At last! Thank you for challenging the aspect of Quakerism that I find most difficult: that of the internalised unconscious prejudice that holds that anything more than polite white dissent is unacceptable. This ignores so much of the reality of peaceful protest as you point out. And by not acknowledging that all other oppressed peoples have had to defend themselves actively, that sometimes violence is an appropriate response to despair and that those who would deny us freedom just find it easier to kill us as we’re sitting down - we are devaluing their and our struggle.
Yes, yes, and yes. The uptight polite white dissent can be so problematic, conflict avoidant, and rooted in white supremacy. Thank you for reading and commenting.
This was tough to read.. but you raise good points. As a pacifist, my own understanding has led me to dissociate with people I know, good people, who wanted to get rowdy. I also understand why someone might advocate for torching ICE vehicles, and I can see the points of blockading or filming ICE or impeding their way. There's a part of me that would want to disable an ICE vehicle if it was my family they wanted to take.
I can understand people being pissed at Starbucks, but let's look at it this way as well-What if my friend, who supports Palestinians and is pissed about ICE happens to feed her family by working at the Starbucks some teen just threw a brick into? Did she deserve the place she has to work being closed for a day/week so she loses money? Is it her fault she works there? It's a tough call, but I just can't get myself to equate destroying or looting businesses with protest. Instead, this makes the community into the enemy. Deal with ICE, Deal with inhumane actions, but don't destroy a Starbucks because of what it "represents"..that will backfire.
I hear you and appreciate you bringing this up. I can never say everything I want in one post! Lol. Yes to Starbucks workers getting paid. Again, this is where I think it’s important to locate the source of power, the ultimate source of violence and exploitation — Starbucks. Starbucks has more than enough money to pay their workers for the hours that Starbucks decides to close a store due to “vandalism.” I mean, they really do not need to close a franchise bc of a smashed window or two. Most of us have cleaned up and taped over a smashed window until it can be repaired while going about our business. It’s really not that big of a deal to do so. Starbucks just doesn’t want customers to see the damage— more specifically, the “why” of the damage. We well know that Starbucks doesn’t *want* to pay its workers if a franchise is closed — so that is where unionization and collective power can be so important. Unions can demand wages + tips for any days stores are unexpectedly closed - for whatever the reason: bad weather, direct activism, etc.
I’d also say that protests are _supposed_ to be disruptive. Yes to supporting workers and yes to disruption. Without disruption there is zero incentive for any corp (or government) to change.
It’s good for us to wonder a lot about where to draw our lines. We can ask so many questions! Is it ethical to work at Starbucks while being anti-genocide? Is it ethical to disrupt any business if workers are affected - even munitions factories? What about those workers? Again, where do we draw the line? Tongue in cheek, but: should the Rebel Alliance not have blown up the Death Star because a lot of people worked there? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Good points. I was pleased when Starbucks workers tried to unionize. I worked at Starbucks once myself, and tried asking about ethical sourcing once at a training.. well that went awkwardly, let me tell you. I support my local cafe's now instead. Their coffee is better. Unfortunately we don't have good cheap options for bulk coffee so my parents still buy Starbucks beans. If it was just me, yeah I'd buy Willoughby's instead but yeah.. tough. I'm still not onboard with attacking cops, but defending when some jerk with a billyclub starts going in on an unarmed person? Yes.. that's when people need to swarm. For me, I can't justify attacking other people but as you point out, A Tesla is a symbol. An ICE Vehicle is a kidnapping tool. These are tools.
At last! Thank you for challenging the aspect of Quakerism that I find most difficult: that of the internalised unconscious prejudice that holds that anything more than polite white dissent is unacceptable. This ignores so much of the reality of peaceful protest as you point out. And by not acknowledging that all other oppressed peoples have had to defend themselves actively, that sometimes violence is an appropriate response to despair and that those who would deny us freedom just find it easier to kill us as we’re sitting down - we are devaluing their and our struggle.
Yes, yes, and yes. The uptight polite white dissent can be so problematic, conflict avoidant, and rooted in white supremacy. Thank you for reading and commenting.
Thanks for writing such a challenging and timely post!
Thank you for reading this and for facilitating so many Quaker connections! 💕
This was tough to read.. but you raise good points. As a pacifist, my own understanding has led me to dissociate with people I know, good people, who wanted to get rowdy. I also understand why someone might advocate for torching ICE vehicles, and I can see the points of blockading or filming ICE or impeding their way. There's a part of me that would want to disable an ICE vehicle if it was my family they wanted to take.
I can understand people being pissed at Starbucks, but let's look at it this way as well-What if my friend, who supports Palestinians and is pissed about ICE happens to feed her family by working at the Starbucks some teen just threw a brick into? Did she deserve the place she has to work being closed for a day/week so she loses money? Is it her fault she works there? It's a tough call, but I just can't get myself to equate destroying or looting businesses with protest. Instead, this makes the community into the enemy. Deal with ICE, Deal with inhumane actions, but don't destroy a Starbucks because of what it "represents"..that will backfire.
I hear you and appreciate you bringing this up. I can never say everything I want in one post! Lol. Yes to Starbucks workers getting paid. Again, this is where I think it’s important to locate the source of power, the ultimate source of violence and exploitation — Starbucks. Starbucks has more than enough money to pay their workers for the hours that Starbucks decides to close a store due to “vandalism.” I mean, they really do not need to close a franchise bc of a smashed window or two. Most of us have cleaned up and taped over a smashed window until it can be repaired while going about our business. It’s really not that big of a deal to do so. Starbucks just doesn’t want customers to see the damage— more specifically, the “why” of the damage. We well know that Starbucks doesn’t *want* to pay its workers if a franchise is closed — so that is where unionization and collective power can be so important. Unions can demand wages + tips for any days stores are unexpectedly closed - for whatever the reason: bad weather, direct activism, etc.
I’d also say that protests are _supposed_ to be disruptive. Yes to supporting workers and yes to disruption. Without disruption there is zero incentive for any corp (or government) to change.
It’s good for us to wonder a lot about where to draw our lines. We can ask so many questions! Is it ethical to work at Starbucks while being anti-genocide? Is it ethical to disrupt any business if workers are affected - even munitions factories? What about those workers? Again, where do we draw the line? Tongue in cheek, but: should the Rebel Alliance not have blown up the Death Star because a lot of people worked there? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Good points. I was pleased when Starbucks workers tried to unionize. I worked at Starbucks once myself, and tried asking about ethical sourcing once at a training.. well that went awkwardly, let me tell you. I support my local cafe's now instead. Their coffee is better. Unfortunately we don't have good cheap options for bulk coffee so my parents still buy Starbucks beans. If it was just me, yeah I'd buy Willoughby's instead but yeah.. tough. I'm still not onboard with attacking cops, but defending when some jerk with a billyclub starts going in on an unarmed person? Yes.. that's when people need to swarm. For me, I can't justify attacking other people but as you point out, A Tesla is a symbol. An ICE Vehicle is a kidnapping tool. These are tools.