I think the vandals of May 1st gave the general public too much credit. Perhaps they assumed that the connection between these two monuments to capitalist gluttony, thievery, exploitations, wealth hoarding etc. and the plight of workers & immigrants would be obvious, and that the action would speak for itself without needing to be spelled out for people. They were wrong. Instead of making a connection between banks and oppression, it seems that many people (so habituated to identifying with their oppressors and letting T.V. and newspapers do their thinking for them) have simply made a connection between activists and what they erroneously call "violence". As such, i think that it would have been better if the banks were attacked on April 30th or May 2nd, so as not to have tied that level of militancy to something like Mayday, which is supposed to be a venue for above-ground-no-risk organizing & community building between immigrants/workers, and activists/advocates. These relationships are important because people from the activist/advocate community tend to be more privileged as far as race and class are concerned and therefore have greater access to rights and resources than do immigrants and poor people, thus making them very useful allies. In the wake of the May Day vandalism, as I understand it, some folks in the immigrant community are too sketched out to want to have anything to do with the mostly white activist community.

Had I been able to foresee this consequence I might have felt compelled to have a conversation with the people dressed in black about it, as it was obvious by the way they were dressed that they were prepared for a level of militancy should the opportunity present itself. I must say I was a little surprised when i showed up to a mayday march and saw folks dressed in black bloc attire. It had never occurred to me that people might come prepared for militancy to an annual event that is usually family friendly, and one that un-arrestables (i.e.-undocumented workers) could attend. In the absence of young children and/or a contingency of undocumented workers, I saw no rationale for urging the black bloc to show restraint. Given the negative impact this action has had and will continue to have on the relationship between the activist and the immigrant community, I probably should have. But I didn't, and have no one to blame but MYSELF.

As for the Sanctuary City proposal, it simply wasn't going to happen. Our city council is made up of some of the worst people human kind has to offer. The fact that Joe Hyer has publicly announced that he plans to punish immigrants and military deserters for the actions of four or five vandals who are probably neither, is proof that he never genuinely felt compelled to help immigrants or military deserters in the first place. That he and the rest of the council are pointing to the vandalism as a smoke screen to obscure the fact that they don't care about anyone but condo developers comes as no surprise. They are basically saying to the activist community, "see, this is why you can't get anything done, it's not corrupt politicians who only represent the interests of the owning class who are your enemy, it's militant anarchists." This is a divide and conquer ploy that is so transparent that I felt like it insulted the intellegence of the entire activist community. But, wouldn't you know it, some people have fallen for it, and are now blaming rock throwers for the greed and cynicism of the city council. Good Luck Olympia!