Interview with Vandana Shiva
Dr. Vandana Shiva was in Grand Rapids today to speak at an event hosted by the West Michigan Women’s Studies Council. GRIID had the opportunity to speak with her and ask her about the role of women in food security, the importance of reclaiming the commons, her seed saving project called Navdanya, climate justice, and Green Capitalism.
The interview is in 2 parts.
Media Bites – Absolut Vodka
This week’s Media Bites takes a look at a recent Absolut Vodka ad. The spot is highly stylized, with beautiful scenery and various artists who craft words for the alcohol commercial. It is not until the very end of the commercial that we know what is being sold, but here the brand is primarily about what association viewers will have with the scenery and the music.
Immigrant Rights the Focus of Send-Off Rally
A crowd of approximately 150 gathered at Garfield Park Monday evening to rally around 55 area residents headed by bus to Washington D.C. There, they plan to join the Oct. 13 national march for immigration reform being organized by Reform Immigration For America. Thousands of immigration reform leaders from across the United States will converge on the nation’s capitol, where they plan on meeting with members of congress and staging a vigil on the West Lawn of the White House.
Even before the rally began, the park came alive with the energy of hope, hope for real change for the hard working immigrant families who contribute so much to our country and our economy but must hide in the shadows. “We’re here to send a message to the government that it’s time than our immigration system lives up to our American values,” said Jordan Bruxvoort, organizer with Michigan Organizing Project (MOP). “We need a system that keeps families together, rewards those who are willing to sacrifice, and work hard to make a better life for their kids.”
Maria Salinas, organizer with the Michigan Chapter of the Gamaliel Foundation added, “We need immigration reform that is comprehensive, fair and that serves justice. (In the current system) families are torn apart. If we were able to have a better path to citizenship, it would help our economy.”
As the rally got started, the 55 headed for Washington DC were brought to the front of the crowd, which was roused by the speeches by area immigration rights leaders and chants of “Si se pueda!” (Yes, we can!)! Organizers then directed onlookers to form two lines. The 55 ran through the lines, giving hearty high fives to the crowd pressed on either side, and then boarded the tour bus.
Dolores Olivarez had in her hands the letter she received from President Obama; he writes of “a responsible path to earn citizenship by demonstrating sound character, a commitment to America, and a strong work ethic.” She’s placing her hope in these words, and in the thousands making the trek to Washington to stand up for immigration reform. “Immigrants are here to work, to make a difference and to make their lives better,” Olivarez said. “Give them that opportunity so they don’t have to be in hiding, living in fear.”
Indigenous People’s Day – October 12
In honor of Indigenous People’s Day, we thought it might be appropriate to reprint a statement from the first gathering of Indigenous Peoples of the Americas in Quito, Ecuador, in 1990.
Indigenous Alliance of the Americas on 500 Years of Resistance
Quito, Ecuador, July 1990
The Continental Gathering ‘500 Years of Indian Resistance,’ with representatives from 120 Indian Nations, International and Fraternal organizations, meeting in Quito, July 17-20, 1990, declare before the world the following:
The Indians of America have never abandoned our constant struggle against the conditions of oppression, discrimination and exploitation which were imposed upon us as a result of the European invasion of our ancestral territories.
Our struggle is not a mere conjunctural reflection of the memory of 500 years of oppression which the invaders, in complicity with the ‘democratic’ governments of our countries, want to turn into events of jubilation and celebration. Our Indian People, Nations and Nationalities are basing our struggle on our identity, which shall lead us to true liberation. We are responding aggressively, and commit ourselves to reject this ‘celebration.’
The struggle of our People has acquired a new quality in recent times. This struggle is less isolated and more organized. We are now completely conscious that our total liberation can only be expressed through the complete exercise of our self-determination. Our unity is based on this fundamental right. Our self-determination is not just a simple declaration.
We must guarantee the necessary conditions that permit complete exercise of our self-determination; and this, In turn must be expressed as complete autonomy for our Peoples. Without Indian self-government and without control of our territories, there can be no autonomy.
The achievement of this objective is a principal task for Indian Peoples however, through our struggles we have learned that our problems are not different, in many respects, from those of other popular sectors. We are convinced that we must march alongside the peasants, the workers, the marginalized sectors, together with intellectuals committed to our cause, In order to destroy the dominant system of oppression and construct a new society, pluralistic, democratic and humane, in which peace Is guaranteed.
The existing nation states of the Americas, their constitutions and fundamental laws are judicial/political expressions that negate our socio-economic, cultural and political rights.
From this point in our general strategy of struggle, we consider it to be a priority that we demand complete structural change; change which recognizes the inherent right to self-determination through Indian own governments and through the control of our territories.
Our problems will not be resolved through the self-serving politics of governmental entities, which seek Integration and ethno-development. It is necessary to have an integral transformation at the level of the state and national society; that is to say, the creation of a new nation.
In this Gathering It has been clear that territorial rights are a fundamental demand of the Indigenous Peoples of the Americas.
Based on these aforementioned reflections, the organizations united in the First Continental Gathering of Indigenous Peoples reaffirm:
1. Our emphatic rejection of the Quincentennial celebration, and the firm promise that we will turn that date into an occasion to strengthen our process of continental unity and struggle towards our liberation.
2. Ratify our resolute political project of self-determination and conquest of our autonomy, In the framework of nation states, under a new popular order, respecting the appellation which each People determines for their struggle and project.
3. Affirm our decision to defend our culture, education, and religion as fundamental to our Identity as Peoples, reclaiming and maintaining our own forms of spiritual life and communal coexistence, in an Intimate relationship with our Mother Earth.
4. We reject the manipulation of organizations which are linked to the dominant sectors of society and have no Indigenous representation, who usurp our name for (their own) Imperialist interests. At the same time, we affirm our choice to strengthen our own organizations, without excluding or isolating ourselves from other popular struggles.
5. We recognize the important role that Indigenous women play In the struggles of our Peoples. We understand the necessity to expand women’s participation in our organizations and we reaffirm that it is one struggle, men and women together, in our liberation process, and a key question in our political practices.
6. We Indian Peoples consider it vital to defend and conserve our natural resources, which right now are being attacked by transnational corporations. We are convinced that this defence will be realized if it is Indian People who administer and control the territories where we live, according to our own principles of organization and communal life.
7. We oppose national judicial structures which are the result of the process of colonization and neo-colonization. We seek a New Social Order that embraces our traditional exercise of Common Law, an expression of our culture and forms of organization. We demand that we be recognized as Peoples under International Law, and that this recognition be incorporated into the respective Nation States.
8. We denounce the victimization of Indian People through violence and persecution, which constitutes a flagrant violation of human rights. We demand respect for our right to life, to land, to free organization and expression of our culture. At the same time we demand the release of our leaders who are held as political prisoners, an end to repression, and restitution for the harms caused us.
Vandana Shiva Speaks in Grand Rapids on Tuesday
Author and activist Vandana Shiva is speaking this Tuesday (October 13), 7pm at Fountain Street Church. The West Michigan Women’s Studies Council is hosting Dr. Shiva for a free lecture. The topic of her talk is “Women and Food Security.”
In recognition of her visit and in light of the upcoming Copenhagen talks on global climate justice, we wanted to reprint a recent essay by Vandana Shiva entitled, “The Poor Are Burdened Twice.”
The science of climate change is now clear, but the politics is very muddy. Historically, the major polluters were the rich, industrialised countries, so it made sense that they should pay the highest price. The Kyoto Protocol, adopted in December 1997, set binding targets for these countries to reduce their greenhouse-gas emissions by 5 per cent on average against 1990 levels by 2012. But by 2007, America’s greenhouse-gas levels were 16 per cent higher than 1990 levels. The American Clean Energy and Security Act, which was passed in June, commits the US to reduce emissions to 17 per cent below 2005 levels by 2020, yet this is just 4 per cent below 1990 levels.
The Kyoto Protocol also allows industrialised countries to trade their allocation of carbon emissions, and to invest in carbon mitigation projects in developing countries in exchange for Certified Emission Reduction Units, which they can use to meet reduction targets. But emissions trading, or offsetting, is not in fact a mechanism to reduce emissions. As the Breakthrough Institute, an environmental think tank, has pointed out, the emissions offset in the American act would allow “business as usual” growth in US emissions until 2030, “leading one to wonder: where’s the ‘cap’ in ‘cap and trade’?”.
Such schemes are more about privatising the atmosphere than about preventing climate change; the emissions rights established by the Kyoto Protocol are several times higher than the levels needed to prevent a 2°C rise in global temperatures. Allocations for the UK, for example, added up to 736 million tonnes of carbon dioxide over three years, meaning no reduction commitments. And emissions rights generate super profits for polluters.
The Emissions Trading Scheme granted allowances of 10 per cent more than 2005 emission levels. This translated to 150 million tonnes of surplus carbon credits, which at 2005 prices translates into profits of more than $1bn.
Carbon trading uses the resources of poorer people and poorer regions as “offsets” for richer countries: it is between 50 and 200 times cheaper to plant trees in poor countries to absorb CO2 than it is to reduce emissions at source. In other words, the burden of “clean-up” falls on the poor. From a market perspective, this might appear efficient, but in terms of energy justice, it is perverse to burden the poor twice – first with the impact of CO2 pollution in the form of climate disasters and then with offsetting the pollution of the rich.
In a globalised economy, addressing pollution by setting emissions levels for each country is inappropriate for two reasons. First, not all the citizens of a country contribute to pollution. As a result of China becoming the world’s factory, its CO2 emissions outstrip those of the US, putting it in first place worldwide. In 2006, China produced 6.1 billion tonnes of CO2; the US produced 5.75 billion tonnes. But in the US, emissions were 19 tonnes of CO2 per capita, compared with 4.6 tonnes in China. And much of China’s CO2 could be counted as US emissions, because China is producing goods for US companies that America will consume. Wal-Mart, for example, procures most of what it sells from China.
Similarly, while only 2.13 per cent of the world’s emissions emanate from the UK’s domestic economy, CO2 is created on the UK’s behalf in China, India, Africa and elsewhere. The global carbon footprint of UK companies is not known, but estimates suggest that emissions associated with worldwide consumption of the top 100 UK products accounts for between 12 and 15 per cent of the world total.
Thanks to industrialisation, the rural poor in China and India are losing out on their land and livelihood. To count them as polluters is doubly criminal. When global firms outsource to China or India, they need to be responsible for the pollution they carry overseas.
Regulating by carbon trading is like fiddling as Rome burns. Governments and the UN should impose a carbon tax on corporations, both for production – wherever their facilities are located – and for transport, which the Kyoto Protocol does not account for directly. Incentives for renewable energy are also essential. We face a stark choice: we can destroy the conditions for human life on the planet by clinging to “free-market” fundamentalism, or we can secure our future by bringing commerce within the laws of ecological sustainability and social justice.
Obama Gets $680 Billion Military Budget, Wins Nobel Peace Prize
Well, it’s hard not to know that US President Barack Obama has now won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize. Already there is a great deal of online buzz about how such a prize could be given to someone who has been in office only 9 months. Things are not always as they seem and it is worth exploring the context of the Nobel Committee’s announcement.
First, it should be noted that many other heads of state have won the Nobel Peace Prize as well as a few other US diplomats. Jimmy Carter (2002) won it after leaving the White House, Al Gore Jr. (2007) for Global Warming education and Woodrow Wilson (1919) for founding the League of Nations.
Second, the Nobel Committee has a long history of giving the award to questionable people for questionable actions. For instance, international war criminal Henry Kissinger won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1973. Several Israeli leaders have also won the award while their country was illegally occupying Palestinian land, such as Menachem Begin in 1978 and Yitzhak Rabin in 1994. So, we shouldn’t equate winning the Nobel Peace Prize with people who are committed to radical social change that results in lasting peace, like Dr. Martin Luther King Jr or Guatemalan activist Rigoberta Menchu Tum, both of whom also won the Nobel Prize.
Third, the reason that the Nobel Committee gave Obama the prize was because of his verbal commitments to reducing nuclear weapons proliferation and to improve relations with the Muslim world. While these are noble efforts, we should look at substance rather than rhetoric in determining whether or not someone is worthy of being called a peacemaker.
Just a few days ago the House voted to approve the Obama administration’s Military budget for 2010, a budget that is bigger than any during the Bush years standing at $680 Billion. How could this administration claim to be taking the country in a new direction if the military budget continues to grow? This budget includes operations for the ongoing US occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan. These occupations continue the murder of innocent civilians as Glenn Greenwald points out in his response to the Nobel announcement today. The bulking military budget also means maintaining roughly 750 military bases around the world, so US planners can continue to have easy access to the world’s natural resources. It includes $3 billion a year to Israel for weapons and military occupation. It includes money for new military bases in Colombia, which will no doubt be used to destabilize the Bolivarian revolution in South America.
Then there is the issue of torture, which the Obama administration has yet to renounce. Guantanamo is still open and still operating, habeas corpus is still being denied and the Obama administration refuses to prosecute Bush administration officials who knowingly advocate for torture.
So one has to ask, in his brief 9 months of occupying the White House, what evidence do we have a this US President’s commitment to peace? It would seem to this writer that there is more evidence of his commitment to war and torture than to anything that remotely resembles peace.
For some additional analysis of the Nobel Peace Prize being awarded Barack Obama check out the interview on Democracy Now! With Naomi Klein and Tariq Ali.
New York Times Columnist Speaks in GR
The World Affairs Council of Western Michigan held its annual dinner on Wednesday in Grand Rapids. Their keynote speaker this year was New York Times Columnist Thomas Friedman, who was asked to speak on the topic of his latest book, Hot, Flat & Crowded: Why We Need a Green Revolution – And How It Can Renew America.
Not all of the local news reported on Friedman’s visit. In fact, just the Grand Rapids Press and WOOD TV 8 covered his talk. Channel 8 begins their story with the claim that the auto industry is “motoring towards energy efficiency,” even though there is no evidence that this is the case. This was their way of introducing Friedman’s talk and saying that the columnist was advocating a “Green Revolution.” No where in the story is there any information about what Friedman was suggesting in order to make a “Green revolution” happen other than the idea that energy efficiency needed a financial incentive.
The GR Press provided more substantive coverage and ran their story on page 3 of Thursday’s paper, with the headline – “Green is the new red, white and blue.” The story states that Friedman claims that, “carbon emission is the source of the world’s biggest mega-problem.” While this may be true, Friedman also says that growing global population and a larger middle class is to blame. According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, there is no equity when it comes to carbon emissions if you break it down by country, particularly per capita emissions. The US and Australia are the worst when it comes to per capital carbon emissions.
Friedman’s main point in the Press article was that the US should see the current global energy and environmental crisis as an opportunity for the “country to get its groove back.” What Friedman was saying is that the US needs to be the world leader in energy efficiency and innovation. Unfortunately, there is no information provided on how this country should concretely engage in energy efficiency.
What Friedman does articulate what he means by going “Green.” “It’s about economic power, innovation power and national power. Green is geopolitical, geo-strategic, capitalistic. Green is the new red, white and blue.” This is exactly why the World Affairs Council invited him to speak at the annual dinner. People in the local business community, many of which do business internationally, dominate the World Affairs Council. Therefore, the audience would welcome a speaker who is advocating a form of green capitalism and green nationalism.
Friedman underscores his commitment to green capitalism by saying: “The next great global industry has to be the search for abundant, cheap, clean reliable electrons. That country (that owns that energy/technology industry) has to be our country. If we do not own ‘ET,’ the chance of us passing on our standard of living to our children is zero.”
Notice that he thinks the US should own the energy technology (green nationalism) and that people should want to provide their children with the same living standard as they currently enjoy (green capitalism). Unlike Friedman, most of the global writers on climate justice, writers like Vandana Shiva, Bill McKibben, and Derrick Jensen, all acknowledge that the US level of global consumption is unsustainable and that it is impossible for the rest of the world to have a US standard of living.
The Press reporter does not verify any of the claims made in Friedman’s talk, nor does he get any reaction from local groups doing climate justice or energy efficiency work.
For those who have followed Friedman’s writing over the years it would come as no surprise that this is where he stands on the issue of climate change. Friedman is one of the most committed cheerleaders of US led Global Capitalism. Energy writer Harvey Wasserman notes that Friedman has been an advocate of nuclear energy and “clean coal.” Both of these types of energy are not clean nor are they sustainable.
Another writer comments that Friedman leaves out the issue of “peak oil” in his book, an issue, which is central to the current climate crisis. New York Press writer Matt Taibbi takes the critique of Friedman’s commitment to global green capitalism a bit further in an excellent review of his book Hot, Flat & Crowded, that you can read on Alternet.
Lastly, it should be mentioned that many grassroots environmental and social justice activists have been critical of Friedman for years. One example is from Earth Day in 2008 where members of the Greenwash Guerrillas decided to pie Friedman who spoke at Brown University. The group pied Friedman for the following reasons:
* Because of his sickeningly cheery applaud for free market capitalism’s conquest of the planet.
* For telling the world that the free market and techno fixes can save us from climate change. From carbon trading to biofuels, these distractions are dangerous in and of themselves, while encouraging inaction with respect to the true problems at hand.
* For helping turn environmentalism into a fake plastic consumer product for the privileged *
For his long-standing support for the US Occupation of Iraq and the Israeli occupation of Palestine. Such committed support to the US War Machine and its proxy states overseas cannot be masked behind any twisted mask of “green” – the US Military is the largest single emitter of greenhouse gases in the world.
* For his pure arrogance.
(This story and video was produced by James Ayers and Girbe Eefsting)
On October 3, 2009 a group of activists gathered at Heartside Park in Grand Rapids, Michigan to protest the escalating war in Afghanistan. Holding signs declaring the devastating human and economic costs of the war the protesters marched from Heartside Park to the blue foot bridge and there stood amid the bustling Artprize spectators to make there voices heard. There they handed out several dozen flyers with information and resources about the war’s economic impact on Grand Rapids. On the bridge and the street the participants weren’t met with much enthusiasm, however, they did receive several car honk votes of solidarity, nods, and sometimes just a silent thumbs up. For more information on the Cost of War in Afghanistan, visit www.nationalpriorities.org.
For Obama, Withdrawal is Off the Table
On Wednesday (Oct. 7) the Grand Rapids Press ran an Associated Press article headline, “You can call it a war: US Afghanistan plan unsettled, but Obama won’t shrink its status.”
The story is about a recent meeting that the Obama administration had with top Republicans and Democrats to discuss the future plan for Afghanistan. The article states that nothing has been decided on as of yet, except that US withdrawal from Afghanistan is off the table. The article further states,
“Obama said the war would not be reduced to a narrowly defined counterterrorism effort, with the withdrawal of many U.S. forces and an emphasis on special operations forces that target terrorists in the dangerous border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan. Two senior administration officials aides say such a scenario has been inaccurately characterized and linked to Vice President Joe Biden, and that Obama wanted to make clear he is considering no such plan.”
So, even a downsized troop focus on doing counter-insurgency work is not an option. The only thing that remains to be seen is whether or not the administration will send more troops on top of the 20,000 they have already added this year.
Unfortunately, the article provides no assessment of the current US occupation of Afghanistan, nor any Afghani perspectives. The article also does not question the fundamental premise of the US occupation, which the administration claims is to “defeat the Taliban and rid al-Qaida of a home base.” This story only provides a very narrow framework for discussing the US position on the War in Afghanistan, a point which independent journalist Glenn Greenwald has recent made.
The GR Press version of the AP story omitted information about a recent poll, which showed that, “Public support for the war in Afghanistan is dropping. It stands at 40 percent, down from 44 percent in July, according to a new Associated Press-GfK poll.” This growing opposition is reflected in the increasing number of activities across the country where people are organizing to oppose the US occupation of Afghanistan.
More importantly, the majority of Afghanis are opposed to the US occupation, a perspective that people who read the Press would rarely see, based on a recent study we conducted of their coverage of Afghanistan. There continues to be good independent coverage of what is going on in Afghanistan, like this excellent video from independent journalist Rick Rowley.
Into the Streets: This is What Democracy Looks Like
(This article was submitted by Kristi Arbogast, an independent journalist who was in Pittsburgh for the G-20 protests.)
“Tell me what democracy looks like!” The cry went up into the tense air of downtown Pittsburgh, barricaded and boarded up. A few hundred of us marched through the streets, chanting and blowing whistles that someone had handed out. Up ahead the marching band played, consisting of several drums, trumpets, tubas, and clarinets. Press swarmed around us, photographing and recording one of the first marches to oppose the soon to be arriving G20. We continued mounting a ruckus in the road, drawing attention from passersby and chanting out our disgust with corporate greed. At one point, we were forced to snake our way around giant concrete barricades that were protecting the glass walls of a bank. The protestors were itching to change our words into actions, but resisted. After winding our way up town and back down again, my friend and I headed out for the night, eager to rest in preparation for the events of the next day, rest that it turns out we would desperately need.
A march calling itself the People’s Uprising was set to begin up in Lawrenceville at Arsenal Park. After getting off the bus I had no idea in which direction the park was located but that turned out to not matter. Little masses of people were all heading through the streets in the same direction, and we knew we were getting close by the sound of the helicopter flying overhead. We were being watched. It was an eerie feeling. Rounding the corner we were confronted with police, but we continued on to join up with the rest of the people getting ready to take back the streets. This was a march without a permit from the city, as was the intent of the Pittsburgh Resistance Group that organized this. People were ready for the confrontation that would therefore ensue, wearing bandanas and googles as protection against the pervasive tear gas. I hoped it wouldn’t come to that, at least for me, especially since I didn’t necessarily agree with the political and tactical ideas of most of those I was marching with. If I was to get chased and gassed for something, I wanted it to be for something I felt strongly about.
As we began to march, it didn’t take long for the police to make their presence known. The mood of the mob grew tense and volatile as down the street, barricading our route forward to the conference center where the leaders of the world gathered, stood a line of riot police, German shepherds, and SWAT trucks. Standing on top of the truck was a man dressed in military garb. Seeing the crowd of protestors up the street, he hit the play button on his recorder which blasted this warning to those gathered.
After a shouting match, the crowd disappeared. My friend and I didn’t follow, as she wanted to get out of harm’s way. Me? I wanted to get right in the thick of things. My friend stayed back, watching what was about to unfold from afar. I, however, got closer, moving down the road with media, onlookers, and stragglers from the protest. The police stood at the end, dressed to the hilt in protective pads, shields, and helmets looking at us as if we were going to attack at any second. They kept a close eye on everyone milling about, keeping expressionless and silent. Rumors were rampant about where the protestors had reassembled and how the police had tear-gassed them. Soon I was on a street, riot police wearing gas masks at one end and police marching towards us on the other. I knew I had to get out of there. I went and huddled around with the ACLU Legal Observers, who stood by making sure no unlawful behavior from the police or demonstrators went undocumented. The police closed off the streets, forcing everyone upwards, declaring this was an unlawful assembly.
Further up the road the media was everywhere. Filming, interviewing. The person who was gathering the most attention was John Oliver, the British correspondent from “The Daily Show”. People swarmed him, eager to have their time on the television epitome of liberal cool. For my part, I purposely walked in front of the camera several times. It worked!, as I ended up in the background on the show.
Eventually the police got sick of us milling around, so they decided to intimidate us by pounding on their shields and marching up the street. People cried out their anger and disgust but eventually had to acquiesce to the law. I was just as angry, because we were all onlookers and media and posed no real threat to anyone. But I had to leave and went in search of my friend, who had decided to get away from the tense situation.
Later on that evening, my friend Jess and I witnessed a large standoff between students and the riot police. The lights from the numerous police cars lit up the night sky at Schenley Park by the University of Pittsburgh. Hundreds of students, along with some anarchists from the day’s earlier march, stood around, watching the massive lines of police all decked out in their riot gear. Then the chanting started, as the students decried the police presence on their campus. Many of us just stood there, watching the scene unfold before us. A great number of these students had just stopped by, taking a break from studying, to see what was going on. The police deemed us to be a threat.
Just then a city bus full of riot police pulled up and unloaded. They silently joined the ranks of the others. The mounted police, their horses wearing protective face shields, eyed us, especially those who were yelling and riling everyone up. Just then, the newly arrived police, charged through their line and into the crowd, waving their clubs and screaming at us to get out of here. The students fled, freaked out by the unprovoked show of violence. But then we recuperated and re-gathered, re-forming our line of protest. The yelling and chanting continued. The police had enough and decided to start making a move. Standing up by the fountain of the Greek god Pan, I was near to the police, who were on either side of the hill the fountain was situated on top of. All the sudden I hear them yell “MARCH” and they start closing in on the fountain, yelling, “MOVE” to those who stood in their path. They marched towards me, only a few feet distant, and I slowly walked away from them, frustrated and annoyed that they keep using their brute force. Eventually they forced us all off the hill and into the street, then off the street into the park. Students walking about couldn’t believe their campus had been taken over. Walking away from the standoff to go and join up with Jess, who was sitting safely in a coffee shop up the road, I wondered what would happen next.
Flipping on the news that night, I got my answer. The police at Schenley Park had gassed and arrested the students. I was appalled watching the images on the screen. What also had me disgusted was the media’s coverage of the People’s Uprising March that I took part in for a few brief moments. Pittsburgh’s news teams didn’t disappoint with their stereotypical coverage of protests. They focused solely on the property destruction caused by the few and didn’t even touch on why we were protesting in the first place. The media painted us demonstrators as a bunch of hooligans who didn’t know what we stood for and why we were so angry. If they had only asked or took the time to delve into the issues. No wonder the people dislike us and misunderstand us! We are being misrepresented! I hoped things would be different the next day.
After going to a lecture by some prominent Latin American labor union and civil rights leaders in which they detailed the despicable meddling of the United States in their countries, Jess and I were riled up to speak out. Today was going to be the huge march, the city permitted one, guaranteed to be constitutionally protected. I was excited. Jess and I mingled with the thousands gathered. Those marching were as varied as their political opinions, coming from all corners of the state and country to protest against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, healthcare, Tibet, Palestine, capitalism, bailouts, the World Trade Organization, and the unfair ratio of twenty world leaders to the 6 billion inhabitants of the world.
After some speakers, we were on our way. Eight thousand strong we marched down the streets of Pittsburgh, heading to the heart of the city. We were jubilant to all be gathered together, sharing the common idea of having our causes represented. Walking amidst the different groups of people, chanting one song and then another, I was amazed by the passions and convictions of those around me. But I was also slightly disappointed. The march felt disjointed. We had the public ear but we were yelling everything to them at once. I felt that if we had a clear message, focusing on one or two things, chanting the same songs together, eight thousand strong, we would have really captured the attention of the media, the public, and those who gathered on the sidewalks to watch us pass by.
But we continued to march, each with our own ideas, under the watchful eyes of the riot police lining the route. As we passed by them, I looked at the solemn faced police officers, trying to catch their gaze to humanize them for me. Dressed up in their full riot gear, they looked more like robots than humans. When our eyes met, the police would always quickly look away, perhaps afraid to humanize us demonstrators. Regardless I kept looking and marching.
After marching for miles and crossing the Andy Warhol Bridge to the other side of Pittsburgh, we stopped at a park for our final rally. Exhausted, the thousands of protestors collapsed on the grass. I looked out over the river to the white roofed David Lawrence Convention Center where the leaders of the world were seated, talking about things we could only guess at. This was as close as we could get to them, and I wondered if they had even heard our voices.
This doubt continued to nag at me as I wondered if what we had all just done would make any change in the grand scheme of things. I decided that no, on the world stage it didn’t really make a difference. That is almost impossible. But what we did change was ourselves and those who are a part of our lives. By each one of us protestors being there we had taken a firm stand in what we believed in and what we felt needed to be changed to better this world. Our passion for truth would draw the curiosity of our friends and families, and we would tell them about the ills of the world and our desire for change. A chain reaction of information and ideals would pass from one person to the other. This spark will help inflame our ability to demand real change from our leaders, as more and more of us take a closer look at the world around us. Glancing around the park in Pittsburgh at the thousands gathered under the sun, I began to feel hopeful again.
