Dubstepforum.com

tr0tsky wrote:I couldn't resist chipping-in from WAP:

Protests -do- achieve things. You only need to look at India, South Africa, America (when they lobbed the tea off the ships during a party in Boston or something).

Obviously there is the question of tactics and A-B marches. Does an angry, loud walk through central London on a cold January saturday leave the Israeli state fearful of it's life? I doubt it.

People realise this, and this is partialy why people it kicked off. People wanted to do something direct to stop the suffering, either by occupying the embassy, trying to hurt the profits of a key supporter of Zionism (re: the Starbucks being done over) or by making the biggest public order disturbance they can.

For me, it's important that people voice their anger, to come together in one place to show a united front. I am so angry at what's happening that there was no question about it, I wanted to walk the streets shouting at the representatives of the state that's carrying out this slaughter.

And guess what: people in Gaza see what's happening. If one child laying limbless, parentless, homeless on a hospital bed sees hundereds of thousands of people marching far far away and it gives him the strenght to recover and fight the brutal oppression than my job is done.

As for the middle class, did you conduct a socio-economic survey of those that attended?

jackieboi wrote:Not to piss on anyones bonfire but do you really think getting a crew of angry british trustafarians to wave posters on sticks about outside an embassy is really going to stop whats going on? Or are you really doing it because it makes you think your doing your bit to stop what is happening?

sang-froid wrote: Howard Schultz is indeed a suporter of the state of Israel, as are countless others, inside and out of the business world, but to sloppily equate that to his being a supporter of 'Zionism' is a bit of a lazy leap.

spooKs wrote:

jackieboi wrote:Not to piss on anyones bonfire but do you really think getting a crew of angry british trustafarians to wave posters on sticks about outside an embassy is really going to stop whats going on? Or are you really doing it because it makes you think your doing your bit to stop what is happening?

To be honest that's some gratuitious, cynical, recycled bullshit. Can't believe you're serious.

Piston wrote:

spooKs wrote:

jackieboi wrote:Not to piss on anyones bonfire but do you really think getting a crew of angry british trustafarians to wave posters on sticks about outside an embassy is really going to stop whats going on? Or are you really doing it because it makes you think your doing your bit to stop what is happening?

To be honest that's some gratuitious, cynical, recycled bullshit. Can't believe you're serious.

i think cynicism takes many forms.....i do tend to agree with jackieboi personally but i do have genuine hope in many other ways and feel this is simply self congratulation....obviously you can never know whats in anyones head and of course i don't put everyone there in the same box but i do feel that protest in a country thats more than happy to let you protest seems less valid than protest in an environment where you're not allowed to...

and i think protesting with placards is more recycled than questioning it....

i just wish as was touched on earlier the section of these protests (im making the assumption attend) that me and others have a problem with would rather than fight causes half way around the world that they are more often than not in my experience not very well informed about actually look at tackling those problems closer to home....not to say they are as big as some problems elsewhere in the world of course and we should be aware of these also but surely charity begins at home?

i bet you many of these protesters label many members of our society for example as scum & 'chavs' whereas i do not....does this make them the better person for going on a march? i suspect deep down they think they are...

but hey it's all assumptions innit

Some useful points made in this post. There is a tangible seam of snobbishness that runs through the attitudes of some of these protestors when it comes to questions on 'home turf'[/b]

tr0tsky wrote:What if the thousands of people in the UK sat at home during the anti-Boycott Apartheid campaigns?

What if women cotched in the kitchen when the Pankhursts were on hungerstrike?

What if conscripts during the Vietnam war decided not to march on the White House?

What is Rosa Parks stood at the back of the bus and did as she was told?

Magma wrote:Ridiculing other people's efforts to do positive things will always be the resort of those looking for reasons not to feel guilty about not show up. i don't think they're efforts to do positive things...it's not as simple as that...it's taking a side like it or not

The fact is that tens of thousands of people gathered together to show they care enough to give up a morning for a cause does a lot more to get an issue into the public conscience than sitting at home whining on the internet about how it's not people that look like you that protest.

i couldn't give up the morning as i have to go to work, and i'm not whining merely adding to debate and giving my opinion...as i said do you really think anyone was swayed that wasn't on board?...and do you think accusing people of needing to be guilty for not showing brings you & the movement across in a good light?....people don't have as much time on their hands as those with time to devote to a cause

What if all the white, middle class student types that rallied against the Criminal Justice Bill in the 90s had just sat at home and whined instead?

Fuck apathy.

Piston wrote: do you really think another war between two sides that have been fighting for ever where one side has the upper hand is really the same as fighting for basic human rights regardless of race?