ETS! encourages comments, feedback, tips, corrections, and info! Please keep them as concise as possible so we can print as many different voices as possible: ETS!, P.O. Box 85541, Seattle WA 98145, or e-mail ets@scn.org.

Why The Streets Were Reclaimed

Just to start out, I would really like to COMMEND the crew of ETS! for being absolutely rad. Your work on Race and Police Brutality issues have been wonderful from my view, and the ELF stuff last year was absolutely necessary. Thanks for your great work.

However, I do have a few grievances concerning [Maria Tomchick's] article, "Reclaim the Streets ... for What Purpose?" [Apr. 24, 2002]. Just so you know, I helped with organizing the events on April 20th at SCCC.

You claim that, "One event, [presumably Wake Up Washington] was largely successful, but the other two were not, at least in terms of 'getting out the message'--that one criteria by which most activists define success."

Well, for starters, there were FOUR events on April 20th:

1) Wake Up Washington--12noon Westlake Center, 2) Teach-In on Neo-Liberalism--2pm SCCC Gymnasium (NOTE: You COMPLETELY OMITTED the teach-in. Why? It seems to me you hold the "Wake Up Washington" event to a different criterion than the "other event." The specific goals--and they were specific--for April 20th, from the ACC/Students for Fair Trade organizers, was to create a disruption of business as usual--various forms of direct action--get new STUDENTS/YOUTH involved, and prove there is public opposition to Capitalism and George Bush. WE, the organizers, felt like we accomplished our goals, not perfectly, or necessarily smoothly, but it was largely what we planned), 3) Reclaim the Streets Party!--4pm Broadway, and 4) ACC Solidarity March Against the IMF/WB--6pm SCCC to Downtown.

The main problem I have with your article is that you frame it very oddly. You set the stage as "three separate events in Seattle." There was LOTS of coordination among the organizers of the A20 events at SCCC and Westlake. In fact, I (the scary Anti-Capitalist organizer, who advocates Street Parties) was on the Coordinating Committee for the Wake Up Washington event. That seems highly appropriate considering WE ARE WORKING TOGETHER AS ONE MOVEMENT.

During your entire article you frame the events as "separate," even at times seemingly opposed. You are falling into the "good protesters" and "bad protesters" model that framed debate for probably longer than a year after WTO '99. The model is completely a false dichotomy, and only serves to divide a potentially powerful revolutionary movement. Instead, it seems, your hope is to divide and sub-divide an already aligned group of organizers. Did you contact them? Do you know them? Did you contact any of my friends/associates to ask questions about A20 at SCCC? You listed it on the activist calendar, why not go the next step and get direct information? It seems a disservice to EVERYONE to "eschew" (your wording) opinions on events. Obviously, you like Wake Up Washington more than the ACC/Students for Fair Trade events.

My question, if answerable, is, explain what "A dialogue was going on" meant? (Concerning the march up to SCCC from Downtown after WUW.) By the evidence you provide, it seems that "numerous signs, leaflets, and loud and continuous chanting" constitutes a "dialogue." Why doesn't the RTS! event constitute a dialogue where "participants eschewed chants, signs, leaflets, and all the other 'tired' means by which protest marches usually get the message out"?

Did I miss something? If you take out the word "eschewed" and everything past "leaflets" you get almost a verbatim copy of the phrase used to describe Wake Up Washington. What constitutes "eschew"? Black clothing? A younger crowd in attendance? STUDENTS/YOUTH have been at the HEAD of every social justice movement in history. You also didn't mention the 20 foot tripod in the middle of the intersection? Why? It is a significant change in street tactics, for Seattle, and effective! I might add also, NONVIOLENT. Check www.seattleacc.cjb.net for photos.

You go on to claim that "The contrast with the morning's rally and march was obvious." I am not clear on why. There are serious citational and clearly misleading statements about the events at SCCC/Broadway. Did you send a friend?

Your absolute misunderstanding of what happened couldn't be more clear when you state, "By the time cops caught up with the crowd to pepper spray and arrest a few people, demonstrators were already packing up to leave and join the six o'clock anti-globalization march." Huh? Am I missing something? The COPS WERE THERE WHEN THE TRIPOD WAS ERECTED. THEY LEFT TO GO HIDE BEHIND BANK OF AMERICA, AND SUMMARILY ATTACKED A DISPERSING CROWD. Please read, "http://www.geocities.com/lifesahasl/SHRC_complaint.doc" for a fair analysis of what happened at Broadway and Thomas.

You go on to claim that, "But the anti-globalization march, too, suffered from a lack of signs, chanting, leaflets, bullhorns, and other message-spreading techniques." Well, we can disagree here, I would be interested in your evidence. My friend PAINTED a 20 feet wide banner that was held at the front of the march, and there were TWO bullhorns in attendance. I would also disagree with you when you say that "Again bystanders were largely absent." My experience marching downtown was the polar opposite. I saw obviously apolitical people just joining the march, because IT WAS SO DAMN BIG. They saw the Police's fascist response, they know what happened. You said that the noon event's "crowd filled Westlake Plaza." Ironically, so did this event's.

Please don't misunderstand, I really respected the work that went into organizing Wake Up Washington. In fact, Kathleen Williamson, one of the core organizers of the event, was in the A20 Press Conference that occurred on April 18th at SCCC. I invited her to the Press Conference because I thought since they were supportive of our RIGHT to have the teach-in at SCCC, it was appropriate to have a rep. from WUW present. (Which you also didn't mention at all. The SPD was determined to fuck with A20 from the beginning. Plenty of good writing about it--please check: http://www.seattle.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=12901, http://seattle.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=12994, http://seattle.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=12813.

Apparently this exposure of fascism by the SPD was irrelevant in your (to be honest) spiteful and untrue diatribe against "a younger, edgier crowd." Sorry we don't fit your recipe for revolution.

I think the "tactics" employed for the day were maximizing efficacy, so, in that vein of thought, I also think it's important to have a "diversity" (your word) of tactics, to ensure the LARGEST amount of participation. I wish there was a better job of communicating the model implemented on A20, because it really has become global, and I think it is here to stay. (Please see, http://squat.net/tmc/msg02339.html for a good argument in favor of diversity of tactics.)

To conclude, I will try to answer the question "Reclaim the Streets...for what purpose?" This is easy. We need to be in the streets, regardless of the state's current opinion on legality, because that is our role as conscious humans. We need to be in the streets because it's our obligation to use our liberty to promote everyone else's. We need to be in the streets because travesties like September 11th happens about 10 times a day, (Thirty thousand children starve to death every day.) We need to be in the streets because the human race will not survive for another 150 years at this pace (one quarter of the mammals on earth face extinction within 30 years). We need to be in the streets...together.

We will all never all agree on tactics. Debate on these points is critical and important, but, we should be remembering that we are FIGHTING Capitalism, and it DOES require a fight. If we don't employ a diversity of tactics, then we are divided, and we are weak. We must stand strong, united, in the wake of 9-11. This means reporting accurately on your comrades, and not slandering them. Constructive criticism is always needed.

I hope that Seattle's activist community continues to change, grow, and becomes more effective--isn't that what we all want?

"An injury to one, is an injury to all."

Solidarity,

--Brady, Seattle

Brady, I'm glad you think it's okay to disagree on tactics, because that's what my article was about: the street party as a tactic. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on why a street party devoid of signs, banners, chants, leaflets, and passers-by is a great, successful tactic for "getting the message out," expanding the movement, challenging the police department's tactics, or any other goal.

Nestle Really Is Worse

In your response [May 22, 2002] to Barbara Tomlinson's letter questioning Folklife's acceptance of Nestle as a sponsor, you wrote:

"But in terms of who the Folklife Board is 'enriching'--Nestle or Unilever--it hardly matters."

I'm baffled by that. Yes, you've established that Ben and Jerry's is now owned by a huge conglomerate. In that narrow sense, it is similar to Nestle. But you miss Barbara's main point, which is that there's a global boycott against Nestle because they are scamming third world mothers and causing babies to die. Is there any division of Unilever of which something similar could be said?

Big corporations are not all the same. There is a specific reason why Nestle is a very inappropriate sponsor for a festival celebrating indigenous cultures from around the world. And it's for exactly that reason that Nestle wants to sponsor Folklife--to buy political cover and whitewash their practices in the Third World. Please reconsider your response to this situation.

Sincerely,

--Matt Jensen, Seattle

I didn't miss Barbara's point at all; I just partially disagreed. (I was by no means defending Nestle.) Is the existence of a long-running boycott any more of an imperative than rejecting a company that trades on its image as small, independent, and socially conscious, when it is the polar opposite of all of those things? Barbara called for a return to Ben & Jerry's at Folklife. How 'bout a small, local producer instead?