Protesting everything because of anything and accomplishing nothing
Here’s an interest reminiscence from writer Paul Auster, who took part in the Columbia University protests of 1968. His story starts with his attendance of a protest rally forty years ago today.
The issue had nothing to do with the war, but rather a gymnasium the university was about to build in Morningside Park. The park was public property, and because Columbia intended to create a separate entrance for the local residents (mostly black), the building plan was deemed to be both unjust and racist. I was in accord with this assessment, but I didn’t attend the rally because of the gym.
I went because I was crazy, crazy with the poison of Vietnam in my lungs, and the many hundreds of students who gathered around the sundial in the center of campus that afternoon were not there to protest the construction of the gym so much as to vent their craziness, to lash out at something, anything, and since we were all students at Columbia, why not throw bricks at Columbia, since it was engaged in lucrative research projects for military contractors and thus was contributing to the war effort in Vietnam?
The protest happened, the protesters ended up tearing down the gymnasium construction fence, and then they stormed campus buildings. Auster was dragged a week later by police into a van and arrested.
What did we accomplish? Not much of anything. It’s true that the gymnasium project was scrapped, but the real issue was Vietnam, and the war dragged on for seven more horrible years. You can’t change government policy by attacking a private institution.




Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Bring Christmas to a child in need!








Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top16 Comments to “Protesting everything because of anything and accomplishing nothing”
The quickest way to lose me for just about any cause is to stage a protest/sit-in/demonstration. If you ask me, these things are a bunch of malcontents creating a nuisance and ticking people off because all the inconvenience they have caused. And to what end? I don’t think they really accomplish anything in the grand scheme of things.
Here in Northern VA, our traffic situation is bad enough without some group or another converging on the city to demonstrate ot protest and gumming up the works.
Since the 70s, protests have become so comonplace for everything under the sun that I tune out.
There. I’ve said it, and it probably makes me a bad person. No apologies.
Report comment to moderator
A brilliant essay. Very well written.
But I think folks should read to the end:
“We at Columbia were powerless, and our little revolution was no more than a symbolic gesture. But symbolic gestures are not empty gestures, and given the nature of those times, we did what we could.
I hesitate to draw any comparisons with the present — and therefore will not end this memory-piece with the word “Iraq.” I am 61 now, but my thinking has not changed much since that year of fire and blood, and as I sit alone in this room with a pen in my hand, I realize that I am still crazy, perhaps crazier than ever.”
Symbollic gestures are not empty gestures. For those without power, they may be the only gestures we have. And is it not better to make them then to stay silent?
Report comment to moderator
“Protest ANYTHING because of EVERYTHING”
Would have been a more honest way to title this post in the context of the VIETNAM WAR!
Report comment to moderator
“I am 61 now, but my thinking has not changed much since that year of fire and blood”
Many of us in those turbulent years were swept up in the romanticism of that decade. Most of us have grown up. Forty years is a long time and a lot of life lived not to have had our thinking changed by experience and the perspective it brings.
Report comment to moderator
Ken picked up the same quote I wanted to write about, but here’s a little more of it:
“…. I realize that I am still crazy, perhaps crazier than ever.”
Just to upset the Obama supporters, doesn’t that remind you of Ayers?! But we’re supposed to believe that all is well in that there neighborhood.
Report comment to moderator
For the most part, I don’t even sign petitions–partly because I’ve learned that doing so generates more petitions for me to sign. One year I signed two or three pro-life petitions, for instance, and I suddenly got bombarded from all sides with more to sign. Do I then look like I don’t care about the issue if I don’t take the time simply to sign my name? I don’t need the guilt trip, and I doubt most petitions do any good anyway now that they’re a dime a dozen. So I’ll only sign on a very specific cause that catches my attention. (ACLJ was recently trying to get 100,000 petitions to send to a college professor who did some sort of anti-Christian bigotry in his class. That seemed like overkill to me!)
Report comment to moderator
What Luke said.
Report comment to moderator
Although I’m not sure why he is selling their movement short. He’s right, they didn’t stop the Vietnam war. They did, however, scrap a completely racist bit of city planning and that isn’t nothing. It’s an example of the effect large unifying movements like the anti-war effort have on the public consciousness and micro battles are won on small scales. Without the anger that the Vietnam war inspired the culture of protest that advanced civil rights, women’s rights, human rights, gay rights etc etc etc would have either not existed or would have been slower to start and less concentrated. So the “accomplish nothing” part of Harrison’s title is also dishonest.
Report comment to moderator
#5 NJlawyer,
My thoughts exactly. We can now be be assured that Ayers is still an anti American terrorists who really does think he should have bombed more.
Really, giving up being a terrorist is one of the hardest things in the world to accomplish – because it takes so much commitment and insanity to be that crazy in the first place.
Report comment to moderator
Mmmmmm…so let me try to follow Llama’s incredibly articulate and nuanced logical process.
We can be assured that Ayers is still a terrorist…because Paul Auster (not Ayers)…wrote a memoir-like essay where he (speaking metaphorically) says he is “still crazy”!
Yeah, not so much really. Actually, Llama just comes off sounding like a Pennsylvania voter, because that makes a kind of idiot sense you’d have to been half frozen to death to comprehend.
But you know what makes Llama sound even more stupid? Reading the words of Ayers himself:
http://tiny.cc/ayers
But I know very few of you (most most definitely not Llama) will take the time to read, so I’ll just move on.
No, NJL, your comments did not offend me. I just used them as a reminder to contribute to discourse in a progressive way, went over to Ayers webpage, and left him a graceful comment of support on his person blog.
Report comment to moderator
Luke – Ayers dances eloquently around it, without ever actually he was wrong to get into the violence/terror game – he says they didn’t do enough! And then he attempts to deflect any focus on his terrorism by invoking the allegation that the US committed worse terror.
Distilled down, Ayers says (a) all violence is bad (b) my cohorts and I didn’t do enough violence to stop US violence (c) as to the Communists’ violence that the US was opposing … nothing. Effectively, this seems to say that the US is (was) all bad and all violence opposing the US is (was) justified.
Report comment to moderator
Luke,
I don’t expect you to get llama logic since logic as far from you
The reason I think that Ayer’s does believe that he didn’t bomb enough and is still a terrorist is because I think he must have been a very committed terrorist at one time and was addicted to his extreme left wing socialist ideology. Few have the fortitude to recover from that.
Report comment to moderator
Well KRM, that is your interpretation. I’m not quite into arguing with you about it, but I’m glad that it at least sounds like you are exposing yourself to direct source material and that’s a start.
Llama, what kind of logic is far from me? Can you name and tell me it’s intellectual tradition? I know you’ll go Greek (they all hink there is only one kind) so let me just walk through this syllogism with you.
Major A: Ayers opposed the Vietnam war by bombing empty government buildings.
Minor B: Auster, who opposed the Vietnam war defacto through a city planning dispute, metaphorically called himself “still crazy.” (I suspect STILL is a key word in this construct.)
Therefor C: Ayers is still and “terrorist” whom we can only image longs to start bombing things any minute now.
Yeah, that’s still incredibly stupid. Everything you have said is incredibly stupid. I do wonder what kind of person only says incredibly stupid things.
If Aristotle took a page out of the Llama text of logic, Plato would have won. Thanks for KILLING democracy, Llama. Your intellectual prowess is staggering, like the running down a really steep stupid hill kind of staggering.
You can go ahead and make another glib joke before fading out of the conversation now.
Report comment to moderator
Actually KRM,
I do have a divergent question to ask you that might take this discussion in a new direction.
I assume that you think Ayers should have gone to prison, that he possibly should still be in prison.
If that is true, should the ring leaders and those responsible for COINTELPRO in the FBI, men like J. Edgar Hoover and Mark Felt, also have gone to jail?
Report comment to moderator
I am not entirely clear as to the extent to which COINTELPRO violated statutes (I do not doubt that lines were crossed, I simply do not have a firm grasp of their precise transgressions and how they actually line up against the lines drawn by statute).
There is a proper place for some domestic surveilance. There are lines that should not be crossed in conducting it.
To such extent that the FBI personnel violated the law, then they should have faced prosecution and appropriate penalties upon conviction – just like any other law breaker. As an honest public servant, I particularly resent the dishonest ones (and I fully support heavier penalties for violations of the public trust rather than merely private misconduct).
I should think that view would be one that we share.
Report comment to moderator
Luke? We do agree on that one, don’t we?
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!