There’s got to be a better way than burning down the house
By Joel Mackenzie
Photos by Ben Buckley
Self-proclaimed “anarchists” have taken responsibility for the recent burning of a housing development in Vancouver’s downtown Eastside, all in the name of anti-gentrification of the area. Aside from being immature and dangerous, this act benefits neither the anti-gentrification movement, nor anarchist philosophy.
The DTES Anti-Gentrification group has great intentions. Its members do not want to see the community of the area driven out in favour of expensive housing projects, stores, restaurants, etc. The people who live in this community deserve to be treated as people, not run out by developers who put profit over their welfare. Of course, these folks realize the area needs to be changed, but they don’t want it done at the expense of these peoples’ well-being.
Anarchists, philosophically, fit right into this side of the debate. The website which claimed responsibility for the attack, anarchistnews.org, claim they did so “for a world where no one is homeless, hassled by police, the state or capitalists.” But attacks like these aren’t promoting equality. Yes, they prove that people are upset about gentrification in the area, and yes, they might cause fear in the real estate developers that perhaps could be called responsible for the problem.
However, the violence of this act simply creates a divide between these people and everyone else. The businessmen, the police, and the general public won’t see a reason to believe in anti-gentrification, nor in anarchy; they will simply see people who purport a belief that appears to be based on violence.
Creating a divide is most of what this accomplishes, and such a divide between people does not help the political ideology of anarchy. Setting fire to a developing housing complex does not fight the egos that make people in a capitalist system put monetary profit over respecting people.
These attackers appear engulfed in similar mindsets: setting this fire seems more about being right than standing up for their beliefs, more about fighting an enemy than making their own perspectives known to the “capitalists,” or, in this particular case, “yuppies.” Fighting the people inside a system is hardly taking a stand against that system itself. It is not changing the minds of those within it, but is doing just the opposite by creating more strongly set opinions on either side, and a stronger divide between the two groups.
My argument here reminds me of one that bothered a friend of mine who protested at a neo-nazi rally. He was upset by a “hippie” proclaiming that even just shouting at the racist participants was merely fighting violence with another form of violence, which ultimately leads nowhere. My friend was upset that the man was using a philosophical debate which wouldn’t solve the immediate problem (the individuals whose rallying projected hatred).
I feel I’ve taken the philosophical side of the “hippie” — the one that points fingers, that complains, and that can’t offer practical solutions. But I, too, see the need for immediate protestation when neo-nazis, or in this case, gentrification, is endangering people’s livelihoods and stripping them of respect.
A violent one like this though, does more bad than good. It widens the gap between the protestors and the general public, and brings people further from the real issues while adding nothing to the debate at hand.
