I would like to open a discussion about the tactical use of black blocks, discuss whether the tactic is still viable and what uses it may have had or still does hold. Criticism of Black Blocks are also welcome.
My understanding is that the black block is listed as a terrorist organization. This is total bullshit because there is no Black Block organization. Its nothing more than a tactic generally associated with a collection of principles such as the belief that "An injury to one is an injury to all", the advocacy of civil disobedience, and acting as a leaderless yet cohesive unit to make it more difficult to arrest or break up the block.
Vandalism is not necessarily a tactic that is embraced by every black block. Many black blocks were purely defensive, offering protection to protesters as the police began firing tear gas and plastic bullets by using a wall of shields on the front line and throwing back canisters with heat resistant gloves. Since the black block is leaderless, some masked individuals may have non-violently spray painted political slogans on unethical corporate windows, and a few may even have gone so far as to break a window. These tactics have drawn significant criticism from other protesters who have accused them of instigating police violence. However, while it may not have helped reduce police violence the police have generally responded with violence even when no illegal activities have taken place.
Other radicals have at times criticized the black block also on the grounds that the tactic has become too predictable, too vulnerable at smaller events lacking the numbers to resist mass arrest, and at times divides the event. Other people suggest that you may actually be more hidden and discreet blending into the crowd rather than consolidated in a block....Supporters of the black bloc have pointed out that the block has often been able to resist police repression, prevent their comrades from being arrested, and helped keep the event from getting bullied by police, all done without serious violence generally relying on locking arms and at worst pushing. This is not the case 100% of the time however.
So considering all this, what role do you think the Black Blocks may have in the future of protest events in America? Is the tactic still viable?
My understanding is that the black block is listed as a terrorist organization. This is total bullshit because there is no Black Block organization. Its nothing more than a tactic generally associated with a collection of principles such as the belief that "An injury to one is an injury to all", the advocacy of civil disobedience, and acting as a leaderless yet cohesive unit to make it more difficult to arrest or break up the block.
Vandalism is not necessarily a tactic that is embraced by every black block. Many black blocks were purely defensive, offering protection to protesters as the police began firing tear gas and plastic bullets by using a wall of shields on the front line and throwing back canisters with heat resistant gloves. Since the black block is leaderless, some masked individuals may have non-violently spray painted political slogans on unethical corporate windows, and a few may even have gone so far as to break a window. These tactics have drawn significant criticism from other protesters who have accused them of instigating police violence. However, while it may not have helped reduce police violence the police have generally responded with violence even when no illegal activities have taken place.
Other radicals have at times criticized the black block also on the grounds that the tactic has become too predictable, too vulnerable at smaller events lacking the numbers to resist mass arrest, and at times divides the event. Other people suggest that you may actually be more hidden and discreet blending into the crowd rather than consolidated in a block....Supporters of the black bloc have pointed out that the block has often been able to resist police repression, prevent their comrades from being arrested, and helped keep the event from getting bullied by police, all done without serious violence generally relying on locking arms and at worst pushing. This is not the case 100% of the time however.
So considering all this, what role do you think the Black Blocks may have in the future of protest events in America? Is the tactic still viable?
posted by:
|
California
|
-
Re: Black Block
Tue, November 27, 2007 - 5:36 PMWhy am I not surprised that a non existent organization is listed as a terrorist organization.
I have never participated in a black block, so my point of view is skewed at best. But I think, as long as it is well thought out, it can be a good tool. A BB is only as good as the people in it, and so are the people not is such groups.
-
Re: Black Block
Sun, December 2, 2007 - 10:59 AM...recent actions in West. WA. suggest the numbers factor. If 50 people show up, one simply becomes cop chum.... -
-
Re: Black Block
Sun, December 2, 2007 - 11:53 AMThere have been police infiltrations of black block in the past. -
-
Re: Black Block
Mon, December 3, 2007 - 8:37 PMYeah, I think that it depends on how tight the blocs are. -
-
Re: Black Block
Mon, December 3, 2007 - 10:43 PMI have also seen cops intentionally leave bricks and other tools right along the path of the block, perhaps hoping somebody would pick it up and throw it. This was in the embassy neighborhood. It would have been REALLY stupid to attack a foreign embassy during a march. It would have been a good way to demonize the block.
The Genoa a group of cops dressed up as black block assaulted dozens of civilian protesters, but were later exposed. -
-
Re: Black Block
Tue, December 4, 2007 - 2:45 PMI think the risk would be infiltration by sabateurs. It becomes harder to monitor who people are when you are doing a black block. During the Seattle WTO protest there was a very small group of "anarchists" that caused damage. I was listening to NPR and a reporter was following them around from a safe distance for about a half hour describing their activities. They were a block or two from the main protest. No cops were to be seen. They were throwing chairs through windows etc.
The media took the opportunity presented by these "anarchists" and painted the whole protest as unruly. Never mind that there were about 20,000 peaceful and disciplined protesters. The news media went straight to the people causing damage and painted the whole protest that way. People who didn't live in Seattle and had only the mainstream media's coverage of the event got a totally distorted presentation of what it was like. -
-
Re: Black Block
Tue, December 4, 2007 - 4:14 PMPersonally, I dont feel that inflicting economic losses against material possessions of immoral corporations is necessarily wrong. Being unruly is not always a bad thing when the rules are unjust and serve to protect the economic elite and subvert social justice.
However, it is suspicious that they allowed a small division of the black block to go wild against store fronts without interference while they brutally assaulted the estimated 60,000 peaceful protesters who had every right to be there.
To be fair though, even the main block of unmasked protesters did take part in civil disobedience to blockade diplomats from entering the WTO meetings. Good for them too. -
-
Re: Black Block
Sun, December 9, 2007 - 9:14 PMIMO doing vandalism causes one to lose their moral high ground and gives the powers that be an excuse to use more hostile means of control. When you lose the moral high ground you lose the sympathy of the general mass of population also. For these reasons I think vandalism is counterproductive. -
-
Re: Black Block
Sun, December 9, 2007 - 9:32 PM"IMO doing vandalism causes one to lose their moral high ground and gives the powers that be an excuse to use more hostile means of control."
In some instances I believe it may be tactically unwise, and certainly when vandalism does provoke a police response when it may not be wanted. As to whether you lose your moral high ground, that is debatable. I think it depends on what is damaged and why. The Boston Tea party comes to mind. Did the non-violent act of throwing Tea into the Ocean in protest to new taxes reduce the moral high ground? Of course in the end they all turned out to be bastards towards the natives, but really, do you consider the Boston tea party a historically immoral event?
"When you lose the moral high ground you lose the sympathy of the general mass of population also. For these reasons I think vandalism is counterproductive."
Often I think this is true, but I dont believe it is always true. Sometimes crowds cheer might cheer that form of protest which results in economic damages but no loss of human life. Other times there may not be sufficient support for such tactics, which may as you say reduce sympathy for the cause. -
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: Black Block
Sun, December 9, 2007 - 9:48 PMI think that there are often times when property damage may be the only way to accomplish things. I don't share the dogma of non violence nor the dogma against vandalism, which by the way, in spite of all attempts by the Shub administration to say they are the same, are different categories.
This doesn't mean that I accept them as something that should be don't first, random are even something to aspire, they are often just consequences of something else. Even Gandhi and MLK, Jr. admitted that they could not have accomplished their goes without people committing to violence and vandalism. Often what makes the status quo nervous about people who do demonstrations and direct action is that they don't know what would happen next.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
