"Power wants your body softening in your chair and your emotions dissipating on the screen. Get outside. Put your body in unfamiliar places with unfamiliar people. Make new friends and march with them." -Tim Snyder
A community for sharing information about ways to get involved with real world activism to make the world a better place.
Spend less time arguing about politics on the internet. The world is in trouble. Get out there and try to help.
I've read an article where one of the protestors said that these yellow hardhats aren't actually so good, they break after one good hit. Better go with something more sturdy.
Alsoy the umbrella serves another function. The more moderate protestors can use it to block vision while the radicals change to be ready when the police comes.
Those HK protests were really sophisticated.
Also don't forget proper encrypted messaging.
The laser pen part makes me uneasy, on one hand its maximum damage for minnimum percieved violence, on the other hand you could cause permament blindness which is a hell of a thing to inflict on anyone regardless of circumstances. Its genius but also pretty brutal.
If one uses a disco laser or laser pointer in the visible wavelength range, it's hard to inflict permanent blindness with it. During the time it would take to inflict thermal damage to the retina, reflexes kick in and the person looking into a laser will close their eye and turn their head.
Occurrences of permanent blindness are rare. This study, even if a bit old (2015) introduces the topic with helpful case reports, for example:
Two young soldiers (Cases 1 and 2) aged 27 and 28 years respectively, serving in the Oman army, projected penlight like devices emanating bright blue-green light into each others eyes (left eye for Case number 1 and right eye for Case number 2) for about 5–10 s. They competed with each other to determine who could bear the light longer while celebrating the success of a local football game.
Basically, they did the utmost stupidity: forcing oneself to stare into a laser at close range. They paid a price and damaged their vision, but didn't go blind from it.
Of course, it's a different story with cutting and engraving lasers, and lasers outside the visible wavelengths - you can stare into those without any reflexes helping avoid damage. The same article mentions another source, reporting about a guy (also military) who looked into a high-power range finder and perforated his fovea (the area where high-resolution vision occurs). It was most likely an infrared laser.
So, be careful but disco lasers won't strike a person blind.
It was the biggest sign of Chinese people actually demonstrating in the streets fighting the opression. Not sure we will see something like that in the next 20 years in China again. It was impressive to see how they were organized and fought for their freedom
Chinese people literally just protested against Zero Covid policy which resulted it being ended.
Edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_COVID-19_protests_in_China
It's crazy that they protested to allow covid, instead of to make Shanghai comply with zero covid and stop incubating and reinfecting the rest of the country.
Taken from another post:
Covid cases from March-April 2022.
Blue line: Shanghai, orange line: Shenzhen
Shanghai: population 24.87M, density ~4000/sqkm, Western-style lockdown
Shenzhen: population 17.56M, density ~7000/sqkm, Zero Covid lockdown
By December 2022, the entire national Zero Covid policy had to be abandoned. Because one city refused to comply with the national policy.
Where's your source for Shanghai not being under a strict lockdown?
The COVID lockdown was ended after two nights of protests in response to a towerblock in Umruqi burning down while locked shut to keep people and no one could get it opened up in time.
That was not the first case of a sealed building burning, and very shortly after the Guizhou bus crash with no survivors carrying people to a quarantine site late at night.
It was scary how easily it was squelched though.
They didn't have guns.
That's why they are mostly alive. If they were armed, they would have been massacred in great numbers.
Because occupations always go well for the occupiers?
Well, it has gone fairly well for a few hundred years in the USA.
Oh god, hexbear lives on; you think the US has been an authoritarian dictatorship like China since it declared independence.
Your reply seems really disingenuous but sure, I will bite.
I am not from hexbear, I'm pretty sure they got their domain back anyhow.
I never said the USA is comparable to China. In fact I never even mentioned China, so I'm not sure what you got that from.
I just said that the people of the USA are essentially occupiers of land that belongs to the Indians.
Jesus, you don't know Hong Kong is in China?
You must be US-American
What I find disheartening is that it ultimately didn't work. Or am I wrong?
That’s not entirely true. Protests like these, at the very least, demonstrate class awareness to towards those in power. “Look what we can do”
Never forget that true power lies with the people. Always.
It didn't do anything from what I recall.
I believe it was quickly dissolved after they found that the leadership was in direct communication with USA agents.
Plus I recall there was general dissatisfaction from civilians who found the protestors to be a nuisance.
There is no opinion here, just what recall from the event history.
My understanding was that there was some push back and political/police violence but the Chinese state largely let it play out and then within a month or two made mass arrests of the organizers.
This was a broadly supported movement, impressive in its size and unity.
The strategy Xi used was to not over emphasize the level of public support through direct confrontation - but to wipe out all resistance when the “controlled” energy of the crowd has somewhat dissipated.
Lesson for the current environment in the US: have a long term strategy tied to your goals, put very high degrees of pressure on specific state actors / functions that they cannot ignore or wait out
You are correct, it didn't work.
HK was economically dependent on China already, so their last struggle occurred too late, under the implied threat of the Chinese army moving in. The city government found ways to bring in Chinese police (or interior ministry troops) to overcome and outlast the protests.
While there's nothing dangerously inaccurate here, these HK protester situation isn't applicable outside of HK, US cops don't use kiddy gloves like the HK police did. See 2020.
Pretty much the same as the get up for protest in the UK and France, and I'd assume much of Europe.
Think the US is the outlier amongst the global north.
To my knowledge, a US police department was sieged and damaged with fire (somewhat short of getting burnt down) during the rioting that occured after killing George Floyd. The officers had firearms, but because of a mix of reasons did not start indiscriminately shooting at over a thousand people. Perhaps out of enlightened self-interest.
It is definitely worth noting that HK didn't have firearms in civilian circulation, but on a few occasions, police did use their guns to shoot a protester. I recall an incident of a kid with a swimming board and stick being shot in the chest while fighting against cops.
To narrow down the frame a bit further - the situation in HK involved incredibly large mass protest. At least a quarter of the population was on streets on certain days. Young and militant protesters were just the outer edge - most participants were not militant at all. In such a context, police generally do not want to provoke outrage, because they're in a very deep minority.
Much depends on what protesters really want. Every person ultimately has their own ideas, but in broad categories:
Different behaviours will follow depending on goals.
a) Intimidate: showing maximum numbers becomes an important goal. To show maximum numbers, a protest has to be peaceful, so retired people and kids can join. A peaceful mass protest may be a pre-stage for a less peaceful action later, if demands are ignored. It serves to bring people together and bring them into contact with each other. No special gear is required, at least from most participants.
Peaceful mass protest can succeed if a government is frightened of numbers and backs down. It typically works in a democracy.
b) Block: in such situations, protesters often construct roadblocks and barricades around points they care about, and crowd around those points, supplying them - while laying siege to opposing bases, preventing movement by constructing barricades, sabotaging vehicles or slashing tires, denying access to communications, surveillance data, fuel, electricity, heat, water or even sewage.
Blocking a space without offensive action may prevail if a large majority of people do that, against a government which is exhausted, demoralized and has low legitimacy. In the former Soviet block, "velvet revolutions" often involved people persuading soldiers to disobey, offering food, beverage and psychological support to ignore orders, and dissuading cops from showing up at work. This won't work if an opponent has lots of ruthless people willing to kill, who cannot be approached for mass discussion and negotiation. Blocking and persuading will work better if the opponent doesn't feel threatened. If you want someone to defect, you don't approach them with a gun, even if you have one as a backup option. You approach them with beer, preferably a whole crate. :)
c) Defeat: now this is something that usually ends badly. Regardless, it's possible for protesters to defeat a government if the military refrains to act. Revolutions where protesters defeated law enforcement and overthrew a government have typically involved scores of people getting shot. It seems almost a rule that protesters will only win if they escalate fast and cut off law enforcement supply lines. It will help them if an another branch of government is ready to step in and replace the offending one (e.g. parliament is ready to dismiss the president, similar scenarios). If they are slow or can't break supply lines, they'll be defeated or the situation will devolve into a civil war.
At least a quarter of the population was on streets on certain days.
That seems unlikely.
In any case, the HK situation was complicated in the way the Chinese government took extreme cautions not to appear brutal, even when protesters murdered several cops and counter-protesters, while protestors took measures to appeal to foreign audiences to further exploit that.
This dynamic doesn't apply outside of Hong Kong, I can't carry around a sign in chinese in hope that the US fears looking bad to China.
The Chilean protests around that time are much more applicable because the videos coming out weren't designed to appeal to western audiences so they tend to showcase more effective tactics than "bring a $100+ dollar leafblower or have 10 people choreograph a cute routine involving traffic cones", such as "bring a large jug of water, people need water, and you can put tear gas in it." and "use rocks to break up and move police out of an area"
I observed the events keenly. Regarding numbers. As always, in a situation like that, police will under-report the number of protesters, while protesters will over-report the number of protesters. Journalists will try to make sense of it. Two examples:
While police estimated attendance at the march on Hong Kong Island at 270,000, the organisers claimed that 1.03 million people had attended the rally, a number unprecedently high for the city.
A protest on the following day had almost 2 million people participating according to an CHRF estimate, while the police estimated that there were 338,000 demonstrators at its peak.
The spread is rather large, 10 times difference. A survey of mobile phone operators to get their statistics likely would be able to tell how many really participated, but I'm not aware of one, and besides it's all under Chinese control now.
Now, one of your claims sticks out - I need to ask for your source. You write:
the Chinese government took extreme cautions not to appear brutal, even when protesters murdered several cops and counter-protesters
This claim appears to be entirely false. Can you tell, where did you get the information? In retrospect, and in agreement with daily news as I recall them, according to Wikipedia:
Two died during protests and clashes,[11][12] 13 committed suicide.[13][14][15]
[12:55] Student Union appeals: All Hong Kong citizens put down what they are doing at 1pm and observe a moment of silence for Mr. Chow.
12:30 A government spokesperson said in response to media inquiries that the HKUST student fell in a car park in Tseung Kwan O on the morning of November 4 and died after undergoing surgical treatment at the hospital.
A 70-year-old cleaner outsourced by the Food and Civil Supplies Department was hit in the head by a brick opposite the Northern District Hall in Sheung Shui during lunch the day before yesterday. Police said they had arrested suspected persons involved in the case.
I can't source the motivations of the HK police, but their taking cautions to avoid the appearance of police brutality should be evident from comparing the HK protests to the police response to BLM in America or the Chilean protests around that time.
As far as deaths on the police and counter-protesters goes, I thought the guy the protesters lit on fire died, but he's alive, and I can't find any record of deaths from pretty documented use of molotovs, which is very unusual.
But I specifically remember multiple pictures of HK cops engulfed in fire after getting hit directly. Maybe they all lived, but it seems more likely we wouldn't know due to there being no reason for western media to promote them.
The cops were likely doused with ABC powder by their fellow cops, and got away with light burns (heavy clothing helps). Lee Chi-cheung seems to have been hurt badly. The protester with a stick and swimming board was saved by surgeons (the bullet missed his heart).
A side note: some HK brutality was outsourced to the "white shirts", whose allegiance could be denied. (In HK, a black shirt meant you were a protester, while a crowd of young men in white shirts with sticks - was usually associated with triads doing a favour to the city government. Their most publicized "feat" was the mass beating at Yuen Long subway station.) Overall, Hong Kongers seem to have done their protest with "comparatively little violence" (relative to their total number).
When mass protest occurred in Chile, I was busy and missed the news. I managed to register what was happening, but no details.
An example of the cost of a very severe protest which stopped short of a war, would be the Maidan events in Ukraine. The cost was 108 civilians and 13 police killed. A big number for a protest - mostly bullet wounds - but a small number compared to what is taken by a war.
For for falling.
