Is it possible to diminish the significance of a day of protests that drew out more than half a million people across the U.S. in opposition to a war on Iraq?
The police authorities and the big-business media editors have certainly tried.
Take the Associated Press dispatch on the Washington demonstration, by Calvin Woodward. This story went out on Jan. 18 to newspapers all over the country and the world.
It was worded very carefully: "In Washington, police said 30,000 marched through the streets, part of a much larger crowd that packed the east end of the National Mall and spilled onto the Capitol grounds." The number that jumps out, of course, is 30,000.
The protest was actually at least 10 times that large. Organizers said between 400,000 and half a million. The vast crowd stretched far beyond the huge area of the Mall, in every direction.
Of course, the article does say that those who marched were part of a "much larger crowd." But most people looking at the article will remember the figure of 30,000.
Furthermore, the vast majority of those at the rally did try to participate in the march to the Navy Yard. It was the huge size of the crowd that made it impossible for everyone to march, since the two-mile route became completely backed up. The front of the march was packed in tight at the second rally site even before all the people who were overflowing the Mall had been able to march out.
Thus, a crowd many times the police estimate not only attended the rally but marched in the streets.
Aerial photos belie police figures
In San Francisco, the police also tried to minimize the size of the protest, even though they had to know better. The first figure they gave, which appeared in many newspapers, was 55,000. However, the ANSWER coalition, which estimated the crowd at 200,000, had been able to hire a helicopter to take aerial views. And these pictures, says ANSWER volunteer Bill Hackwell, showed that "while the march route of 1.7 miles was completely full, and people were still coming out of Justin Herman Plaza, the Civic Center was already three-quarters full." The Civic Center alone holds 50,000 people.
The police figure was so inaccurate that it became the subject of debate in the media. On Jan. 21 the San Francisco Chronicle ran a second article on the demonstration, entitled, "Protest numbers don't add up--Police now say 150,000 safe guess."
But in the body of the article, the police acknowledged it could have been as large as the organizers' estimates.
Said the article, "Police estimates of 55,000 demonstrators came from a counting of people in Civic Center Plaza and did not include marchers who were backed up along Market Street, said Jim Deignan, San Francisco police spokesman.
"Aerial photographs show a packed plaza and masses stacked back along streets leading in. If Civic Center Plaza were filled and Market Street were lined all the way to Justin Herman Plaza, a 200,000 estimate could be accurate, said Deignan."
Is this just a numbers game? Isn't it good enough that the media acknowledge that tens of thousands participated?
It matters a great deal. The size of the protests shows what is happening in the consciousness of the people. Is the move ment against the war growing? Is it stagnant? Is it shrinking?
Anyone who has been at the protests since ANSWER called its first demonstrations on Sept. 29, 2001, warning that the Bush administration would use the Sept. 11 attacks to further its agenda of war and racism, knows that they have been growing geometrically.
Those first protests--also in San Francisco and Washington--brought out about 15,000 and 25,000 people, respectively.
The number in Washington quadrupled on April 20, 2002, when many Arab and Muslim people joined anti-war groups in a protest that focused on support for Palestine and for peoples here being repressed under the new racial profiling of John Ashcroft's Justice Department.
The number doubled again on Oct. 26 as the Bush administration began its huge buildup of troops and materiel for a war on Iraq. The protests, again called by ANSWER, brought out 100,000 in San Francisco and 200,000 in D.C.
The Jan. 18 protests show that the momentum of this movement has not slowed down. Even to the surprise of organizers, who knew that harsh weather in the East could cause many to stay home, more people than ever came out to try to turn back an administration hell-bent on conquest in the oil-rich Middle East.
During the Vietnam War, the government also exerted influence on the police and media to minimize the size of the opposition. The official estimate of the largest demonstration in Washington, the Moratorium of Nov. 15, 1969, was a quarter of a million.
But here's what White House Chief of Staff H.R. Haldeman had to say about it in his diary for that day: "Mobe Day. The march turned out to be huge. Official estimate 250,000. By our photocount, it was 325,000. Anyway, it was really huge. E. Krogh and I went out in helicopter to look it over in the morning, very impressive."
Did the White House correct the "official estimate," knowing it was too low? Fat chance. In fact, the White House told the press that the protest was so insignificant the president didn't even interrupt watching a football game to go to the window. No mention of his rattled aides circling in their helicopter.
The rest is history. Many, many deaths later, Nixon had to resign in disgrace. Haldeman went to jail for Watergate. And it finally was admitted that the people of this country, including the troops themselves, were overwhelmingly against the war.
There's the official world, the world of government releases and of television pundits. And then there's the real world. In the real world, the anti-war forces are growing with every belligerent speech by Bush and every deployment of more troops to the Gulf.
