good for you abhi. my own opinion is that the Right is insane on foreign policy right now (the Right that is in power). but stuff like this makes me itchy about the sanity of the Left (albeit, the far Left). this isn't WW III, but neither is israel nazi germany. perspective.

The good news is that they atleast spelled "Gandhi" correctly. Wonder if Adnan Hajj recently of Reuters "fame" was covering the event.

my own opinion is that the Right is insane on foreign policy right now

An opinion shared by Charles Barkley:

After that, Barkley continued to identify himself as a Republican until recently, when he switched to the Democratic team.

"I was a Republican until they lost their minds," he said earlier this month at a celebrity golf tournament in Nevada.

In 2004, I split my ticket between Bush for President and Obama for Senate. I think I'm going to sit 2006 out.

By your attacks on Islam you betray your zionist and hindutva allegience

I could have gone to the London march against the war, but I did not want to stand in a group that cheered Hezbollah and glorified Nasrallah. Speaker after speaker, banner after banner did so. Nasrallah has said some pretty disgraceful things about Jews, and Hezbollah have been implicated in bombings of Jewish targets outside the middle east, for example in Buenos Aires. I have attended anti-war demonstrations in the past and felt unease at some of the slogans and banners. This wasn’t really an anti-war march, it was pro Hezbollah, pro Hamas, pro war. If there was a movement that refrained from glorifying Nasrallah and other extremist organisations and was not saturated in the rhetoric of classic anti-Semitism and called for peace on both sides, I would join that march. But the space has not been created yet. Other friends who are opposed to current Israeli policies have said the same thing.

By your attacks on Islam you betray your zionist and hindutva allegience

Paging SpoorKhan!

Nice Photo.. You forgot to mention the party for socialism and liberation [Wiki] poster in the background. Pacifists, Communist revolutionaries and Hezballah nuts all captured in one frame.

Truly disgusting tactic!

Bleh. This is not the Left so much as a sliver of self-obsessed artistes who are usually more concerned with impressing their dates than with actually changing things. They exemplify the reason why most modern protests leave me angry and frustrated, even when I agree with the most general statement of the dominant marchers. I've said it before and I'll say it again----I fantasize about protests with respectfully clad marchers armed with clipboards and fact sheets, ready to buttonhole sidewalk watchers and engage them in a real debate. The posters would be actual infographics, and there would be no puppets. The closest I came to seeing something like this was during the immigration rallies in May----there was at least enough discipline and focus for people to wear the same color t-shirt.

If there was a movement that refrained from glorifying Nasrallah and other extremist organisations and was not saturated in the rhetoric of classic anti-Semitism and called for peace on both sides, I would join that march. But the space has not been created yet.

I'm with you on that. Unfortunately the space that is occupied by anti-war proponents contains Cindy Sheehan, those war protesting nuts that show up at soldiers funerals & left hating religious opportunists. I don't see myself as part of that group.

In 2004, I split my ticket between Bush for President and Obama for Senate. I think I'm going to sit 2006 out.

Can I ask why? I generally vote Republican myself but have been breaking party lines as well and am not a fan of GWB. In fact I find myself disliking him more and more each day.

This reminds me of a protest that I saw in Union Square, NY a few weeks back. I was impressed at the maturity and ambivalent honesty of the speakers. They were lebanese and were educated and incensed at Israel, USA and indeed the world for letting this happen. There was no right or left there, just a need for peace.

In this day and age, what if anything would Gandhi do?

This is not the Left so much as a sliver of self-obsessed artistes who are usually more concerned with impressing their dates than with actually changing things.

there is some truth in this. but, as someone who has lived in 70-80% democratic districts for the last 10 years, i think some of the same issues that we speak of in regards to islam can apply here: vocality tends to be proportional to nuttiness. and of course, "x is not the true Left." "y is not the true Right." the plausibility of these assertions is highly dependent on circumstance and initial bias (as a somewhat Right of center individual surrounded by liberals obviously Left hypocrisy stands out for me by the nature of my experience).

on another note, many on the Left acknowledge the importance of complex & subtle narratives and frames when discussing something like islamism. but all of a sudden that nuance seems to disappear when it comes to issues like israel.

again, only true of a subset.

RIDICULOUS!

I sort of doubt enough people actually recognized the Ghandi puppet to make the connection. My observation of these protests is much the same Saheli. Bored middle class kids.

Bush isn't running in 2008. Kinda too late to vote against him.

Msichana,

In case you forget, Gandhi lived in far more violent times than today. Therefore, he would not have had any problems in dealing with today's world. I am not much of an admirer of the Mahatma. I find his views on economics pretty naive. But I do believe that he had struck gold when it came to resolving conflicts in certain specific scenarios. I say this because I doubt the efficacy of Mahatma Gandhi's theories if he had faced Germany ruled by "The Fuehrer" as the colonial power instead of the Great Britain.

In our obsession with the latest round of conflict all around the world, we neglect to see the obvious and i.e. the world today is a more peaceful place than it was 60 years ago. I say this despite all that we see on the media and the current threat of Islamist terrorism. A lot has been achieved in this time period. I also think that things are going to be better in the future. I only have issues with the pace of this change.

Regards,
Aninda

but how doth you know that these two guys are together? the gandhi seems to be walking in front of the nasrallah guy. with a mask that big you gotta wonder if he even knows what's ahead of him, much less behind.

Oh, I didn't think they were together, did you? (But the Gandhi isn't a giant in a mask, it's a puppet*. . .the "person" is below the frame of the picture.) They didn't need to be together, and we don't need to be upset at the person moving the Gandhi forward. It's the juxtaposition, and the shamelessness of the Nasrallah-promoter despite the close proximity of a reminder of a better, kinder way of approaching change. Did no one derive courage from the memory of Gandhi and then think to tap the guy on the shoulder and say, "I think it's inappropriate for you to be at a peace march with a picture of a war-monger, and I hope you'll reconsider hoisting it?" Well, I probably wouldn't have either--who wants to start a brawl at a peace march?--but that's the problem.

*BTW, Abhi, you really should refer to it as a puppet, not a Muppet. Muppets are the creations of Jim Henson et al, and they only sometimes play real people in productions--they are rarely created to be in their form. And yes, I'm one of those people who is proud of having met Oscar the Grouch.

does not anyone here ascribe to the view that gandhi's non-violence was a strategic move because he knew it (self-sacrificial politics) would arouse the christian pity in the british soul?

or is that kind of stuff not allowed to be talked about post post-colonialism?

saheli, would you be just as offended if it was a picture of the halliburton logo conflated with gandhi? i'm just trying to discover whether its the principle here or nasrallah. i dislike the tool.

The papier mache competence of these protesters is sorely lacking, looks more like ET than Gandhiji. Not sure if I should extend a namaste or create a trail of Reeses Pieces. They should consult the anti-WTO protesters, them boyz have mad skills. And the pro-Zapatista squad...their Vicente Fox could be sold to Madame Tussauds.

Eteraz,

It is very difficult to determine what prompted Gandhi to take the concept of non-violence so seriously as the man is dead. There might be clues about these in his writings and letters. I have not read them. Your version might also be true.

But my version is that Gandhi had been deeply influenced by the ancient Hindu and subsequent Buddhist philosophies about non-violence at some point in his life. His procliivity for fasting, satsangs etc. do point towards that.

If we study some schools of thought about the "search for the truth" in Hindu and Buddhist traditions, they advocate non-violence among a host of other techniques in order to realize the "unconscious"/"self" within us. Gandhi took these methods prescribed for personal salvation in these philosophical traditions and probably applied them in the context of Indian independence struggle. This can explain his concept of universal brotherhood too.

This is just my hypothesis and need not be true. I am not an expert on Gandhi.

Regards,
Anindo

as;ldfkjaas;ljdfk, arrg Pagal he! my head hurts, you got to be kidding me, seriously. I questions these marches to begin with. Marches like these are pretty open and ANYBODY can go with costumes and parade around like pieces of shit. To have a nasrallah poster AND to walk in "solidarity" in protest of the war is completely counterproductive and serves to further negate the message oh and further strengthens conservative elements watching tv from home or walking away from the crowds itself that the liberals have totally gone coo-koo-nuts, COMPLETELY a-wall whacko.

As someone who has always admired the festive nature of such marches, one must question if such elements within them are truly supporters of the serious message itself or perhaps something else is going on that everyone seems to be over looking. Its a puppet show for the most part and somehow the gravity of the situation is always lost. I simply miss how a ghaustly homemade ghandi puppet or nasrallah hand sock puppet gets the message of innocent lives suffering across. This is empowerment? This is the solidarity? Lol, this is resistance? C'mon, this is just sad and pathetic, albeit nonviolent. Its pretty much the same all over. Oh, of course, let us not forget the musing Shake-ur-ass-beat-my-homemade-recycled paper-drum bashing that goes along with it, yeah, those are the best, YES!!!! I really do feel the magnitude of the crisis whenever i hear the bongos bashing the rally cry with glee. Come support.

commenter no. 14 - It is GandHI, not GHandi.

Not nit-picking but it hurts the eyes, especially on a site like SM.

As long as the Gandhi effigy and the Nasrullah Picture weren't intentionally being paraded together and weren't intended to be juxtaposed or linked in any way - i see no issue here.

The rally was titled "Stop the US Iraeli war"...not just the War in the Middle East but the "US/Israeli war". Therefore, attendees would be of 2 categories; those against war in general and those that believe the war is perpetuated by Israel. I assume an attendee of the former group carried the Gandhi effigy and someone who supports Lebanon/Palestine/Hezbollah/anyone else against Israel, carried teh Nasrullah picture.

I don't see why anyone would be surprised at both figures being present at a rally that draws a broad range of ppl. If,however, someone was trying to liken the two figures...well yes, that's quite a stretch but i really dont think that's teh case here so...meh

this question is for FOB Pakistanis and is an academic one.....How much did/does Gandhi figure in high school curriculum?

Anindo

Gandhi's non violence were influenced by Christian pacifism as well as the ideas of Ruskin and Thoreau.

Most famously, he corresponded with the great Russian writer Leo Tolstoy

But it was Tolstoy's writings that impressed him the most. The Russian's ideas about renouncing force as a means of opposition were akin to Gandhi's own thoughts, although he did not share Tolstoy's intense dislike for organised government. The Indian had read Tolstoy's The Kingdom of God is Within You in 1894. This had stimulated his search for truth and non-violence in his own religion. It had set him upon a kind of thinking that was to mature into satyagraha later. Now in prison, he had another opportunity to read more deeply into the Russian author's works.

Prompted by his deeper appreciation of the Tolstoyan philosophy, Gandhi wrote in October 1909 the first of his four letters to the Russian. He described in it the struggle of the Transvaal Indians, and asked him to air his views on the subject of morality. In subsequent correspondence Gandhi sent Tolstoy a copy of Joseph Doke's biography on himself, and an English translation of a pamphlet, Hind Swaraj (Indian Home Rule) he had written on board the ship bringing him from London to South Africa. If Gandhi had hoped to draw the Russian into a full-fledged discourse on the ideas shared by the two, he was probably disappointed. He may not have been aware of Tolstoy's deteriorating health and his troubled life which had caused the Russian to abandon his wife a few days before he died on November 20, 1910.

Gandhi was a clever and canny man.

Thanks Red Snapper!

Regards,

gandhi's non-violence was a strategic move because he knew it (self-sacrificial politics) would arouse the christian pity in the british soul?

Yes.

However, the basis of his philosophy was that one should not abstain from violence purely because one does not have the strength/capacity to inflict damage on the opponent, but to have the strength yet refrain from using it. He regarded the former as cowardice.

It is very difficult to determine what prompted Gandhi to take the concept of non-violence so seriously as the man is dead. There might be clues about these in his writings and letters. I have not read them.

His autobiography "The Story of my Experiments with Truth" goes into extensive detail about his ideas and motivations. I strongly recommend that anyone wishing to gain an insight into Gandhi's mind should obtain a copy and read it thoroughly.

I say this because I doubt the efficacy of Mahatma Gandhi's theories if he had faced Germany ruled by "The Fuehrer" as the colonial power instead of the Great Britain.

Since that never happened your guess is as good as mine. I say that Gandhi being the smartest politician of all time would have known how to disarm an opportunist (among other things) like Hitler. The collected works of Gandhi run into over 50,000 pages; and more books have been written about Gandhi than anyone else except Jesus. For Gandhi all theories had to be driven by concern for the helpless and the least able. Gandhi was looking ahead, far ahead into the future, and wanted to usher in a world that would not be obsessed with the scarcity of anything. He is a person ahead of his time, that's why he seems so out of step with our times.

In our obsession with the latest round of conflict all around the world, we neglect to see the obvious and i.e. the world today is a more peaceful place than it was 60 years ago.

Being a researcher studying conflict and peace, I agree to a certain extent that the world has become a more peaceful place, but how peaceful has it really become. Here's an excerpt from a report titled Politics in the Next 50 Years: The Changing Nature of International Conflict

In this 55 year period, often considered a time of relative peace, there have been at least 120 wars fought in most regions of the world. Over 25 million people have been killed and 75 million seriously injured, not far short of the total casualties throughout the European and Asia/Pacific conflicts that made up the Second World War.

- Paul Rogers, Dept. of Peace Studies, Univ. of Bradford, October 2000

Add to the above figure the number of people who have perished in wars and terrorists attacks (which can be likened to acts of war by non-state parties) since 2000, and the resultant figure would be extremely high.

The troubling aspect of the picture of Gandhi and Nasrallah juxtaposed together is that Nasrallah is getting elevated to the level of Gandhi, who espoused values opposite to that of Nasrallah. And to a certain extent its a legitimazation of terrorist activities, giving it the garb of an independce struggle. The picture is also extrem(ist)ely funny, appalling as well, but funny too.

-Ken

p.s. I can't seem to get the quoted bits to left align. how do I do it in here?

Disregard the left align bit, the preview tricked me.

And that's legitimisation not legitimazation.
Where's a spellchecker when you need one! :p
Sorry
Ken

It is very difficult to determine what prompted Gandhi to take the concept of non-violence so seriously as the man is dead. There might be clues about these in his writings and letters. I have not read them. Your version might also be true.

As Shiva and Jai have pointed out, after Jesus, Gandhi is the most written about person, including his autobiography. He was also a journalist, ran a press, and he wrote a lot of stuff in Indian Opinion, and Harijan. Sometimes, it gets taken out of context.

About non-violence as a tactical move, it is much more complicated, it goes to his childhood experiences, and most importantly, the role of Jainism in Gujarat and on his mother (his mother was very influenced by Jain philosophy, and ahimsa is the core of Jainism), working as an ambulance volunteer in the Boer war. Eterez, Why don't visit ANC (African National Congress) website on Gandhi. They have some excellent articles, including ones by Nelson Mandela and James Hunt.

At some point he knew in South Africa, he could invoke a high ground using non-violence.

"I grow more and more convinced the Republican majority will end itself by 2006 if the Left will just shut up for five minutes." - quoted on instapundit

Abhi: You state that Nasrallah "calls for unguided rockets to be rained down upon the enemy and civilians". This simplified, "Daily News/CNN Headline News" description of Hizbullah's modus operandi is typical of what we read and hear on most if not all US based press outlets. Remember, this conflict between Israel and Hizbollah dates back over 24 years and such your reductionist comments, though great fuel for discussion (kudos), fail to account for the geo-political context of the current conflict in the Levant, which, I might add, is considerably different than the one faced by Gandhi. I will stipulate that killing of innocent civilians in ANY context is morally reprehensible and is never justified, regardless of the religious or secular mandate one subscribes to. This is the beauty of Gandhi's legacy - his unfettered respect for human life. Nonetheless, Nasrallah's alleged call (if any) for "unguided rockets (to be) rained down upon the enemy and civilians" was not "unprovoked". Your simplistic editorializing does disservice to SM and your readers. Respectfully I remain. A. Sachedina (Brooklyn, NY)

this conflict between Israel and Hizbollah dates back over 24 years and such your reductionist comments

yes, there was a reduction here, but abhi's point stands in the generality. the analogy to gandhi is ludicrous. whether this is fundamental or contextual, it is what it is.

i myself have issues with the gandholatry that seems prevelant among indian americans (my own bacground as a non-indian brown american might have something to do with this, gandhi's anti-modernist outlook probably more), but the juxposition still struck me as worthy of attention and concern.

Razib: It is a political rally - a haphazard collective of individuals motivated to rally by the same set of events and which probably encompassed persons from a wide array of political leanings (e.g. Leftists, Anarchists, Artists, Socialists, Secularists, Lebanese, Arab-Nationalists, Muslims, peace activists, FBI informants) I seriously doubt that the various participants of this rally planned the analogy. Do you really think that "the analogy" is intentional or a function of a photograph brought to our attention via "a tip". I assure you, the only one making "the analogy" or "juxposition" is Abhi, you and I, not Nasrallah nor Hizbullah.

I have the very same issues about "gandholatry" (great term) but I don't want to touch that issue for various self-serving/self-preservation reasons...

I seriously doubt that the various participants of this rally planned the analogy

of course not. but the juxposition says something of the movement. is a moral focus comptabile with 'haphazard'?

"the analogy to gandhi is ludicrous. whether this is fundamental or contextual, it is what it is."

was the analogy actually made though? I still don't think so.

If there are two different ppl with, most probably, two very different ideas on one situation present at a rally...how can any sort of analogy be made? It's just 2 different ppl making 2 different statements. The coincidence of these two figures being captured in 1 image hardly creates an analogy btwn them.

Most of the Lebenese ppl i know support Hezbollah's defense of Lebanon over the past many years...and I'm pretty damn sure that not many of them will try to liken Gandhi to Nasrullah. It's sheer coincidence! What's ludicrous is how offended ppl are getting over a coincidence.

i withdraw the use of the term "analogy," it wasn't appropriate (i started its use). here is the last sentence of abhi's post: I believe protesting the war of the past month is a very worthwhile activity but this kind of image just undermines the cause and negates the relevance of some of these protests. i think that's a much more defensible and less tenditious assertion.

Jane Of All Trades - "I generally vote Republican myself but have been breaking party lines as well and am not a fan of GWB. In fact I find myself disliking him more and more each day."

Welcome to the "reality-based community" my dear. We're glad to have you! ;-)))

Regarding the photo - let's not paint the antiware movement with one broad stroke simply based on this out of step protester.

Of all the issues that this march is related to, this fool with the Nasrallah sign is such a ridiculous thing to focus on. Yes, Nasrallah is a piece of sh@t. F@ck him. But that's not even the point of this rally or the reason why this rally is significant. Why focus on a few idiots who chose to hold up a Hezbollah sign?

one broad stroke simply based on this out of step protester

but with all due respect, my exp. talking to anti-war folks is that there is a broad distribution of people, and a large segment do tend to have some disturbing sympathies, or, are out to make their girlfriend happy (i went to kosovo protests in '99 to hang out with a chick, so count me guilty in the past too!).

Razib:
Sorry...I missed something in the exchange. What "moral focus" are you referring to?

I think the word we are looking for to describe the juxposition in the photograph is "irony".

Regarding the photo - let's not paint the antiware movement with one broad stroke simply based on this out of step protester.

fair enough apu, but you just said this about republicans in the context of the george allen controversy:

I always crack up when I see the desi doctors, etc. who line up to host GOP events and donate heavily - clearly a wallet driven passion, with a little hindu "no sex and drugs, yaar" thrown in for good measure. Here's what they REALLY think of you when the money stops flowing Uncle-ji.

yet anit-war rallies are routinely organized by communist groups and there's been a strong islamic fascist and anti-semitic element for a long time now. i sure you wouldn't let right wing rallies frequented by tim mcveigh types or the american nazi party off the hook so easy.

I think the word we are looking for to describe the juxposition in the photograph is "irony".

irony is often a subjective perception. i think if the anti-war left wasn't so righteous and holier than thou these sort of "gotcha" juxpositions wouldn't be as common.

Razib - i enjoyed your comment, but like "brown fury" alluded to, there is a bigger cause worth examining here

Also, you'll have to elaborate on the "disturbing sympathies" of some of these folks, though I can guess some of them.

This being said, with apologies to my Living Theater-esque friends - the nonviolent anarchist revolution ain't gonna occur in this country, and if it does, it will NOT be televised. :-)

i sure you wouldn't let right wing rallies frequented by tim mcveigh types or the american nazi party off the hook so easy.

bingo. like this.

Manju, you make a fair point, but there are very many groups involved in these rallies that are not islamofascists or anti-semites. As for "communist" elements, y'all know that is played out - discount them heavily.

To reiterate, I like what conservative values are SUPPOSED to be, I am only commenting on what the practice really seems to be these days. I know many conservatives who hate Bush/Cheney, but unfortunately, many of them are afraid to say it too loudly.

In Canberra Australia the so called anti-war left protesters cheered the death of a young Israeli-Australian reservist who went back to defend his homeland. Disgusting.

brown, that is quite a statement - please provide a link about the cheering of this person's death, and who exactly was doing the cheering

but there are very many groups involved in these rallies that are not islamofascists or anti-semites.

granted. but the key is that some nasty elements are present in non-trivial numbers. i think that sometimes issues matter more than political "gotchas," but there needs to be more reciprocity before we can practice what we preach.

Certainly, it was front page news here..

http://canberra.yourguide.com.au/detail.asp?story_id=501688

It seems the speaker, a local communist rabble-rouser, got a lot of support from the crowd though there was obvious dismay from those genuinely pro-peace. Note it took place outside the Israeli embassy so the sympathies of the mob was clear.

I propose there be a protest police that goes around the crowd, accosting anyone who's turned up with the "wrong" posters, placards, puppets, or any other type of (preferably alliterative) protest-related paraphernalia. These loons should know that they are not welcome, and only protesters with messages that fit with mainstream parliamentary politics should even bother to turn up. All placards and protesters should refer to US strategic interests when speaking against the bombing of Lebanon. All protest publicity should contain printed instructions clearly stating the political demographic which the protest is for. Anyone who turns up despite having explicitly told to stay away should be beaten up on the spot. We can't have protests at which anyone can turn up and put forward their views in public, even if they are probably totally marginal to the thing, were not given a platform from which to speak, and were probably being viewed with derision by many other protesters themselves.

But seriously, I sense an implication in several posts that such protests should create an equivalence between a state which is well-funded, armed to the teeth, and which has occupied Lebanon before; and a movement which reflects, and acts on, a widespread desire in Lebanon to resist Israeli military action and get their troops off Lebanese sovereign territory. I'm not too impressed with the stiff religious moralism which Hezbollah espouses, their Iranian funding, or their "armed struggle" strategy, but their national liberation rhetoric, and action, commands a great deal of popular support, and this is only increasing at the moment. Add to this the fact that they don't just let off rockets, but feed the poor, educate children, run media outlets, and (I read in some recent news source) constitute Lebanon's second-largest employer, and perhaps we can see how they built up this support. Maybe this guy with the Nasrallah poster just can't think of any other alternative? Going to the protest would have been one way for him to be exposed to better ideas, surely. That's the thing with protests: anyone can go. If their minds are changed from the experience of attending, then great. I really think that's the way to understand this.

Gandhi, by the way, was "non-violent", but had no qualms about calling off the movement from time to time, and exposing his own followers to the violence of the colonial state in the process. He did this after the Chauri Chaura incident, condemning his own "violent" supporters, but basically leaving them exposed to a violent state crackdown. So it's OK if "we" die because of "their" violence, but "we" must never be violent against "them"? "We" just have to nobly wear the loss of life? Food for thought on the issue of non-violence, and perhaps on the question of national/religious resistance movements in contemporary times as well. If anyone's interested in Chauri Chaura, Shahid Amin's book Event, Metaphor, Memory is excellent.

brown, thanks for the link, g'd on ya. as you well know, there's a large Lebanese diaspora in Oze, so I am not surprised given the protest's location.

Whoops, sorry, a bit long. It looked shorter in the text box. My apologies.

Incidentally, I read the Canberra Times too. Why was the one nonsense incident from the rally printed on the front page, then basically repeated on the 2nd page? Not one sensible point any of the speakers would have made was reported. It was a cheap smear job from a rubbish "news" rag.

By the way, imagine the reaction in the press if a local Lebanese/Australian dual national went and fought for Hezbollah. There would have none of the hushed condolences for the family, no sympathetic images of the boy looking clean-cut and nice in the papers, no implied sympathy in the press for the grieving relatives. There would have been baying for Lebanese to be deported, dual citizenship rights to be revoked, Muslims to be subjected to a police crackdown, etc.

halwa puri, very well put...

so what you're saying is that some people go to protests not to meet chix or impress them, but to change minds and stuff???

Halwa Puri: Kyah Bhat. Very well said. Suddenly I am feeling hungry. Off to find some grub. Thanks Razib et. al.

halwa puri,

the debate is quantitative, not qualitative. if it is "one nonsense incident," it is trivial. if it isn't, it isn't.

i don't have an understanding of what protests are about unless

a) you want to meet chix
b) you want to present a coherent message to the world to remediate specific injustices

yes Razib, there may well people at these protest who feel strongly about peace and are not trying to get laid by cute alterna-chicks or spark the next stalinist/islamofascist revolution. Shocking!!!

Apu and SunsetPrkBklynMassive: thanks!

Razib: yes. And sometimes going there to talk politics and change people's minds really impresses some of the more earnest women there too.

Of all the issues that this march is related to, this fool with the Nasrallah sign is such a ridiculous thing to focus on. Yes, Nasrallah is a piece of sh@t. F@ck him. But that's not even the point of this rally or the reason why this rally is significant. Why focus on a few idiots who chose to hold up a Hezbollah sign?

Brown Fury, check out some other signs then:

http://www.zombietime.com/stop_the_us_israeli_war_8_12_2006/

My perspective aligns with what someone pointed out earlier. I want to protest a lot of things such as collective punishment but I don't want to attend a protest with a guy holding a Nasrallah sign next to me, especially if the other guy standing next to me is holding a slogan by Gandhi. All these causes and idealogies getting jumbled together takes away from each individual cause sometimes.

Razib: on the nonsense incident, I know the Canberra scene well! Most speakers at protests like these are far too savvy, and genuinely abhor Hezbollah's politics and strategy, and would not have made such a suggestion. These protests have, however, been attracting more than the usual left activists, and actual real Lebanese people have been going along too. If some of them support Hezbollah and want Israeli troops to be killed, then it's not a surprise. It's not a nice fact of contemporary political life, but it's not a surprise. Perhaps they may be exposed to better ideas also?

PS - i do dig those alterna-chicks, with their tatoos and cool Bettie Page haircuts as much as the next guy, but let's look deeper. Doh - what's that supposed to mean?? ;-))

Kidding aside, I agree people need to present a coherent message Razib, but a protest is not exactly the best place to do more than wave a sign and chant. Now...were there speeches at said events, and what did the speakers have to say??

If some of them support Hezbollah and want Israeli troops to be killed, then it's not a surprise.

honestly, i don't mind that much if they want israeli troops to be killed. they're soldiers. and i can even understand the context why the powerless (or less powerful) take the war to civilians via terrorism. my issue is my perception that there is bizarro conspiracy theorizing/jew hating/commie sympathizing at these things galore. if it is trivial, it is, if not, it isn't.

Razib: I'm not sure about anywhere else, and I haven't been to a protest in Tehran lately, where I'm sure the anti-Jewish component of the crowd is much larger, but the Australian protests tend to have:
a) small numbers of organised leftists, who show a disproportionate influence on the day because they generally do most of the organising work to build the protests,
b) larger numbers of "ordinary" people, who have responded to the publicity and turned up, whose political views are no doubt extremely varied, but who generally aren't heard from the speakers' platform,
c) very small numbers of actual loons, including anti-Semites, puppeteers, and dressed-up and painted walking political statements, and
d) moderate numbers of representatives of more "respectable" non-government organisations, who are generally trying to walk the tightrope between sucking up to government in order to lobby, and remaining credible to the leftist organisers of the protests who have invited them to speak.

Brown Fury, check out some other signs then:

http://www.zombietime.com/stop_the_us_israeli_war_8_12_2006/

My perspective aligns with what someone pointed out earlier. I want to protest a lot of things such as collective punishment but I don't want to attend a protest with a guy holding a Nasrallah sign next to me, especially if the other guy standing next to me is holding a slogan by Gandhi. All these causes and idealogies getting jumbled together takes away from each individual cause sometimes.

So what?- so this website decided to take pictures of the 10-15 idiots at this rally out of the couple thousand people who were there. Your response is just too simplistic. There's no way you can go to any sort of mass protest and expect to agree with everyone there. It's just the nature of the beast. And, with any sort of protest, on either side of this and every other issue, there are gonna be fringe idiots who don't really believe, in peace, justice, fairness etc.- they're either ignorant or just filled with hate.

But, if you believe in protest and organizing as a real tool for resistance, and really understand how important it is and view it as one of the few opportunities for normal people to take action, then you can't dismiss it so easily because there are a few people there who are fools.

Of course, this doesn't necissarily mean that, if you believe that what's happening in lebanon (and palestine generally) is wrong, that you have to support every opposition demonstration- i freely admit there are some very disturbing viewpoints out there. But where, as here, the message of the rally is not offfensive, and overwhelming majority of the people are not saying the things that offend you- then it's a little rash to dismiss it just because of a few idiots. If everyone made their decisions this way- how would we ever speak out against our government and injustice?

This particular demonstration was, I think, organized by the ANSWER coalition. I don't know too much about their politics and behind the scenes stuff- but you should take a quick look at the website. While you may not necissarily agree with every position that they've taken- there's nothing supporting the things you mention- nasrallah, hezbollah, hamas, etc.

This is San Francisco. I'm sure there were a couple of naked people and a bunch of patchouli drenched hippies handing out flyers for the upcoming Marxist revolution, some rastas handing out samplers of medical marijuana and a few fat old lesbians who ended up in the wrong protest.

Still, it is completely idiotic to run around in the middle of San Francisco saying "we stand for Hezbollah". I don't think the protestors would last too long with Hez.

But, if you believe in protest and organizing as a real tool for resistance, and really understand how important it is and view it as one of the few opportunities for normal people to take action, then you can't dismiss it so easily because there are a few people there who are fools.

Again, I dismiss the much of the mashed together protestor culture and not necessarily the orgs behind them or their causes. The purpose of me pointing this out is that I hope someone who attends these protests takes at least a minute to admonish some of their fellow protestors.

Again, I dismiss the much of the mashed together protestor culture and not necessarily the orgs behind them or their causes. The purpose of me pointing this out is that I hope someone who attends these protests takes at least a minute to admonish some of their fellow protestors.

So if you dismiss "mashed together protestor culture" then what alternative vehicle for voicing opposition and movement building do you think is effective?

I wouldn't necissarily assume that the other people in the crowd aren't as outraged as you about some of their fellow protestors, and I'm sure that some of them even take the bigger step of calling them out. But generally, at protests, I think most people just think the fringe folks who would hold up nasrallah signs are idiots and just ignore them. They understand what you seem not to- that those folks are just not the point and are irrelevant to the demonstration or the movement.

So if you dismiss "mashed together protestor culture" then what alternative vehicle for voicing opposition and movement building do you think is effective?

I'm doing it right now. And last night :)
See you soon brown fury. An In-and-Out Burger will take that fury right out of you.

I'm doing it right now. And last night :)

Uhh- are we still talking about the same thing?

Jokes aside- while I agree that media is key, and clearly, blogging has become a great tool to debate and spread information- the blogging world should be careful to see their role in context. It's just one tool or just one piece of a larger framework for fighting injustice (if that's the purpose of your blog of course, as opposed to say, for example, discussing how f*cking awesome the DETROIT TIGERS are!!!). The goal of that framework being the building of people power. Which only really can be achieved through movement building- mobilizing for mass protest is an essential component of that.

Basically, I'm just saying that dismissing protest culture, and saying that you're gonna blog instead is not an effective substitute. You can do all the blogging you want, but without mobilization, it's very difficult for normal people to impact an issue.

Also, don't read this as a diss on bloggers- I totally think that bloggers are generally doing an important and essential thing.

I like my in 'n out burgers animal style.

abhi: i see your point, but maybe consider another point of view... i am at the international aids conference right now and there are protests going on left, right and center! i agree that by getting caught up in the hype of the act of protesting, few individuals seriously understand, distinguish or appreciate the issues being protested at grass-root levels. however, i have also observed that despite the caveats involved, something seems to be working. if nothing else the movement of a group of individuals helps socities move towards a critical mass, which allows s for change at larger scales. now whether the type of movement that is accelerated is good or bad, that's a different issue.

the protests in the area of hiv/aids, especially w regards to homosexuality and women's rights are bearing fruit. is every single indiavidual aware of the complexities and underlying facts etc etc... no. becoming more aware is always good, but does that necessarily matter? i see the purpose of protests as bulding towards critical mass and they accomplish that purpose in large. the effects of a protest are observed at a large scale... one gandhi figure may not be noticed in the grand scheme or matter to the overall cause. awareness building is different as it is more exact and detail-specific where one can carefully outline causes and distinguish between them. it can be approached in many ways, like blogging, but is also very subjective.

Lots of folks have been debating the appropriate Gandhian or non-violent response to Israeli military actions, both the recent ones in Lebanon and ongoing in Palestine. "Why can't we have a Gandhi?" is a common refrain among Arab activists I know.

Mark Juergensmeyer (who wrote the excellent Terror in the Mind of God) had a recent short piece in Outlook asking what Gandhi would do in the current "war on terrorism"

http://www.outlookindia.com/full.asp?fodname=20060821&fname=LJurgensmeyer+%28F%29&sid=1

P.S. I find the juxtaposition of Gandhi and Nasrallah pretty revolting, wonder if it was intentional, or if two people holding up those pictures/puppets happened to be photographed while marching side by side.

The funny thing is that in extreme Muslim quarters particularly Pakistani, Gandhi is a euphemism for timid, grass eating Hindus who can't fight. In several eyeball to eyeball fights ( always find that phrase funny ) during the Kargil war many pakistani soldiers and irregulars would taunt Indian soldiers by calling them ' Gandhi '

Yes, protests do work to form a critical mass or at least stir up public opinion and induce an exchange of ideas. But the intermingling of issues at one protest is cause for concern, because the message/issue not only gets diluted, it confuses the issue at the same time providing those on the other side with reason to paint all protesters with the same brush and proclaiming them as being a part of idiotic fringe. Thus the impact of the protests is reduced. Its worrisome because it is not an isolated incident, its happening everywhere, the protests in London, Toronto, Paris, etc. etc.

Here are a few excerpts from an interesting article by Sarah Baxter who wonders why feminist ideals have become twisted into support for groups like Hezbollah..

Women pushing their children in buggies bearing the familiar symbol of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament marched last weekend alongside banners proclaiming “We are all Hezbollah now” and Muslim extremists chanting “Oh Jew, the army of Muhammad will return.”

Kira Cochrane...has noticed that today’s feminists are inclined to keep quiet about the march of radical Islam. “There’s a great fear of tackling the subject because of cultural relativism. People are scared of being called racist,” Cochrane observes.

"The compassion for people of colour has been translated into feminists standing with terrorists who are terrorising their own women,”

To me the most troublesome aspect of the protests is the increasing presence of children at these protests. Why must kids be drawn into all this?

Thanks for the link - great article by Sarah Baxter. As a feminist I too am disturbed by women who align themselves with these Islamic fascists. True feminists need to differentiate from these misguided fools.

Again, I dismiss the much of the mashed together protestor culture and not necessarily the orgs behind them or their causes. The purpose of me pointing this out is that I hope someone who attends these protests takes at least a minute to admonish some of their fellow protestors.

Abhi: I'm not sure why you've assumed that this doesn't happen. I've seen it a thousand times: during the protest, and after it, groups of people standing around talking to each other and discussing politics, strategy and tactics. Some of them already know each other, some just met at the protest, or at the organising meeting, or whatever. Does this not happen in America?

PS: "admonishing" isn't really so good. Talking to people about their politics like grown-ups is much better.

Dammit. I walked by a peace rally in Boston last week. There were Lebanese flags everywhere. It struck me so far as an anti-war rally in general, though a bit one sided as Israel came out looking like the single bad guy. Yes I feel Israel was a bit heavy handed, and maybe they statistically killed more children civilians in their response to Hezbollah rocket attacks (which also killed civilian kids), but I sure am not painting Hezbollah as some innocent group. This is much worse. Showing and quoting Gandhi while supporting a straight up genocidal terrorist does not make for a true peace rally. Damn ignorant fools contradict the purpose of a peace rally. This just adds more fuel to the fire blazing in the hearts of war hawks. The kind who are too bigoted for my taste. I at least know that Hezbollah does NOT want peace. They want to wipe Israel off the map because they view the Jews as worthless encroachers. The only peace they want is the sterile silence that follows after throughly fragging an area.
Then again, this could be yet another case of fringe loony piggybacking off of a larger and more moderate liberal cause. It's been known to happen before. Like when Falun Gong or Scientologists fight over the scraps of conerspace during big parades in big cities to promote their causes which may not have anything to do with the local ralley. Or vegan animal rights activists joining in on a Free Mumia gathering. Hell, could even be a damn troll.