Editor's Note: The following story was sent to us anonymously (Mary Black is a psuedonym) two days after a violent protester was killed in Genoa, Italy.
While we may not share the author's opinion about Black Bloc tactics, it is
a perspective that hasn't been fully covered, even in the progressive
media, and as such deserves publication.
I'm running as fast as my asthmatic lungs will allow in the midst of what
can only be called a mob. My friend from back home and I hold hands so that
we won't loose each other, but I'm holding him back a little. He's in much
better shape than I am and he'd probably be out of range of the tear gas by
now if it wasn't for me.
A phalanx of riot cops is getting closer and I let go of my friend's hand,
so that at least one of us can get away. He darts ahead of me onto a side
street. I'm small, and now I'm by myself, so I'm not attracting much
attention from the cops. I raise my hands in the air to show that I'm
giving in, and let the cops push me in the direction that they are pushing
all of us -- conventional protester and black clad rioter alike -- down a
blocked side street.
Probably there is no way out of this alley; it's a trap, but the tear gas
is too thick at this point for me to resist. I'm fumbling for my gas mask,
but I'm going where I'm being told to go. I'm aware that some folks I've
been marching with are being picked out of the crowd and thrown to the
ground. Folks are trying to pull people out of the hands of the cops. One
guy gets yanked back from the police line and runs; he gets away, but the
friend I came here with is tackled. The last time I see him that day he's
face down on the cement, two big undercover cops straddling him. Like most
of the folks around me, I run.
We're retreating, but only as much as we have to. And in a few minutes
we'll find our group again and advance back toward the area that the cops
have declared off limits to all but a small group of extremely wealthy,
extremely powerful, mostly white, mostly men.
If words like "advance" sound militaristic in tone, that's probably because
I'm a part of a group that at least appears paramilitary. Our clothes are
uniform issue and intentionally menacing: black bandanas, ragged black army
surplus pants, black hooded sweatshirts (with optional red and black flag
or slogan-covered patches) and shiny black boots (or for the vegans in the
crowd, battered black converse).
I'm part of a loosely affiliated international group of individuals known
as the Black Bloc. We don't have a party platform, and you don't have to
sign anything or go to any meetings to join us. We show up at all kinds of
demonstrations, from actions to free Mumia Abu Jamal, to protests against
the sanctions in Iraq, and at just about every meeting of international
financial and political organizations from the WTO to the G8. Although most
anarchists would never wear black bandanas over their faces or break
windows at McDonalds, almost all of us are anarchists.
Most folks I know who have used Black Bloc tactics have day jobs working
for nonprofits. Some are school teachers, labor organizers or students.
Some don't have full-time jobs, but instead spend most of their time
working for change in their communities. They start urban garden projects
and bike libraries; they cook food for Food Not Bombs and other groups.
These are thinking and caring folks who, if they did not have radical
political and social agendas, would be compared with nuns, monks, and
others who live their lives in service.
There is a fair amount of diversity in who we are and what we believe. I've
known folks in the Black Bloc who come from as far south as Mexico City and
as far north as Montreal. I think that the stereotype is correct that we
are mostly young and mostly white, although I wouldn't agree that we are
mostly men. When I'm dressed from head to toe in baggy black clothes, and
my face is covered up, most people think I'm a man too. The behavior of
Black Bloc protesters is not associated with women, so reporters often
assume we are all guys.
People associated with a Black Bloc may just march with the rest of the
group, showing our solidarity with each other and bringing visibility to
anarchists, or we may step up the mood of the protest, escalating the
atmosphere and encouraging others to ask for more than just reforms to a
corrupt system. Spray painting of political messages, destroying property
of corporations and creating road blocks out of found materials are all
common tactics of a Black Bloc.
The Black Bloc is a fairly recent phenomenon, probably first seen in the
U.S. in the early '90s and evolving out of protest tactics in Germany in
the '80s. The Black Bloc may be in part a response to the large-scale
repression of activist groups by the FBI during the '60s, '70s and '80s. It
is impossible at this point to form a radical activist group without the
fear of infiltration and disruption by the police and. for some, taking
militant direct action in the streets with very little planning and working
only with small networks of friends are the only meaningful forms of
Although there is no consensus among us on what we all believe, I think I
can safely say that we have a few ideas in common. The first is the basic
anarchist philosophy that we do not need or want governments or laws to
decide our actions. Instead, we imagine a society where there is true
liberty for all, where work and play are shared by everyone and where those
in need are taken care of by the voluntary and mutual aid of their
communities. Beyond this vision of an ideal society, we believe that public
space is for everyone. We have a right to go where we want, when we want
and governments should not have the right to control our movements,
especially in order to hold secret meetings of groups like the WTO, which
make decisions that affect millions.
We believe that destroying the property of oppressive and exploitative
corporations like The Gap is an acceptable and useful protest tactic. We
believe that we have the right to defend ourselves when we are in physical
danger from tear gas, batons, armored personnel carriers and other law
enforcement technology. We reject the idea that police should be allowed to
control our actions at all. Looking at Rodney King, Amadu Dialo, Abner
Ruima, the Ramparts scandal in Los Angeles and the Riders in Oakland, many
of us conclude that abuse by the police is not only endemic, it is inherent.
We live in a society that is racist and homophobic and sexist and unless
that is taken out of our society, it cannot be taken out of the cops who
enforce the rules of our society. In an even larger view, we live in a
society that has agreed to give some people the right to control what
others do. This creates a power imbalance that cannot be remedied even with
reforms of the police. It is not just that police abuse their power, we
believe that the existence of police is an abuse of power. Most of us
believe that if cops are in the way of where we want to go or what we want
to do, we have a right to directly confront them. Some of us extend this
idea to include the acceptability of physically attacking cops. I have to
emphasize that this is controversial even within the Black Bloc, but also
explain that many of us believe in armed revolution, and within that
context, attacking the cops doesn't seem out of place.
There have been hours of debate in both the mainstream and left-wing press
about the Black Bloc. For the most part, the media seem to agree that the
Black Bloc is bad. The mainstream media's current consensus is that the
Black Bloc is bad and extremely dangerous. The progressive media's most
common line is that the Black Bloc is bad, but at least their aren't many
of us. Everyone seems to call Black Bloc protesters violent. Violence is a
tricky concept. I'm not totally clear what actions are violent, and what
are not. And when is a violent action considered self defense? I believe
that using the word violent to describe breaking the window of a Nike store
takes meaning away from the word. Nike makes shoes out of toxic chemicals
in poor countries using exploitative labor practices. Then they sell the
shoes for vastly inflated prices to poor black kids from the first world.
In my view, this takes resources out of poor communities on both sides of
the globe, increasing poverty and suffering. I think poverty and suffering
could well be described as violent, or at least as creating violence.
What violence does breaking a window at Nike Town cause? It makes a loud
noise; maybe that is what is considered violent. It creates broken glass,
which could hurt people, although most of the time those surrounding the
window are only Black Bloc protesters who are aware of the risks of broken
glass. It costs a giant multi-billion dollar corporation money to replace
their window. Is that violent? It is true that some underpaid Nike employee
will have to clean up a mess, which is unfortunate, but a local glass
installer will get a little extra income too.
As a protest tactic, the usefulness of property destruction is limited but
important. It brings the media to the scene and it sends a message that
seemingly impervious corporations are not impervious. People at the
protest, and those at home watching on TV, can see that a little brick, in
the hands of a motivated individual, can break down a symbolic wall. A
broken window at Nike Town is not threatening to peoples safety, but I hope
it sends a message that I don't just want Nike to improve their actions, I
want them to shut down and I'm not afraid to say it.
The biggest complaint that the left has expressed about the Black Bloc is
that we make the rest of the protesters look bad. It is understandably
frustrating for organizers who have spent months planning a demonstration
when a group of scary looking young people get all of the news coverage by
lighting things on fire. Yet what is missing in this critique is an
acknowledgement that the corporate media never covers the real content of
demonstrations. Militant demonstration and peaceful protest alike are
rarely covered by the media at all, let alone in any depth. Although I too
wish that the media would cover all styles of protest, or, more
importantly, the underlying issues inspiring the protest, I'm also aware
that militant tactics do get media attention. And I think that is a good
I started my activist work during the Gulf War, and learned early that
sheer numbers of people at demonstrations are rarely enough to bring the
media out. During the war I spent weeks organizing demonstrations against
the war. In one case, thousands showed up to demonstrate. But again and
again, the newspapers and television ignored us. It was a major contrast
the first time I saw someone break a window at a demonstration and suddenly
we were all on the six o'clock news. The militant mood of
anti-globalization protests in the last couple years has undeniably
contributed to the level of attention that globalization is now getting in
the media. And although the Black Bloc is not the only reason for this, (a
myriad of creative, innovative strategies have helped to bring the fickle
eye of the media in the direction of the left), I believe that George Bush
II felt compelled to directly address the protesters at the G8 summit in
Genoa because of the media coverage that our movement is finally getting.
A second complaint that I have heard from the left, and in particular from
other, non-Black Bloc protesters, is that they don't like our masks. I've
been yelled at by protester and cop alike to take off my mask. This idea is
impossible for most of us. What we are doing is illegal. We believe in
militant, direct action protest tactics. We are well aware that police
photograph and videotape demonstrations, even when they are legally
disallowed from doing so. To take off our masks will put us in direct
danger of the police.
The masks serve another, symbolic purpose as well. Although there are
certainly those who wish to advance their own positions or gain popularity
within the militant anarchist community, the Black Bloc maintains an ideal
of putting the group before the individual. We rarely give interviews to
the press (and those of us who do are generally frowned upon or regarded
with suspicion). We act as a group because safety is in numbers and more
can be accomplished by a group than by individuals, but also because we do
not believe in this struggle for the advancement of any one individual. We
don't want stars or spokespeople. I think the anonymity of the Black Bloc
is in part a response to the problems that young activists see when we look
back at the civil rights, anti-war, feminist and anti-nuclear movements.
Dependence on charismatic leaders has not only led to infighting and
hierarchy within the left, but has given the FBI and police easy targets
who, if killed or arrested, leave their movements without direction.
Anarchists resist hierarchy, and hope to create a movement that is
difficult for police to infiltrate or destroy.
Some of the critiques of the Black Bloc by the left come from our own
acceptance of the values of our corrupt society. There is outcry when some
kids move a dumpster into the street and light it on fire. Most people
conclude the protesters are doing this to give themselves a thrill, and I
can't deny that there is a thrilling rush of adrenaline each time I risk
myself in this way. But how many of us forgive ourselves for occasionally
buying a T-Shirt from The Gap, even though we know that our dollars are
going directly to a corporation that violently exploits their workers? Why
is occasional "shopping therapy" more acceptable than finding joy in an act
of militant protest that may be limited in its usefulness? I would argue
that even if Black Bloc protests only served to enrich the lives of those
who do them, they are still better for the world than spending money at the
multiplex, getting drunk or other culturally sanctioned forms of
entertainment or relaxation.
I have my own criticisms of what I'm doing and of the efficacy of my
protest tactics. Property destruction, spray painting and looking menacing
on TV is clearly not enough to bring on a revolution. The Black Bloc won't
change the world. I dislike the feeling of danger or at least the fear of
danger at protests for those who do not want to be in danger --
particularly for the kids, pregnant women and older folks I see there. I
really hate the annoying use of pseudo-military jargon like "communiqu"
and "bloc" by my "comrades." But mostly I hate hearing myself and my
friends trashed by every mainstream organizing group from the AFL-CIO to
Global Exchange and in every left-wing rag from Mother Jones to the beloved
Indymedia.org. Although this is not true for everyone in the Black Bloc, I
respect the strategies of most other left-wing groups. At demonstrations I
attempt to use Black Bloc actions to protect non-violent protesters or to
draw police attention away from them. When this is not possible, I try to
just stay out of the way of other protesters.
Despite my concerns, I think that Black Bloc actions are a worthwhile form
of protest. And as I watch the increasingly deadly force with which the
police enforce the law at demonstrations around the world (three protesters
were shot dead at an anti-WTO demonstration in Papua New Guinea in June,
two protesters were shot dead at an anti-globalization demonstration in
Venezuela last year, and Carlo Giulliani, a 23 year old, was killed by
police during the G8 summit in Genoa), I find it increasingly ironic that
my actions are labeled as violent and dangerous while even the left seems
to think that the police are "just doing their jobs."
I will continue to participate in protest in this way, and anyone who cares
to is welcome to join me. Bricks are easy to find and targets are as close
as your local McDonalds.
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.