Young Gezi protester waits out the tear-gas in a Burger King

From the Occupy Gezi Pics tumblr: "A young girl in a Burger King restaurant on Sunday, after she managed to escape the tear gas outside. The caption reads: 'Spring will come again. I promise you.'"

A young girl in a Burger King restaurant on Sunday


  1. I rather feel like they’re kind of schooling us American Occupiers on the art of non-violent resistance.  We Americans would have become angry way sooner than them, yet now they’re STILL proving their solidarity with non-violence by protesting through undeniably peaceful vigils.  It’s quite inspiring.  


    1. i am not sure what non-violence means in a practical sense, but as an ideology, it has shown itself to be racist, sexist, hetero-normative and itself quite violent.

      here is a beautiful video i just saw about the multiplicities of desires that have been taking place in instanbul recently. they are often violent desires. it’s beautiful for so many reasons but none of them are within the rubric of a the ideology of Non-Violence.

      1. i am not sure what non-violence means in a practical sense, but as an ideology, it has shown itself to be racist, sexist, hetero-normative and itself quite violent.

        I started typing “what the holy fuck are you blathering about?” before I remembered the 37 Conversation Rules For Gentlemen, so let me rephrase: Would you mind elaborating on your assertion, sir or/and ma’am?

        1. i’ll try to be brief, so this can hardly deconstruct an entire paradigm. non-violence is something that’s drilled into our heads from the moment we’re born, and often we’re willing to violently defend this abstract concept that literally means nothing. for example, the “peace police” will often identify people engaging in property destruction to the police. that is a VERY violent act. it’s an appeal for perceived legitimacy at any cost, and it’s delusional.

          in this specific context, there’s a good deal of fetishizing The Other ( to the point of rewriting history to fit one’s worldview. the shit going down in turkey is far from non violent. there are molotov cocktails and a dead cop. during the arab spring, while north american liberals were applauding “non-violent protests”, police stations were burning. the point is that there’s a cognitive dissonance taking place whereby events that are distanced from us, whether by time (black liberation) or distance (not in my back yard), can be altered to fit one’s worldview.

          “the right to free speech” (who so graciously granted us these rights anyway?) means that instead of effectively fighting violent fascists and preventing from organizing, one must take the moral high ground. however, the people being targeted are disproportionately people of color, queers and transgendered people, often homeless, addicted – already abused by patriarchy and whiteness. i’m not making this up. this is really happening.

          there’s so much more to say, and it’s frustrating to not be able to have a comprehensive critique with so few words. if you’re interested, peter genderloos wrote a really good book called “how nonviolence protects the state.” it’s online:

          1. I can see what you are saying, though I disagree with you on several points.

            1.  If I choose to participate in a non-violent protest, then I want it to stay that way.  When a microscopic minority chooses to engage in violence against property or ‘symbols of authority’ like the police, they do so without my consent.  Shocking the rest of us into action by provoking a violent response from authority is also a violent and inappropriate act, to which I do not consent.

            2.  I don’t know about anyone else, but I am not fetishizing any others or ‘Others’ in my support of nonviolent protest.  I actually think that violence only leads to more violence, and even a successful violent ‘revolution’ tends to result in a new form of repression rather than new freedoms.  More often violence gives the oppressive powers all the excuse they need to crack down and suppress all dissent.  So I reject violence because it rarely works, and when it does it tends to lead to unintended and often worse consequences.

            While black liberation was effective, it was not because of the Black Panthers.  It was because of MLK and the huge numbers of people who stood with him.  If anything, groups like the Black Panthers only served to shore up the forces of repression by providing a handy ‘scary radical’ image.

            As for the ‘not in my backyard’ idea, I doubt anyone here is under any illusions that there was no violence in the Arab Spring.  Are you under the illusion that we are all passive tools?

            As for effectively fighting violent fascists, I refer back to my earlier point about violence making things worse, not better.  And kicking in windows at a protest is not what any rational person would call ‘effectively fighting anything’.  Your paragraph isn’t super clear on your point, but I think you are saying that being non-violent is helping to allow marginalized people to be targeted.  I disagree.

            You have some good points, but you are making some very huge assumptions about what those of us who espouse nonviolence think and why.  Personally, I think it fails on all levels – it doesn’t work, it makes things worse, and even on the rare occasions when it does work it almost always makes things much worse.

          2. While black liberation was effective, it was not because of the Black Panthers. It was because of MLK and the huge numbers of people who stood with him. If anything, groups like the Black Panthers only served to shore up the forces of repression by providing a handy ‘scary radical’ image.

            That’s misguided. The establishment only listened to MLK because there was also a Malcolm X, and they needed to find a compromise.

            What you’re proposing is very much like what we have now, which is both the left being dragged to the center and the center being dragged to the right. A resurgence of real radicalism on the left would stop that right smartly.

          3. I was going to reply substantially on this, but you said it quite beautifully Rocketpj.  I couldn’t agree more.  

            To add a little bit though, I do believe pigpen23 is confusing passivity with non-violent resistance.  Grinding to a halt the engine of oppression is a different task than refusing to do harm to others in that pursuit.  I believe the core assumption pigpen23 is falling prey to is the assumption you must fight fire with fire.  When the very thing needing stopped is the raging fire itself, that’s unavoidably self-defeating.  Social evolutions have no choice but to be smarter than that.  

          4. kinda in a hurry, but i guess it’s impossible to really have a conversation without delineating between Non-Violence as ideology, and simply the absence of violence. then it’s time to define the terms, which is really fucking hard. how do we quantify it or really even identify what suffering can be attributed to a specific act of violence. is it more violent to buy a diamond than it is to kick a dog?

            anyway, the main point of disagreement is that Non-Violence is a privileged position to have, and is ineffective as a means of social change. every MLK has his malcolm x, as antinuous noted. here’s a quote from malcolm x about the famous march on washington.

            “The original black militants
            had planned to march on the White House, the Senate, and the Congress
            and to bring all political traffic on Capitol Hill to a halt, but
            the shrewd politicians in Washington, realizing that those original
            black militants could not be stopped, joined them. By joining the
            marchers, the white liberals were able to lead the marchers away from
            the White House, the Senate, the Congress, Capitol Hill, and away
            from victory. By keeping them marching from the Washington Monument
            to the Lincoln Monument, marching between the feet of two dead Presidents,
            they never reached the White House to see the then living President.

            The entire march was
            controlled by the late president. The government in Washington had
            told the marchers what signs to carry, what songs to sing, what speeches
            to make, and what speeches not to make, and then told the marchers
            to be sure to get out of town by sundown[…]
            So, in the final analysis
            of the march: It would have to be classified as the best performance
            of the year; in fact it was the greatest performance of this century.
            It topped anything that Hollywood could have produced. If
            we were going to give out Academy Awards in 1963, we would have to
            give the late President an Oscar for the ‘Best Producer of the Year’;
            and to the four white liberals who participated should get an Oscar
            as the ‘Best Actors of the Year,’ because they really acted like sincere
            liberals and fooled many Negroes. And to the six Negro civil rights
            leaders should go and Oscar for the ‘Best Supporting Cast,’ because
            they supported the late President in his entire act, and in his entire

          5. One thing that doesn’t make sense about that notion is that, according to it, on the one hand the state is promoting nonviolence as a means of coöpting protests, but with the other hand it’s employing agents provocateur to turn nonviolent protests violent in order to delegitimize them.

            Something doesn’t add up: Either the state is intentionally acting at contrary purposes to itself (why?) or your example of the civil rights march being redirected is not all that widespread an approach and shouldn’t be taken as indicative of an overarching long-term strategy.

            I only had time to skim the Genderloos book, but if this is representative of his intellectual rigor I’ll take a pass:

            Nonviolence declares that the American Indians could have fought off Columbus, George Washington, and all the other genocidal butchers with sit-ins

            Leaving aside the question of Washington’s genocidal butchery [citation needed,] the record is pretty clear that neither nonviolence nor violence could have saved the Indians, and I’ve never heard anyone suggest that history would have tilted in their favor if Sitting Bull had inspired sit-ins instead of armed action.

  2. Prime Minister Erdogan? You’ve made a bad enemy there. Look at those eyes, that expression. This girl is going to personally fuck your shit up.

        1. I’d quote something from Hit-Girl, but then I’d have to delete the comment and ban myself.

    1. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance, they said.
      Her watch has already begun.
      Alternative caption, for the interwebz:
      Kış geliyor, Tywin Erdoğan.

      1. Kind sir, please recall that if one aspires to the status of gentleman, “It is extremely rude and pedantic, when engaged in general conversation, to make quotations in a foreign language.”

        1. Man sollte sich nicht künstlich aufregen, das ist schlecht für die Nerven.

          It´s a Game of Thrones reference by the way, as a Google translate inquiry has revealed, and quite fitting.

        2.  In this case, the language in question was completely justified — Turkish — and since we’re all reading the post on our computational devices, it’s easy enough to find the translation: “Winter is coming, Tywin Erdogan.”

          1. I think  @boingboing-2c4ab9b7954f1c0af3fab408b3290a86:disqus  is referring to this BB post earlier. Now, let’s see what happens if we cross swords. I took up the gaunlet. En garde.

        3. Your wittieness is not lost on me, and I applaud it. Hoevever, I may take the boldness to point out that I would not like even to aspire the status of a “gentlemen”, nor would I agree status is something someone should pursue. Some might argue that the world changes to fast, but change is, and it will always be, the only constant. If I may quote a greater thinker than myself, in his own words still: Pantha rei.

          As a matter of my own concern which I am not unwilling to share with you on behalf of the stance you have taken, I would not like even to promote any “manlieness” at all. While I enjoy rethoric brilliance an manners which are culturally inherited to keep our social lives amiable in most cases, I would rather question the concept of overly prudent societal rules, especially those out down in letters on paper. Some of the societal rules, especially those who needed to be written down because they would otherwise be superseded by more modern approaches to curtesy will put us in chains  and any chain will be broken by the person who masters language, logic, and wit – and not least to mention: the truth.

          While we could argue about what the truth is and if it ever can be understood, fathomed, and expressed by a human mind I solemnly hope that you do agree that language is a very sharp sword. And as it goes with swords, you have to put the pointy end in your opponent. While my phrasing obviously was meant for others to notice than the real opponent of freedom who would quite certainly not converse on topics brought to you by a media on this neuland interwebz with the omnomatopoetic name of BoingBoing, I do still hope that he, at some point, might feel that his summer has lasted for the longest time.

          Not to let your original point unanswered and unargued, language is a living and lovable creature. The usage of several languages, as it befits in the context of a conversation, can provoke bewilderment as well as insights. In this case, as some fellow commenters pointed out below, the usage of the proud and old language of the Turkish people might be considered fitting for those who are initiated to a certain fantastic story which nevertheless provides a comment on past and current events in what we would like to call our reality.

          However, I do thank you for your attempt to help me in refining myself.

          And now for something completely different.

  3. The photo is powerful and the caption is great. Given enough time and perseverance,  the will of the people will always be done.

    1. It’s not a “war zone.” But she seems to have been brought intentionally to a protest where there was every likelihood of a brutal crackdown. That’s irresponsible.

      1. And if it’s happening in her own neighborhood?

        Also, I think some countries’ ideas of what a “child” is, and should do, and should be “protected” from, differ from such ideas in other countries.

      2. Do you know where would be a safe place to leave a child without her parents in that situation?  This might be the most responsible way to care for her that they had available at the time.

  4. Sometimes it seems to me that young, little girls are the bravest among us.  She’s my hero. 

    1. FWIW, my own children have had that look many times.  We forget how clear-thinking children can be.  At this age, there’s more black-and-white thinking than grey, and more living-in-the-moment as well.  I think we’re seeing anger and frustration, not ennui.

Comments are closed.