(no subject)

[sophiaserpentia]

Dilemma of the day.

As peace marches become more contentious, more and more the focus of anger and latent (or real) violence, how can one who genuinely supports peace participate in them, without feeling as though one is contributing to the fractiousness of society?

Dee and Tim went to the peace march Friday and said that hecklers have become more vocal and more virulent, one saying that all participants deserved to be shot.

I feel the need to signal my opposition to war, but I do not think it is productive to make myself a target of hate and vindictiveness in the process. In the absense of alternative options, is not participating in marches or other civil disobedience tantamount to complicity? Will have to ponder this.

Comments

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

it has been suggested that those who desire some insulation from the anti-protestors march in the middle of the column while those who are feel they are willing to dealing with angry people march on the edges.

That's a good, practical suggestion -- and it's not that I am afraid of arrest, hecklers, etc., I'm mainly concerned that raising the level of contention in society will prove to be counterproductive.

Hmm, I've also noticed that form replies from Senators have been very slow in coming.

At this point I do plan to continue participating in rallies, because I can't think of an effective alternative. I do wish there were more effective forums for discussion than internet bulletin boards.

[iamom.livejournal.com]

I do wish there were more effective forums for discussion than internet bulletin boards.

Fair enough. I think that a similar thing could be said about peace marches too, though. Those marches, like internet bulletin boards, serve very specific purposes that are generally germane to the participants' personal needs for self-expression (i.e. against the war) only; I'm not convinced that they're an effective means of affecting positive change in society.

In this particular circumstance, I keep returning to voter turnout in the last presidential election. I can't imagine that Al Gore would be doing what George Bush is currently doing, and if this could act as a wake-up call to make enough voters show up at the next election in order not to leave the margin of victory (or not) so slim, then maybe that cretin Bush won't be the president next time around. What do you think?

Now that the war is ongoing, however, I just can't help feeling that no amount of public protest is going to stop it. This war appears to be gaining momentum, and as evidenced by the firing of that NBC correspondent this weekend, people who speak up against it in any form are considered unpatriotic and patently un-American.

A decidedly sorry state of affairs, to be sure, but one which surely will pass and become naught but a bad memory soon enough. I hope so, anyway!

By the way, despite my comments here, I fully support anyone who chooses to march against this war; I agree with them, and I may still find myself at a peace rally at some point in the future. It's just not for me at the moment, though.

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

I'm not convinced that they're an effective means of affecting positive change in society.

This concerns me too, but I'd have to ask whether that is the primary issue. One could argue, that it is important for activists to continue to show that they are not being snowed under by the pressure to conform, by pressure to give silent assent -- to indicate by visibility that it doesn't matter what the propaganda artists say, we hold to our convictions.

The question I'm asking myself is what is *most* important to me -- to choose a course of action that promotes peace around me, or to choose a more political course of action.