Letters to the Editor.

Ehrenreich Misses the Mark

Barbara Ehrenreich is way off the mark in her condemnation of the recent protests in Seattle and Washington, D.C. ("Anarkids and Hypocrites," June issue).

First, Ehrenreich calls promises of a nonviolent protest a case of "false advertising" because the protests were anything but.

Come on now! When people call for a nonviolent protest, they are calling for the protesters to be nonviolent. That the police may react with violence is clear, something Ehrenreich admits a few paragraphs later.

She then lambastes the "hypocrites" of the Direct Action Network (DAN) for trying to stop self-proclaimed "anarchist youth" from precipitating more violence by breaking storefronts in Seattle. To my knowledge, it was union folks and a few people from Global Exchange who tried to stop the "anarkids," not members of the DAN, most of whom were too busy shutting down the city.

Even so, what is hypocritical about trying to maintain peace at a protest in the face of the same "highly militarized" police Ehrenreich later condemns? Here's what happened: A few dozen people skipped out on democratic planning meetings and then showed up at a protest where 50,000 people insisted on no violence against persons or property and proceeded to smash windows. That was woefully undemocratic and hypocritical. And it put courageous nonviolent demonstrators in grave danger, while the noble "anarkids" fled.

Ehrenreich claims the rock-throwing did not "demonstrably `ruin' the Seattle protests in the eyes of the public. In fact, it probably doubled the media attention, with most press accounts carefully distinguishing between the 50,000 rock-less protesters and the twenty or so window-smashers."

How she deduces that from headlines of "Riot!" "Chaos!" and "Anarchy!" emblazoned over pictures of bonfires and overturned dumpsters is unclear. In any case, I'd rather get less media coverage that shows me being peaceful than have every paper in the U.S. claiming I'm a violent thug.

Ehrenreich closes her misguided essay with an attack on the DAN's protest tactics. Are you kidding? Far from "numbingly ritual," those creative, democratic, powerful, truly anarchist protest tactics empowered thousands of unarmed human beings to literally shut down a meeting of one of the world's most powerful financial institutions, despite a violent police response and the lack of any centralized leadership.

Let's celebrate and continue this wonderful new movement, rather than needlessly condemn it.

Roni Krouzman Boston, Massachusetts 

Protest Dress Code

What fascinated me most about the IMF-World Bank protest articles were the pictures that accompanied Matthew Rothschild's piece ("Spank the Bank," June issue).

I was reminded of some football and baseball games I have attended where a number of inebriated young men take off their shirts, often in freezing weather, and paint silly slogans on their bodies. Needless to say, these young fellows were not regarded as the future leaders of the nation, or even the student body.

If leftwing activists want to impress a majority of the American people with the power and truth of their ideas, it would seem more strategically appropriate not to offend the values of the middle and working classes. My conversations with members of both groups indicate that they are so turned off by the outlandish dress, undress, and exhibitionism that they never bother to find out if the protesters' ideas make any sense or have any value.

I'm sure that activists will argue that they cannot get any media attention except by wildly unconventional dress, or undress, and that a negative press is better than no press at all. I question the latter assumption, for if more people are offended than persuaded, walls are built instead of bridges. And if activists are willing to engage in civil disobedience and get arrested in jackets and ties or pantsuits, the press will come.

If activist protesters are willing to risk their bodies and freedom for a progressive cause, they should not hesitate to risk an old sports jacket and clip-on tie, or an old polyester pantsuit. It is entirely possible that police officers would be more circumspect in their conduct toward well-dressed protesters. And, by the way, more clothes protect against road burn when the police drag protesters to the paddy wagon.

Edward G. Rollins Maryville, Tennessee 

Imperfect Heroes

I agree with Howard Zinn that there are many unsung heroes throughout American history ("Unsung Heroes," June issue).

Unfortunately, most Americans will go through their entire lives without hearing the names--let alone knowing the contributions--of John Ross, Ella Baker, Kathy Kelly, John Woolman, or Emma Goldman. Nor will they ever know that William Penn, Mark Twain, and Helen Keller were committed to peace in times of war. This, of course, is regrettable since we, as a society, miss learning about and from these extraordinary people.

However, I think Zinn is much too harsh on many revered historical figures. Teddy Roosevelt was militaristic. But he was also a committed environmentalist and consumer advocate. Could Abraham Lincoln have issued an earlier and stronger Emancipation Proclamation? Sure, but he was in the middle of trying to win a bloody civil war, which was necessary to ultimately end slavery.

Most of the others that Zinn criticizes had virtues that often overshadowed their faults. We should not remove these people from our altar of heroes. Instead, we should remember their accomplishments and their imperfections.

David Brunori Vienna, Virginia

Blaspheming the Poor

As a member of the welfare recipient community, I found it appalling that Barbara Ehrenreich opined, "In the nineties, many welfare recipients sat on their hands while Congress ruled that all benefits would effectively end" ("The Vision-Impaired Rich," May issue).

Well, either someone switched heads with my favorite columnist, or she's done a total turn to the right.

Where were we? Either out fighting for the right to entitlements our children deserve, or fighting just as hard to remain solvent and sane in the shadow of Reagan and Bush.

Although it is important to read any view of the poor, I hope I never read words like this again--in this, or in any other, respected human rights magazine.

Lillian Hanson San Diego, California 

Word Count Isn't Everything

As a longtime subscriber to The Progressive who has lived in the Czech Republic for the past ten years, I thought I would comment on your new format and look.

All I can say is, great! The May issue was one of the best for some time, with a good balance between all the terrible things in the world, and the many individuals whose actions address them.

Unlike one letter-writer, I do not evaluate the magazine by how many words you can cram on a page. The readability, short features, and diverse columns make it a treasure I anticipate each month--especially over here where English-language news means The Economist, Financial Times, or Herald Tribune. Keep up the good work.

Steven Kelly Prague, Czech Republic

Take Noise Seriously

In the July "No Comment" section, you mention British Parliament member Robert Key's efforts to ban piped-in music in stores and restaurants. I was appalled by the tone of your coverage. By labeling the blurb "Menacing Muzak," you seem to indicate that you find Key's efforts laughable. I disagree. Why do these stores blast music at us? To make their businesses more "fun," "active," and "hip." I will not shop at a store that assaults my senses. And it is time to take noise pollution seriously.

Ted Rueter Los Angeles, California

The editors welcome correspondence from readers on all topics, but prefer to publish letters that comment directly on material previously published in The Progressive. All letters may be edited for clarity and conciseness. Letters may be e-mailed to: [e-mail]. Please include your city and state.