Black Lives Matter, The Police, etc.

[LakeCharles]

Standing off to the side in a crowd, marching on the capitol, etc. are not what makes a successful protest movement. I think this is a great piece on the Occupy movement, and how it was so successful in gathering attention and getting politicians to focus on inequality: http://inthesetimes.com/article/17440/w ... ts_explode

The amount of momentum that a movement generates can consistently be linked to the level of disruption its actions cause. The more that a protest directly affects members of the public, and the more it interferes with an adversary’s ability to do business, the more likely it is to draw widespread attention. Snarling traffic, interrupting a public event, shutting down a convention, stopping a construction project, making a scene at the mall, or impeding operations at a factory—all of these reflect varying degrees of disruption.

San Francisco housing organizer Randy Shaw quotes former Washington Post reporter and Berkeley journalism dean Ben Bagdikian, who explains that, in the corporate-driven media, the disenfranchised and their social movements are seldom able to break into the mainstream news cycle at all, and even more rarely on favorable terms. “[S]ince World War I hardly a mainstream American news medium has failed to grant its most favored treatment to corporate life,” Bagdikian writes. Meanwhile, “large classes of people are ignored in the news, are reported as exotic fads, or appear only at their worst—minorities, blue-collar workers, the lower middle class, the poor. They become publicized mainly when they are in spectacular accidents, go on strike, or are arrested.”

As the mention of strikes and arrests suggests, moments of unusual unrest provide opportunities for those without money or influence to break through attitudes of indifference—and to highlight social and political injustices. “Our power is in our ability to make things unworkable,” argued prominent civil rights organizer Bayard Rustin. “The only weapon we have is our bodies, and we need to tuck them in places, so wheels don’t turn.”

[seamonster]

I think the fair was a good place to engage with Minnesotans who may not be otherwise forced to based on the fairs political nature, but I do have a hard time with the marathon. It's not really a political stage, it's hardly televised and it does put people in danger. When you've been running over 20 miles your body can do weird things and not react the way you would like it to, so if there were to be a large disruption people would probably get injured. I know that's not the same as "people have died" but I never think harm fixes harm. Is rather see them doing proactive things like taking overa huge section of the crowd holding signs encouraging runners that black lives matter, rather than making thousands more people spiteful. Some tactics only polarize issues more.

This. I agree with every point. I would rather have marches in the streets of downtown Minneapolis during rush hour for weeks than have the runners interfered with. (humblebrag disclosure: I've run this marathon a couple of times)

[amiller92]

I don't think I'll be in the best of moods if I find a crowd blocking me at mile 25 or so. Then again, I won't have the strength to fight them. I hope they do this with some class - if they must do it.

Have they not pretty much uniformly done so?

[nate]

Maybe it is my ox being gored, but the marathon has the following attributes:
1) It is free to attend.
2) It celebrates athletic achievements of ordinary people from all walks of life
3) It brings a sense of civic togetherness for both spectators and runners that happens rarely, if ever, outside the marathon.

In short, the marathon is different.
I am happy to see protesters, speeches, and people advocating for the cause amongst the crowd. I'd hate to see the actual race interrupted. My .02.

[kiliff75]

It's also confusing because the group has been given opportunities to meet with highly influential people like the mayor of St. Paul, but declined. How many groups would fall over themselves at the chance to meet face to face with the head of a major (in the state) city?

http://www.mprnews.org/story/2015/08/28 ... state-fair

A scheduled meeting between Black Lives Matter leaders and St. Paul officials Friday morning was canceled at the last minute. Black Lives Matter St. Paul organizer Rashad Turner said the group canceled because members didn't feel "it was necessary to meet with the mayor."

Combined with unclear connections between the events they're protesting and their demands and I think they're likely to lose credibility with people who would otherwise agree. It's unfortunately easier for people to write them off in their minds based on these things, which is sad because there are real issues/reasons behind why they are protesting.

[David Greene]

Maybe it is my ox being gored, but the marathon has the following attributes:
1) It is free to attend.
2) It celebrates athletic achievements of ordinary people from all walks of life
3) It brings a sense of civic togetherness for both spectators and runners that happens rarely, if ever, outside the marathon.

In short, the marathon is different.

Oh please. This is no different than any other event, be it sports, the winter carnival, the state fair, music festivals or any number of civic and/or celebratory events

The marathon is not different. It only seems different to those heavily invested in it.

Note that this is not the same as saying the marathon doesn't matter. It matters very much, which is why it's a good target for BLM.

[Nathan]

I've taken an entire Community Organizing class instructed by a student of Saul Alinsky... and I perfectly understand the idea of agitation, and how to organize. I still feel like this agitation would be received far more negatively. I'd never advocate for disrupting an event where people could become physically injured, disrupting daily life/casual events is one thing, but this is potentially harmful, before you even bring in the tension that it could create between bystanders, authorities, runners and protestors. I fully support the movement, and understand what they're doing, I don't support this action. Initial agitation is to get attention, they have attention, the media is looking, politics are looking, they no longer need to use negative tactics. It's time to be proactive and get things done.

If they were doing something very specific that was detailed and could be planned for that's one thing, but no physically exhausted human needs to try to react to such situations, regardless of the social goings on in the country.

I also don't run, so I have no Oxen in the Race.

[Nathan]

I would however support the use of rule #9 in community organizing. But they don't have a clear enough achievable goal leading to one specific outcome, that's the hardest thing about their organization.


Rule 9: The threat is more terrifying than the thing itself. When Alinsky leaked word that large numbers of poor people were going to tie up the washrooms of O’Hare Airport, Chicago city authorities quickly agreed to act on a longstanding commitment to a ghetto organization. They imagined the mayhem as thousands of passengers poured off airplanes to discover every washroom occupied. Then they imagined the international embarrassment and the damage to the city’s reputation.

their refusal to talk to people like Dayton, or take on a both at the fair now that they have some power is the most confusing part.

[Snelbian]

Maybe it is my ox being gored, but the marathon has the following attributes:
1) It is free to attend.
2) It celebrates athletic achievements of ordinary people from all walks of life
3) It brings a sense of civic togetherness for both spectators and runners that happens rarely, if ever, outside the marathon.

In short, the marathon is different.

Oh please. This is no different than any other event, be it sports, the winter carnival, the state fair, music festivals or any number of civic and/or celebratory events

The marathon is not different. It only seems different to those heavily invested in it.

Note that this is not the same as saying the marathon doesn't matter. It matters very much, which is why it's a good target for BLM.

Bingo.

[Chip Whitley]

Maybe it is my ox being gored, but the marathon has the following attributes:
1) It is free to attend.
2) It celebrates athletic achievements of ordinary people from all walks of life
3) It brings a sense of civic togetherness for both spectators and runners that happens rarely, if ever, outside the marathon.

In short, the marathon is different.

Oh please. This is no different than any other event, be it sports, the winter carnival, the state fair, music festivals or any number of civic and/or celebratory events

The marathon is not different. It only seems different to those heavily invested in it.

Note that this is not the same as saying the marathon doesn't matter. It matters very much, which is why it's a good target for BLM.

So in your opinion, if you feel you are supporting a just cause, you have the right to stop a marathon runner 25 miles into a 26 mile race?

[Snelbian]

I would however support the use of rule #9 in community organizing. But they don't have a clear enough achievable goal leading to one specific outcome, that's the hardest thing about their organization.

Why do people keep repeating the "BLM has no specific endgame" line when it's blatantly untrue?

http://www.joincampaignzero.org/solutio ... nsoverview

BLM St. Paul has handed out flyers at past protests detailing more local demands and goals, including dropping all charges against MOA protesters, re-opening the Marcus Golden case, and criminal charges in the Abrams Green Line case, and an investigation of the police handling of the Tyree Tucker incident.

[amiller92]

If they were doing something very specific that was detailed and could be planned for that's one thing, but no physically exhausted human needs to try to react to such situations, regardless of the social goings on in the country.

Have they said exactly what they plan to do, or is all of this reaction to what people assume they are going to do?

[Tiller]

Disrupting a marathon also carries negative connotations due to the whole 'Boston Marathon Bombing' thing.

[Chip Whitley]

If they were doing something very specific that was detailed and could be planned for that's one thing, but no physically exhausted human needs to try to react to such situations, regardless of the social goings on in the country.

Have they said exactly what they plan to do, or is all of this reaction to what people assume they are going to do?

"I don’t think that us allowing them to finish the race would make them wake up enough" is what the leader of BLM St. Paul said this week.

[Nathan]

I would however support the use of rule #9 in community organizing. But they don't have a clear enough achievable goal leading to one specific outcome, that's the hardest thing about their organization.

Why do people keep repeating the "BLM has no specific endgame" line when it's blatantly untrue?

http://www.joincampaignzero.org/solutio ... nsoverview

BLM St. Paul has handed out flyers at past protests detailing more local demands and goals, including dropping all charges against MOA protesters, re-opening the Marcus Golden case, and criminal charges in the Abrams Green Line case, and an investigation of the police handling of the Tyree Tucker incident.

because in the case of an agitating event you need one clear crystal well publicized end game, not a list of general demands somewhere on Facebook. I'm just calling them out where i think their organizing is piss poor.

[Snelbian]

While the organization needs work (and is developing over time), I'm pretty positive there's been a well publicized end game from the beginning - police need to stop disproportionately murdering black people. Has that really not been well publicized enough, because I kinda doubt anyone in this country HASN'T heard that demand by now.

BLM can't catch a break. They're simultaneously not listing demands, not listing specific demands, listing too many demands, not enough demands, and on and on. They should protest in "their own neighborhoods", but when they do (as they almost always do, in fact) they're "disrupting the lives of poor people trying to get to work" and should go march somewhere like Summit. March on Summit and that's a problem, too. They need to look beyond black lives. When they start talking about police brutality more broadly, then they lack focus. It doesn't seem to stop.

At this point, it frequently seems like there is no way that BLM can behave that doesn't immediately provide some source of profound disappointment for white America. Hardly surprising that the general reaction from the movement, then, seems to be "too bad".

[phop]

Why the marathon though? Lay people are going to see this and go 'Huh?' There's no thematic resonance. No one is going to seek out what their stated goals actually are.

[Tiller]

Alinsky's Rules for Radicals seems pertinent to the discussion of tactics.

[Nathan]

That's what I quoted earlier.

[Tiller]

That's what I quoted earlier.

kek, I missed that there was an entirely new page, and ended up reading only the bottom few posts, though the video summary will probably still be helpful for some here.

Edit: And it should be noted, that too much disruption can be very counterproductive. One only needs to look at the "Law and Order" binge america went on after the disruptions of the 60's. Too much in too short a time creates a negative backlash, which we should try to avoid.