After our class yesterday--where we looked at the protests at the 2004 Republican National Convention--I was thinking a lot about the protests that have erupted in Tunisia, Egypt and elsewhere the last few weeks. In particular, this raw footage from the AP about Friday's military and police response in Egypt caught my attention.
On the one hand, from the point of view of the United States, one might look at these violent responses to street protest and say, "I am thankful that does not happen here!" On the other hand, one need only study U.S. history to come across plenty of examples of suppression of protest--especially in the streets--whether it was attacks on the labor movement or the African-American civil rights movement of the 1960s. So, there needs to be some perspective here about timing, degree, and context.
I guess I would look for what these various examples have in common--taking to the streets to protest when formal political channels are not open to you OR are not responsive to your grievances. In the U.S., we do have a constitutional system (and the First Amendment) to claim as our mantle to justify such protest, regardless of how police (or the state) responds. And, as we will study this semester, the meaning of "free speech" and how people can exercise it has changed over time. Moreover, the policing practices at the RNC in 2004 suggests that those legal structures may, in the end, protect you, but in the moment, perhaps not, in terms of getting your point across without harassment. Besides, the historian in me also knows that what really happened may take some time to unravel. Still, using pens to contain protesters and making illegal arrests are one thing. Bullets and tanks in the street another.
UPDATE: Really interesting to watch the coverage from Al Jazeera English, streaming here.
