portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reporting portland metro

actions & protests | labor may day 2001-2012

May Day March has small turn-out, overbearing police

one observer's thoughts about the may day march last sunday, in detail.
The May Day Rally and March were like a lot of protests lately, in that the turn out was low and there was little sense of community and cohesion. The entire day was colored by the sense of the different forces turning out that day—several different unions, of course, the Northwest Anarchist Federation, the Freedom Socialist Party, and countless different sorts of people from all walks of life—from young anarchists with dreadlocks to elderly activists with faded tattoos—merely tolerating each others' presence, as opposed to being energized by the spirit of collective action.
My first clue was the group of middle-aged men in sandwich boards lined up at the back of the crowd sporting messages like "SINNERS GO TO HELL" and "FEAR GOD, LOVE JESUS." Their ringleader was a bright-eyed young Ralph Reed look-alike who stood at the very front of the crowd and helped spark the most unified statement of the day: the Left wing is angry, self-righteous, hateful, and extremely easily distracted from its purpose by anyone with the courage prod its emotions as opposed to encouraging its mind. Wearing a dime-store suit and ragged boots, the preacher stood on Couch St right in front f the flat bed truck decorated with union banners that served as a make-shift stage. A band called General Strike was strumming tired Union songs, the type that maybe, perhaps, could overcome the fact they were relics of a previous era if they weren't so lazily delivered, as if the performers were convinced that the songs' very existence insured that their message would be understood and celebrated. "Bring In the Union," "This Land is Your Land"—when divorced of the immediacy given to them by the vibrant movement that created them—or even the passion that David Carradine pretended to have when he played Woody Guthrie in Hal Ashby's "Bound for Glory"—they might as well be playing to preschool children, seeing as I have memories of singing "This Land is Your Land" in elementary school music class anyway.
And most of the speakers fell into that trap—inspiring nostalgia instead of action. This rally was not about activism today, was not living in the world where the forces of today's economy are causing worse conditions than ever for working people all over the world. Not that all that many people listened to the speakers. The preacher created such a cleavage in the energy of the protest, constantly surrounded by at least two people in a drawn-out and incoherent debate, involving mostly hot-under-the-collar name-calling. The Bible activists, even in their small numbers, did a lot to distract from the celebration of worker solidarity that was supposed to highlight the day. One union organizer fought a running verbal battle with the preacher throughout the event, asking him to move aside. He naturally refused, and continued to relish each outburst of anger and frustration coming from the obviously fragile and sensitive members of the left wing. "This is great!" he even said at one point.
And what was accomplished? Well even the tiny shreds of solidarity, even the smallest resin of unity that may have been achieved that day was nearly ruined. The organizer lined up three of the Union security volunteers, dressed in bright orange shirts and ballcaps, who stood stone-faced in front of the preacher as everyone took their turns trying to be the one that broke his resolve (nobody did). On several occasions, circles were formed around the preacher in an attempt to "hide" him, when in reality they simply drew more attention to him than they would have if they'd simply ignore him. He couldn't have been happier with himself, seeing as he'd so skillfully manipulated activists' emotions and sensitivities. You can't waste your time trying to convert somebody like that—he is a brick wall against your emotion you will run smack into, and he will suck all of your energy away with statements like "Homosexuality directly causes AIDS." That's what he's for, and that's what he wants to accomplish. And I must say—he did a fine job.
The speakers did their best to distract from the Bible thumpers, though, with differing levels of effectiveness. By far the two most inspiring of the speakers, possessing the most charisma and the purest desire to bring people together, were Jamie Billig of the Northwest Anarchist Federation and Laura Mannon of the Freedom Socialist Party. While most other speakers revisited the past, Billig and Mannon actually discussed things that could be learned from the past and applied to the future.
Billig spoke mainly on the "uneasy alliance" that has existed between anarchists and the labor movement for decades, and how anarchists have provided the passion and the drive to keep the labor movement going whenever it stalled. He also spoke of the need for anarchism to no longer be seen as a social group comprised of the people sitting on the sidewalk around Pioneer Square and demanding hand-outs and getting belligerent when they don't get what they want. "Dammit," Billig said, "people involved in anarchy need the labor movement just as much as the labor movement needs anarchists." May Day is, after all, observed in recognition of the Haymarket Affair of 1886, in which a labor demonstrationw as interrupted by an explosion that resulted, through a great deal of maneuvering from the police and the courts, in the trial of the famous "Anarchist Eight," and the suicide and/or execution of all but two. Whenever anarchists and the labor movement have worked together the best—such as the period at the beginning of the twentieth century before World War I, the labor movement has been strong, working from the core anarchist principles Billig described as "direct democracy, direct action, freedom, and equality." Of the four major forms of government seen in the twentieth century—fascism, capitalism, communism, and anarchism—Billig argued that only anarchism encouraged freedom and equality all the time. He even had an answer to the Bible activists, referring to the legendary anarchist leader Prudhon, who based his anarchist principles on the society of Jesus and the Apostles. A fine speech, espousing values that were tried during the march itself.
Mannon echoed Billig's cry for solidarity. "General strikes shut this country down in the past, and we'll do it again," she said. "Why the hell shouldn't we take control of the system?" her voice boomed over the crowd, inspiring one of the few moments when cheers broke out, and people paid more attention to the stage than to the Bible activists.
Jason Wallach put the day in perspective, stating the numbers of people turning out for May Day protests around the world—200,000 (!) in San Salvador. Mexico, 150,000. In Brazil, 11,000 people set off on a 25-day march. Looking around the thin and un-united crowd, I couldn't help but feel ashamed. Yes, yes, we're all just so liberal and anarchist here in Portland, aren't we now? We all have our pretty tattoos and our collections of punk vinyl but it's all style, isn't it? When it comes time for people to actually turn out, very little happens. There's the whole problem with Portland, the American "liberal utopia"—it's all style and no substance. It's a pose. It shows little more than just how comfortable and pampered Americans are, where everyone in this supposedly liberal city can't be bothered to turn out for an event, when in the Third World—the place where people are actually experiencing the conditions that the majority of Portlanders only hear about here and there—the real "liberal utopia" is being created out of ther crumbling infrastructure of countries that are collapsing under the capitalist system, where their workers are languishing under the working conditions at outsourced factories from American corporations, like Portland's own Nike. Liberal city, huh? Hmmmm.
But the march happened in any case, small and dislocated as it was. The police told me they thought the police and the march organizers were on the same page. "We feel it's our duty to protect everyone's rights equally," I was told by Officer Larry O'Dea.
Sure enough, the police were there, enforcing those "freedoms," which apparently meant bearing down on the small march with a level of man-power absolutely ridiculous considering the size and attitude of the march. A police car began by leading everyone down NW Park, with bike police on all sides. Each group carried its signs and chanted its chants, and a right was taken at NW Hoyt.
It was when the march got to the downtown Post Office that things got interesting. As the Union leaders were occupied up front as a postal worker spoke to the crowd, a group of anarchists at the back—none over eighteen, all wearing raggedy clothing—began spilling lighter fluid onto a flag. One of the Union Cops grabbed the flag and held onto it tightly and refused to let it go. The sound of yelling from the anarchists could be heard, although the Union cop never yelled back, he just held onto the flag (I would learn later that he'd said it was "arson," which isn't true) as the group surrounded him, attempting to address him: "You're not supposed to be hierarchical" one person said, but he wasn't going to listen, grasping that flag as if it were his only child, with a seeming need to cling to it that overcame any desire to talk the situation out. People were pulling on him from all sides, and finally somebody got the flag from him. John Svob, the chairman of the May Day Committee and one of the march's organizers, came over and settled down the Union men.
"Let 'em do it," Svob said, in an authoritative male voice that the Union cop would understand, "It's their civil right." Only at that point did he stand down.
The march continued up Broadway. I was disturbed with what I'd seen. It seemed to be a reminder of the inherent problem with the union system in America—it becomes too much of a part of what it was founded to be a fight against, and ends up dictating workers' values to them from above, as opposed to allowing the workers to create their own opinions. The march continued up NW Broadway, where, finally, there were some people to watch us. There is absolutely no discernable difference between the response of your average bourgeois bystander to a march. As people walked out of the cafes and bars and hotels to watch, I saw over and over again the repetition of the same expression, on after another... sure, they see you... uh... they're not sure what's going on, uh... they, uh... they—they don't have the time—that's it!—they don't have the time to find out anymore, and they just stare for a little while longer, and then, once the march passes by, once there's no direct stimulation of their senses, it's onto the next little ceramic castle in the fishbowl they live in.
At one of the intersections along Broadway, I figured something out, though, something that had been bothering me since the post office. I saw a motorcycle cop standing at the intersection, stopping traffic, and I saw the look on his face, the steely Clint Eastwood squint and the perfect manly posture... and I saw the Union cop in my mind again... they could have been the same person, having dashed behind one of the buildings and changed clothes, playing multiple roles in the march that day. Was there anything in the heart and soul of that Union cop back there, throwing his body atop the American flag, that would stop him, inherently, from being that traffic cop? Was there any difference in values at all? Was there a vague dislike of hierarchical authority, a vague dislike of the concept of the boss, who did none of the actual work, reaping the benefits of the work he did? An idea like maybe what those from above tell you should not be taken at face value? I'd tried talking to that same Union cop at the rally, when he'd been one of the ones standing in front of the preacher on Couch St, and he'd just shook his head and shrugged his shoulders, and that's what he'd done after the flag incident, and I wondered if there were anyting more going on than that, with both him and the movement he was supposed to be a representative of.
The march turned eat on Madison. The bike police revolved around the crowd like Christmas lights on tracking, ringing all around. They were like a cell wall—keeping the protoplasm and the nucleus and the mitochondrians inside by its ability to remain rigid yet flexible, mobile and versatile. (Hmmm... wonder where they got idea from?) When the marchers passed Police Headquarters, the contrast of worldviews between the members of the march became pronounced once again. Several police officers were blocking the door that opened onto SW 2nd Ave, and several of the march's younger members were stopped to check what was happening, skirted by members of the independent media and legal obervers. The door was chained shut, and four or five officers were standing in front of it. A few of the protestors began asking some questions about why the door was blocked, why there was a chain and a padlock on the handles, with a human wall in front of it. The police became quickly agitated. They weren't folling the rules! The march turned around the block, and one protestor, Mike Dee, walked straight up to the line of cops and began attempting to get the officers' names, and apparently violated the officers' authority-figure personal space, as he made a call on his cellphone to 911 to "report" the obstruction of the doors. One of the Union cops showed up after a while to help the police out.
"If you're in the parade," said the Union guy, a big man with a shaved head and a goattee, "keep moving, otherwise you're not in the parade."
Several of the people around the door argued with the Union man on the way to the march proper, which was now stationed at the World Trade Center, but it was useless. The march was going to work this way, and that was the way the march was going to work.
What had actually happened was almost nothing at all. Dee had this to say: "I saw an unsafe situation, where the police were blocking access, and it was worthy of concern, and I made a call to 911 to inform them there was an unsafe situation." Innocuous as it gets—ineffectual, even. I'd go so far as to call it a waste of time. But the fact that such a small deviation from the plan—from the controlled structure of what this "protest," this "demonstration" was going to be—riled the police and the union establishment to such a degree shows one thing: fear. They are afraid, and a rearing for a fight, are dying to turn any subversive element into something they can aggressively attack. They must completely wipe out any sign that they are not in complete control. All they want is the slightest, smallest excuse.
Once the march continued past the World Trade Center, I saw the clearest sign of police nervousness/bloodlust: the Morrison Bridge had, from all appearances, been occupied. I couldn't believe the number of police that covered the bridge, in full riot gear, in a line, stopping all traffic. I couldn't see what the police were trying to accomplish by shutting the bridge down. O'Dea tells me that the police were there to protect everyone's freedoms equally, yet by lining up riot cops on the Morrison Bridge, where nobody from the march ever came close, they are protecting nobody's freedoms, and are in fact taking everyone's freedoms away. I don't get it. Oh—yeah! "War is peace." "Occupation is freedom." Right.
And the cops on bikes continued hemming the protest in. There was never more than six feet between each bike. Were those Union cops talking to the PPD on those cell phones they kept speaking into? This march was not a protest, not a demonstration. It was a simulation. A performance along the lines of a Ratdog or Wailers concert, where that Bob Marley sound-alike sings "Redemption Song" and everyone thinks vaguely about how nice the fight for freedom must have been back then and waves their arms but keeps all that thinking back there, because isn't that where it belongs? Things like that don't happen these days. There are too many cops, and we might get hurt.
Besides, there was the Marketplace. Who could be bothered? There were duct-tape wallets and curly fries and bluegrass to watch. Only a small fringe of the people could be bothered to even come wtach the march, and they all had those same faces, presenting only a dim realization that yes, something was happening, yes, May Day was some sort of labor holiday or something, right?—and yes, something was happening right—but no, the Morrsion Bridge hadn't been shut down and public access to Police Headquarters had not been restricted or anything.
But the march did grow as it went on, and spirits within the march, beyond these couple of extremely minor occurrences (at least for Portland) were high as we turned onto Burnside and headed towards the park blocks again. Passing cars honked in support, and people waved back, and everyone who was there was at least happy they'd decided to come, and do the little they as individuals could do.
General Strike began playing again once the march ended. A flag was indeed burned right in front of the stage, and "THIS COUNTRY WAS FOUNDED ON SLAVE LABOR" was drawn on the ground in chalk next to it, so the anarchists got their chance to express their statement.
John Svob, the chairman of the May Day coalition, was generally optimistic.
"I see people who... essentially support one another and understand that even though our civilization is not facing obvious erosion, is not crumbling before our eyes... we [still] don't see the pain that other people see first hand."
Well, obviously not. Obviously most of Portland can't see the need for solidarity and the vacuum in today's protest movements, featuring police presence so overbearing that the chance of anything besides constituting a mere annoyance is impossible. It seems that for everyone there that day, it was about their experience, their opportunity to go up to the preacher in the sandwich boards and bark at him, their group or organization, which is mildly better than the people along the street who don't have any opinion at all, are downtown shopping and don't want to think of anything else, especially not the platoon-sized forced occupying one of their city's major traffic thoroughfares. Sure, marching and stuff, yeah, that's great.
Svob also said he was disturbed by the altercation over the flag. "It was reallt minor, and we worked it out. And we've got to come to the table to talk to one another so that we don't destroy the coalition we made."
Jim Cook, another organizer, summed the day up well from the point of view of the march organizers: "We're trying to capture the spirit of so many who have been fighting since the 1st May Day. It's a celebration of our power to promote International Solidarity and workers' culture."
Well and good. And General Strike played some more union songs and the crowd slowly dispersed. Ultimately, leaving the march I felt as if I'd just driven home through rush hour—sure, I'd done what Is et out to do, but I felt congested, frustrated, and stifled. And uncomfortable with what seemed to be only a hint of solidarity. There was overall a tenuous "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" sort of feeling—the union didn't trust the anarchists, the anarchists didn't trust the union, but neither of them liked the cops of the preacher. The Union doesn't want the anarchists to ruin what they've accomplished, because they're still dwelling on archaic victories. The anarchists are distrustful of the union's often belligerent and authoritarian attitude, counter to the values upon which all the unions were founded so long ago.
Overall, I see a lot of one-upsmanship in the white man's liberal utopia. Somehow, down in the Third World, everyone can get together and work together and care about one another and support one another, but up here we can barely get together enough to do one tiny little march, and nobody even cares enough to show up anyway, caught up in the haze of consumption. I don't know what the solution is, but obviously some sort of wake-up call in necessary here, some sort of realization that this is no time for the folks on the left to be adversarial with one another, nor to get caught up in ridiculous badgering from the religious right. Something big needs to happen, and big people will be required to make it happen, and a whole lot of big people just don't seem to exist here in Portland, OR. I hope that changes.

that's a sea of words... 07.May.2005 13:01

some kid

could you repost it with paragraph breaks? I'd like to read what you have to say, but i'm unable.

Rambling account 07.May.2005 16:35


I read with interest this rambling and at times, repetitious account of Portland's May Day. Yes, the numbers were disappointing, and yes, the bike police accompanied us. I was there, of course, and also quite startled at the riot cops up on the bridges with no one else there. That presence was a show of force. The hovering helicopter circling us was a security show of force, too.

I loved the day! Sure, the many groups could show more solidarity. I did not see the actions at the police station. I will say no one past 30' could hear the speaker at the Trade Center stop. I dig, "This land is your land," and union songs. Can't hear them enough. More people should come to support labor. We are going downhill in strength. Gather up, people!

Mayday statement 07.May.2005 16:47


Radical Perspectives for May Day and Beyond


Bored by the prospect of another May Day "celebration" that threatens to be neither enjoyable nor interesting, a few radicals in Portland, Oregon have decided to shake things up as they can. Rather than using this coming May Day as a means to "speak truth to power"—those at the reigns of power are our enemies, and we do not address ourselves to them—we have decided to speak instead with those struggling each day against the conditions imposed by our society, those who, like us, feel the need for revolt.

As one small contribution to such a discussion, we have prepared a pamphlet of radical anti-capitalist, anti-state perspectives. We will distribute this pamphlet at May Day events in Portland. We also plan to talk face-to-face, play, enjoy ourselves and generally not act like oh-so-serious militants or political missionaries. None of us believe that we have final answers; we're simply putting our perspectives out there in the hopes that they will inspire further thought, discussion, and action against the capitalist order.

Our pamphlet includes an article on the revolutionary history of May Day that challenges leftist mythologies surrounding this day; information on the May 4th day of action for the "Aachen Four" anarchist prisoners in Germany; musings on class, alienation and revolt; and a reprint of "Some Notes on Insurrectionary Anarchism" from Killing King Abacus #2. The pamphlet is available online as a .pdf file here:

We encourage comrades in other locations to print and distribute this document as part of their own May Day celebrations. We hope that it provokes dialogue, critical exchanges, and action to transform our world.

Feel free to circulate the pamphlet link widely.

In revolt -

Troublemakers somewhere in Portland

ok... i somehow read it 07.May.2005 16:50

some kid

Summary, and egocentric analysis.

we need more people - agreed

the black bloc-ers are all under 18 - disagreed. there were several in their 20s and someone in their 40s. beside the general lack of truth in that statement, there's the ageist implications.

the black bloc hates the liberals and the liberals hate the black bloc - so-so, the liberals are constantly harassing the black bloc-ers about things like wearing masks and burning flags. I see where their distrust comes from, but I feel they'd have a different perspective if they had ever seen true persecution. On m19 the liberals even went so far as to detach from the black bloc and sick the cops on us.

peace cops... love em... hate em. - I was involved in the training of the peace cops and they were instructed not to interfere with flag-burning, and if there was an unplanned event during the march they were to give it 5 minutes before they inform them that the march is moving on. One of the two peace-cops who stole the flag had stolen the flag last year, and, as far as I'm concerned, is not welcome back next year. We're all entitled to our opinions, but to do so in an authoritarian way through censorship is wrong. One of the peace-cops apologised to me, and I kinda grumbled at him, but I appreciated it, but the one who had done it last year never apologised. I'm going to the mayday coalition meetings next year and I'm going to be advocating for no peace cops. We gave them a fair shot and they've ruined it.

So what. 07.May.2005 16:59


Yes, its a pretty acurate description of the day, but i think that all the putting down isn't required. We should of ignored the relgious crazy, yes. There should have been a better feeling about the place...but what are you gunna do about it? You are acting like the people who sit around their house and bitch about the war or high oil prices without doing a thing. If you were to write this way about an event, maybe you should offer some helpfull suggestions:

"Something big needs to happen, and big people will be required to make it happen, and a whole lot of big people just don't seem to exist here in Portland, OR. I hope that changes."

This does not help. No shit there needs to be something big, so maybe instead of saying stuff about it, you should be contacting every individual and group you know of to be organizing something. Something big, even. Why did no one show up? Maybe they don't care. So find an issue people care about and rally them around that. At least being in the street at a "tiny little march" is better than sitting at home and saying "Why should i be wasting my time at a tiny little march?". Really, you shouldn't be complaining; i realize this is your opinion and in some places i agree with you, i just don't think that bashing what we have will get us anywhere. So here you have two choices: publish a negative report with some suggestions to help out the next march, or don't publish a negative review at all. Journalism is reporting an event without an opinion. So be a journalist or be helpful. If you'd rather do neither, then don't publish at all.

a few points 08.May.2005 00:26

theirmen leg

An interesting posting, which raises a number of questions for the labor/progressive and antiwar movement. I will be brief
A few points about the march. I believe the march stopped outside the INS building not the post office. It was here a man from the day laborers spoke. It's a shame as while all that stuff going on at the back important things about the rights of immigrant workers was being said. I don't care if anyone wants to burn a flag, if that is what was happening. But I think there should be a bit of respect for the speaker who was getting an important message out.
The police presence never surprises me. They always have the 'good' cops who say 'hallo' to you and smile when you arrive. And the thugs who are never too far away always ready to crack a head open, as was witnessed waiting on the bridges and in other discreet places with lots of handcuffs. Over many years in a number of countries I've seen these protectors of private property dishing out the violence they are meant to protect people from
Yes the size of the rally/march was small. Considering how big Portland's march was a few years ago and who it included, it was very disappointing. But I think you have to see how small Labor and anti war marches have been, not just in Portland but around the whole country.
This relates to the re election of Bush and the apathy of the Anybody But Bush people who put their hope in the warmonger Kerry. They are now working for the 2006 elections. Ugly things like activism, labor marches and being anti war loses elections.
For them the only way things will improve is electing democrats. (HA)
And really this brings us to the question of how do you change society. How do you get from a capitalist society to a classless wage less world?
I would suggest to anyone to read Lenin's 'State and Revolution.'
I'm sure our anarchist's friends will have something to say about that!

... 08.May.2005 05:18


> was disturbed with what I'd seen. It seemed to be a reminder of the inherent problem with the
> union system in America—it becomes too much of a part of what it was founded to be a fight
> against, and ends up dictating workers' values to them from above, as opposed to allowing the
> workers to create their own opinions.

I'm not sure I understand this interpretation. The worker's own opinion in this case was "no flag burning." The value being dictated from above was "let them do it." Impulsive bullies need to be restrained ... if the anarchy kids don't get the job done, and the delegated spokesman of a relatively reasonable majority does get the job done, who's fault is that?

Building a subculture on grotesquerie and confronting society with exaggerated images of things it already doesn't like and then complaining that regular people don't take you seriously is, uh, is pretty redundant. Of COURSE some redneck fool is going to try to stop you from burning the flag. Surprise surprise surprise! Burn it anyway but don't WHINE about it. Shit.

reply 08.May.2005 14:05


It was the INS building and the speaker was a day labor worker from VOZ. It would have been very important to hear what he had to say. Unfortunately the burners and the thief were making such a noisy fuss over something so trivial that his voice was unable to be heard.

The numbers were small because the ball was dropped on outreach. There was so much dicscussion over content and tactics that very little was done about outreach. There were so few posts to indymedia or anywhere else that most people thought there wasn't anything happening this year. Another thing to remember is in the past random members of the community not just the organisers have advertised with flyers and such for May Day events.

"liberal eutopia"..."it's all style and no substance" That's what happens when a movement gets inundated and taken over by rich subculturist "tourists". You get a bunch of kids playing pauper but still acting like obnoxious self righteous spoiled brats. Unfortunately they reflect poorly on the rest of us, who are actually working class anarchists.

reply to Phil 10.May.2005 00:31

regular reader

you said: "Journalism is reporting an event without an opinion. So be a journalist or be helpful. If you'd rather do neither, then don't publish at all."

huh? not on indymedia.

and actually, not in the corporate media either, not now and not ever. there was no "golden age" of media when it was actually objective. that's a conceit of the corporate media and the educated class.

at least here on indymedia the bias is obvious. personally, i LOVED the account given in this article. it gives a great picture of what this person saw and experienced and that's exactly what indymedia is for.