Video of San Francisco Protest on 2nd Anniversary of Iraq War

-Why the protest as a focus (instead of say a town meeting or other
event where people speak out)? What about peace protests do you find
important and why is the imagery of them (flags waving in the wind,
large masks and signs, marching, people singing with police cars in
the backround etc.) meaningful in what you are trying to do with your
filming?
If a protest happens on the street, and no one sees it, does it make a sound? Partly, I am addicted to filming protests because I feel the presence of video cameras enlarges its impact, creates cyber-solidarity around the world. I really want there to be more "togetherness" in the global peace and justice movement, and obviously want us to be more effective, to be more of a presence in the psyche of the world. Also, for some reason, people's behavior changes dramatically when they are put on the spot on film, and they almost dig deeper into their mind and "spirit" and make more noise--noise not only in the audio sense of the word. Also, I've always been mesmerized by the footage of Vietnam protests, and the civil rights marches where black people are beaten by white cops, and feel that my filming is also for posterity's sake in a similiar sense, to have ever-present in the global psyche the idea that nothing is stagnant. The imagery itself--very good question--I like the flags that represent no nationality, no isolationism--the cops are always there anyway, and
remind one that we live in a specific world order that happens to have police actions outside out country, and raises the question of whose interests are being protected (btw, it's good to have cameras in case the police decide to get violent--then you can prove later who started what, and who used excessive force, as when the Italian anarchist throwing a bottle was shot point-blank and run over with the paddywagon years ago). Protests are "visually rich," for our visually-oriented society, and they just really tend to stand out against a backdrop of greyish-brown "everyday life." This is my answer to why are protests more important than people debating over drinks or at a closed meeting: because they defy the temptation to obey arbitrary norms of decent behavior, and strive to create new norms of what it means to be a decent human being, that is to express your ideals to random people and engage the public forum.

-What does documentation of an event like this have to do with change?
Meaning docmentation as opposed to just participation? Other than
getting something that is probably newsworthy (and would not be shown
for more than thirty seconds on the local news) out there for people
to witness, is there another goal?
I sort of touched on these questions, but really the most important thing
documentation of a protest can do is actually change the way we do engage the public. You have a visual record of one specific protest, and that creates ideas about what is wrong (for example lack of people of color) and what can be made better (like the guy at the end, Brian Becker, head of ANSWER, who sponsored the rally: why should he have the last word, and claim to represent the whole movement, who else can we get to speak coherently that don't come off as having any grandiose political/leadership ambitions?)

-Do you believe that this style of non-violent protest is the way to
create global change?
I believe this type of non-violent protest does raise awareness, connects
disparate groups of people, and sends an overall message about resolving
conflicts through peaceful, if not impassioned communication. However, I truly believe that there must be a massive willingness to change aspects of society, such as the existence of torture, for it to actually happen, and no amount of yelling will create that willingness. The democratization of information is one key, I believe, to global change: employing Empire's broad reach across the world and its few open channels of communication to spread information about injustice and oppression, obviously so as to enable people to understand what kind of collective action is necessary. Also, spreading information about what kinds of groups, companies or governments are truly the root of suffering and exploitation precedes any attempt to withdraw active or tacit support for these groups. There is no one way to create global change, unless you consider history and take all of the methods together and call them one thing. But even then, you're selling yourself short by foreclosing future, unwritten tactics to creating change.

-Was everybody there white?
Of course not. But there is a very serious problem, the Green Party has it too, where poverty, the racist criminal justice system, and disenfranchisement of black voters are huge issues to peace and justice activists, but somehow there isn't even a proportional representation of people of color when we do actions. "Reaching out to these groups" is brought up over and over again, but it doesn't seem to really work;. I'm not sure if it has to do with people of color's perception that the reaching out is done only for the sake of saying we're reaching out, or if they feel like they're only asked to join hands when there's an election, then after that they're shunned. On the other hand, I think underground hip-hop has already surpassed 60's rock in its ability to be an icon of revolution and resistance to imperial oppression, and the more comfortable everyone gets with white people being really into independent hip-hop, and white people creating hip-hop that people of color dig, the better.

-What are the benefits of having a bunch of people who agree with
eachother being loud together in a public space? What are the
downsides?
It definitely helps lift one's spirit, gives one hope, to have a visceral sense
that you are not alone in your perception that society is terribly ill and needs an extreme makeover. The downside is that by taking over the street, you are pissing others off and they will cover their ears to your message no matter how sensible it is. It's quite complicated; by inconveniencing those whose minds you wish to change, you are sending them the message that your ideas are so important you can't afford NOT to inconvenience them, so they might as well give it a listen, or take time to reflect on their own thoughts on the issue of the war at the very least.

-Do you think that, on average, most people at a peace protest believe
that their attendance at that event will directly illicit large scale
change? If not, why are they there? What do they get out of it?
I think a substantial amount do hope that their attendance will create the
change they seek; I'm sure the turnouts are lower than two years ago because many don't have that hope anymore, and cannot justify getting out of bed, or not drinking too much Friday night so as to be able to wake up early and just consider going. If you look at recent large demonstrations in other countries, notably the Ukraine, Kyrgystan, and Lebanon, 99.9% of those people believe that they will take control of their society by reclaiming the streets, and not surprisingly, they are extremely successful. How many marches did they have to do? Not one per year; they stayed in the streets for a week or stormed presidential buildings until the leaders just said "fuck it, I have no legitmacy, I'm out." In America, there is serious fatigue that we protest so much and nothing seems to change, but our change is not as easy: we live in the belly of the fucking beast, not its outer extremities.
But it's like the rationale that leads half of people in this country to vote
and half to not. Even if you pick the challenger/loser, why stay home and not give it a shot, to express one wish to change your society, because you are afforded that freedom for a pretty damn good reason. Many protestors, including myself, could not live with ourselves if we did not keep vocally repeating the need for change, if we didn't vote our conscience so to speak. To some extent, those who have little hope for success but make themselves go out to the protest anyway are re-affirming their identity of obstinance and surrounding themselves with like-minded people because it just feels right deep down to do so.


-What does the sillyness in the atmosphere of most peace protests
(masks, darkly funny signs, dancing, music, costumes) have to do with
the seriousness of the war being protested? Is this the only way to
communicate to a large, moving mass of people? Is something lost in
the simplification of complicated political arguments for mass
consumption? How could this be avoided in a new kind of protest?
The sillyness has it's upsides and downsides. It lifts spirits generally, can
effectively draw attention to truly absurd aspects of the world (The Abu-Ghraib fraternity bit made it on the Associated Press article, which was reprinted in thousands of papers around the world). The downside is that the war is as serious as a unexploded cluster bomblet in an Iraqi child's hand, and the more people wrenching their hearts thinking about this, the sooner we will change the way we treat the rest of the world. Al-Jazeera probably would never air any sort of comedy because their audience is so freaking angry at US and their allies actions. In America, why do we need funny news of the Jon Stewart variety? Something about the illuminating of absurdity does actually make you at times so angry and at times feel so powerless and resigned. My verdict is out on The Daily Show, because I'm not sure if it is really effectively engaging and motivating young people or if it is subverting their inclination to act on their knowledge by being such a comically reliable source. What is to be done? The blac bloc
does what it can to scorn the atmosphere of ANSWER's sponsored marches by playing loud music while speakers are talking, breaking away from the march to go shout outside the GAP or army recruiting centers, but they are in turn looked at as ineffective and powerless themselves by the rest of the protestors. The only thing to be done is to have smaller actions that attempt to engage the rest of the public in visceral, dark ways, but that have a clear message and an ability to be as complex as necessary.