Taking Direct Action

At the end of a dark year, we have our work cut out for us

by Alan Bisbort

Source: Hartford Advocate, December 16, 2004.

"A little rebellion now and then is a good thing." -- Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1787

After two tainted elections have failed to shake the status quo, it's easy to grasp the appeal of direct action. By "direct action," I mean non-violent civil disobedience.

Where would we be if, when history demanded, we didn't take direct action? The Boston Tea Party was "against the law." So, for that matter, was the Declaration of Independence, and the 56 signers took grave risks. As a result, five were tortured to death by the British, 12 had homes torched, and nine died in the ensuing war. Thoreau's refusal to pay a poll tax, to protest slavery and the Mexican War, landed him in jail where he wrote "Civil Disobedience." John Brown, Nat Turner and Denmark Vesey all felt so strongly about slavery's curse that they took up arms. Martin Luther King Jr. ended up in many jail cells, as did Rosa Parks when she wouldn't vacate her bus seat. Each year, peace activists trespass on the School of the Americas knowing many will end up in prison.

Were these people "terrorists" or "criminals"? In the fullness of time, they're seen as important figures in American history, pushing the nation forward when the nation refused to budge. Always at great physical peril, always for the better.

Where would the world itself be without the risks and examples of such "lawbreakers" as Nelson Mandela, Mahatma Gandhi, Myanmar's Aung San Suu Kyi, and all those "prisoners of conscience" detained and tortured each year, their plights forgotten, their hopes kept alive by Amnesty International (www.amn estyusa.org)? Thousands of activists worldwide use direct action to protect the environment and

bring peace, justice and freedom. Having in the eyes of the powerful "broken the law," they are squeezed into cages even as we speak.

They believe in the full meaning of the word "activist," with the emphasis on "active." As Nonviolence.org has noted, "An advantage to direct action is that it doesn't require the cooperation of the authority to be effective. If they intervene to stop your action, you have a dramatic story; if they ignore you, you've followed your conscience." The Ruckus Society (ruckus.org) puts it more simply: "Actions speak louder than words." Sometimes that is the only option left open.

America is getting close to this tipping point. At the end of a very dark year, it's apparent that our government isn't listening to the legitimate concerns of its citizens. Petitions aren't cutting it, nor are mass e-mailings to corporate flak-catchers, nor e-mail chain letters to the president with all those well-meaning people's names and addresses (all going straight to a Homeland Security Department databank for future reference).

When leaders themselves break the law of the land, if not God's commandments, a free citizen, who works hard and plays by the rules, is left with few options. To remain passive, in hopes of a miracle, is one. To become apathetic, cynical, bitter and violent are others. But, as Sen. Russ Feingold recently said, "America is better than this."

So, what am I saying?

Just this: If you've ever wondered what it would be like to rise in anger at a corporate board meeting and shout down the grinning skulls in the suits, you are not alone. If you ever secretly cheered when someone with more guts created a scene at an event where some neocon thug like Richard Perle or Henry Kissinger were honored guests, you are not alone. If you've watched unarmed activists block traffic or stand in front of military hardware to stop the madness, you are not alone. All it takes is to imagine it first, then do it.

Last week, for example, an activist claiming to be a Dow Chemical spokesman told the BBC that Dow was offering an "historic aid package for Bhopal victims" and selling its subsidiary Union Carbide -- responsible for the 1984 gas leak that killed thousands in India and left 150,000 people permanently disabled -- to compensate the victims. Dow's tin-eared response to this prank has been instructive.

Union Carbide's Web site declares that "UCC has contributed significantly in providing aid to the victims and has fulfilled every responsibility and obligation it had in Bhopal." The second phony statement issued in the complicated hoax -- that Dow's "sole and unique responsibility is to its shareholders, and Dow cannot do anything that goes against its bottom line unless forced to by law" -- clearly describes the company's position, stated and unstated.

Thank you, Dow, for verifying what we feared were the true ethics of the corporate (read: ruling) class.

As you can see, we have our work cut out for us.

© 1995-2004 New Mass Media
reprinted from The Hartford Advocate