As one of the many anarchists present at the October Rebellion’s un-permitted march through Georgetown, I take strong issue – both factually and ideologically – with D. Pierce Nixon’s most recent column, (“Protest Sends the Wrong Message,” THE HOYA, Oct. 23, 2007, A3) which was no more than an apology for profit and power masquerading as (misinformed) commentary. It is nothing short of irresponsible, sensationalist demagoguery designed to suppress legitimate alternative modes of thought and organization.
First, it is necessary to dispute the factual inaccuracies present in Nixon’s column (which, as a side note, was basically cribbed from rightwing incendiaries like Michelle alkin). I not only saw the woman hit by the chunk of brick and the blood running down her face, but I also saw protestors running to help her while some police officers asked each other, after a few seconds of fleeting concern, “Should we move on?” It was not a deliberate assault against her (as Nixon told it), but rather an accident that occurred because the piece of brick apparently missed the storefront window at which it was aimed.
Not content with this particular lie, Nixon also cited accounts of the protestors during the weekend defiling the church, St. Stephens, in which they stayed. The boldfaced lie regarding urination in a church finds its origins in counter-protestor propaganda posted to the DC Indymedia web site. These counter-protestors are the same ones who have invented falsehoods about the vandalism of the Vietnam memorial to whip up a violent pro-war fervor. Unfortunately, Nixon takes their side rather than daring to be seen associating with people contrary to the power establishment.
Second, these fabrications are not mere inaccuracies, but they are specifically designed to justify the status quo and, by extension reinforce the culture of domination, exploitation and alienation. Perhaps most telling is Nixon’s proclamation that, “Sometimes we have to look out for Georgetown.” Nixon refers to the neighborhood where we live as nothing more than a few CVS pharmacies, a Chipotle, the Tombs and a smattering of other upscale shops.
Just because Nixon is unable to see beyond his own shallow interpretation of our Georgetown neighborhood and delve deeper into the social significance of the groups that have found a consumer niche here, does not mean that the neighborhood is not complicit with regimes of inequality, gentrification or racism; nor does it mean that the neighborhood is not home to anti-democratic powerbrokers who run the government, IMF, World Bank and similarly repulsive institutions; nor does it mean that the “innocent” shops pushing odiously commodified culture lining M and Wisconsin are not guilty of using exploitative sweatshops overseas and union busting at home. That ‘business as usual’ for these peddlers of suffering was disrupted, even if only for a short while, is not a cause for tears – but Nixon’s own ignorance surely is.
Third, Nixon argues that un-permitted actions of protest are not effective methods of “lobbying those in power.” Instead, he claims that we should attempt to channel our grievances through the “accepted avenues of political influence.” But it is exactly those “accepted avenues” that the protestors believe are unacceptable. We do not believe that the best method of change is to beg those in power, much like a dog slinking around a table hoping for some scraps. Rather, we desire to make our own power not dependent on profit, hierarchy or exclusion. It is precisely because permitted protests have lost their effectiveness that we must take back our right to organize, without the permission of some bureaucrat. For example, even though the run-up to the disastrous Iraq war saw the largest permitted anti-war protests in history, the government pushed forward while systematically ignoring the dissent that could have saved thousands of lives, billions of dollars and unquantifiable hardship; had those millions of people simply shut down a few cities without permits, the situation would perhaps be different. Certainly we will debate the tactics and strategies used, but one thing is certain: It is time that we move from protest to resistance, and we’re definitely not going to ask for anyone’s permission to do that.
Ironically enough, Nixon himself provides the motivation for the next protests, astutely observing that the common person walking our streets was “likely not consulted on issues of world finance.” If the average citizen of the unfortunately named First World doesn’t have a say in international trade and finance, then it is absurd to think that these institutions are in any way democratic for the majority of the world’s population that lives in poverty in the Third.
Breaking down these institutions means more than simply breaking windows: It means breaking down ignorance, greed, hierarchy and egocentrism. Radical democratic change cannot occur as long as demagogues like Nixon continue throwing their own deceitful brickbats, whose victims are not just one regrettably injured bystander but the multitude forced to toil under the bloody whip of profit.
Clark Donley is a senior in the School of Foreign Service.
