A blog (from "web blog") is a discussion or informational site consisting of discrete entries ("posts") typically displayed newest first. All Corrente posts are front-paged; there is no up-rate or down-rate process. Corrente posts are almost entirely community moderated. We encourage a clash of ideas, and do not encourage a clash of persons.
If you are the author of this post, see the Edit tab ad Help (and Advanced Help) for detailed documentation.
Hedges also critiques the black bloc for its supposed “hypermasculinity,” engaging in a gender essentialism that belies his inability to keep up with contemporary radicalism. In Oakland, part of the militant march on Move-In Day was the “Feminist and Queer Bloc.” I’m sure they would be quite surprised to learn that self-defense against violent police thugs and petty vandalism is actually a man’s activity!
After the Move-In Day, the Mayor of Oakland, Jean Quan, asked the Occupy movement to “disown” Oakland because they were militant, uncompromising, and because they were willing to engage in the kinds of “class warfare” that Hedges once praised in Greece....We should reject the attempts to divide us by the likes of Quan, Jensen, and Hedges and, more importantly, reject the lies and distortions embedded in these facile “critiques.” Shame on you, Chris. If you want to denounce “violence,” you might use your time to target the police and Mayor Quan instead of doing the work they’ve asked Occupy “leaders” to do for them.
Graeber can't at the same time claim that Hedges has good intentions, and then proffer a Godwin's law trigger.
The whole thing looks like any stick to beat a dog, to me. That kind of writing stinks and is a horrible tell (and all the worse for being a very effective polemic).
As for the off point response, surely there's a place for BOTH/AND instead of EITHER/OR? We've all seen the "But why won't they condemn the ______" trope a million times from the Republicans, and it doesn't wear well on violence advocates in the Occupy movement either.
So, the question of "Black Bloc: Pro or Con?" is not one that can be answered abstractly. It should only be answered by direct participants in a mass movement who collectively debate and deliberate together in an open, democratic spirit. To think that a few self-apointed "experts" could answer this question for everyone in a couple of widely-publicized internet debates misses this crucial point.
Comments
Another Perspective
can be found here:
Two excerpts:
Surely this is off point?
Graeber can't at the same time claim that Hedges has good intentions, and then proffer a Godwin's law trigger.
The whole thing looks like any stick to beat a dog, to me. That kind of writing stinks and is a horrible tell (and all the worse for being a very effective polemic).
As for the off point response, surely there's a place for BOTH/AND instead of EITHER/OR? We've all seen the "But why won't they condemn the ______" trope a million times from the Republicans, and it doesn't wear well on violence advocates in the Occupy movement either.
Pink Scare on the debate
Pink Scare
I thought the pink scare post was the best I read
Lots of detail and context, lots of nuance, and best of all, from Chicago....
Mel Brooks wants his joke back
So being asked to defend organized window-breaking and property destruction is like asking him to defend Judaism?
Sure, this is a supposed throwaway comment, but come on, or rather, well-played sir?
It reminds me of the old saw: you fuck just one goat.....