|
Editorial: Violence not necessary
Op-Ed · February 16, 2017
When most folks talk about the peaceful transition of power when a new political party candidate enters the White House as president, usually they refer to some sort of military engagement, like a coup or attack by an armed rebel group.
Not angry, albeit unorganized, citizenry.
Numerous protests arose around the United States, with some of the more nonsensical shouting “Not my president” and, even worse, some turning into riots.
There’s a group that recently organized in West Branch, advertising itself as nonpartisan to oppose efforts, either in D.C. or Des Moines, that would hinder the values they hold regarding inclusion, respect and fairness. It is called Indivisible Iowa - West Branch and Friends.
Unlike the nonsensical protestors and rioters, this group — brought together by Jodi Clemens, Laura Twing, Christina Schump, Linda Carillo and Clara Oleson — started with getting organized and venting their frustrations in an orderly and calm manner before forging ahead with their opposition plans.
When it comes to protesting, the United States has a large body of work with which to review. Many protestors like fire, burning everything from draft cards to bras. But let’s select the one centered around just the opposite: Water.
And oldie but a goodie, the Boston Tea Party proved an all-time classic, despite its imperfections.
The colonists already had a spotty history of protesting. They tried using violence and intimidation to protest the Stamp Act of 1765, which taxed things like newspapers, playing cards and even diplomas. An organized, diplomatic effort by the Stamp Act Congress as well as complaints by British merchants helped get it repealed the next year.
In 1767, the British Parliament tried again with the Townshend Duties and Revenue Act, taxing lead, glass, paper, tea, etc. In protest, the colonists … did not buy those government-endorsed products.
That form of civil disobedience, coupled with a quick rise in the black market, took a bit longer, but mostly worked. In 1770, Parliament rescinded that tax on everything — except tea, a compromise.
Then came the Tea Act of 1773 that not only taxed tea, but forbid the colonists to buy anything but East India Co. tea. The British Parliament apparently thought East India Co., on the brink of bankruptcy, was too big to fail.
So then came the Boston Tea Party.
Dressing as Indians to defer blame was wrong, but the 70 or so protestors who slipped aboard the three British ships did not destroy those vessels or even so much as damage the locks on the cargo holds. All they wanted was the tea, to specifically target Parliament and the East India Co.
In fact, they wanted none of their party to profit from the event, forbidding participants from stealing the tea for sale on the black market. One man was discovered, but he escaped the colonists’ efforts to arrest him.
No limousines burned, no rocks thrown through random store windows. Just 342 chests of tea chucked into Boston Harbor to the cheers of colonists on shore.
Fast forward 243 years to the West Branch Public Library, where more than 20 people gathered around tables in the community room.
After taking turns introducing themselves and venting their frustrations regarding the election of and, subsequently, an array of executive orders by now President Donald Trump, the group got down to business.
The original Indivisible group suggests opposing Trump’s agenda first and foremost, but the local group, with only a few quick remarks, said no. It’s not Trump’s agenda as a whole they oppose, it will be those actions that go against their values.
This is the smarter approach. They agreed that Trump will, whether on purpose or by accident, likely sign bills with which they agree.
They want to educate themselves, and to pass along what they learn to others. They passed around contact information to state and U.S. congressmen, as well as local newspapers like the West Branch Times.
They got organized and focused. By the end of their Feb. 4 meeting, they had sent out 40 postcards to legislators and many planned to make phone calls.
Indivisible Iowa - West Branch and Friends appears to want to leverage their existing freedoms to carry out their fight, using argument and influence rather than violence and destruction.
While some may disagree on the level of liberty we, as Americans, still retain, our freedoms today are significantly better than those when under British rule. Violence is not necessary in these conditions, and we are glad to see this new activist group recognize this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
