A Movement Weekend: Boogs, Outsiders and Leadership

https://globalnews.ca/news/7219576/virginia-protesters-fire-windows/

Another weekend in Richmond, another set of confrontations between police and protestors. Sunday night’s zero-tolerance crackdown by police was clearly motivated by Saturday’s protest action. And it’s Saturday's action that has raised a LOT of questions, especially about movement leadership. Again, the lack of easy answers shows why movement politics is so hard to follow - for observers AND participants.

Saturday night's action did not seem to be organized by folks that have been involved in RVA’s #BlackLivesMatter protests. It was mostly promoted by an infamous flyer that was all over social media. (By the way, that link is from Republican legislator Todd Gilbert circulating the flyer. Apparently he is Antifa now.)

The flyer notes: “Richmond Stands With Portland... No bad protesters. No good cops. Come prepared. Wear a mask. Bring water. No peace police. Do what you want. Fuck shit up.”

Richmond police chief Gerald Smith said afterwards that the flyer had a “tone of intimidation and fear," implying that it was meant to incite.

Maybe. I should probably mention here how I have repeatedly described the problem with dividing protestors and protest actions into “peaceful” and otherwise. Still, this flyer was definitely provocative, and suggested someone had become fed up with concerns over where to draw the line of acceptable behavior. “Fuck shit up” can mean lots of things to lots of people. Noise? Property damage? Threats? Assault?

Chief Smith suggested that Saturday night’s action was organized by folks from outside the city; in doing so, he was echoing claims by some folks online who had been involved in the movement. Some have blamed the so-called “boogaloo boys,” a white militia group, and possibly some problematic Black activists from outside of town. City Council member Stephanie Lynch, who has been supportive of protestors in general, said so on her Twitter feed on Sunday morning, noting that the “R-wing is actively and intentionally hurting the movement.”

The boogs were definitely at Saturday night’s event. Their presence is as concerning as their motivations are murky. The loosely organized group has roots in white supremacy, and seem interested in supporting #BlackLivesMatter only because it might incite a larger civil war. Their “alliance” with #BLM protestors seems entirely predatory and toxic.

But online reports conflicted about whether the action was actually led by boogs, or whether they just tried to appear involved and powerful. There were Black leaders there as well, although again, some on the social meds suggested they were outsiders there for the wrong reasons.

Clarity will be hard to find. But underlying all the concerns about Saturday night are the same questions: why can’t Richmond’s leadership keep out bad actors? Who invited these boogaloos anyway?

Remember: movements have some order, but they do not – they cannot by their nature – follow a strict hierarchy. Leaders become leaders through force of charisma, resources and skills, and even background politicking. They can disagree. They also can demonstrate the petty jealousies you find in any group of people.

Is that rival group leader a clout-chaser looking to build an Instagram following, or do you just disagree with them about the best way to move forward? Is that activist who works with white allies a skilled leader who brings diverse people to the table, or a collaborator captured by opposing interests? When should you work with police, if ever? When does a movement action go too far? Sometimes the people involved know the truth. But not always; well-meaning activists can still get it wrong. And with movement politics it's hard to know what's right in the first place. 

On Saturday we saw the first fires and broken windows in a while. And so police got the tear gas out again; on Sunday night they threatened journalists and rounded up people on flimsy pretexts.  

Maybe this latest bit of disruptive action helps move the city towards achieving movement goals. But no matter what there are costs – to protestors, of course, but also in terms of support from “normie” Richmonders who still are prone to misunderstanding contentious politics. Republican politicians are making hay of the disturbance, and RTD comments are unsurprisingly full of concerns about “thugs” and “rioters.” But they are closer to the mainstream than protestors would want.

And we again find local officials and police blaming outsiders for protests, including the boogeyman of “Antifa.” Complaints about “outside agitators” are as old as protest politics, and they represent a dangerous turn that allows authorities to demonize opponents. As I wrote nearly two months ago, “Authorities promote the ‘outside agitator’ narrative, and have for decades, because it lets them pretend they are not engaged in open warfare on their own citizens.” (Antifa is, essentially, the new communism.)

And so local organizers face the horns of a dilemma. On the one hand, they need to avoid playing into the hands of authorities by blaming poor tactical decisions or overly-provocative actions on “outside agitators.” But they still need to police their own ranks (pun intended) to try and maintain some unity in the movement and avoid being hijacked by bad actors.

That's movement politics. A single person or group cannot “own” a movement. This allows for a diversity of tactics, voices, and energies; when it all works, it is transformative for participants and society. But that same freedom and informality allows for fragmentation, diversion and bad faith.

It’s a hard road to navigate. And it again shows the tremendous power of the moment we're in right now, and how much had to go wrong to bring us here. Movements don’t happen because they are easy. Movements happen because there's no other choice.