The Weathermen; what would it take to take up arms against your own government?
Posted on | November 2, 2008 |
That was the metaphysical question that underpinned the historical probing of Latin American Revolutions. Francisco Barbosa posed it to our small class. His was one of the few classes on campuses in which I felt a kindred spirit in the class. They were misfits, awkward, foreign born, hidden, obscured and peripheral to the production-line breed at CU. They pulled their hats lower, grew their hair more. They skated and biked to class. Some were in Amnesty, some choose to join nothing. Fewer of their clothes came from the mall and, on average, they cared more than most. Our subconsciousness’ undoubtedly romanticized the Latin passion and bloody violence of the course title.
Barbosa wanted for us to dig into ourselves and shine a light around, search for enlightenment and discover what might be capable of making one of us pick up a gun and kill someone with the goal of overthrowing the government. He may have been driving in the end to teach us the injustice, show us the blood. Let us taste as best he could in an academic setting the setting that could spark a revolution. The personal space, molded by social constructions and ideologies, where revolution is begot.
He expected, I imagine, most of us would dig up nothing. Maybe we could fathom the conditions, but who among us, in our cozy lives saturated by the comforts bestowed on the beneficiaries of the age of mass consumption, would seriously consider violently rebelling?
I watched it today. I saw the explosions and the speeches and the thinking and the sexual movement in The Weathermen Underground. Young, white college students plotting the overthrow of the U.S. government and planting bombs to achieve it. After a disastrously self-destructive exploit attacking civilians, the Weathermen attacked the police when they beat a black man, they bombed the San Francisco city hall when it permitted a murder in San Quentin prison, they hit banks when they stole money, and they blew up the Pentagon when it carpet-bombed Vietnam. Much of it seemed like social justice . . . its hands stained with American blood.
Some of these same conditions exist. The police attack Latinos in San Jose, nationwide our prisons overflow, capitalism continues to rend apart society and pick its pockets, and our smart bombs crash down in Iraqi living rooms.
So, it must be asked, why are the more radical among us not trying to plant a bomb in the White House? Are there any radicals left? Yes, there are radicals left. I am one. I have several friends who would put themselves in that category. I think several in my Revolutions class would have liked to fancy themselves revolutionaries–if only in the intellectual sense.
Ever since Bush began bombing Iraq my senior year in high school, I have been bewildered by that first question as to why a similarly radical movement is not underway now. I am not convinced that more young people are not affected by the war. Maybe taxes have not risen, but youth are not as affected by taxes. I am not convinced we care less. I am not convinced that universities, or the professors, have become more conservative.
Mark Rudd, the chairman of the Weathermen, teaches at a community college in Chicago. He tells the filmmakers, “I tell my students that I help start a radical youth organization whose aim was the violent overthrow of the United States government. When I tell them that, they look at my like I am from another planet.”
Two observations out of this insight. First, Americans are not exposed enough to a radical thinking. History is written by the victors, and America is no exception. We do not teach or study or write the news of the revolutionaries, of the marginalized, or of the enemy. Second, for a young person in America today, violent revolution is not even a consideration. Its so far from being considered a viable option for reform that Rudd seems alien when he says a group of students attempted such craziness in the 60s and 70s.
A savory sense of vigilante justice swept over me as I watched the descriptions of the Weathermen’s actions posted on the screen. It seemed as though the perpetrators of heinous crimes–the pentagon, the prison guard, the FBI–were finally getting some of their own medicine.
But, that is the point. The Weathermen adopted the same barbaric tactics of the oppressor.
In their faces, in their voices, in their uncomfortable gestures, and in the testimonies of most of the former practitioners of violent upheaval reigned a sense remorse. Not just with the apartment on West 11th street in New York that blew up after a wire shorted in three bombs intended for indiscriminate mass killing. After that disaster–the death of three of their own–the leaders convened on the Pacific coast to debate. They abandoned the idea of mass killing and decided on only targeted, focused attacks. With the exception of few, the Weathermen was a deep sense of grave error in attacking civilians.
Some, like the New Yorker Brian Flanagen, are racked with guilt. Some moved on to more productive and effective methods of change. Bill Ayers, the “domestic terrorist” Palin conspicuously connects to Barak Obama, became an expert activist on education. Mark Rudd teaches at a community college.
But, Rudd finds himself reading the newspaper on a park bench and anxiously wonders, “Why am I wasting my time like this? Isn’t there something better I could be doing to change the system?”
And so we have found the line between the reformist and the revolutionary. Better, the line between the peaceful revolutionary and the violent one. Martin Luther King, Jr. said, “Those who would make peace revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable.” (Or, something close).
Flanagen points out when one feels they have the moral high-ground he or she becomes capable of some egregious acts. Think Bush Jr and the neo-con camp. But, for people who have such strong ideas and revolutionary vision, patience is trying, if not weak.
What the Weathermen discovered, as I did when studying revolution in Latin America, is that when the left employs violence the right gains moral leverage. Fascists and the right may just oppose violently regardless. Allende was democratically elected and never fired a shot, but the CIA and the Chilean military murdered him and installed a junta. Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated and blacks in the peaceful Civil Rights movement beaten, harassed, and murdered.
No society tolerates violence against its own people. Such action will always turn opinion against the movement, no matter how righteous and visionary its ideals. When the leftist opposition turned to urban violence in Argentina, people sided with the military. As soon as a revolutionary group picks up arms, they threaten the security of the system and that system will respond with violence.
Okay, but that does not mean all violence is unjustified. It is a fearful fact that violence is monopolized by the state. Thomas Jefferson told us democracy must be replenished by the blood of tyrants. Something must be done to break out of the confines of activism today. Ayers says that the Days of Violence in Chicago were designed to usurp the governments rules. “Fuck you!” They said to those that litigate protest to the margins– this little strip of street, in this borders, with a permit and permission, and off to the side is where you can deliver your little expression of dissent.
So why is the blood of Bush and Cheney not refreshing our democratic soil? In my mind justice would be served if they were brought to trial and convicted of killing millions of Iraqs, bombing Afghan civilians, unleashing terror on entire populations in the Middle East and selling munitions to the genocidal state of Israel. (The STATE of Israel, not the people).
Other than the violence that would be reciprocated on the left by the establishment, I think maybe there is mix of growing apathy in some, and greater awareness in others. The Weathermen disintegrated with the American withdrawal from Vietnam, and the causes of the left became more disparate–a condition which confounds efforts at cohesion. Woman’s issues sprouted out one way, gay rights another. Civil Rights became its own movement, the anti-war protester’s another. Ronald Reagan and an era of conservatism took over after the country experienced the turmoil of those times. The Weathermen have something to do with this country voting for Republican and conservative one after another. Without the violence, maybe the idealism and fervor of the social and political revolutions of 30 years ago would be more of a reality. Maybe we would not have become so conservative for thirty years.
The movements of the left are alive and well. The green movement is gaining ground, even becoming mainstream. Not long ago, I was infuriated that green got co-opted by the mainstream. “Environmentalists have to be radical,” I thought. But, change is rarely so sudden. A climate catastrophe could drastically change the economic order, but political, social and economic forces for real change must build. And, this is the lesson learned by today’s left.
American democracy may be tarnished, but we still enjoy a great deal of freedom. I am reading a book by Tariq Ali. On the cover a little boy from Iraq is peeing on an American soldiers head while he aims his machine gun, probably at the boy’s neighbor. In it, Ali describes Bush in all sorts of damning ways. That liberty is accompanied by civil change.
Yesterday at the polls, I voted for a measure to stop criminalizing prostitutes in San Francisco. Yes on Proposition H will create a board to study and advocate for the socialization of San Francisco’s power company. On the California ballot, citizens can vote for a train to connect San Francisco to San Diego. One measure will require farmers allow their cows, pigs, chickens and other animals to “fully stretch their limbs all day.” And nationally, Barak Obama. Yesterday he announced a green “Apollo” project. Maybe these are not the drastic radical changes that I would like to see, and believe will be necessary. They are the start. An Apollo project is, like Obama himself, largely symbolic, but $150 billion over the next ten years may be the snowball that starts an avalanche.
When these small steps make people’s live better, people will be convinced and won over. Radical will not become violent, but mainstream. Violence pushes them away and justifies monstrosities like FBI abuse, CIA assassinations, and NSA wiretapping. More efficient and healthier transportation will encourage people to stop using their cars. Cheaper energy bills from a socialized power distributor will change their minds about social contracts and the role of the government.
I thank the Weathermen for an important lesson and admire their revolutionary vision. I look forward to the radical ideas infecting everyone through proving their worth, rather than forcing their implementation.
Comments
4 Responses to “The Weathermen; what would it take to take up arms against your own government?”
Leave a Reply
November 3rd, 2008 @ 8:46 pm
Two things:
1. I think that radical love is better than radical violence. Two ways to break out of the Prisoner’s Dilemma: continual self-sacrifice in hopes of finally reaching the good outcome or continual selfish behavior aimed at annihilating the other and reaching the best outcome for yourself but not society. I think it’s pretty easy to say that all foreign policy in a nation-state system fits into the latter (Ostracization of the Other…ie one American life=10,000 Iraqis).
2. I think the continuing use of violence by Palestinian freedom fighters/terrorists (depending on your opinion of their ultimate goal: a Palestinian state or the annihilation of the Jews) undermines the situation in that area and has firmly kept the Palestinians and Israelis in a worsening Prisoner’s Dilemma game. Though history is never forgotten, I believe if the entire (i mean entire…i would argue the continuing presence of violent elements in an otherwise nonviolent revolution hurts the ultimate outcome [ie Gandhi nonviolent yet violent Hindu and Muslim nationalists still lead to hundreds of thousands of deaths in post-independence India and fringe violent groups in the Civil Rights movement have left lingering racist elements in Republican Party [ie viewing affirmative action as reverse racism]) Palestinian people decided that the only way to freedom was in continual self-sacrifice, then there is absolutely no way this state of war could continue. And it has to be a pretty ridiculous standard of non-violence considering their counterparts in the game displayed such characteristics for the 50-75 years pre-Israel independence…thus their continual hold on the moral high ground despite current actions.
Those are my thoughts.
What about this:
I want to organize a nationwide strike against totalitarian-esque behavior at airports. If we organized enough people to all buy plane tickets at the same time at every major airport and everyone refused to be screened like animals (ie refuse to remove your shoes, refuse to throw out all liquids so they can sell you bottled water 5 yds away for four times the cost, refuse to take off belts, refuse to make old women and men with canes put them through metal detectors or stoop painfully to untie their shoes), we could conceivably have a non-violent revolution in that very small matter. The delays, thousands of ridiculous arrests, the millions of dollars lost by long lines at airports, the certain media coverage, etc. might finally awaken people to this very real invasion of totalitarianism in America.
What do you think?
November 4th, 2008 @ 2:57 am
Josh,
I love your comments. Thank you.
First, I have to say that I was received some strong feedback on this post. (I will clean up the typos and grammatical errors). One friend said that I need to be careful because I might end up on a blacklist, and might destroy any chance of working for the US Government. Another said he was going to write a comment saying that I should be careful using such creativity; I might start a real debate.
I agree that radical love is much stronger, much more effective, more far-sighted and infinitely wiser. Violence is a greedy, self-serving reaction. It pulls at your gut and runs on adrenaline. It is self-perpetuating and as I argue in this piece, it gives fascists, republicans, warmongers, totalitarians, the Likud, the CIA and other ilk reason to unleash it on minorities, socialists, lower classes, and foreign countries.
As for the airlines, I think America deserves loftier goals than organizing peaceful protest in the name of air travel convenience. Remember airfare is the privilege of those who can afford it. This usually excludes me, but also much of the lower class. Gas prices, currently dropping but in the long run rising, and the financial crisis will probably see the ticket price climb. I do agree with you in spirit. “I do not believe in warmongering,” is what I told a friend who received an “emergency alert” text from our university. The same holds true for airlines: it is a flimsy defense that is now its own industry. A lot of jobs in those TSA checkpoints. Lots of racism to be had too, but not much effectiveness.
I can think of many things we should get people to demonstrate in support of rather than shorter lines at the airport. We could start by striking against CEO pay, now astronomically higher than the average corporate worker. We protest the slaughter of Iraqis, or the annexation of Palestinian lands by the Israelis. We could stop buying products that are made with the resources that fuel the massive bloodshed in the DRC. But, that would be too painful. We can’t live without our Playstations and cellphones.
I want people to boycott the court system until it releases every prisoner in Guantanamo. If every person with a court date, jury duty, every lawyer with a court case, and every judge refused to show up and participate in the process of law until its honor was restored Bush might react. While we are at it, how about not driving our cars until we pull out of Iraq. Chevron would pay attention. Maybe we should not vote, or stand demand a full accounting, until every person in this union has the right, every ballot gets counted in Florida, every citizen can register on election day, and the electoral college is abolished.
I’m sorry Josh. My soapbox was calling and I ranted, but airport lines are of little concern to me. Let’s organize against totalitarianism with American Stripes, but lets demonstrate against any of the more pressing totalitarianism facing us.
The question of race should have entered in at some point. Black people’s vote in Florida, Palestinians in the Middle East, Iraqis, and “terrorists” are the victims of many of the issues I raised. Middle and upper class Americans “suffer” from long lines. And, class in the US has a color line.
November 6th, 2008 @ 11:24 am
I agree that airport lines are trivial compared to the topics you mentioned…I think my thought was that on issues of torture/military budget/etc. it’d be far easier for me and any protest to get violent, and justifiably so. I do disagree, however, with your dismissal of airport security…I looked at it as a microcosm of many of the bad things that have happened in the past 8 years. To bring in racism, people could all dress like tribal arabs and see how many get “randomly” searched or detained. Ask Ali; racism seeps into airport lines too. as does class…the really rich don’t even bother with commercial travel, the quasi-rich can buy ’security passes’ that make them able to skip the long lines (as if being able to pay $120 for a card makes you less likely to be a terrorist). military-industrial complex spawning ridiculously expensive and useless machines that blow puffs of air to detect explosives? and have you heard about the installation of thousands of video cameras at airports that can ID you, detect metal when you walk into the airport, and police can detain you from those? So while airports are admittedly a MICROcosm, they are still a reflection of many of the faces of totalitarianism and a relatively easy one to cause major disruption with peaceful protest. It’d be much harder (but much loftier) to blockade Gitmo or end Israeli policy in Gaza.
What’s the over/under on the number of days after taking office that Obama shuts down Guantanomo Bay? Sounds like Castro is resigned to the embargo continuing, regardless of the party in power…I think it points to a secret from the Kennedy years that the public is still not privvy to.
November 7th, 2008 @ 10:55 am
Josh. Your insight is amazing. I think you are spot on about airport lines being a microcosm of our society. So, maybe it would be worth organizing along these lines, as long as the movement was kept in that context.
I think Guantanomo will be shut down in the first six months of Obama’s administration. Maybe three. It is a lightning rod of hatred. The republicans even realize the symbol it has become. McCain wanted to shut it down. So, we will hold on to the territory (can’t give it back to the commies), but end torture and imprisonment there.
As for Cuba, it’s on the (really) long list of things to do. I think in less shaky times, without a need to jump-start a green economy, deal with the financial crisis that Bush is CREATING (see my newest post) and the foreign wars we are in, Improving relations with Latin America would be higher on the list. For now, it won’t even get talked about for a couple of years.