Thursday, April 19, 2007
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
Thursday, April 12, 2007
Fighting Violence by Sitting In
Protests are a nuisance, often disrupting traffic, waking people from their drunken slumbers, and rarely achieving their immediate goals. But they do achieve a very important one: They raise awareness about violence in the world and offer a nonviolent solution.
On Tuesday April 10th two lawyers, immediately followed by 13 students carrying rations for three days, walked into the reception room of President Steven B Sample of the University of Southern California’s office. Prevented from going any further, the students put their stuff down and began to chant, “USC, sweat-free.” The students refused to leave until President Sample signed on to either the Designated Supplier Program or the Workers Rights Consortium, independent factory monitoring agencies.
The DSP and WRC ensure that factories give the people working there basic human rights such as living wages, reasonable hours, a harassment-free environment, breaks during the day, and perhaps most important, the right to unionize. Currently, USC is signed on to the FLA, the Fair Labor Association. However, this organization is a self-policing organization. That means the people on the FLA board are the same people who run the companies that the FLA monitors. That is the definition of a conflict of interest.
After six hours the protesters did not win their campaign. The vice president of student affairs, Michael Jackson, threatened all twelve students, (one was lost because an officer refused to let her return after a bathroom break had been negotiated) with immediate suspension.
Although the protesters did not achieve their goals, they did raise awareness of violence against women and children and provided a non-violent solution. Over 100 supporters rallied around the building, chanting, beating drums, calling for President Sample to “prove his creed” and not give in to “corporate greed.” Students who were onlookers became participants. Participants became hopeful, full of energy, believers in civil disobedience.
The gathering grew. The Los Angeles Police Department came to be sure no violence would break out. As the spectacle grew, a modest sit-in became news worthy. The student’s cell phones rang; the press was on the other end.
The next day the protest headlined the Daily Trojan. The story was picked up by the LA Times, Daily News, CBS, Associated Press and several other publications and including many blogs. Students, faculty, parents, universities, unionized factories in China and Indonesia flooded the administration with phone calls urging President Sample to adopt the DSP.
That is the success of civil disobedience. With a relatively minor infraction, only a few students managed to have their voices heard by hundreds of thousands of people. If only a few more were inspired, it could spark another protest, and so on, and awareness spreads without the use of violence.
Others argue that non-violent protest does not amount to any change. The only change, they say, is the hassle the protestors create for other students for that day. To those who argue that students should not have broken school rules, I say look up the meaning of civil disobedience. Look at the history of civil disobedience. African Americans did not achieve equal rights laws in even a matter of years. They are citizens of this country and it took decades and countless demonstrations. Still they face structural discrimination not more then a mile from the protest.
Eventually achieving labor rights for the third world may be he ultimate goal, but it cannot be achieved by one sweeping move. This protest, as I said, may be the inspiration for future demonstrations, and perhaps after years of building awareness, things will change. It requires great foresight, and great sacrifice.
Gandhi writes, “Violence is a tool for the weak, nonviolence a tool for the strong.” Violence isn’t always overt. It isn’t always guns pointed at people, bullets flying, and buildings being bombed.
I tell you this story because these students recognized that there is structural violence. Violence embedded in the structure of the global capitalist economy, yet masked by popular trends. Subjecting women to harassment is violence. Forcing children to sew clothes in lieu of education (so colleges can slap their logo on them and sell to their students) is violence.
And here we have students who could have taken the easy way out. They could wear the sweatshirts to fit in during football games or because they were on sale and looked cute or cool. But instead, these students chose the road less traveled; embarking on a journey to stand up for basic human rights and for women’s rights; standing up to their university.
On Tuesday April 10th two lawyers, immediately followed by 13 students carrying rations for three days, walked into the reception room of President Steven B Sample of the University of Southern California’s office. Prevented from going any further, the students put their stuff down and began to chant, “USC, sweat-free.” The students refused to leave until President Sample signed on to either the Designated Supplier Program or the Workers Rights Consortium, independent factory monitoring agencies.
The DSP and WRC ensure that factories give the people working there basic human rights such as living wages, reasonable hours, a harassment-free environment, breaks during the day, and perhaps most important, the right to unionize. Currently, USC is signed on to the FLA, the Fair Labor Association. However, this organization is a self-policing organization. That means the people on the FLA board are the same people who run the companies that the FLA monitors. That is the definition of a conflict of interest.
After six hours the protesters did not win their campaign. The vice president of student affairs, Michael Jackson, threatened all twelve students, (one was lost because an officer refused to let her return after a bathroom break had been negotiated) with immediate suspension.
Although the protesters did not achieve their goals, they did raise awareness of violence against women and children and provided a non-violent solution. Over 100 supporters rallied around the building, chanting, beating drums, calling for President Sample to “prove his creed” and not give in to “corporate greed.” Students who were onlookers became participants. Participants became hopeful, full of energy, believers in civil disobedience.
The gathering grew. The Los Angeles Police Department came to be sure no violence would break out. As the spectacle grew, a modest sit-in became news worthy. The student’s cell phones rang; the press was on the other end.
The next day the protest headlined the Daily Trojan. The story was picked up by the LA Times, Daily News, CBS, Associated Press and several other publications and including many blogs. Students, faculty, parents, universities, unionized factories in China and Indonesia flooded the administration with phone calls urging President Sample to adopt the DSP.
That is the success of civil disobedience. With a relatively minor infraction, only a few students managed to have their voices heard by hundreds of thousands of people. If only a few more were inspired, it could spark another protest, and so on, and awareness spreads without the use of violence.
Others argue that non-violent protest does not amount to any change. The only change, they say, is the hassle the protestors create for other students for that day. To those who argue that students should not have broken school rules, I say look up the meaning of civil disobedience. Look at the history of civil disobedience. African Americans did not achieve equal rights laws in even a matter of years. They are citizens of this country and it took decades and countless demonstrations. Still they face structural discrimination not more then a mile from the protest.
Eventually achieving labor rights for the third world may be he ultimate goal, but it cannot be achieved by one sweeping move. This protest, as I said, may be the inspiration for future demonstrations, and perhaps after years of building awareness, things will change. It requires great foresight, and great sacrifice.
Gandhi writes, “Violence is a tool for the weak, nonviolence a tool for the strong.” Violence isn’t always overt. It isn’t always guns pointed at people, bullets flying, and buildings being bombed.
I tell you this story because these students recognized that there is structural violence. Violence embedded in the structure of the global capitalist economy, yet masked by popular trends. Subjecting women to harassment is violence. Forcing children to sew clothes in lieu of education (so colleges can slap their logo on them and sell to their students) is violence.
And here we have students who could have taken the easy way out. They could wear the sweatshirts to fit in during football games or because they were on sale and looked cute or cool. But instead, these students chose the road less traveled; embarking on a journey to stand up for basic human rights and for women’s rights; standing up to their university.
The Public Intellectual
After reading an article from the Nation, The Future of the Public Intellectual, we debated the concept of the public intellectual in class. The debate made me question whether or not public intellectuals exist and if they do, how long they will continue to exist?
Now here is what I think: Intellectuals exist. Knowledge is available by the click of mouse. There are many people out there who are educated. They have studied through universities, or read on their own time. Yet they are not always in the public. Case in point: professors. John Donatich, in the article, also makes the point that “scholars and thinkers have retreated to the academy.”
Now there are also public figures that are not intellectuals. Take public figure Fukuyama who regularly contradicts himself in arguments. Samuel P. Huntington argues that Islam is the root of conflict in the post Cold War era: a blatantly racist, ethnocentric and prejudice theory.
And how does one discern between simply a public figure and an intellectual. Well, one would consult an intellectual, yet if the intellectual were not a public figure how would one know he or she is an intellectual. And if the figure were in the public eye, how would one know he or she is an intellectual?
Specifically, when a politician argues against an academic for having “extreme” views, which should the public follow? And if the public follows the politician, and a particular view becomes mainstream, does it become true? Does the academic’s view indeed become something “extreme”?
The circular logic makes me dizzy. If wordsmiths can validate any point, then it seems the public intellectual is already dead. How does one come to any conclusions when knowledge itself is subject to bias?
Now here is what I think: Intellectuals exist. Knowledge is available by the click of mouse. There are many people out there who are educated. They have studied through universities, or read on their own time. Yet they are not always in the public. Case in point: professors. John Donatich, in the article, also makes the point that “scholars and thinkers have retreated to the academy.”
Now there are also public figures that are not intellectuals. Take public figure Fukuyama who regularly contradicts himself in arguments. Samuel P. Huntington argues that Islam is the root of conflict in the post Cold War era: a blatantly racist, ethnocentric and prejudice theory.
And how does one discern between simply a public figure and an intellectual. Well, one would consult an intellectual, yet if the intellectual were not a public figure how would one know he or she is an intellectual. And if the figure were in the public eye, how would one know he or she is an intellectual?
Specifically, when a politician argues against an academic for having “extreme” views, which should the public follow? And if the public follows the politician, and a particular view becomes mainstream, does it become true? Does the academic’s view indeed become something “extreme”?
The circular logic makes me dizzy. If wordsmiths can validate any point, then it seems the public intellectual is already dead. How does one come to any conclusions when knowledge itself is subject to bias?
Art on the Wall of Hate
I really wanted to share these because many people in the United States have this view of the Palestinians as brainwashed Islamic fundamentalists. They inhumanely attack Israeli's by blowing themselves up. Atleast that is the image you get in the media. But there is a lot more to life in Palestine then Islamic fundamentalism and suicide bombings. There is art, music, film. There is life in Palestine and I think people tend to forget that, or never realize it in the first place.
Another reason I wanted to share these photos, is to show how Palestinians are fighting nonviolently against the occupation. These paintings are commentary on life in Palestine under occupation. Take the painting of the girl grasping a bundle of balloons that are raising her off her feet. I interpret this image to be a symbol of imagination. The wall is suffocating for Palestinian society, but with a little imagination symbolized in this image of girl floating away with her balloons (an image I know I have once imagined myself) a door is open, providing a breath of fresh air for the men, the women, the children who walk by it every day.
Painting is a form of nonviolent resistance. It is active, not passive. And it is difficult. Any artist will tell you that. It is easier to succumb to violence, but to have the courage to stand up against oppression with a paint brush, not knowing if you will fail or succeed is more frightening to me then jumping out of a plane from 18,000 feet in the air.
Monday, April 2, 2007
Olmert denies Right of Return
Of course Olmert denies Palestinians the right of return.What's one more broken international law to the list? Let’s see here. Continued illegal occupation of territories seized in during 1967 war…check. Use of excessive force in occupied territories…check. Constructing a "security fence" on Palestinian territory…check. Deliberately targeting civilians in Amy Goodman Interview with Sami Rasouli
What is really going in Iraq?
When it comes to Iraq everyone has an opinion. But it angers me because many times I see people arguing that U.S. troops should stay in Iraq to provide security amidst the civil war, or that U.S. troops should stay to train Iraqi forces to stabilize their own country. I always hear people thinking what they think is best but rarely do I hear people referring to what the Iraqi's want. Hell, I actually do not want to hear what anyone thinks should be the U.S. policy in Iraq except for Iraqi's themselves.
Who are we to step on to foreign soil, beat their people to a pulp, then ask, what should we do now? But what about Saddam Hussein, is not life better in Iraq without him? William Blum spoke on campus and had a great analogy, I'll paraphrase. Imagine a patient goes to a doctor with a knee problem and the doctor amputates his knee and then says, but hey, you don't have knee problem anymore!
Get the hell out of there. That is what the Iraqi's want. According to a World Public Opinion poll, 70% of Iraqi's want U.S. troops to withdraw within six months. Whatever happened to popular sovereignty? Popular sovereignty doesn't exist in the face of the American Empire, we seek only “democracy.”
When it comes to Iraq everyone has an opinion. But it angers me because many times I see people arguing that U.S. troops should stay in Iraq to provide security amidst the civil war, or that U.S. troops should stay to train Iraqi forces to stabilize their own country. I always hear people thinking what they think is best but rarely do I hear people referring to what the Iraqi's want. Hell, I actually do not want to hear what anyone thinks should be the U.S. policy in Iraq except for Iraqi's themselves.
Who are we to step on to foreign soil, beat their people to a pulp, then ask, what should we do now? But what about Saddam Hussein, is not life better in Iraq without him? William Blum spoke on campus and had a great analogy, I'll paraphrase. Imagine a patient goes to a doctor with a knee problem and the doctor amputates his knee and then says, but hey, you don't have knee problem anymore!
Get the hell out of there. That is what the Iraqi's want. According to a World Public Opinion poll, 70% of Iraqi's want U.S. troops to withdraw within six months. Whatever happened to popular sovereignty? Popular sovereignty doesn't exist in the face of the American Empire, we seek only “democracy.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)