Thursday, November 20th 2008
STFU for Peace
I just came back from an ASUC Senate meeting (still in progress, heading into the eternally painful guest announcements). The liason from the UC Police Department, Sgt. Tucker, had the simplest explanation for how to avoid brawls like last week’s. To paraphrase, it was “don’t be mean. Be nice.”
Several senators really, really, really wanted the police department to release information about what actually happened at the brawl. It was an illustration of how folks aren’t yet interested in bringing about peace or reconciliation or a deescalation of tensions between the two groups.
Stop and consider for a moment: Why would anyone want the details of the fight publicly revealed? My journalistic nerve certainly clamors for that information, but I also recognize the problems that arise from publication of the events. If the goal is to provide information to punish perpetrators of violence, then the information needs to go to the police department, not the public. Publicly announcing information like this serves only one purpose: public vilification of the opposition group.
The two groups are engaged in a public relations war. They aren’t really calling on folks to take any action to solve a problem, but to simply convince them to take “the right side.” And so public vilification of the opposition is simply an attempt to take political advantage of the situation. This isn’t limited to one side or this example. The competing press releases, which out of respect for humanity I won’t link here, waste no time in claiming racism from evil unprovoked attackers. Extremist news outlets on both sides have picked up these press releases and are trying to control public opinion elsewhere. (So far, there has been no mainstream news interest, which is probably a good thing for Cal)
The fact of the matter is that every attempt to publicly vilify the opposition, every accusation of racism, or refusal to dialogue, or swinging first, or whatever, is an escalation. It attempts to involve those who are not involved, and to do so in a manner that brings them in on a particular side. It sets battle lines that make it difficult for the opposition to do anything but defend themselves by striking back. If they are to be taken seriously as folks interested in preventing these kinds of conflicts, they need to simply stop. Stop trying to convince folks that the other side is evil. Stop trying to extract political advantage. Stop refusing to accept the possibility that maybe, just maybe, the other side is, in fact, acting in good faith.
Why are you so afraid of the truth? South africe had a truth and reconciliation commission — the idea was that the truth must come out before there can be a true reconciliation!
So the truth must come out before there can be a true reconciliation in this case as well.
Comment by irshad — 11/20/2008 @ 9:21 am
I wasn’t there, but you seem to refuse to accept the objective possibility that maybe, just maybe, hateful comments really were made. If they were, this should be reported, protested and prevented. Are you saying it is impossible that hateful comments were made? or that if they were, those who recieved the violence and the hate should just accept that and “assume good faith”? this makes no sense.
Comment by don't get it — 11/20/2008 @ 9:36 am
and maybe, just maybe, protesting racist violence isn’t “extracting political advantage”, it’s trying to protect other community members from receiving this violence in the future. I don’t know for sure what happened, but neither do you.
Comment by don't get it — 11/20/2008 @ 9:38 am
You’re right, you don’t get it. As far as the general public is concerned, it simply doesn’t matter what happened. It doesn’t change anything when it comes to moving forward. Why should they be reported? Are you only opposed to racist comments on the condition that they were made? If they weren’t made, are you not opposed? And you must be kidding if you think screaming “racist” at particular people will prevent racist violence in the future.
Comment by Justin! — 11/20/2008 @ 11:51 am
great, I think that’s a very useful attitude. I also think when gays or transgender people get attacked, they should never report this to anyone, because “As far as the general public is concerned, it simply doesn’t matter what happened. It doesn’t change anything when it comes to moving forward”. They should just get over it and move on already.
Notice that you are criticizing my position without knowing my name or the group I belong to - so this isn’t about your opposition to making political profit from this, this is because you really do think that if someone is racially targetted they shouldn’t respond to that.
“Why should they be reported”? Wow
Comment by don't get it — 11/20/2008 @ 12:09 pm
You do realize the difference between the general public and the police, correct? Yes, you report crimes to the police. If you then run to the newspaper and point fingers at specific people or groups, you’re trying to create antagonism. You’re closing off possibilities. It suggests that actually ending this conflict is not a priority. This incident was not representative of widespread hostility towards any group, where folks are in danger simply for being a certain race. Palestinians and Jews had little difficulty strolling around without being attacked, and I reject the efforts of both sides to frame it this way. The disagreements arise from the political statements that folks are making. The incident was provoked by isolated individuals in isolated groups that can be dealt with in detail by the authorities. (While this was the case, it may cease to be the case if the escalations keep coming, which is why I’m asking folks to STFU for peace)
I do know your name and affiliation, but it just doesn’t matter.
Comment by Justin! — 11/20/2008 @ 12:42 pm
your post was ambiguous - it wasn’t clear if you were saying “we can achieve peace/reconciliation by not talking about what happened”, or “in order to de-escalate people should wait patiently until the police report, instead of spreading round more information/rumors about what happened”. The first position makes no sense, but if you are saying the second thing, fine.
Comment by don't get it — 11/20/2008 @ 1:17 pm
I’d like to know who threw the first punch, I think it’s a relevant fact to understanding the fight and deciding if Moghtader should be recalled because of his involvement.
Comment by yuri — 11/20/2008 @ 5:02 pm
No one told the police the Truffs, it doesn’t matter who threw the first punch. What matters is the Pal club retaliated for the Meeting incident and things will escalate if they do not stop. You had the pal gang throw up gang symbols at an apposing gang’s event. The dean was correct in stating that was in the wrong and the flash point by putting up flag symbols.
This was not freedom of speech but aggressive protesting. That was their turf that night and one should not get punished for defending it. The same should apply to the other gang.
Too bad the dean doesn’t have the power to kick all these gang members off this campus. However, it may come down to it, if things continue with non-freedom of speech on both sides.
Comment by jinnat — 11/22/2008 @ 9:26 pm
I remain fascinated by the argument that somehow “free speech” is an exclusive descriptor that cannot coexist with others. Something can be both aggressive posturing and freedom of speech.
Anyway, I can’t tell if the comment is meant to be satirical or not. No gang has the authority to declare their “turf” on campus and expect it to be respected.
Comment by Justin! — 11/22/2008 @ 9:35 pm
Dropping these nuke bombs on Japan in WWII was freedom of speech, eh? It was an aggressive protest, I’ll tell you that. You do not know rhetoric do you? You are not persuasive.
“No gang has the authority to declare their “turf” on campus and expect it to be respected”
Throwing up gang signs by legitimate gangs at someones party is not permissible to them. It leads to violence. Guess what happen? Or you do not know. Maybe you should study gangland history of America. Putting a British Flag on colonialist territory was not permissible. It lead to violence.
You seem not to know much of anything.
It probably explains why real republicans do not belong to BCR. They require people with republican qualities. You do not represent these qualities.
&: ‘aggressive posturing’ is not ‘aggressive protesting.’ You seem to run a monologue and not a dialog.
Comment by jinnat — 11/22/2008 @ 10:46 pm
What the heck are you talking about jinnat? Lower Sproul is not a turf, and a Palestinian flag is not a gang symbol. Along with Justin!, I can’t tell if you are being satirical or not.
No one was talking about anything remotely related to nukes; please don’t bring in a strawman argument. Along similar lines, insults don’t add anything to a civilized discussion.
Comment by yuri — 11/23/2008 @ 5:57 pm
“It probably explains why real republicans do not belong to BCR. They require people with republican qualities. You do not represent these qualities.”
Way to generalize buddy. That was a pretty ignorant statement…
“This was not freedom of speech but aggressive protesting. That was their turf that night and one should not get punished for defending it. The same should apply to the other gang.”
I guess it’s pretty cool to go to a legitimate university where “gangs” can claim a “turf” and go to any extreme for “defending it”…and that it is okay for the “other gang” to do the same thing. And that punishment should not be given because, well, they were simply defending themselves.
Cal is an honorable university. It’s an institution that should not stand for “aggressive protesting” by “gangs” on campus claiming “turfs” and “defending them” without any punishment. This isn’t kindergarten, it’s the Universtiy of California, Berkeley. Someone needs a reality check.
Comment by Danae — 11/23/2008 @ 8:04 pm
You know where I stand!
Comment by Nationalist Man — 11/25/2008 @ 11:24 am