The House Democrats’ sit-in (or, when nonviolence is violence)

When Georgia Representative and civil rights movement veteran John Lewis likened the extraordinary sit-in staged last week by House Democrats (a sit-in he lead) to the historic 1965 civil rights marches in Selma, Alabama – “We crossed one bridge,” Lewis stated, “but we have other bridges to cross” — he invited us all to see the Democrats’ sit-in as nonviolent direct action in the tradition of the civil rights movement and as an expression of the movement’s highest ideals.

Just as Selma protesters, for example, were champions of nonviolence against the violent and unjust system of racial segregation, the Democrats (Lewis suggested) were champions of nonviolence (i.e., gun control) against a violent system of gun ownership and accessibility, a system that the Republican leadership – through its refusal to allow a House vote on gun control legislation – both upholds and reproduces. And just as Selma protesters persisted in spite of the violent defiance of Selma’s power structure – “it took [Selma protesters] three times,” Lewis reminded us, “to make it from Selma all the way to Montgomery” – so, too, would Democrats persist in the face of House Republicans’ defiance.

The two proposals over which Lewis and his Democratic colleagues staged the sit-in, however, cannot be reconciled with either the Selma movement or with nonviolence. In fact, both proposals – a ban on gun sales to women and men on the FBI’s terrorist watch list, and the expansion of background checks on prospective gun buyers – are so steeped in violence that they effectively render the Democrats’ sit-in, a sit-in for violence.
 
Consider this: the first proposal rationalizes a system that, as the American Civil Liberties Union points out, is “error prone and unreliable because it uses vague and overbroad criteria and secret evidence to place individuals on blacklists without a meaningful process to correct government error and clear their names.” Indeed, the system is applied in an “arbitrary and discriminatory manner,” such that it functions by and large to target, criminalize, and harass (and thus do violence to) Arab and Muslim communities (ironically enough, Representative Lewis himself was watch-listed, an experience through which he found that the system “provides no effective means of redress for unfair or incorrect designations”).

Furthermore, because the first proposal is justified as a matter of “national security” (as California Senator Feinstein asserted during the course of the sit-in), its function, as Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor argues, is ultimately to “strengthen the country’s security state and to further justify the ‘war on terror.’” That war, according to a joint report issued by Physicians for Social Responsibility, Physicians for Global Survival, and the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, has so far cost at least 1.3 million human lives (the cost to the lives of other sentient beings, we must presume, is equally astronomical).

Although seemingly benign in the context of gun control, background checks – the subject of the second proposal – also reinforce a security state framework and, like the first proposal, do nothing to “address the underlying causes of violence in America.” In fact, the proposal – and by extension, the House Democrats’ sit-in – presupposes that the legitimate ownership of guns is the absence of violence. And yet gun ownership is violence, just as the stockpiling of nuclear weapons is violence.

Nonviolent direct action that is not grounded in a transformative commitment to nonviolence, that “neither contests nor seeks alternatives to the dominant imperial mentality of the day” (to borrow the phrasing of Sean Chabot and Majid Sharifi in "The Violence of Nonviolence"), is action that can be easily deployed to champion policies that are, in fact, inherently violent.

Such is how we must view the House Democrats’ sit-in. Not only did the Democrats legitimize legislation that reinforces systemic violence; they also failed to offer anything remotely transformative (such as, for example, legislation that bans guns altogether and commits the United States to international gun control). And they certainly didn’t offer any critique that tied gun violence to “relatively invisible forms of structural, epistemic, and everyday violence” or to our culture of violence.

Imagine if Martin Luther King, Jr. had organized a sit-in on Vietnam in which he called not for the end of the war, “racism, militarism, and materialism” – and not for a “revolution of values” – but merely for the cessation or limited use of Agent Orange.

Given who John Lewis is and the fearlessness with which he confronted the violence of segregationists in Selma and elsewhere, I don’t offer this critique lightly. But as a state actor, he has – along with his colleagues – turned nonviolence on its head. On the floor of the House, the Democrats’ nonviolent sit-in was state violence dressed in nonviolent clothing, and in so being it left unquestioned and undisturbed the structural and spiritual underpinnings that not only shaped the Orlando massacre that triggered the Democrats’ sit-in, but that also continue to drive the everyday visible and invisible violence that continues to roil communities the world over.

Views: 223

Comment by Arthur James on June 29, 2016 at 11:14am

`
OFF
LINE
SQUARE
ANNOYING
READ. I
HOPE YOUR
POST CREATE
A CHEERFUL
HOPEFUL GOOD
MOOD. LATER
`cc`
I VISIT
ON BEING
and OTHRER
EDIFICATION
SOUND MIND
BLOGGERS.
`cc`
`

Comment by nerd cred on June 29, 2016 at 12:04pm

So, if you cannot guarantee a perfect and perfectly idealistic solution, do nothing? Or go ahead and do it but don't call it nonviolent?

This may be an illustration of what gives intellectualism a bad name. At best it has minimal contact with the reality of human existence.

But further analysis seems hardly necessary. In this case, having to choose between John Lewis' opinion and anyone else's, my faith rests with Lewis.

Comment by Arthur James on June 29, 2016 at 1:56pm

`
FOOLISH MONKEY
ME bBEWILDERED
TOO. I BUILT A
HEXAGON 6-STAR
SMYBOL ON COFFIN
`
MY MOTHER'S WOOD
BOX CHERRY COFFIN.
THE 6-STAR HEXAGON
SYMBOL ... IT'S A
POTENT OLD SYMBOL.
LATELY...I TIRED
AND ...
MY Sore bones and
SOMA body is weary.
i no like the word:
`
DEPRESSION.
It a long off-
line thought-
Aye
Respect,
and I Hope You
Soon Sit On a
Soft Cushion.
`
Give each Other
a ` massage ',I
hear` TITAN '
is
a chair that can
cos up to $# 6,000
for a lazy/boy-girl
massage lazy chair.
it Best to massage
Our? Salon? members?
no. Massage Our? self.
`
do
some
Sesame
Street
WUMO?
or
ELMO?
BIG BIRD
EXERCISES.
O My Golly
`
cc`
co'
xo'
hug
? no>?
okay

Comment by Safe Bet's Amy on June 29, 2016 at 1:58pm

Comment by Arthur James on June 29, 2016 at 2:09pm

`
ANYBODY WQHO
HAS SISTERS?
I GOT A FEW
SISTERS. WE
DO LOVE EACH
OTTHER. AMY?
SHE LIKE A?
RADICAL? A
GROUNDED? A
FEISTY SISTER?
`
I SWEAR I AM
DOING MY BEST-
DARDNEST TO GET
OIFF LINE AND GET
HOME & BE ALL ALONE.
`
LIBRARY 'WIFI' tempts
me as if a `fun woman?
I best go Home asap aye.
`
`cc`
;`;,'
pause
`cc`'
fume?
no. Fun
`
cc`

Comment by Arthur James on June 29, 2016 at 2:16pm

`
I GET...
I GO OFFLINE
&Y READ YOUR
OLD PAST POST.
`
MY SISTERS ARE
LOVABLE & DO TRYT
To IRRIITATE & DO
LOVE ME? WE DO GET
ALONG. I NOT AS ODD?
HUH? KOOKY? AS MY 3-
DEAR SISTERS. FUN OFF-
LINE PONDEROUS READ.
`cc`
`

Comment by Myriad on June 29, 2016 at 2:24pm

Oh for heaven's sake, some, ANY dint in the American gun madness would be for the good.

Comment by nerd cred on June 29, 2016 at 2:57pm

A person's got to be possessed of mind-boggling blind stupid arrogance to present herself as so morally superior to be justified in judging John Lewis.

Comment by koshersalaami on June 29, 2016 at 3:23pm
Election year posturing?
I'd say frustration. If I have this one right, the issue isn't whether the House passed this gun control legislation, it's about right whether the House VOTED on this legislation. It's like the bit with Obama's Supreme Court nominee: The issue isn't whether the guy gets approved, it's whether he even gets considered.

The sit in happened as a reaction to the Orlando massacre. Congresswoman Gabby Giffords gets shot, others on site are murdered, no action. Little children are killed in Newtown, no action. Orlando happens and John Lewis et al say Enough Already! You can't keep this out of the Congressional conversation any longer.

So John Lewis is supposed to be working for the prohibition of guns, "This is how we must view the Democrats' sit-in." No it isn't. Reducing the number of people who get killed by guns is a good thing. As to the contention that Lewis is some sort of sell-out, Lewis' issue is inequality. Guns don't fit cleanly into that issue.
Comment by SeventhSister on June 29, 2016 at 3:27pm
Nerd, like you I appreciate & respect John Lewis. But his actions as a congressman are not above critique. To make this personal is to sidestep, first of all, the tricky question of what these laws accomplish and rationalize. It is also to sidestep critique of a strategy that actually cloaks those laws -- and support for them -- in moral righteousness. As Foolish Monkey says, "any" law is not what we should settle for. (And by the way, since Lewis invited us to view the sit-in terms of Selma and, by extension, nonviolence, then you could hardly fault anyone for taking him up on it.)

Now, if you think that saying this is somehow tantamount to "judging" John Lewis, then so be it. But to take that position strikes me as a willful misreading of what I wrote.

Comment

You need to be a member of Our Salon to add comments!

Join Our Salon

NEW BLOG POSTS

Dreaming at My Age

Posted by Ben Sen on July 20, 2018 at 7:18pm 0 Comments

Dreaming

Posted by Ben Sen on July 20, 2018 at 11:14am 2 Comments

Off With His Head!!!!!

Posted by Safe Bet's Amy on July 20, 2018 at 7:03am 10 Comments

Birth of a New Day

Posted by Ron Powell on July 19, 2018 at 3:30am 11 Comments

A Body of Work

Posted by Rosigami on July 18, 2018 at 3:47pm 10 Comments

© 2018   Created by lorianne.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Service