate. Criminalizing the actions of protesters exercising democratic rights is not. This is the challenge of policing in a democratic, as opposed to an authoritarian society.
Understanding the dynamic between legal protest and the police abuse of its monopoly on violence is the key to understanding the power of Martin Luther King or Gandhi. Both leaders sought to contrast their actions of peace with the state's illegitimate use of violence.
The power of this type of protest was captured in the iconic photo of the protester in Tiananmen Square staring down the gun barrel of a tank as well as in a more recent photo on a Black Lives Matter's protester smiling in front of a phalanx of police armed to the teeth in riot gear.
I once heard a leader of the African National Congress during the height of the struggle against apartheid in South Africa. He was missing an arm. He began his talk by saying: "I did not choose violence. Violence chose me. One day, I opened up my car door in and a bomb exploded and tore off my arm." The ANC, he asserted, had a legitimate right to defend itself, but its preference was for a peaceful and negotiated solution.
22
Yes, protesters have a legitimate right to protest and participate in the political process. They do not have a right to break the law or violate someone else's rights while doing so. I expect the police to enforce the law if a protester is blocking the road or vandalizing someone's property or assaulting someone or shouting fighting words that could incite someone to violence. Under most circumstances, protesters who violate the law are arrested without incident and have their day in court. Police response should be proportionate, but there should be a response when necessary.
3
This is powerful. And to make such none violent protests stick intensely in the collective conscious is to intensely disavow any violence such a protests might stir up in any angry frustrated individual. Eventually, a less stable person will go over the edge, feeling they a right or moral obligation to fight violence with violence, when just the opposite is what is required. Gandhi's people sat while being beaten to show the world how serious they were about nonvilence. He made sure the world was watching how bad violence looks when perpetrated on peaceful people.
6
That would be Albie Sachs, ANC activist, political prisoner, lawyer, drafter of the South Africa Bill of Rights, and former judge in South Africa's Supreme Court. He wrote a great book on the subject, "The Soft Vengeance of a Freedom Fighter." South Africa has problems, but Sachs now lives in a free South Africa, and the people who tried to kill him have to live in it as well.
We all could take a lesson from the way Sachs used the violence perpetrated on his body to build the world he wanted to live in.
We all could take a lesson from the way Sachs used the violence perpetrated on his body to build the world he wanted to live in.
4
Unfortunately PBS and fellow mainstream media did not appreciate the value of protest at the Democratic Convention.
They decided to not let Americans see this "form of appearance that makes a wrong visible and seeks to set it right."
For how long has television "journalism" not been part of the 4th estate while purporting to be so?
They decided to not let Americans see this "form of appearance that makes a wrong visible and seeks to set it right."
For how long has television "journalism" not been part of the 4th estate while purporting to be so?
9
I watched the PBS coverage, so I can't speak about the others, but the protest by Bernie supporters was definitely covered. Repeatedly, the commentators discussed the booing of the protesters, the walkout, showed Bernie supporters yelling and waving their Bernie signs, showed one guy who had his back turned during a speech showing his pro-Bernie message, and on and on. It seems that the Bernie protesters think that their protest should be the *only* topic of discussion by the media?
3
I think Ann Batiza was referring to the protests outside the convention rather than the actions of Sanders delegates inside. The exterior gatherings really didn't get much attention from the news media. Some outlets reported but the sparse coverage was quickly subsumed by the flow of the news cycle. I feel this was sometimes intentional and sometimes incidental. Either way, I don't think the population at large was sufficiently exposed to the protesters' grievance for it to have an impact.
Interestingly, some articles attempted to portray the demonstrators as chaotic thereby implying a level violent intent that works to delegitimize the movement. Common counter tactic. If you can't ignore your adversary, frame them as the perpetrator rather than the victim.
Interestingly, some articles attempted to portray the demonstrators as chaotic thereby implying a level violent intent that works to delegitimize the movement. Common counter tactic. If you can't ignore your adversary, frame them as the perpetrator rather than the victim.
1
Violence was often used to prevent protest, as occurred during the 1968 Chicago Democratic Convention, where the late Mayor Richard J. Daley refused to issue permits to anti-war demonstrators. The subsequent violence was characterized as a "police Riot" in an investigative report. Since then, permits must be issued subject only to time, place and route restrictions.
The Palestinian-Israeli conflict is mischaracterized here. The "occupation" is the consequence of Israel's victory in a 1967 "defensive war of necessity." As the victorious belligerent of the 1967 "Six Day War," Israel may retain captured land until possession is modified by peace treaty. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uti_possidetis Japan and Germany were likewise occupied in the wake of World War II, but those occupations ended following peace treaties. What are the Palestinians waiting for? An opportunity to take over all of Israel, driven by an arrogant, greedy, self-centered sense of entitlement to "all the land between the river (Jordan) and the sea (Mediterranean)." See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omar_Barghouti
The "Black Lives Matter" movement likewise suffers from "selective blindness." By focusing on Michael Brown, Eric Garner, Tamir Rice, Sandra Bland and many others killed at the hands of police, it ignores the far greater number killed by other young men of color, particularly those murdered in gang violence in Chicago's Englewood neighborhood.
The Palestinian-Israeli conflict is mischaracterized here. The "occupation" is the consequence of Israel's victory in a 1967 "defensive war of necessity." As the victorious belligerent of the 1967 "Six Day War," Israel may retain captured land until possession is modified by peace treaty. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uti_possidetis Japan and Germany were likewise occupied in the wake of World War II, but those occupations ended following peace treaties. What are the Palestinians waiting for? An opportunity to take over all of Israel, driven by an arrogant, greedy, self-centered sense of entitlement to "all the land between the river (Jordan) and the sea (Mediterranean)." See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omar_Barghouti
The "Black Lives Matter" movement likewise suffers from "selective blindness." By focusing on Michael Brown, Eric Garner, Tamir Rice, Sandra Bland and many others killed at the hands of police, it ignores the far greater number killed by other young men of color, particularly those murdered in gang violence in Chicago's Englewood neighborhood.
15
Please stop equating the murder rate of black citizens in the United States with the extra-judicial killings of black citizens in encounters with police. The former are crimes committed by criminals, the latter are homicides perpetrated by law enforcement agents sworn to serve and protect their communities. And the issue is whether the police are justifiably using lethal force or not, whether blacks are being profiled or not, and whether the civil rights of black citizens are equally respected or not, in sum: whether Black Lives Matter. Because when there is evidence to the contrary, then the police must be held accountable. And all of us citizens should demand it.
7
I very much enjoyed this conversation. It's enlightening. I especially enjoyed discussion about violence in relation to protests. It's been a bit since I've participated in a protest, the most recent being at our State Capitol when Scott Walker destroyed the public employees union. The protests were often characterized as violent by our dear Republicans, but there was none. The simple act of vocally confronting our leaders was perceived as illegitimate. And violent? Are angry voices now low level violence? I perceived our protests as peaceful, harmonious and loud.
15
This collection of academic gibberish could be used as an example of the lack of reason and clear expression at many universities. Where is the explanation of violent tactics promoted b y the BLM movement? What about the July 10, 2016 brick and concrete block attack from an I-94 highway overpasses on police? That incident injured 21 officers! Emergency vehicles were blocked as that interstate highway was closed for five hours? And what of working folk trying to get home? Get real! Vote! Violence is not the answer!
30
This article starts off with murky thinking and goes downhill. Violence involves physical action. Poverty is not violence; it is a condition. Poverty can be the result of violence, but it is not violence itself. Racism is not violence; it is an attitude or belief. Racism can certainly lead to violence, but it is not violence itself.
25
You might want to think about how violence can be structural. It's a different type, but no less damaging.
4
What Bill is telling you is that your sentence, your gibberish, makes no sense. What is structural violence? How do you define it in a way that makes it both a) understandable as violence by people who use the word in the ordinary manner and b) a meaningful term that adds to communication of a concept? IF you can do these two things then you can coin a useful word. My thought is though, you can, at best only do the second, and then only with a like-minded non-critical audience.
8
Johan Galtung, a Norwegian academic who is generally considered the founder of the discipline of conflict resolution, wrote extensively about social structures or institutions, such as poverty or racism, that cause grievous body harm to people. He called this "structural violence." It is an important concept that helps us understand multiple forms of social violence and should not be so facilely dismissed.
13
"Brexit showed that the defense of what W.E.B. Du Bois called the psychological “wage” of whiteness, its relative privileges, was more important to the majority population than actual economics."
Yup. It sure wasn't about a sense of a lack of reciprocity on the part of the EU. Or the desire to chart their own path despite the consequences.
This article is a fantastic example of how someone who considers themselves open minded, and may very try to be so, is let down by simply being wrong about why those on the right have chosen to be there. The interviewee clearly has a political message to deliver, not a critique or even discussion about violence used in protests. The interviewer was a willing accomplice to this. I wish the NYT would just say this was was a political thought piece and not a work of actual philosophy
Yup. It sure wasn't about a sense of a lack of reciprocity on the part of the EU. Or the desire to chart their own path despite the consequences.
This article is a fantastic example of how someone who considers themselves open minded, and may very try to be so, is let down by simply being wrong about why those on the right have chosen to be there. The interviewee clearly has a political message to deliver, not a critique or even discussion about violence used in protests. The interviewer was a willing accomplice to this. I wish the NYT would just say this was was a political thought piece and not a work of actual philosophy
24
"Talk of tolerance and diversity has failed."
I do not think that conclusion is justified. We have been a fractious nation since our founding, but the 200 plus year arc of political inclusion--on a national level--has been expansive. It is hardly perfect, and local and regional stumbles are not infrequently evident.
When we see the nation's reaction to the Khans' dignified criticism of Trump, there are reasons for hope. When we see the federal courts steadily beating back recent attempts by states to restrict voter registration, there are reasons for hope. When we see more prominent Republicans rebelling against the nomination of Trump and his bigoted proclamations, there is reason for hope.
When we see bipartisan coalitions (http://www.coalitionforpublicsafety.org/about/) working to fix a terribly flawed and racially imbalanced criminal justice system, the group of diverse participants is remarkable. This does not mean I will see problems fixed in my lifetime, but I do not see evidence of abject failure. I see a bumpy upward arc, filled with both hope and disappointment.
I do not think that conclusion is justified. We have been a fractious nation since our founding, but the 200 plus year arc of political inclusion--on a national level--has been expansive. It is hardly perfect, and local and regional stumbles are not infrequently evident.
When we see the nation's reaction to the Khans' dignified criticism of Trump, there are reasons for hope. When we see the federal courts steadily beating back recent attempts by states to restrict voter registration, there are reasons for hope. When we see more prominent Republicans rebelling against the nomination of Trump and his bigoted proclamations, there is reason for hope.
When we see bipartisan coalitions (http://www.coalitionforpublicsafety.org/about/) working to fix a terribly flawed and racially imbalanced criminal justice system, the group of diverse participants is remarkable. This does not mean I will see problems fixed in my lifetime, but I do not see evidence of abject failure. I see a bumpy upward arc, filled with both hope and disappointment.
9
This Dialogues seems more an exercise in abstract thought, Good for them but the bottom line is that lack of freedom for some does mean that none are free. Optical unconsciousness is commonly called "denial" which is what many whites, some who even consider themselves ultra progressives.re very much caught up in this.
The chains around the neck of a mental slave also extend to the master. When blacks are truly free and have the education equivalence as well as ability to command the wealth and respect, then can we all call our land, the land of the free. The chains will be lifted from us all but we do have to extend that to all those who arrive on our shores, not just those here historically.
The chains around the neck of a mental slave also extend to the master. When blacks are truly free and have the education equivalence as well as ability to command the wealth and respect, then can we all call our land, the land of the free. The chains will be lifted from us all but we do have to extend that to all those who arrive on our shores, not just those here historically.
4
The state or the establishment has always been able to either co-opt the protest or neutralize the threat of protest and change by ramping up its violence against those seeking change.
Often times the killing or jailing of political leaders being the end game for many movements. Obviously, Kent State, the deaths of the Kennedys, Martin Luther King and the jailing of Mandela come to mind.
Peaceful protests have been met by increased state violence and control. Laws have been passed requiring permission to assemble, and any assemble without permission is considered dangerous and threatening.
The reality is that those in power will do everything they can to delegitimize the grievances of the protesters. Our monopolistic media serves that purpose well, consider the coverage of Occupy Wall Street or Bernie Sanders by the New York Times and the other major media outlets.
What is hopeful is how each generation of protesters bring renewed hope that things will change and find creative ways to express their grievances and in some cases make the supreme sacrifice of giving their lives to the cause.
Often times the killing or jailing of political leaders being the end game for many movements. Obviously, Kent State, the deaths of the Kennedys, Martin Luther King and the jailing of Mandela come to mind.
Peaceful protests have been met by increased state violence and control. Laws have been passed requiring permission to assemble, and any assemble without permission is considered dangerous and threatening.
The reality is that those in power will do everything they can to delegitimize the grievances of the protesters. Our monopolistic media serves that purpose well, consider the coverage of Occupy Wall Street or Bernie Sanders by the New York Times and the other major media outlets.
What is hopeful is how each generation of protesters bring renewed hope that things will change and find creative ways to express their grievances and in some cases make the supreme sacrifice of giving their lives to the cause.
10
May I ask why the New York Times provides a forum to Natasha Lennard who repeatedly refers to police officers as "pigs" on her Twitter feed? Other than that, in its exquisite obtuseness, this 'dialogue' (actually a monologue in that you have two people talking who are in complete agreement on everything) is an excellent example of why most of the public holds the academy in such disdain. Oh, and yes, I think the state should have a monopoly on violence; the alternative is anarchy and chaos of the kind that your two discutants undoubtedly approve.
28
Since the first empires, ruling elites have consolidated and maintained power by the strategy of "divide and rule," pitting lower classes and minority groups against each other by leveraging economic privilege and ethnicity to breed resentment. It is impossible to understand the dynamics of protest without taking this ruling class strategy into account, which is a major reason why the Left, absent a compelling analysis of economic inequality and hierarchy such as once marxism provided, has become so ineffectual in recent decades.
The false dichotomy Nicholas Mirzoeff posits between the "politics of appearance" and the "politics of exclusion" is, today, as so often in the past, a product of "divide and rule," amplified enormously by elite-controlled modern mass media and sophisticated perception management techniques. We cannot, as Mirzoeff desires, "construct an anti-racist politics that is a common good" without acknowledging the hierarchical economic structure of global capitalism, in which, as Oxfam reports, an tiny elite of 62 billionaires now controls as much wealth as the majority of 3.5 billion people.
The false dichotomy Nicholas Mirzoeff posits between the "politics of appearance" and the "politics of exclusion" is, today, as so often in the past, a product of "divide and rule," amplified enormously by elite-controlled modern mass media and sophisticated perception management techniques. We cannot, as Mirzoeff desires, "construct an anti-racist politics that is a common good" without acknowledging the hierarchical economic structure of global capitalism, in which, as Oxfam reports, an tiny elite of 62 billionaires now controls as much wealth as the majority of 3.5 billion people.
8
Perhaps protests are described as "violent" because they involved someone punching or kicking or stabbing or shooting another human being or setting fire to a car or smashing a window on a business. Violence, to quote the dictionary, is "the unlawful exercise of physical force or intimidation by the exhibition of such force." What it is not is poverty or structural racism, at least not if those things don't include physical force or deliberate destruction of property to intimidate others. Poverty and structural racism are certainly evils that we should do our best to eradicate, but you belittle the meaning of real violence when you use that word to describe them.
17
@Bookworm8571 Please see my and other's responses to @Bill above. Your dictionary is only partially helpful.
There is a large literature on structural violence beginning with the work of Norwegian sociologist and founder of the discipline of peace studies and conflict resolution, Johan Galtung. For Galtung, racism and poverty are not neutral phenomenon; they directly cause real and grievous bodily harm to those who are affected by them. Galtung called this structural violence.
As such, Galtung argued that it was not enough to simply negotiate an end to war and physical aggression. This would only achieve what he called a "negative peace. "
To bring about a lasting peace, post-conflict societies would need to attempt to to build a "positive peace" by which he meant addressing structural violence deeply embedded in the institutions and social structures of a society.
These are serious concepts that help us better understand different forms of violence at the root of societal aggression and war. Structural violence is no less harmful than the physical killing, shooting, stabbing and violent intimidation of which you speak. Addressing one form of violence without addressing the other, deeper form will only lead to a partial and unsustainable peace.
There is a large literature on structural violence beginning with the work of Norwegian sociologist and founder of the discipline of peace studies and conflict resolution, Johan Galtung. For Galtung, racism and poverty are not neutral phenomenon; they directly cause real and grievous bodily harm to those who are affected by them. Galtung called this structural violence.
As such, Galtung argued that it was not enough to simply negotiate an end to war and physical aggression. This would only achieve what he called a "negative peace. "
To bring about a lasting peace, post-conflict societies would need to attempt to to build a "positive peace" by which he meant addressing structural violence deeply embedded in the institutions and social structures of a society.
These are serious concepts that help us better understand different forms of violence at the root of societal aggression and war. Structural violence is no less harmful than the physical killing, shooting, stabbing and violent intimidation of which you speak. Addressing one form of violence without addressing the other, deeper form will only lead to a partial and unsustainable peace.
3
I'm aware of the academic arguments about what constitutes violence. I simply do not agree. Violence, under our current law, is the dictionary definition. No one can currently be arrested for "structural racism" or causing poverty. I don't deny that poverty and structural racism continue to plague society and have probably contributed to violence, but they are not violent in and of themselves.
1
@Bookworm8571 I appreciate the engagement but:
Poverty and structural racism... are not violent in and of themselves? I think few victims of structural violence would agree. This is not an academic discussion and certainly not one that can be addressed by a dictionary or legal definition.
Poverty and structural racism... are not violent in and of themselves? I think few victims of structural violence would agree. This is not an academic discussion and certainly not one that can be addressed by a dictionary or legal definition.
6
Political protest, demanding one's rights, violence from state to protesters and protesters to state, etc.--struggle particularly of black people and other minorities against advanced technocratic and ostensibly democratic states in modern times and potential of computers/internet to help or hinder protest?
I have yet to read a clear paper on the extraordinary difficulty of the individual period, not to mention individual compromised by race or ethnic status and/or having come from a less advanced society, in a modern, advanced technocratic state. It seems most people believe, for example, there is a job x for which a person can rather easily be trained and we simply need to both train people and not discriminate against people for any reason and all will be fine.
But this is not the case at all. I am a white man, what many would call privileged in America for being in ruling and majority race, and one would believe by my having written in clear sentences as I am now doing (demonstration of intelligence), that it should be relatively easy for me to fit into advanced technocratic society and that I should easily have arrived at dignified employment...
But the fact is it seems the advance of society is leading to entirely different types of mindsets valued and people are increasingly discriminated against by simply being unable to intellectually and culturally fit into the most advanced fields. The computer advances, we, and even art, to be replaced and done by robot?
I have yet to read a clear paper on the extraordinary difficulty of the individual period, not to mention individual compromised by race or ethnic status and/or having come from a less advanced society, in a modern, advanced technocratic state. It seems most people believe, for example, there is a job x for which a person can rather easily be trained and we simply need to both train people and not discriminate against people for any reason and all will be fine.
But this is not the case at all. I am a white man, what many would call privileged in America for being in ruling and majority race, and one would believe by my having written in clear sentences as I am now doing (demonstration of intelligence), that it should be relatively easy for me to fit into advanced technocratic society and that I should easily have arrived at dignified employment...
But the fact is it seems the advance of society is leading to entirely different types of mindsets valued and people are increasingly discriminated against by simply being unable to intellectually and culturally fit into the most advanced fields. The computer advances, we, and even art, to be replaced and done by robot?
3
Dear Professor Mirzoeff,
In this age of ubiquitous instantaneity, in which time is compressed and the capacity for reflection has vanished, where everything all at once is now the norm, the possibility of outrage lasting long enough or a thought being followed through enough is no longer something we can depend upon.
We have, in effect, emerged from Plato's cave, leaving behind the very analogies and metaphors so crucial to making sense of our lives, and into a blinding light of 24/7 superficial stimulation that has blocked out every last glimmer of genuine illumination.
Protest is futile in an age of artificial intelligence and natural imbecility, and yet, hope springs eternal.
Cordially,
S.A. Traina
In this age of ubiquitous instantaneity, in which time is compressed and the capacity for reflection has vanished, where everything all at once is now the norm, the possibility of outrage lasting long enough or a thought being followed through enough is no longer something we can depend upon.
We have, in effect, emerged from Plato's cave, leaving behind the very analogies and metaphors so crucial to making sense of our lives, and into a blinding light of 24/7 superficial stimulation that has blocked out every last glimmer of genuine illumination.
Protest is futile in an age of artificial intelligence and natural imbecility, and yet, hope springs eternal.
Cordially,
S.A. Traina
3
What you describe--leaving the cave for superficial stimulation--appears quite the opposite of what was in the allegory of the cave. The shadows in the cave were mere reflections and thus illusory. The light upon leaving was liberating. Leaving oppression is liberating in the same way. Re-read the Republic. You'll find a different interpretation than that of superficial stimulation, but a reality of inner reflection and self-discovery.
5
The expectation was that the light would indeed be liberating. Instead, we have discovered that the hyper-reality (to use Baudrillard's term) we have been thrust into marks the end of the very illusions so crucial to "inner reflection and self-discovery," leaving us exposed to the scorching sun of relentless information, sensory overload, and digital distraction, with the added benefits of shriveled sentiments, stunted emotions, and solipsism run amok.
I recommend Rebecca Goldstein's "Plato at the Googleplex" for a full-blooded re-imagining of the Republic, set in modernity, as it seeks, as it did at the beginning, to frame notions of the good and the beautiful and the true, in contradistinction to the likes, the emojis, and the stunted humanity of our time.
Cordially,
S.A. Traina
I recommend Rebecca Goldstein's "Plato at the Googleplex" for a full-blooded re-imagining of the Republic, set in modernity, as it seeks, as it did at the beginning, to frame notions of the good and the beautiful and the true, in contradistinction to the likes, the emojis, and the stunted humanity of our time.
Cordially,
S.A. Traina
5
it is hard to disagree with the conclusion, but goodness gracious, must we have before it so many fancy words to describe such superficial thoughts?
17
But, Josh Hill, are they really superficial thoughts? The difficulty of defining morality has ever been problematical as thousands of years of trying to do it show.
4
Witm1991, "Your question speaks to the difference between click-tivism and activism"? No offense, but this is not Aquinas, or Kant!
5
I've read quite a bit of both, and can assure you that much of Aquinas and Kant is equally non-memorable. You never know what a philosopher's greatest hits will be until they've been dead for at least half a century.
3
Re "violence is a monopoly of the state": That's very nearly true. It's true that "condoned" violence against human beings may be carried out only by agents of law enforcement and the military. And that's why people who are recruited to enter "service" in law enforcement or the military deserve to be mistrusted, at first, by the rest of us, for very possibly being people disposed to commit acts of violence and seeking occasions in which they can get away with it.
But it's incomplete to call violence a state monopoly, because it is also condoned, and practised at an immeasurably greater scale, in the various food industries. Animals are routinely killed in most forms of agriculture; they're intentionally abused and killed in the animal-source foods industries; they're captured and killed in fisheries. And sure enough, the interested parties in those industries do all they can to prevent the making of video images to show the many injuries the countless animals suffer. The "optical unconscious" indeed!