Who is "we" if I am not "us"?

author : Jami Williams topic : Black Bloc

by Jami Williams

In a recent issue of Works In Progress, Peter Bohmer's article "Reflections on May Day 2008" emphasized his position on a message supposedly lost at the expense of graffiti artists and rock throwers. Also emphasized was the claim that these things were done self-servingly and on behalf of building a thunder-stealing Black Bloc movement. This response is addressed to not only Peter Bohmer but anyone who has ever made claim to a moral high ground or strategic ethicality to achieve a saturated condemnation of one individual’s actions for the predominance of their own.

Often the words "we" and "us" are shoved into publications as to represent unity amongst a particular group or movement. Though this may be useful to those interested in an ideological umbrella, it is automatically alienating to anyone who would not stand next to the words as truth. Luckily, people who participate in the TACTIC known as the Black Bloc don't have to worry about putting words into anyone's mouth or cry about methodology. When taking action against the oppressor or its symbols an individual will act on behalf of themselves, their affinity group and what they have collectively decided would be most effective.

This tactic known as the Black Bloc is founded on Autonomy (the condition of being politically free). From the second the organizers of the May Day march and rally decided to designate May Day in Olympia to be an act of persuasion in the name of reformist politics, they immediately alienated anyone who would prefer to celebrate May Day in a different fashion. After the fact, articles such as Bohmer’s, interviews with The Olympian and dialogue with the City Council began exploding with anti-rock thrower propaganda in an attempt to recover the message of the organizers and their Sanctuary City proposal. From this came the most destructive work of all: Six people sat in jail while those associated with the police's victims were harassed and further alienated for not condemning the actions of those acting in solidarity and on behalf of their own love and rage.

Bohmer suggests that he understands the anger and rage of those who wrote on the walls of the Capitol and broke the windows of U.S. Bank and Bank of America. A serious inconsistency in that claim is his statement suggesting respect for the organizers was lost when the writing went up; that respect for immigrants and "children" was lost when the banks’ three windows were trashed. To this I would say what I have proposed before, autonomy before tyranny. Not to suggest that May Day 2008 in Olympia would spark one, but in no way will one revolution's architecture consist of cloned ideology. Further, a "system of accountability" may in fact serve as a safety net for organizers and their intentions. Above all, it would serve as a tool of repression on behalf of any major organizing body that happens to out-number another that does not fit under their umbrella of "revolutionary discipline."

"I urge that those few who broke windows at the two banks or wrote on the walls of the State Capitol during the rally to reflect on their actions and apologize to the organizers of the May Day event. At the same time, it is important to remember that the six people who were arrested on May Day are innocent until proven guilty and may not have been involved in the breaking of the bank windows -- so let us not take the police version as fact. (Peter Bohmer, WIP, June 2008)" To suggest that an apology is in order is to suggest that the graffiti artists and anti-industrialists/capitalists do not stand by their convictions and that your ideals take priority over theirs. Beyond this, adopting the language of the judicial system, a major cog in the mechanisms of the oppressive machine we live in “innocent until proven guilty,” is all but actualizing. The demand for an apology directly reflects an egocentric perspective regarding the distaste for autonomous action, especially if the demand is made under the assertion that the “organizers” got “hijacked.” I’ve heard several versions of concern for children, immigrants and workers in the banks, which to all I find validity and don’t intend on challenging, so why are the organizers demanding an apology for themselves? To me, this reflects more than being butt-hurt about a change in plans, this kind of slander is compatible to the language a boss would use to reprimand their employee. This is the work of super-activists undermined on their self-proclaimed super-activist-pedestals attempting to avenge their egos via public safety propaganda. All the while, six people sat in jail, police repression is flourishing and still individuals are being spat on for not fitting in with the cool crowd. But if you believe that the woman who wears a short skirt should be raped then remain indifferent.

Don’t worry, “rock throwers” haven’t gone without criticism. The concern for immigrants and young people is unarguable. Communication between sects of protesters is generally a good idea for that reason. I would argue that the march route was unclear from the beginning and that once a sect divides from another, it’s fair game. Nonetheless, because the march route was unclear and some preferred to celebrate May Day differently, there’s no real excuse for not communicating the off-route-extravaganza as an official breakaway. My anger stems from the authoritarian behavior of people like Bohmer and to that my convictions stand firm. The harassment suffered while victims of police violence sat in cages, post May Day, is nauseating. I recognize the inevitability of conflict in our “movements” as well as the importance of dialogue. It is my intention to acknowledge those who refuse reformist politics and therefore became victims twice over.

Jami Williams is an artist. She is not a student nor is she anyone’s employee. She is an active participant in the deconstruction of all hierarchies to achieve life free of exploitation.