#Nonviolent protest

[fullmetal-angelgrace]

Cal Poly Humboldt, April 24th 2024

[eretzyisrael]

Watch the video of the protest here on X. And if you're in LA, avoid Mauro Cafe. The owner, Evelyn Joan, is pictured above.

[tmarshconnors]

"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart, that you can't take part! You can't even passively take part! And you've got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels ... upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you've got to make it stop! And you've got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it, that unless you're free, the machine will be prevented from working at all!"

Mario Savio (December 8, 1942 – November 6, 1996) was an American activist and a key member of the Berkeley Free Speech Movement.

[rometoney]

Martin Luther King did not fight for peace.

He was not trying to “bring people together”. He was not reasonable. He was not accommodating and most Americans during his lifetime did not see him as an admirable public figure. That’s because Martin Luther King’s primary goal was not peace, it was justice. Martin Luther King was a revolutionary who wanted to radically reshape America so that it would live up to its ideals of freedom and equality. He was part of that great American tradition of abolitionists and women’s rights advocates and labor activists who fought to reshape American society to make it more equitable and just.  

Martin Luther King fought for justice and white America despised him for it. Most people misunderstand Martin Luther King because they mistakenly believe that nonviolence is somehow peaceful. Nonviolence is not peaceful. It is fundamentally confrontational. King and his fellow civil rights activists said, we are going to nonviolently confront you and your racism and your violence. We will nonviolently provoke you to expose your violence, your hatred, your racism, your unconstitutional Jim Crow laws, your white supremacy. That’s why they were met with so much violence. That’s why Martin Luther King was arrested 30 times. That’s why in 1963 60% of Americans opposed the March on Washington where king delivered his famous, I Have a Dream speech. That’s why in 1968 Martin Luther King had a 75% disapproval rating. And that’s ultimately why he was assassinated.

Peace and brotherhood were long range goals that would happen after justice was achieved. That’s the whole point of the I Have a Dream speech. Kings says he looks forward to someday eventually when a man will be judged by the content of his character and not by the color of his skin.

So, this weekend beware of people trying to present Martin Luther King as a harmless advocate of peace, love and understanding. People like that Hallmark version of Martin Luther King because it’s so much more palatable than the actual revolutionary, confrontational, truth telling, justice seeking Martin Luther King.

[communistfeminist]

Kwame Ture responding to an audience member’s statement of opinion against violence at the University of Georgia, 1979.

[syruckusnow]

“Civil resistance allows people of all different levels of physical ability to participate, so this can include the elderly, people with disabilities, women, children, and anyone else who wants to. If you think about it, everyone is born with a natural physical ability to resist nonviolently."

—Erica Chenoweth

[peacephotography]

Clean Hong Kong Action, 2019 A series of images documenting the protests in Hong Kong with all the faces of the participants punched out to protect their identities. Photograph: Wai Hang Siu

[thepeacepigeon]

“Woman, life, freedom.” How the women of Iran protest the hijab

(Clodagh Kilcoyne/Reuters)

In September 2022, 22-year-old Mahsa Amini was arrested by morality police in Tehran, Iran, for refusing to wear a hijab. Hijabs have been mandatory in Iran for women since the revolution in 1979, when the Imperial State of Iran was replaced with the Islamic Republic. Only a month after the victory of the revolution, Iran's new head of state, Grand Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, declared: “Sin is not allowed in Islamic Cabinet ministries. Women should not appear naked in the ministries. Women are allowed only with a hijab. There is no obstacle to them working but only if they wear the hijab as prescribed by Islamic law.”

(Aristotle Saris/AP Photo)

The following day, over 15,000 Iranian women celebrated International Women’s Day, gathering in front of the prime minister’s office in Tehran in protest against the mandatory hijab. As of 1983, Parliament has since passed the Islamic Penal Code, which establishes a punishment of “up to 74 lashes for women appearing without Islamic hijab in public.” In 1996, the law was revised and replaced with “physical punishment with incarceration and fines.” 

In the case of Mahsa Amini, her suspicious death in police custody sparked massive outrage across the country, prompting widespread and large-scale protests. Videos were posted and spread online of Iranian women cutting their hair and burning their hijabs, which served as a powerful way to both protest the morality police responsible for Amini’s death and reject the policy of compulsory hijab. Iranians— both men and women, peacefully protested in the streets of Tehran, and in big and small towns across the country, chanting, “Woman, life, freedom.” 

(Safin Hamed/AFP/GI)

While many of these protests have been shut down or lost traction and attention outside of Iran, political activism in the name of women's equality and freedom continues to thrive in different forms. Widely recognized imprisoned female activists continue to leak statements and voice recordings online, describing and criticizing their living conditions in prison and encouraging other activists to keep working. Discussions and online meetings continue to be held in private online forums such as Twitter, Telegram, and WhatsApp. The women of Iran continue to engage in quiet civil disobedience regardless of the risks or consequences.

In 2017, five years before Mahsa Amini's death, a young woman named Vida Movahed climbed and stood on top of a utility box on one of Tehran's busiest streets. She stood, bareheaded—calmly waving her white scarf on a long stick. Her peaceful yet powerful display of defiance went viral, and photos soon circulated of other Iranian women taking off their headscarves in public. These acts of resistance contrast the violent treatment women like Mahsa Amini face at the hands of the Iranian government and police. They serve as an important example and reminder of the power the people can hold. 

Kenyon, Peter. “Public Protests Are over but More Iranian Women Are Refusing to Wear the Hijab.” NPR, NPR, 20 June 2023, www.npr.org/2023/06/20/1183152677/public-protests-are-over-but-more-iranian-women-are-refusing-to-wear-the-hijab.

Bazoobandi, Sara, et al. “Hijab in Iran: From Religious to Political Symbol.” Carnegie Endowment, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 13 Oct. 2022, carnegieendowment.org/sada/88152. 

Alfoneh, Ali, et al. “The End of Mandatory Hijab in Iran?” Arab Gulf States Institute in Washington, 28 Feb. 2024, agsiw.org/the-end-of-mandatory-hijab-in-iran/. 

Tajali, Mona. “Women’s Activism in Iran Continues, despite Street Protests Dying down in Face of State Repression.” The Conversation, 16 Nov. 2023, theconversation.com/womens-activism-in-iran-continues-despite-street-protests-dying-down-in-face-of-state-repression-213514. 

Radio, CBC. “Peace Movement: The Impact of Grassroots Activism, Policy, and Culture.” Gray Group International, Gray Group International LLC, 5 Oct. 2022, www.graygroupintl.com/blog/peace-movement.

[theultimatesandwich]

If you're feeling nervous or stressed after last night, remember to breathe. Focus on the areas in life you can control.

Do something nice with friends who might be struggling right now. Advocate for/donate to LGBTQ+ charities and businesses. Volunteer to support services you don't want to see disappear. If something starts happening that you disagree with, form or join a protest. Be nonviolent, but don't be silent.

The government is supposed to represent its people. If it doesn't? Stand up and let them know

[lary-the-lizard]

When I was a wee child, abouts the age of 8, my elder brother and his friend had taken to bullying my friend group. I don’t exactly remember when I decided that I would always defend them, no matter the humiliation and pain but that is my conviction since before then. I would do whatever I had to in order to protect my friends (and my younger brother who was a part of the friend group) and that often meant becoming a ball on the ground receiving all types of violence, including being beaten with wooden swords. Though I was agile and fast I wasn’t bigger than either of the bullies and my goal wasn’t to beat the bullies, it was to protect my friends.

Sometimes I couldn’t draw the bullies away from my friends and get them to focus just on me and I’d have to fight. I remember the rage and helplessness that came with only being able to hold off one person. The vengeance I felt growing in me - it was so intense I couldn’t think. If I couldn’t defend all of the group in the moment, if they actually got hurt, showing my brother and his friend what happens when you harass or assault my chosen ones became my obsession. I was sure I could endure any pain if it meant keeping my friends safe.

I became such a pain in the ass to these bullies that they eventually gave up bullying us because beating me was no fun as I didn’t cry or complain and I’d often taunt them after they got tired of chasing us. It got to the point that if they saw me they turned around.

(“Where were the adults,” you ask. They didn’t believe us when we told them and we were hurt worse for telling on the bullies so it was legit up to us.)

I write all this to say that I am not into committing violence just to commit violence. Any violence I’ve committed was to hold off worse violence. I am even willing to take all the hurt to prevent it from spreading. The problem isn’t that we are willing to commit violence to get our way, it’s that police and governments and alt-right organizations are. Their agenda is to shut us up and make us invisible if not eradicate us entirely. And the only way centerist and liberals will support our liberation is for us to be sweet lambs that don’t ask for much. That doesn’t fucking work when those in power and those that worship that power are willing to display our mutilated bodies to show us what happens when we want to live honestly. There is hate thrown our way when we show any signs of who we are. We don’t have to be “loud and proud” to get it. We don’t have to stand by other causes. Many cishet people have been bullied for being perceived as one of us. And that torment and suffering grows when we decide to be open. But forced silence is violence too.

I have learned that I should not be treated like I’m lesser, and that my instinct to sacrifice my safety for others is not good. No one should be suffering and that includes me and those causing the suffering. But the only way to truly stop the violence is to make it more difficult to commit. You do not chase someone when they have a gun because they could shoot you. You do not kill someone when you know they have an army willing to hurt or kill you. Many people have given up their lives for peace and the only reason their lives were given up was because someone killed them. That sacrifice is not the honor and glory we treat it as. Because someone had to die. Because someone else refused to not kill. And no one should be willing to die, no one should be willing to kill, and no one should be pushing anyone to either extreme. But we got here because others decided that the way I exist, the way BIPOC exist, the way disabled people exist is worth killing us for. We are not violent people, we do not want to hurt anyone. We want to live in a way that doesn’t hurt so bad. And for that, many decided that we should sacrifice our loved ones, our comfort, our health, and our lives.

I do not want to hurt anyone. The only times I have wanted to hurt someone was when they thought my pain was entertaining. When I lashed out against them, when I made consequences, they stopped. I did not choose to be violent. Others chose to hurt me and mine so I made that difficult. The only way to do that is to fight back.

[nando161mando]

German police assault nonviolent pro-Palestine protesters in Berlin

[folk-enjoyer]

National Museum of African American History and Culture, Smithsonian Institute

The Freedom Singers Concert ticket

[nokingsonlyfooles]

“It’s my hope, Mr. President, that you listen to us, that you choose democracy over tyranny.” - Abdullah Hammoud, Dearborn Mayor and Voter

YES! I can't fuckin' believe the media accurately reported this as a protest and printed/publicized the words of the voters explaining why they did it. AND NOBODY HAD TO ATTEMPT SUICIDE! This is big and it could get even bigger! But it's a qualified bigness, because...

Walz, a major supporter of Biden’s reelection campaign, said Michigan’s “uncommitted” results were a healthy demonstration of democracy. “I think they feel passionate, as they should, about an issue we all care about,” Walz said, adding that he expected most protest voters would eventually return to Biden’s side in a likely November rematch with former President Donald Trump, who himself has struggled with college-educated voters and suburbanites in his ongoing Republican primary against former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley. “I’m much more convinced there’s a chance bringing those folks home is much greater than bringing the ‘Never Trump’ folks back home,” Walz said.

Yeah. I know this song and dance. I've seen it happen in person, at protests, in reatime. They come out to "do voter outreach" and they're all smiles to start. "Yes! Please do continue to act upon your freedom of speech in a way I, an advocate for the status quo, find nonthreatening. Your feelings are valid, ha-ha! I expect nothing to change, and indeed I will act to change nothing, but good for you!" A few folks always believe the message has been received and quiet down, that's why they do it. But wait and see what happens to that smile when a few people start interrupting and yelling, "THAT'S NOT GOOD ENOUGH!"

At least this guy's willing to suggest Biden would pick up more votes by moving left than moving right, although I doubt he actually expects anything radical. A few more forgiven student loans or somewhat cheaper drugs aren't much of a problem, and that's leftist too! So we don't really have to worry about the ongoing genocide.

The thing is, if/when this picks up momentum and the DNC starts to think they might have to change something or lose, it will become something other than a positive demonstration of free speech. It'll be childish tantrum-throwing, pointless, uncivil, attention-whoring, astroturfed, counterproductive foreign interference, and whatever else sounds bad. If any of you out there in internet-land already feel threatened by it, you're probably saying that right now. (Go ahead and comment, you'll boost this with other people who think like you, and I might change some minds.)

And, if you are comfortable with it and want voters to do it instead of threatening to withhold votes from Biden in the general, check your privilege. Not every state offers this. Unless something changes real fast (at least, I THINK it hasn't changed, it's hard to do a search when "uncommitted" brings up SO MANY news articles about Michigan 😁), mine won't. I can't do this. I can't vote in a third party primary either. It'd be all blue or nothing. And neither of those things will get me any press, so I gotta keep talking. Maybe I'll motivate someone who can vote uncommitted! Or scare a politician! I still think I'm doing more good by staying alive, and I'm a bit distant from any property I might meaningfully damage (although I am open to suggestions that won't get me arrested and silenced), so this is the only thing I got that won't injure a human being.

Tumblr, no matter how you actually intend to vote, if you're not up for living in a two-party system where both parties think they can do a little genocide and stay in power, you have ways of making yourself heard. There are options beyond falling in line behind the lesser evil. Don't let anyone tell you there aren't. And when you start hearing "stop!" or "you can't!" that means you have something they want. A cessation of hostilities! Well, now you might be in a position to negotiate terms! Don't give up!

Please, please, please don't give up. There is so much to be done.

[silmarillion-ways-to-die]

The Powers That Be: Be like Dr. King and protest legally and peacefully.

Marginalized People: But you murdered him.

The Powers That Be: We never said we'd RESPOND legally and peacefully.

[glitterygalaxyballoon]

from VIETNAM: LOTUS IN A SEA OF FIRE: IN SEARCH OF THE ENEMY OF MAN

From a letter by Thich Nhat Hanh addressed to the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., June 1, 1965

The self-burning of Vietnamese Buddhist monks in 1963 is somehow difficult for Western Christian conscience to understand. The press spoke then of suicide, but in the essence, it is not. It is not even a protest. What the monks said in the letters they left before burning themselves aimed only at alarming, at moving the hearts of the oppressors, and at calling the attention of the world to the suffering endured then by the Vietnamese. To burn oneself by fire is to prove that what one is saying is of the utmost importance. There is nothing more painful than burning oneself. To say something while experiencing this kind of pain is to say it with utmost courage, frankness, determination, and sincerity. During the ceremony of ordination, as practiced in the Mahayana tradition, the monk-candidate is required to burn one or more small spots on his body in taking the vow to observe the 250 rules of a bhikshu, to live the life of a monk, to attain enlightenment, and to devote his life to the salvation of all beings. One can, of course, say these things while sitting in a comfortable armchair; but when the words are uttered while kneeling before the community of sangha and experiencing this kind of pain, they will express all the seriousness of one’s heart and mind, and carry much greater weight.

The Vietnamese monk, by burning himself, says with all his strength and determination that he can endure the greatest of sufferings to protect his people. But why does he have to burn himself to death? The difference between burning oneself and burning oneself to death is only a difference in degree, not in nature. A man who burns himself too much must die. The importance is not to take one’s life, but to burn. What he really aims at is the expression of his will and determination, not death. In the Buddhist belief, life is not confined to a period of 60 or 80 or 100 years: life is eternal. Life is not confined to this body: life is universal. To express will by burning oneself, therefore, is not to commit an act of destruction but perform an act of construction, that is, to suffer and to die for the sake of one’s people. This is not suicide. Suicide is an act of self-destruction, having as causes the following: (1) lack of courage to live and to cope with difficulties; (2) defeat by life and loss of all hope; (3) desire for nonexistence (abhaya).

This self-destruction is considered by Buddhism as one of the most serious crimes. The monk who burns himself has lost neither courage nor hope; nor does he desire nonexistence. On the contrary, he is very courageous and hopeful and aspires for something good in the future. He does not think that he is destroying himself: he believes in the good fruition of his act of self-sacrifice for the sake of others. Like the Buddha in one of his former lives—as told in a story of Jataka—who gave himself to a hungry lioness which was about to devour her own cubs, the monk believes he is practicing the doctrine of highest compassion by sacrificing himself in order to call the attention of, and to seek help from, the people of the world.

I believe with all my heart that the monks who burned themselves did not aim at the death of the oppressors but only at a change in their policy. Their enemies are not man. They are intolerance, fanaticism, dictatorship, cupidity, hatred, and discrimination which lie within the heart of man. I also believe with all of my being that the struggle for equality and freedom you lead in Birmingham, Alabama, is not really aimed at the whites but only at intolerance, hatred, and discrimination. These are real enemies of man—not man himself. In our unfortunate fatherland we are trying to plead desperately: do not kill man, even in man’s name. Please kill the real enemies of man which are present everywhere, in our very hearts and minds.

Now in the confrontation of the big powers occurring in our country, hundreds and perhaps thousands of Vietnamese peasants and children lose their lives every day, and our land is unmercifully and tragically torn by a war which is already twenty years old. I am sure that since you have been engaged in one of the hardest struggles for equality and human rights, you are among those who understand fully, and who share with all their heart, the indescribable suffering of the Vietnamese people. The world’s greatest humanists would not remain silent. You yourself cannot remain silent. America is said to have a strong religious foundation and spiritual leaders would not allow American political and economic doctrines to be deprived of the spiritual element. You cannot be silent since you have already been in action and you are in action because, in you, God is in action, too—to use Karl Barth’s expression. And Albert Schweitzer, with his stress on the reverence for life. And Paul Tillich with his courage to be, and thus, to love. And Niebuhr. And Mackay. And Fletcher. And Donald Harrington. All these religious humanists and many more, are not going to favor the existence of a shame such as the one mankind has to endure in Vietnam. Recently a young Buddhist monk named Thich Giac Thanh burned himself [April 20, 1965, in Saigon] to call the attention of the world to the suffering endured by the Vietnamese, the suffering caused by this unnecessary war—and you know that war is never necessary. Another young Buddhist, a nun named Hue Thien, was about to sacrifice herself in the same way and with the same intent, but her will was not fulfilled because she did not have the time to strike a match before people saw and interfered. Nobody here wants the war. What is the war for, then? And whose is the war?

Yesterday in a class meeting, a student of mine prayed: “Lord Buddha, help us to be alert to realize that we are not victims of each other. We are victims of our own ignorance and the ignorance of others. Help us to avoid engaging ourselves more in mutual slaughter because of the will of others to power and to predominance.” In writing to you, I profess my faith in Love, in Communion, and in the World’s Humanists, whose thoughts and attitude should be the guide for all humankind in finding who is the real enemy of Man.