Looking back and looking forward  . . . to Copenhagen

November 30 marks the tenth year anniversary of the Battle in Seattle, a proud moment in activist history when protesters shut down the free trade talks of the World Trade Organization (WTO).

Thousands of people—unionists, students, environmental activists, farmers–took to the streets and joined a nonviolent direct action blockade which circled the Kingdome, where the WTO talks were held.

Police responded in a violent way and tossed tear gas, rubber bullets, and pepper spray at demonstrators, and made around 600 arrests. The city declared a state of emergency and suspended basic civil rights in the downtown area.

David Solnit was living in a Seattle at the time and organizing with the Direct Action Network, one of the main groups behind the Seattle demonstrations.

He, along with his sister, author Rebecca Solnit, offer their takes on what happened, and tackle the myths surrounding the uprising in their new book, The Battle of the Story of the Battle in Seattle (AK Press, 2009).

David Solnit describes the activist myths, such as Seattle was a spontaneous uprising. Solnit points out the massive organizing, alliance building. and strategy that allowed thousands of people to participate. What made the Seattle protests effective, Solnit writes, was “a common strategic framework and massive grassroots education, organizing, alliance building, and mobilizing.”

Solnit also addresses the myth of activist violence in Seattle. Some members of the “black bloc” broke windows of businesses, against the agreement to not engage in property destruction. Solnit notes that authorities have attempted to criminalize protests since Seattle by propagating myths such as “protesters throwing urine,” and fabricated references to overturned police and emergency vehicles. These kinds of fables are used “to create greater public acceptance of the curtailing of civil liberties and the use of violence and repression against protests and participants,” Solnit writes.

While Solnit spends an inordinate amount of time talking about the Hollywood movie by Stuart Townsend, The Battle in Seattle, he does offer an insightful analysis about lessons learned from successfully shutting down the WTO.

Rebecca Solnit, too, challenges the myth of the savage activist. She even takes on The New York Times for perpetuating the stereotype of the riot-prone protester. “The significant violence in Seattle was police violence,” she asserts in a letter to the paper.

The correction The New York Times printed gave Solnit no solace. She writes:

“What remains relevant is why the myth of activist violence persists. My belief is that those who characterize us as violent correctly perceive us as a threat. But to acknowledge us as a threat to the status quo is to acknowledge many dangerous things: that there is a states, rather than a natural order, that it is vulnerable, and that actions in the streets can chance it.”

This book is a great read for any activist. It also includes a day-by-day “view from the ground” by Chris Dixon, a participant in the demonstrations.

A few pages later Dixon writes, “As the day [November 30] drew on, confrontation between police and protesters intensified once again. Thos of us near major blockades became more and more used to the burning sensation of tear gas, and a few angry protesters began throwing the canisters back. Like many others, I was hit with rubber bullets while retreating from an intersection.”

Looking back at Seattle ten years later is extremely valuable in and of itself. (The book reprints the original information published in the Direct Action Network broadsheet.)

But now we are days before the United Nations Climate Change Conference, which will be held in Copenhagen December 7-18. Activists are planning public protests in Copenhagen to push governments to demand action on climate change.

And the environmental group 350.org is advising people to have events and vigils in their hometowns.

With little doubt, activists will once again be portrayed as violent. But we’ll have to wait and see what comes out of the COP15 talks. Civil society has been busy making preparations, and hopefully taking the lessons of the Battle of Seattle to heart.

A coalition of Latino groups has been going after CNN host Lou Dobbs for spreading misinformation and fear about immigrants and Latinos. This week the coalition announced that 100,000 people have joined it in demanding that Dobbs be dismissed from the network.

“Our campaign continues to gain momentum and our message to John Klein [CNN president] and CNN is clear: We aren’t going away until Lou Dobbs is gone from the network,” said Roberto Lovato, co-founder of Presente.org, a national online advocacy organization coordinating the BastaDobbs.com campaign in conjunction with more than forty local and regional Latino organizations from across the country. “Our community is committed to making sure CNN knows that they can’t court Latino viewers while still allowing Dobbs to use its network to vilify us.”

The anti-Dobbs campaign has not been covered widely by the corporate media. But the Spanish-language media has given it more coverage. El Diario, a New York City newspaper, ran an illustration of Dobbs with a red slash mark through it and the word “hipocresia,” Spanish for “hypocrisy,” atop the illustration.

CNN and Dobbs are feeling the heat. Dobbs, on his radio show, has called Lovato delusional and “one of my fleas,” reports AP. “You’re trying to deny my rights while turning over this country to those who have no regard for our laws, our rules, our customs, the legal foundation of our country,” Dobbs said.

Despite the name calling, Dobbs producers invited Lovato onto Dobbs’s show. Lovato responded, “I would be happy to accept under one condition: that alongside me appears CNN President Jon Klein as a participant in this important discussion.” Needless to say, Klein didn’t agree to appear.

Lovato also responded to Dobbs’s claim that his free speech is at risk. Lovato sees it differently:

“You and others have suggested that we are seeking to abridge your free speech. Such arguments exhibit a shallow understanding of what the First Amendment protects. You are free to voice your opinions, just as we are free to encourage CNN to cancel your program. There is, quite simply, nothing in the Constitution that guarantees you a national news platform from which to spread misinformation, and invoking its protections is only a distraction from the real conversation. That conversation is about the future of CNN.”

The BastaDobbs.com petition to CNN President Jon Klein can be viewed here.