Steal this blog
Thoughts on the Chicago 7 (8)... was about to post this on bb... then thought perhaps I'd post it here first and re-read it after yoga. I think it may be a bit too disjointed for a bb post... but I'm too emotionally attached to the whole discussion to make a proper judgment.
It amazes me that some don't know who the Chicago 7 (8) were. But - we only teach (and learn) selective history I guess. Why do I know about them? I think I knew before I watched Steal this Movie or read any of Abbie's books. But - I'm not sure when I first learned about them... not in school, that's for sure. I think I learned about them from fellow artists and actors. Ah... so subversive those artsy types are.
On second thought, I think I will post it. I wonder if someone will tell me to "go to France" because I'm "such a socialist"?
Want to know more?
Check THIS out.
Want to see something sad?
Check THIS out. Talk about co-opting.
===================
Here is something to think about:
When the people in power use that power to silence or curtail the voice of those who are not in power, what recourse to those not in power have? If those not in power have opinions that are different from your own, conduct their lives differently from yours, dress differently from you, have different priorities than you, worship at different altars than you, does that make it ok to suppress them? Are ideas different from our own such a threat that we have to silence them?
Do you judge how those not in power behave by the same standards that you judge those who are in power? If yes, is that fair? Those in power generally have many more choices that those who are not. If you talk and no one listens, is it then ok to scream? If your scream isn't heard, then what do you do?
Here is something else to think about:
What speaks louder, words or actions?
The protestors in Chicago, for the most part, made a lot of provocative statements meant to elicit a response (not necessarily a riot - but a response - they wanted to be heard, they wanted to be listened to, they wanted their message to get out). Remember what was happening at that time. The US government was sending draftees to die in Vietnam even though a growing number of citizens were against the war. The government was suppressing those who protested the war (sometimes violently). Bobby Kennedy had just been shot. Martin Luther King Jr. had just been shot. Those who questioned the government publicly were suppressed, investigated by the FBI, arrested, and often dealt with violently. All this in a country that is supposed to protect freedom above all else. The protestors in Chicago wanted the freedom (in this free country) to speak their mind in a public place and have their voice heard. They had no power. To be heard at all they had to create a scene that would catch the attention of the media and thus, perhaps, the rest of the country.
The authorities on the other hand, did have the power and they used that power to suppress or prevent the protestors from having a voice. When they couldn't discourage all of them from showing up, they chose to use violence to suppress them. Would you judge the protestors less harshly if they had laid down and taken the beating?
The protestors pulled down flags, let the air out of tires, yelled and said all sorts of inflammatory things, took drugs, dressed extravagantly, occasionally behaved like buffoons, and sometimes said some really stupid things (like "kill the cops"). But it was those in power (the police and the officials who supported them) who sprayed people with tear gas, beat them unconscious, arrested them, spied on their trial preparations (yes, the FBI bugged the offices of the defense and the Judge and prosecutors knew and supported it), suppressed evidence, etc. It was those in power who made laws specifically designed so that they could arrest those not in power and thus suppress their message. How would history have been different if the authorities in Chicago had simply allowed the voices of the protestors to be heard? Why was their message such a threat?
And - while we are at it, has anyone else considered the similarity between how the mayor of Chicago chose to prepare for that Democratic convention and the expected protests in 1968 and how the mayor of New York chose to prepare for this year's Republican convention (and it's expected protests)? Why was there so little media coverage of the protests in New York? Why didn't the media spend more time reporting how the authorities locked down a whole section of the city so that the delegates wouldn't have to be bothered by people who don't think the same way as they do? Where is the freedom in that? How many of you saw any real news coverage of the 500,000 people who marched in NYC on Sunday Aug. 29, 2004? The largest protest ever held at a political convention and it barely made the news.
Sorry - got a little off track there. But I can't help thinking of "bread and circuses".
If we define Martyr as someone who died for religious faith (typically by being tortured to death) than on the surface it would seem that the Chicago 8 were not martyrs. But - look a little deeper. Their faith was in this country and what it stands for (or is supposed to stand for). Their faith was in freedom and that faith was tortured to death by the behavior of the the police, Judge Hoffman, Mayor Daley, the FBI and others. Abbie Hoffman and the rest didn't do much of anything except show up, look weird, talk big, and reject authority. A real threat to democracy and our way of life, oh yeah. I think Norman Mailer got it right when he said that they "understood that you didn't have to attack the fortress anymore. All they had to do was surround it, make faces at the people inside, and let them have nervous breakdowns and destroy themselves." Ironic and sad that some of the same things are happening today. Where are those brave clowns who will surround the fortress now? They are out there, but you don't get to hear much about them. The machine that suppresses the message has gotten much better and much more savvy. As George Carlin said the other night on Real Time - we are not as free as we think. "Freedom isn't having both Coke and Pepsi in the same vending Machine." Remember, freedom is not about (or not only about) capitalist competition.
It amazes me that some don't know who the Chicago 7 (8) were. But - we only teach (and learn) selective history I guess. Why do I know about them? I think I knew before I watched Steal this Movie or read any of Abbie's books. But - I'm not sure when I first learned about them... not in school, that's for sure. I think I learned about them from fellow artists and actors. Ah... so subversive those artsy types are.
On second thought, I think I will post it. I wonder if someone will tell me to "go to France" because I'm "such a socialist"?
Want to know more?
Check THIS out.
Want to see something sad?
Check THIS out. Talk about co-opting.
===================
Here is something to think about:
When the people in power use that power to silence or curtail the voice of those who are not in power, what recourse to those not in power have? If those not in power have opinions that are different from your own, conduct their lives differently from yours, dress differently from you, have different priorities than you, worship at different altars than you, does that make it ok to suppress them? Are ideas different from our own such a threat that we have to silence them?
Do you judge how those not in power behave by the same standards that you judge those who are in power? If yes, is that fair? Those in power generally have many more choices that those who are not. If you talk and no one listens, is it then ok to scream? If your scream isn't heard, then what do you do?
Here is something else to think about:
What speaks louder, words or actions?
The protestors in Chicago, for the most part, made a lot of provocative statements meant to elicit a response (not necessarily a riot - but a response - they wanted to be heard, they wanted to be listened to, they wanted their message to get out). Remember what was happening at that time. The US government was sending draftees to die in Vietnam even though a growing number of citizens were against the war. The government was suppressing those who protested the war (sometimes violently). Bobby Kennedy had just been shot. Martin Luther King Jr. had just been shot. Those who questioned the government publicly were suppressed, investigated by the FBI, arrested, and often dealt with violently. All this in a country that is supposed to protect freedom above all else. The protestors in Chicago wanted the freedom (in this free country) to speak their mind in a public place and have their voice heard. They had no power. To be heard at all they had to create a scene that would catch the attention of the media and thus, perhaps, the rest of the country.
The authorities on the other hand, did have the power and they used that power to suppress or prevent the protestors from having a voice. When they couldn't discourage all of them from showing up, they chose to use violence to suppress them. Would you judge the protestors less harshly if they had laid down and taken the beating?
The protestors pulled down flags, let the air out of tires, yelled and said all sorts of inflammatory things, took drugs, dressed extravagantly, occasionally behaved like buffoons, and sometimes said some really stupid things (like "kill the cops"). But it was those in power (the police and the officials who supported them) who sprayed people with tear gas, beat them unconscious, arrested them, spied on their trial preparations (yes, the FBI bugged the offices of the defense and the Judge and prosecutors knew and supported it), suppressed evidence, etc. It was those in power who made laws specifically designed so that they could arrest those not in power and thus suppress their message. How would history have been different if the authorities in Chicago had simply allowed the voices of the protestors to be heard? Why was their message such a threat?
And - while we are at it, has anyone else considered the similarity between how the mayor of Chicago chose to prepare for that Democratic convention and the expected protests in 1968 and how the mayor of New York chose to prepare for this year's Republican convention (and it's expected protests)? Why was there so little media coverage of the protests in New York? Why didn't the media spend more time reporting how the authorities locked down a whole section of the city so that the delegates wouldn't have to be bothered by people who don't think the same way as they do? Where is the freedom in that? How many of you saw any real news coverage of the 500,000 people who marched in NYC on Sunday Aug. 29, 2004? The largest protest ever held at a political convention and it barely made the news.
Sorry - got a little off track there. But I can't help thinking of "bread and circuses".
If we define Martyr as someone who died for religious faith (typically by being tortured to death) than on the surface it would seem that the Chicago 8 were not martyrs. But - look a little deeper. Their faith was in this country and what it stands for (or is supposed to stand for). Their faith was in freedom and that faith was tortured to death by the behavior of the the police, Judge Hoffman, Mayor Daley, the FBI and others. Abbie Hoffman and the rest didn't do much of anything except show up, look weird, talk big, and reject authority. A real threat to democracy and our way of life, oh yeah. I think Norman Mailer got it right when he said that they "understood that you didn't have to attack the fortress anymore. All they had to do was surround it, make faces at the people inside, and let them have nervous breakdowns and destroy themselves." Ironic and sad that some of the same things are happening today. Where are those brave clowns who will surround the fortress now? They are out there, but you don't get to hear much about them. The machine that suppresses the message has gotten much better and much more savvy. As George Carlin said the other night on Real Time - we are not as free as we think. "Freedom isn't having both Coke and Pepsi in the same vending Machine." Remember, freedom is not about (or not only about) capitalist competition.
posted by susan | 5:20 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home