Extra

After my Sunday morning hike up the Berkeley hills, I spent much of Sunday at the various counter-protests against the alt-right. I walked through civic park at 9:00, and again at 10:30 with friends and neighbors on my way to the “Rally Against Hate” on Oxford. Anti-hate and anti-white-supremacist banners were in place in Civic Park, on Old City Hall, and on trees and poles. The park also included multiple barricades and dozens of police. Only a small number of counter-protestors were there, and I didn’t spot any alt-righters at the time.  

The Rally Against Hate was a family oriented anti-fascist, anti-racist, anti-trump celebration with music and speeches. The crowd filled the street in front of the UC campus, remaining outside the corral erected as a “stop and frisk” checkpoint to the crescent of grass. I particularly liked the Groucho-Marxists. After greeting friends I walked down to Olone park for a more edgy rally – great speeches and poetry – before marching to Civic Park along MLK. It was an inspiring march – great signs and a diverse crowd. Berkeley united against the white supremacists. 

The crowd included a small contingent of youth clad in black. I think Steve Martinot best captured the mood and meaning of this march, including those in black: “In the thousands, people dressed as they liked, and wore the signs that they liked, and chanted the chants that they liked – with dozens to choose from. The signs people wore came in all kinds of styles, T-shirts and hats and placards, statements and protests and jokes poking fun at the hideous ideologues now calling themselves the administration. The sign that caused the most commentary, of course, and thus the most thought, was the sign of the black mask covering the face of a member of the group in black. That mask is only another sign. It is a sign that says, ‘this is a highly repressive society, and our faces and our identities are used against us at every turn.’ It is important that a lot of people are saying that. We lose sight of how repressive this society is.” 

Upon arriving at Civic Park, I wandered through the crowd greeting friends and participating in chants – a celebration of solidarity against white supremacy. The police barricades kept most people in the streets. At one point we were warned by march-organizers to move back toward Old City Hall if we wanted to avoid being tear-gassed. Curious, I headed to the barriers to witness what was going on and was confronted by police wearing gas masks, many armed with canister guns and dozens of tear gas canister shells. Clearly this was meant to be a threat to the marchers. 

After wandering between the police in gas masks and the small block of protestors dressed in black with their banner, I decided to enter the park through the checkpoint to see if the police were actually defending anyone -- or if they were like the police near Oxford who basically became a keep-off-the grass task force. I was probably one of the last people searched because the checkpoint shut down a few minutes later as the police withdrew and the crowd entered the park over the barriers. 

Nearly all the people in the park prior to the police withdrawal were counter-protestors. I was later told by a guy who had been at the dry fountain since about 10:45 that there were only 7 trumpie/fascist/supremacists at the fountain at the time everyone entered the park. He said the few remaining supremacists had left or been quickly run out. 

As I entered the park, I could see that the police in their gas masks and heavy gear were sweating profusely in the hot sun -- opening their masks to let the sweat drip down on their vests. I suspect some of them would have succumbed to heat exhaustion if they had maintained the standoff. But I was curious about the sequence of events. Did the police withdraw (from the heat) and allow the crowd to surge over the barrier? Or did they decide not to make a situation worse by attacking a peaceful crowd with tear gas as the crowd moved forward? My sources have since confirmed the former. 

Defending that barrier with tear gas would have been a horrible decision and would probably have led to later vandalism. I just finished reading Norm Stamper's new book (To Protect and Serve) where he confesses that his worst career decision was to tear gas the peaceful protestors at the 1999 WTO meeting in Seattle. It took him years of reflection to finally admit his mistake. His decision to allow violence (tear gas) to be inflicted on peaceful protestors precipitated the vandalism and violence that followed. 

In any case, I am surprised that the police did not just seek out the remaining handful of trumpie/fascist/supremacists and escort them from the park for their own safety -- especially once they realized they were going to back down from the confrontation. The checkpoints had probably served their purpose by 1 PM, disarming any supremacists entering the park. Any further confrontation with the marchers was really not needed -- especially the police escalation with gas masks. 

I hope that the Police Review Commission produces an analysis of the events and tactics for the public. The police may be reluctant to reveal those plans, but the City Council should insist. If we are to build community policing, the public must be informed and involved in the decision making processes of the police (as per Norm Stamper). I suspect that plans for a worst case scenario were made, and when the alt-right rally fizzled, those plans were not flexible enough to allow rapid changes as events unfolded – hence the escalation with gas masks. I’m glad the police chief decided against gassing the marchers. The learning experience from this event must involve input from the public. We should be the ones to decide how we want our police to behave in these situations. 

I also think some of those dressed in black could use some discipline. So I offer some words from Gramsci which they should appreciate. "Discipline must be met with discipline ... socialist discipline is autonomous and spontaneous ... he commands himself, he imposes a rule of life on his impulses, on his disorderly aspirations. ... It indicates a person who has not only good manners but who possesses a sense of balance, a sure mastery of himself, a moral discipline that permits him to subordinate voluntarily his own selfish interest to the wider interests of the society in which he lives." 

Although tactics are often the first casualty, it seems that a disciplined force of those dressed in black could have surrounded the remaining handful of isolated alt-right supporters and slowly maneuvered them out of the park without any violence. I have to say that the most inspirational moment during that surge was caught on video where a white supremacist is battling (rather than retreating from) a few individuals, some dressed in black. When he falls to the ground and curls up in the fetal position, he is protected from further blows by an African-American man. How ironic. 

Although I don’t agree with some of Chris Hedges points in his recent truthdig critique of the antifa, I did find the following point worth repeating: “As long as acts of resistance are forms of personal catharsis, the corporate state is secure. Indeed, the corporate state welcomes this violence because violence is a language it can speak with a proficiency and ruthlessness that none of these groups can match.” All of us, including the black-clad groups, should consider these words. We need discipline and unity of purpose to challenge the corporate state. I have no problem with black costumes, or hiding one’s face when persecution is a real possibility. There may be a time for violence in defending ourselves against violence. But the August 27 violence was probably not needed. It merely provided more propaganda for the alt-right and the corporate media who are out to crush all leftist resistance to their rule. Those who participated in the violence need to consider what they accomplished besides their “personal catharsis.” 

I also realize that my reading of events probably missed many nuances -- and perhaps important pieces. I'm looking forward to hearing other voices - and willing to actually listen and change my opinions based on new information. I hope we use this event to begin a dialogue on how we want policing to be practiced in our city, including protests and rallies. I also hope we begin to expand the role of police oversight by the Police Review Commission. Such a process begins with education – there is much for all of us to learn. I’ve found the following books helpful: “Racing to Justice” by John A. Powell, “The New Jim Crow” by Michelle Alexander, “Democracy Matters” by Cornel West, “The Authoritarians” by Bob Altemeyer, and Norm Stamper’s book. Perhaps with a bit of work we can create real community policing in Berkeley where both the public and the police create the security we want. We also want an environment that will be supportive of the coming protests and rallies that will form to resist the alt-right, the Trump administration, and the imposition of neoliberal austerity.