Here are some pictures from the protest:
The crowd grew bigger over the course of the afternoon, peaking at a few hundred.
Protesters used umbrellas to shade themselves from the sun.
Some of the speakers were alright:
Like this guy, who was pretty animated.
But, honestly, some of the speakers seemed more intent on reliving the sixties’ protest era than on actually making the case against SB 1070. For example, one enthusiastic speaker argued that SB 1070 was an example of heterosexism, and would in practice be both anti-queer and anti-woman. Another speaker urged us to follow the migrant children in order to find our souls. I’m sorry, but huh?
But, as with all protests, the point is to express one’s outrage and disappointment over an unjust action. And for many protesters, that was accomplished by protest signs. Here are some great ones:
This one was easily my favourite.
A little simplistic, but we get the reference to racial profiling (in essence redndering "brown-ness" a crime)...
I still want to know: what does illegal look like?
This was by far the better side of this sign. The other side read something like "UA Abjure Nativist Hysteria" -- which requires a dictionary to properly understand
But then, there were also some protest signs that were just ill-conceived and in poor taste. I do not agree with the sentiments in these signs:
Godwin's Law!
There are so many things wrong with this sign, I don't even know where to start...
And, of course, with every protest of this magnitude, you get the haters, who come to desperately represent the “other side”. This woman accosted the local news reporters who were trying desperately not to die from sunstroke, and remarked (rather loudly), “All they want to do is to open the borders. They’re trying to take over.”
The woman in the green suffers from fears of the Brown Peril.
And we caught a picture of one dude flipping off the protest as he walked by.
Because that's the level of debate we're at right now. The two middle fingers are just above the girl's head, right in the center of the image.
All in all, while the protest had its ups and downs, it felt good to hit the streets and express my own disapproval of SB 1070. I think it’s important that those of us who spend time blogging about injustice actually make the effort to extend our activism beyond the internet. It’s not enough to just point out inequity and racism around us, we must take the time to actually enact change — even if it’s just by adding our voices with others in civil protest.
I hope that every American, regardless of where he lives, will stop and examine his conscience about this and other related incidents. This Nation was founded by men of many nations and backgrounds. It was founded on the principle that all men are created equal, and that the rights of every man are diminished when the rights of one man are threatened. All of us ought to have the right to be treated as he would wish to be treated, as one would wish his children to be treated, but this is not the case.
I know the proponents of this law say that the majority approves of this law, but the majority is not always right. Would women or non-whites have the vote if we listen to the majority of the day, would the non-whites have equal rights (and equal access to churches, restaurants, hotels, retail stores, schools, colleges and yes water fountains) if we listen to the majority of the day? We all know the answer, a resounding, NO!
Today we are committed to a worldwide struggle to promote and protect the rights of all who wish to be free. In a time of domestic crisis men of good will and generosity should be able to unite regardless of party or politics and do what is right, not what is just popular with the majority. Some men comprehend discrimination by never have experiencing it in their lives, but the majority will only understand after it happens to them.
I don’t have a problem with the “Fire Fuhrer Brewer” or better yet “The Pilgrims were Illegal” posters. The first one is funny, and the second is accurate.
The entire immigration “debate” as defined by both so-called Progressives and Conservatives is a limited one and obscures fundamental issues.
Namely, America is a colonizer nation premised upon the conquest and (continuing) occupation of other people’s land–from Hawaii to Native Indian nations to Aztlan. And the Pilgrims were the first wave of (illegal) Anglo colonizers.
Indeed, it should be remembered that Arizona–like the rest of the so-called “American” Southwest and California were originally part of Mexico.
The USA stole this land as a result of the Mexican-American War, a war to defend the institution of US chattel slavery and a land grab to steal of half of Mexican territory.
There is something truly Orwellian that (European) American are so arrogant that they can accuse brown-skinned indigenous Mexicans of being illegal or trespassing on what is rightfully Mexican/Native land.
But such is the sense of racial entitlement and possessiveness displayed by White colonizers.
Deep down, they believe they have a God-given right to possess the world.
perhaps…you endorse this…
http://sroblog.com/2010/05/08/l-a-teacher-calls-for-mexican-revolt-in-the-u-s-video/#comment-8410
LXY…what language do Mexicans primarily speak?
@ steveb
What point are you trying to make?
Here’s something for you. Enjoy.
http://raimd.wordpress.com/2010/05/07/may-day-2010-denver/
@Lxy,
I have no problem with pointing out the overtly colonial sentiments of America. I do have a problem with examples of Godwin’s Law, because I think references to the Holocaust in something that has very little to do with the Holocaust only muddies the waters. Just like I criticized MoveOn.org for comparing Bush to Hitler — even if the parallel is apt (or not), I think it’s an emotional appeal that doesn’t help win the argument. It’s inciteful, and turns the debate less into “why SB 1070 is wrong” and more into “why Jan Brewer is/isn’t Hitler”.
As for “the pilgrims were illegal” — the implication is that pilgrims were illegal immigrants. As there was no national government at the time that the pilgrims landed, they wouldn’t be comparable to the modern concept of illegal immigrants. They invaded America, and took the country from the Native community, but they didn’t violate immigration law in doing so.
So, again, I don’t think the sign was appropriate — I felt it was misleading.
the point, lxy, is quite obvious.
but in all reality, these little rantings will go nowhere. More and more states are going to take up the charge…which will ultimately force pimpbama to act.
It is coming to a head.
And I do believe it won’t be in favor of la raza.
@ steveb.
Now you are resorting to disingenous semantic debates about the definition of “illegal.” Apparently, a genodicial war of colonization, which the Pilgrims were part of, is perfectly legal, since there was no “national government” (i.e. Western-style political entity) in the Americas.
What logic.
“but in all reality, these little rantings will go nowhere. More and more states are going to take up the charge…which will ultimately force pimpbama to act.”
This almost sounds like a euphemism for the racial cleansing of immigrants from the USA.
“All Men are created equal”! The founders had it right, when attempting to form a perfect union and they also knew that they were not there yet but knew we one day would get there. Lincoln moved us forward as did JFK and LBJ. This Nation was founded by men of many nations and backgrounds. It was founded on the principle that all men are created equal, and that the rights of every man are diminished when the rights of one man are threatened.
It is my contention that this AZ law is not constitutional and will fail when challenged (unless they add more amendments), pretty funny for this so called perfect law.
@Lxy,
I was the one talking about pilgrims being “illegal”, not steveb. I think it is a valid argument regarding semantics. Illegal immigrants are immigrants into a country who landed and reside in the country in a manner not condoned by the national country they have immigrated into. It is a very specific thing that they are, and a very specific set of laws that have been broken.
The pilgrims were not illegal immigrants. They did not break any form of national immigration law when landing in the Americas. Their colonial and genocidal actions were immoral and unethical, but they were not specifically illegal either.
I’m not saying what the pilgrims did was right. Quite the contrary — I am saying that it is effed up that the bloody history of the Western colonialization of the Americas is too often ignored, even by their contemporaries of the time. It is effed up that what they did WASN’T illegal. But, let’s remember that slavery was not illegal at the time, either — yet, we have no problem condemning slavery precisely because it wasn’t illegal. By the same token, pilgrims were not illegals.
And let’s not muddy the waters by attempting to draw comparisons between pilgrims and illegal immigrants. The parallel simply cannot be made, nor does it help buoy up the anti-SB 1070 side of the argument.