I mean, even though many folks were being willfully obtuse about it, Colin Kaepernick’s taking a knee was a direct protest against the treatment of Black folks in the USA and everybody got the message loud and clear. Any criticism about the “how” was merely an attempt at distraction, because he was very on point about the issue.
“I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color,” Kaepernick tells NFL Media after the game. “To me, this is bigger than football and it would be selfish on my part to look the other way. There are bodies in the street and people getting paid leave and getting away with murder.”
Realistically, many wealthy people won’t even see something like this because they outsource their busywork like shopping to other people. Harrod’s is aspirational shopping for the middle class.
Here’s another protest group in the news this week. I give them points for at least targeting a company directly related to the issue at hand but it still feels pretty naive to complain that someone won’t come by to provide fresh bedpans after you’ve just glued yourself to their floor.
You are the one deciding you have to answer all questions associated with them. Are you affiliated with them? Otherwise, I strongly suggest you not feel like it’s your responsibility to be the expert in the room on the subject and ignore the questions or comments you feel are irrelevant. There’s room for discussion of multiple aspects of this event.
I can only hope that the recent uptick in these kinds of stunts is a sign of higher awareness of the climate emergency, rather than an attempt to raise awareness.
I think that it’s a good idea to keep in mind that a lot of the barbs being thrown around are tongue in cheek.
That said, I do think that this kind of protest antagonizes the very people whom it is trying to persuade while also creating a lot of headaches for frontline workers who do not deserve this. Worst of all, it is wasteful and tends to draw more attention to Harrods (or Aston Martin or Van Gogh) than the climate crisis. They could do a lot more good by standing outside of Harrods holding up signs illustrating what is at stake (polar bears, deforestation, etc.).
I’ve got a general reply to those attacking the protests. With the attack on the Van Gogh (specifically), this and the Aston Martin garage, one of the points I’m getting from their protest is, the things you value won’t be worth shit on a dead planet. It’s not about changing peoples minds, we’re all beyond believing that’s something that happens aren’t we ? We know that’s not happening, individuals change their own minds anyway, all you can do is make sure that your POV is still visible and audible.
Protests are weapons that are primarily used against power structures, they’re threats made against those that are destroying and exploiting… They’re not aimed at the public, or at changing minds primarily. These, to me, are to keep this issue (an issue which can be easily argued is more important the who the next fucking PM is, or who the next Government will be) high in the public consciousness. Everything has changed, destituent actions are more common, nobody is looking for vanguard parties or traditional movements to lead the way. This is the shape direct action is going to take from here, but moreso.
Sorry, I’m not being too eloquent but I’m sick to fucking death of hearing armchair activists whine about these kids who are actually doing something. You’re not helping either.
Right, all protest needs to be cleaned up. Does that mean we shouldn’t protest, or we clean up after ourselves. I’m not sure where your argument is going.
I am of the belief that nonviolent protest works better. I realize that not everyone shares this view and I even readily acknowledge that there actually are times when violence is justified. But even in those cases, where the violence is directed matters.
A dedicated activist would take that as a prompt to engage in true civil disobedience against an unjust ruling. They wouldn’t have to bother with the paint and showboating to make their point eith … oh, I see now why this wouldn’t work for these performance artists.
Direct action has its time and place, but most people inclined to protest are not going to engage in violence and vandalism or other stunts. Non-violent protest works better because it’s within the comfort zone of most people who genuinely want to support a cause.
You’re at odds here with JSO’s other defender here, who claims that this will stop middle-class people from buying chocolate boxes at Harrods.
Either way, the powers that be in the UK and elsewhere aren’t going to be scared by a small group of hapless dilettantes engaging in half-baked direct actions. The demos that do tend to move them are mass marches and boycott campaigns and strikes: the kind that have already been inspired by competent and articulate activists like Thunberg who knew how to inspire the public and change minds.
You should understand that many of us here criticising these incompetent attention-seekers have participated in real demonstrations concerning the climate emergency and other progressive causes over the years, and at least a couple (not me) have engaged in direct actions that involved serious physical and mental peril to themselves.
Given the anti-protest bill that passed while we were distracted by the Gov imploding, “peaceful protestor ordered to wear ankle tracker” is a far better news story for the cause than “Van Gough vandal facing house arrest”.
I’ve been involved in direct actions and protests for thirty years, I’m just happy to see anyone protest in these times.
I understand all your arguments, I used to say them myself. I originally responded to these protests the exact same way, but then I thought about it some more. Things have changed and those arguments, those approaches, don’t stand up anymore. This is a revolutionary situation (to use an old trope)
