One thing that will be clear as we go through this is that the boundaries between the various forms of direct action can be fuzzy.
For example, I was thinking of the takeover of the Bureau of Indian Affairs building as a sit-in. It is not generally considered one.
In 1972 the American Indian Movement went to Washington DC, organized as the Trail of Broken Treaties. When leaders were refusing to meet with them, they ended up staying in the building and it became a kind of headquarters for the people there.
There was some destruction of property, but one of the most useful things that happened was going through documents and photocopying them.
It may not be the best example of a sit-in, but there was some sitting.
We are more familiar with sit-ins protesting segregation by race, but there have also been sit-ins protesting refusal to serve queer patrons (and getting to decide who "looked" queer, see Dewey's in Philadelphia), women entering men's only spaces to protest gender discrimination, and sit-ins for disability rights.
In a demand for the Welsh language to be used more in broadcasts, the Welsh Language Society sat in at news studio.
As recently as last April, students at Columbia had a campus sit-in demanding that the university divest from Israel.
There is an image that the protesters assemble somewhere, then sit down to take over the space. Being inside and sitting are implied by the name.
It doesn't always happen that way. Maybe the reason that the AIM building takeover was not seen as a sit-in is that it started as something else and then had to adjust.
There will be times when new opportunities will present themselves, but there should also be clear goals at the start. If the new direction will support the goal, that could be an argument in favor. If the change would end up being in support of a completely different goal, well, maybe that's not such a good idea, even if it is a separate good goal.
Getting back to the lunch counter sit-ins demanding integration, the action made sense, but did not operate in a vacuum.
Individual businesses could have their own policies for service, and so could be targeted for change. The action of a sit-in is very direct. Sure, the employees at the shop at that time may not be the owners who can make the decision, but the owners are whom they will appeal to.
Well, okay, they may call the police first.
That leads us in two directions, both of which are important.
First is that while there may be individual business decisions they still depend on what society will accept legally and morally.
That was fought with legal cases against discrimination and pushes for legislation guaranteeing civil rights on the legal side.
On the moral side it was fought by the protesters dressing nicely and not fighting back as people were rude to them, physically assaulted them, and getting arrested on camera. People who were okay with racism that they didn't see, or racism that it looked like it was against poor, uncouth people by solid middle-class citizens, had a harder time seeing the white people looking cruel and uncouth.
It was strategic, and that shouldn't be a dirty word. It was strategy that made sense for accomplishing the right thing.
That leads to the other direction; you might get arrested, or beaten or have condiments poured on your head.
Effective protest requires effort. It requires thinking about what we want done, what is possible, and how it is possible.
They generally don't all work, at least not on the first try. Columbia did not divest from Israel, but students at other schools were inspired by those students. Some universities have agreed to consider divesting.
I don't even know that occupying a federal building would be helpful for finding documents in filing cabinets now; a hack-in might be more to the point.
Those working toward disability rights did get to see the Americans with Disabilities Act passed, but many years later there are still issues with enforcement.
Slow progress is slower when people keep getting elected who actively work to destroy. I believe I have previously expressed frustration with that.
However, to become the kind of country where we quit doing that, maybe a good step in that direction is thinking and planning more for what kind of change we want to see and be.
Posts
