I was in Chicago the summer of 1968. We lived there. Dad worked across the street (literally) from Grant Park. The crowds in the park conflicted with Mayor Dailey's absolute control. Dailey won. Whether the crowd could have been controlled in any other way is immaterial; Dailey's control was the issue.
I went to school with Bill Schroeder. He sat next to me in Western Civ in the spring of 1969. I graduated from Colorado School of Mines that May, Bill transferred his ROTC scholarship to Kent State. The issue was not to control crowds; the issue was exerting control in a protest situation with multiple, equally unpopular viewpoints. The governor won by bringing in the National Guard. We all lost because of the failure of anyone to be able to control the [real and probably justifiable] fear in the hearts of the National Guardsmen. Bill was, as I understand to this day, merely on his way to class and not at the front lines. But, .30 caliber 165-grain military rounds travel 2-1/2 miles with lethality. Wherever that one came from, it landed lethally and Bill became one of the 7. He was neither a crowd nor a controller, and the results didn't control anything but really threw a lot of things out of control.
Pepper spray, CS gas, tasers, ultrasonics, rubber bullets - all kinds of non-lethal but painful and potentially debilitating ordnance are out there. They are frequently used by those in control to profess their control over crowds. The actually percentage of the time that the crowd needs to be controlled, or in which the methods achieve actual crowd control, is probably miniscule. Every time they are used they are an attempt by someone to back up their statement that, as of now, they are in charge.
You know what? It may work, it may not work. I also had a classmate who had been in the Marines and was given a medical discharge when they found a heart murmur in the physical before his match to become light heavyweight champion of the Marine Corps. Ernie used to go into one particular bar on West Colfax on Saturday night and assert his control over anyone who wanted to take him on. Anyone who questioned that Ernie was in charge quickly found out that the left was usually enough and the right, if called into play, controlled anyone.
Until one Saturday night. The big guy at the bar wasn't paying attention to Ernie, so Ernie walked up, punched the African American in the back of the neck, and said "I'm talking to you (derogatory)". Whereupon the gentleman took another drink of beer, casually turned around, and said "Now I'm gonna have to hurt you, white boy!" This was the mid 60's, and Ernie had just picked on one of Sonny Liston's sparring partners. I have never seen anyone so beaten without having serious injuries or broken bones - just devastatingly black, blue and painful all over and bleeding from a couple-dozen places.
So, what is the point of my rambling for today? There ARE times that violence is necessary in response to violence; this is the structure of "just war." Not to open that argument, just to make that statement. Yeah, I know that for a lot of you war is never justifiable; but, if it is, this is the root.
As I was brought up, we were taught to respect authority and the laws or we would suffer consequences. The consequences were generally corporal punishment. I have always believed that opposing authorities attempting to control situations may result in consequences that I do not want to be on the receiving end of. However, I also know that if the government is destructive of the ends of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness it is the right of the people to alter or abolish the government by such means as they may muster, including peaceable assembly and demonstration. Here is the rub - if the assembly violates previously established laws like curfews or park hours or whatever, government may choose to exert its control over the assembly. It is the use of excessive or extreme means to control the assembly, the transition to the boasting of controlling, that becomes dangerous. Then, "authority" transcends justifiable action OR, more importantly in the current situation, something happens to the guys on the front line. There are two kinds of officers here spraying pepper spray. One kind are the Tackleberries of the world - joined the force to be able to shoot big guns. The other kind is the scared soldier, the evolutionary relative of the Kent State Guardsman. Both are likely to invoke ordnance that, to a logical, removed bystander/observer, is not necessary. For the front line, it is necessary. In retrospect, or on the other side, it's excessive.
So, what is the bottom line? I don't think there is a bottom line. Demonstrators need to be ready to accept the consequences, such as those may become, whether they are justifiable or expectable. Look at history, know what can happen. Authorities, if that is a reasonable name, need to consider careful their exercise of that authority and the means by which they choose to do so. The post-event yelling and crying from both sides can get out of hand with little constructive results; but, neither demonstrators or authorities want to see non-constructive results.
So I guess my bottom line is that there must be better ways. A better way for each side. I just don't know what that is. Anyone have ideas?
No comments:
Post a Comment