EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Wisconsin Bill Would Treat Organic Milk, Sharp Cheddar, Brown Eggs as "Junk Food"
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Climate Change's 'Evil Twin': Ocean Acidification
- Disaster Capitalism Strikes as Hedge Funds Circle Near-Bankrupt Municipalities Like Vultures
- Ignoring Bee Crisis, EPA Greenlights New 'Highly Toxic' Pesticide
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Wisconsin Bill Would Treat Organic Milk, Sharp Cheddar, Brown Eggs as "Junk Food"
- Climate Change's 'Evil Twin': Ocean Acidification
- In 'March Toward Disaster,' World Hits 400 PPM Milestone
- Ignoring Bee Crisis, EPA Greenlights New 'Highly Toxic' Pesticide
Popular content
Today's Top News
Noncooperation with Evil in the Streets of Arizona
The history of nonviolent social change is filled with injunctions to refuse compliance with unjust laws and policies. As Gandhi once famously said, “non-cooperation with evil is as much a duty as is cooperation with good.” Reflecting on the Montgomery bus boycott, Martin Luther King, Jr. observed that “what we were really doing was withdrawing our cooperation from an evil system. … We were simply saying to the white community: We can no longer lend our cooperation to an evil system. From that moment on I conceived of our movement as an act of massive non-cooperation.” In Civil Disobedience, Henry David Thoreau mapped out the terrain in ways that would later influence both Gandhi and King:
Must the citizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree, resign his conscience to the legislator? … It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right. … Law never made men a whit more just; and, by means of their respect for it, even the well-disposed are daily made the agents of injustice.
These teachings were alive and well during the demonstrations in Arizona against SB 1070, the state’s anti-immigrant law that was partially struck down by a federal judge two days before it took effect. In recognition of the larger issues raised by the bill, as well as the realization that open persecution of “illegals” would remain official state policy going forward, hundreds of people took to the streets on July 29th under the banner of the movement’s mantra, “We Will Not Comply.” Almost 100 people were arrested for nonviolent civil disobedience during these protests, and a clear message of the refusal to cooperate with injustice was communicated to both local officials and an international audience alike.
While many of the events of that day have been well-reported, the opening salvo that set the tone of noncompliance and civil resistance seemed to slip by almost without notice. It was, however, a poignant and powerful action that reflected the best qualities of the nonviolence paradigm. Here is my recollection of what transpired that night as SB 1070 was to take effect:
The clock nudged toward midnight on a cool Arizona summer evening. With monsoon moisture in the air and faint stars flickering above, two columns of people solemnly proceeded on opposite sides of the street to the main entry point into their city. Families, children, and elders together filed into the street, with an air of celebratory defiance building as each individual added their body to the blockade. None would pass into this community for the foreseeable future, and people living in terror had openly lost their fear. The tone was now set, and the events of the coming day would reflect it, consciously or not.
This was the beginning of Arizona’s July 29th demonstrations against SB 1070 and related anti-immigrant policies. At 12:01AM that day, the parts of the bill that had not been struck down earlier in the week by a federal judge – including a mandate that all state officials and agencies enforce federal immigration laws to their fullest extent, and also a provision that criminalizes harboring or transporting undocumented persons – took effect. And in the tiny town of Guadalupe (pop. 6000) on the outskirts of Phoenix, community members fired the first nonviolent “shot” in the day’s struggle against legalized oppression.
As the tension mounted, city buses began to stack up and sheriff’s deputies slowly encroached toward the human blockade from both sides of the street. The line of resistance stood firm, however, and soon doubled when another line was formed mostly of local activists and allies in the struggle for justice and human rights. Law enforcement officers now bluntly stated their intention to make mass arrests unless the intersection was cleared. Still no one moved. The flummoxed deputy again made his pronouncement, and again the blockade remained. When the warning was repeated a third time, it became clear that neither the political will nor manpower was present to effectively deal with the dozens of civil disobedients who had physically created a wall of noncompliance at the edge of their town.
Following a phone call from the mayor, and with due regard to the facts that the symbolic action had accomplished its purpose and the people had stood up in solidarity, the blockade self-dispersed after more than an hour of holding the street. The point had been made: people were tired of living in fear, and they would not comply with laws like SB 1070 that seek to institutionalize that fear. Make no mistake, the provisions of the law were designed not so much to change the realities of living as an undocumented person in Arizona, but more so to inculcate a climate of permanent fear and to institutionally legitimize the worst of the state’s unjust police practices. But on this day, when the world would be watching, people stood up.
Episodes like this need to be placed in a context to fully understand their import. For the residents of tiny Guadalupe, a town made up of equal parts Mexican and Yacqui, there has been a constant reign of terror in their midst with the main perpetrators being Sheriff Joe Arpaio and his deputies. Guadalupe has no police force of its own, and so had made a contract with the county sheriff’s department to take on the role of policing the township. Over the years there have been numerous incidents and allegations of police misconduct, leading to a very public feud between Guadalupe’s former mayor and Arpaio that resulted in the contract being suspended and the sheriff’s department becoming unwelcome there.
What specifically prompted this dust-up were a set of 2008 immigration “raids” conducted by the sheriff’s office, which resulted in about 150 arrests with nearly half having immigration implications. The raids themselves essentially devolve upon massive sting operations where deputies scrutinize moving vehicles for the most minute traffic violations – for example, a cracked taillight or windshield, changing lanes without adequately signaling, or the improper use of a horn. These stops then result in ID checks, searches, and other escalations that can lead straight to deportations. The raids are conducted primarily in communities of color, leading many to suggest that the true nature of the “crime” being targeted is simply being brown-skinned.
Guadalupe’s political leadership at the time publicly averred that Arpaio and his forces had not been invited to the town to conduct these raids, with the former Vice Mayor bluntly stating that “Arpaio is doing it because he wants to show the Latin people that he has power.” A former councilwoman concurred, noting that “this is racial profiling and it needs to stop.” For her stance against Arpaio, former mayor Rebecca Jimenez was herself pulled over and ticketed by sheriff’s deputies for a broken headlight. “How do you like working for a sheriff who racially profiles against people of color?” Jimenez asked the deputy who pulled her over, according to a report released by the sheriff. “I didn’t think that Sheriff Joe was going to retaliate against me, but I guess that I was wrong,” she said, according to the report.
This is the backdrop against which Guadalupe’s residents took the streets in the opening hours of July 29th. The Phoenix New Times later reported that the crowd had “faced down” Arpaio’s deputies, with one resident saying that “regardless of what the law says, we’re all human beings. We shouldn’t be treated as something else.” Following the action, protest organizer Andrew Sanchez said that “it was peaceful, it was successful, and we managed to get the cops’ attention.” Indeed, this action of open noncompliance with unjust laws and practices was done in the best tradition of nonviolent civil disobedience, and it merits our attention as an important part of what will be an ongoing campaign of “noncooperation with evil” in the days ahead.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...


43 Comments so far
Show AllYou could say the same thing about the lunch-room "sit downs" in the South in the 1960s. Sometimes the only way to make a statement is to do something that gets you arrested.
Ardent: Who's OUR law? Do you follow all the laws? Have you ever broken a law purposely? Speeding perhaps? Are some laws good and some bad? Is Sheriff Joe a Just man? IMHO some laws are so unjust that they require people of conscience to break them. Nonviolently of course.
It was against the law during the Third Reich NOT to wear one's yellow star if one was obliged to, or, as a good law-obeying German at that time would have "OUR law".
How many can see today that virtually all law in this country is illegitimate? That the law is merely a tool in the hands of the wealthy and powerful for advancing their own interests and persecuting and controlling all the rest of us? How many are even willing to consider that?
Must agree with you and I do believe there are many out here who also know this. It's just that we're not sure what to do about it!
Well done. I think it went over people's heads.
We have a constitutional right to protest, and civil disobedience is as much a part of American life as any other political action.
What part of democracy don't you understand?
I am not certain, but I do believe Ardent's post was a parody.
Well, if that's the case then it did indeed go right over my head.
I might have missed it as well had I not looked at the user name. The sad thing is that people do say things like that, and much worse, to the point that it hard to tell if they are serious or not. The crap coming from hate radio is becoming more and more surreal, and people seem more motivated then ever to absorb and repeat the stuff they hear.
Don't miss the hate and racism expressed by the business shills either. Name calling is racism no matter which side does it. Hate? Only the most desperate can find even a small example. Nor do they care to discuss the death and suffering these shills generate.
The time for lies is past.
It is a pathetic morality that equates legal and illegal with right and wrong.
Its a pathetic morality that doesn't know right from wrong.
In Los Angeles in the 1930's and then again in the 1980's sweeps were conducted and people suspected of being here illegally were sent to Mexico.
In both cases US citizens were illegally deported not to mention the illegality of people being detained simply because of how they looked.
What's going on in Arizona is just another variation of this same un-American mindset.
There's almost no citizen in this country, that if stopped and asked, can prove they are a citizen. Being detained to ascertain one's citizenship based on how one looks or speaks is unconstitutional and just plain wrong - at least wrong for the United States of America.
What part of democracy do those who wish to implement this law not understand?
If illegal immigration is a problem than another solution needs to be found because this is not the way - not here, not ever.
Civil disobedience is an appropriate and proper response to these actions.
If you advocate violating the civil compact, what difference does civil disobedience make?
"What part of democracy do those who wish to implement this law not understand?"
Where there is no law there is no democracy. The law being spoken of is the law that is no different than our Federal immigration law.
You, obviously, don't understand how the United States of America works. One of the rights citizens have is to protest and try to recind any law they deem wrong. One method of protest is "civil disobedience." There are consequences of such actions - arrest. That's the point - to bring light to the issue by directly confronting the law. Those protesters fully expected to be arrested.
The law of the land is always subject to the scrutiny of its citizens and will always be viewed through the filter of the Constitution as well as the citizens' collective morality. The law is a living breathing evolution and never an absolute.
Those who wish to hide behind the law often want what they agree with to be etched in stone no longer subject to any questioning of any kind. What's happening in Arizona is in dispute. What we are witnessing is that dispute being played out.
Many mexicans simply want to come over & cut a deal to join our murderous military campaigns for citizenship.
Me thinks we already have too many bloodthirsty, violent citizens of our own
who fit that profile.
Please stay home and stop joining our murderous military machine.
How about this. We adopt Mexico's immigration law and use the same level of enforcement they do?
How about we adopt Mexico's general treatment of illegal aliens? Treat them just as the Mexicans treat their illegal aliens?
How about that twolines?
Just a point about the busts for minute traffic violations. These are also essentially poverty stings. Folks with money usually get these things taken care of quickly by someone else.
Latinas/latinos, indians and poorer folk find cheaper ways and do their own repairs. Rather than being given credit for their ingenuity and sustainable habits, they are punished for their race and/or class.
First of all, let's be clear - there are Latinos and Indians with money. I do agree with you, however, that the "busts" are pointed toward those with less money which is often true throughout the legal system. Also, those who are being asked to prove their citzenship are those who look Mexican or speak with an accent. The poorer people with busted tail lights who don't look Mexican are simply ticketed and sent along their way.
A slightly right-wing friend complained of having to wait in line for non-emergency medical treatment behind a group of people speaking Spanish.
She was perturbed that these 'illegal aliens' were allowed to be treated before her 100-percent American self.
When I asked how she knew they were illegally in the country, she said, "Well, duh, they were speaking Spanish."
I said the mere fact they were speaking Spanish didn't mean they were illegal. On top of that, I reminded her that her Polish and German ancestors didn't speak much English when they came over here. How would she have felt standing in line behind a bunch of people who were speaking Polish or German?
"Well," she replied angrily, "that's entirely different! Stop trying to confuse the issue!"
Yes, it is different -- the Poles or Germans would likely have been white. That the basic issue, stripped of all the 'protect our borders' hysteria -- simple racism by people who don't want to suffer the social opprobrium of admitting they're racists.
You're partly right, redwriteman; obviously, this country was founded by armed revolt.
However, look around the world: corporate totalitarianism is collapsing of its own weight. The corporatists are running out of peasants to screw and starting to screw each other. They can't help themselves; they are like sharks who have to keep eating, and now they are eating themselves up in their insensate greed. The disaster capitalism syndrome cited by Naomi Klein is turning on itself and they aren't smart enough to imagine any way to stop it -- they'll still be demanding their bailouts and bonuses even while the building in burning down around them. It's who they are -- dumb, ruthless sociopaths.
I just hope there will be enough pieces to pick up after Goliath falls completely.
Nonviolent resistance is no guarantee that violence won't follow, so no hand is tipped, or not the hand of an entire movement at any rate.
Even if one might demonstrate that Watts and the Weathermen were necessary for civil rights and an exit from Vietnam, that would not demonstrate that nonviolent resistance was not vital as well.
There are a lot of tactical advantages to nonviolence, and you shouldn't dismiss it as a lesser or moderated response. If I may make a suggestion rather than attempt the entire argument here, the works of Gene Sharp are worth checking on this. Some are available online at the Albert Einstein Institution:
http://www.aeinstein.org/
What if one of the groups who are against this law were to call on thousands of citizens of all persuasions, accents and skin colors from all over the USA to come to a major AZ city without their papers to demand to be arrested for not having papers? Then have everyone refuse to assist in making the determination of whether they were citizens or otherwise in the US legally? It would fill up the jails for a while and if there were more than there was jail space for, what then? Including a few of the few remaining journalists in the mix would make for an interesting story. It might even make the evening news.
Shame you didn't actually read the law.
"the state’s anti-immigrant law"
And here, once again is the dishonest shill for business pretending that illegal immigration is no different than legal immigration. How people believe this trash is beyond me.
Trying to justify criminal acts or compare further criminal acts with the Civil Rights Movement or the reasons for the American Revolution should be an embarrasment for those.
Next the racists will show up claiming racism is the cornerstone of the people of Arizona's opinion.
The most pathetic claim is that somehow the criminal is guiltless and the victim is guilty.
Those that support exploitation , support human trafficking, expose themselves for what they are. The facts are plain and only self gratification can explain support for the cheap labor agenda.
Real evil lies, uses false language, false comparisons and false phrases.
What makes you think there weren't people during the civil rights movement or the American Revolution who weren't trying to justify criminal behavior (their own) as they fought King George or Jim Crow laws? In order to change things people often have to break the law they are protesting in order to change it. That's how it works, Protest is messy and change is often painful, but that's the American way - we were born through revolution and change.
You have your own brand of dishonesty on this issue.
An honest discussion on this subject would include the measures Arizona has taken (SB1070 and HB2281) and the intent of those bills. Also included in an honest discussion of this controversy would be the nature of the jobs that generally are taken by people illegally crossing the southern border of this country and the real impact on our economy (both positive and negative). An honest discussion would attempt to understand who is generally impacted, and the plusses and minuses of these economic refugees on our culture and economy.
An honest discussion would include an exploration of the needs of our economy for unskilled labor and how those jobs would often go unfilled if employers (of all ilk from small farmers to big business) didn't hire illegal immigrants.
Also what should be included in a fair discussion are the economic policies of the US, how and why these policies have been put into place, and how these policies have impacted on the economy and the citizens of our country and other countries as well.
Also, a fair discussion would also include the impact on our economy by the legal in name only policies and laws (written for and by the corporate culture and its minnions) for the "white collar" sector of the job market for the benefit of big business and to the detriment of the US workers and our economy. In fact, this alone has a bigger impact on our domestic economy than the unskilled workers crossing the border illegally.
An honest discussion of this subject would also include the nature of the legal moves attempted by the state of Arizona. If this is just about illegal aliens then why did the Arizona government pass HB2281 - prohibiting ethnic studies in public schools? If this is only about illegal aliens, then why does SB1070 essentially give law enforcement the right to racial profiling? How one looks or speaks is absolutely no indicator as to whether one is a citizen or not. As an example, if my father were alive today he would be a target in Arizona because he looked Mexican and spoke with an accent. Even though he was born in this country he would not have been able to prove it since he was never able to locate his birth certificate. The spirit behind the Arizona measures is just plain un-American - but that's another subject, or maybe not.
Simply focusing on the poor, destitute, and desperate people who are crossing our southern border in serach of a life and a job and trying to make an argument that they are responsible for the problems with our economy is it's own kind of dishonesty.
Calling those who protest racism as being racist is still another form of dishonesty.
Also, your attempts at defing "immigrant" through your own narrow filter of legality is also dishonest. Grammatically the word "immigrant" is not reserved for just those who adhere to some legal system. Also, in the spirit of this issue your definition is simply an attempt at framing the people crossing the border as criminals with no other considerations needed to clearly see what the whole context of this issue is. It's a weak argument when viewed through the entire context of this issue and again another form of dishonesty on your part.
I believe most thinking people can see that immigration and immigration policies are a problem that needs fixing. It is clear that the measures Arizona took are not the solutions. They are un-American and will never be the correct direction for this country - never. The struggle we are witnessing is between one group that says we need to find another way and another group that just keeps saying no to that.
MightyMite, I glad you respect truth. Do you respect the truth that most of the employers of illegal immigrants are big donors to the Republican Party? Do you respect the truth that the GOP is simply using this as a wedge issue in the mid-term elections and has no intention of prosecuting or jailing any of the people who illegally hire undocumented workers? Further, do you know this truth about Republican Gov. Jan Brewer: Two of her top aides are also employed by private prison corporations, paid for by the taxpayers, and that those corporations would make millions from incarcerating illegal immigrants arrested under AZ's SB 1070 law? Watch this video:
"Private Prisons Set to Gain From AZ Immigration Bill"
http://www.clicker.com/tv/the-rachel-maddow-show/Private-prisons-set-to-gain-from-AZ-immigration-bill-1047685/
So, the truth is that Brewer and her underlings are arranging a corrupt profit-making scheme for some of her biggest campaign contributors. That's the real, bottom-line truth: political corruption. I hope you can handle that you've been made a sucker of by lowlifes out for their own gain at the taxpayers' expense.
"The point had been made: people were tired of living in fear"
What fear? No American has to live in fear here. Disgusting liars and hypocrites abound among the illegal alien, cheap labor supporters.
mitymite
Did you ever in your life lie? Ever been a hypocrite? Broken a law no matter how small? Buy something that was a good deal or cheap? Felt alienation? I already know you are disgusted, but what about no fear?
You may have stopped at the wrong planet.