Mother Jones: Are Protesters as Violent as the Media Says They Are?

[ellisonz]

Small numbers of pro-vandalism occupiers have smashed some windows and scuffled with police. But how does this compare to Wall Street's violence?
—By Rebecca Solnit
| Wed Feb. 22, 2012 1:50 PM PST

When you fall in love, it's all about what you have in common, and you can hardly imagine that there are differences, let alone that you will quarrel over them, or weep about them, or be torn apart by them—or if all goes well, struggle, learn, and bond more strongly because of, rather than despite, them. The Occupy movement had its glorious honeymoon when old and young, liberal and radical, comfortable and desperate, homeless and tenured all found that what they had in common was so compelling the differences hardly seemed to matter.

Until they did.

Revolutions are always like this: at first all men are brothers and anything is possible, and then, if you're lucky, the romance of that heady moment ripens into a relationship, instead of a breakup, an abusive marriage, or a murder-suicide. Occupy had its golden age, when those who never before imagined living side-by-side with homeless people found themselves in adjoining tents in public squares.

All sorts of other equalizing forces were present, not least the police brutality that battered the privileged the way that inner-city kids are used to being battered all the time. Part of what we had in common was what we were against: the current economy and the principle of insatiable greed that made it run, as well as the emotional and economic privatization that accompanied it.

More: http://motherjones.com/politics/2012/02/media-coverage-occupy-wall-street-violence?page=1

I found this to be a pretty good read. I fully believe in non-violence when at all possible. I believe in skillful means.

[unionworks]

1. Occupy must remain

...nonviolent to survive