Class: Block Documents
posted by Michael | 2/01/2007 10:09:00 PM
Contributors
- Pack: Tute Bianchi Documents
- Class: Tute Bianchi Documents
- Pack: EZLN Documents
- Class: EZLN Documents
- Pack: Mixquiahuala Letters
- Class: Mixquiahuala Letters
- Pack: Click
- Class: Click
- Cyborg: Seminar (15pp/20min) Weeks 12-16
- Cyborg: Conference (8pp/10min) Weeks 9-11
5 Comments:
1. In reading the N30 Black Bloc Communique, the protestors listed some of the businesses they protested in addition to giving reasons why they targeted these business chains. For example, Fidelity Investment is major investor in Occidental Petroleum, the bane of the U'wa tribe in Columbia; Old Navy, Banana Republic and the GAP are Fisher family businesses, rapers of Northwest forest lands and sweatshop laborers; Warner Bros. for being media monopolists; and Planet Hollywood for being Planet Hollywood. It seems to me that Black Bloc is going against various types of businesses just because they can, and not having real problems with the corporations. I am referring to Planet Hollywood directly, of which they could not come up with a better reason that the business being Planet Hollywood. What do you think?
2. I am under the impression that the Black Bloc damaged property owned by the businesses they were protesting. So I don’t understand why they got upset when the “peace police” stood “in front of the Niketown super store,” tackling and shoving the group away. Did they feel their actions would go unnoticed by the police? Or did they feel because they were acting for a cause that they would be immune to police action?
3. The Black Bloc states that “property destruction is not a violent activity unless it destroys lives or causes pain in the process.” Would you agree or disagree with this idea?
1) Are the tactics used by the Black Bloc, like destroying property, succesful to get their point accross?
2) How can the media protect the identity of their sources if people like Wolf are being put into jail for not collaborating?
3) How is it the the Bloc has no notable leader, like the Zapatistas have Subcomandante Marcos? Are the Zapatistas more concerned then with vanity than the Bloc?
1. In the one of the articles a member said "Aside from the obvious hypocrisy of those who engaged in violence against black-clad and masked people (many of whom were harassed despite the fact that they never engaged in property destruction)". Isn't it to be expected that if you dress like a certain group you should expect to be associated with said group and its actions, especially in a costume as distinct as the Black Bloc?
2. The member also said: "We contend that property destruction is not a violent activity unless it destroys lives or causes pain in the process." Are they only talking about physical pain? Because the pain of the owner and workers to fix what they caused is important. Plus the people who have to clean up their mess is the people who are paid minimum wage and the everyday laborers not the corporate "fatcats".
3. "When we smash a window, we aim to destroy the thin veneer of legitimacy that surrounds private property rights." Do they think that mainstream people will listen to what they have to say and implement the changes that they want if they take such extreme measures? Isn't it more likely that they will be viewed as crazies and detract from their cause?
1. If the Black Bloc are against ageism, why are most of their members young adults i.e 30 and younger?
2. Self-control is extremely imprtant, especially when you are the minority. Why can't Black Bloc members practice nonviolence no matter if the police respond in violence or not? It is possible look at the nonviolent civil rights movement led by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
3. If the Black Bloc have no visual leaders or leaders in general, how do they have successful or meaningful protests? Do they plan all their actions in advance?
How is their aim for anarchy a supportable model for world government?
Police are low-paid workers with dangerous jobs, much like many of the people the Black Bloc wishes to represent. How can they justify being anti-police?
Anti-pornography seems like an oddball thing for them to stand for. . . if they’re anti-government regulation, how can they impose their ideas on others like that?
Post a Comment
<< Home