"We chose this monument to democracy, this global monument, to proclaim our resistance to state violence and demand rights in education and work. (We did it) to send a message globally and to all Europe."—Protestor to Reuters reporter on December 17th, 2008.
Protesters stood atop the Acropolis. Huge banners draped the stone wall in front of the Parthenon. One proclaimed in four languages: RESIST! Another requested solidarity demonstrations throughout Europe. That was on day 12 of the 15 days of insurrection in which the citizens of the ancient birthplace of both democracy and anarchism sent the government and people everywhere a message. The catalyst of these events was the death of an anarchist teenager at the hands of the police.
On December 6th, 15 year old Alexis (Alexandros) Grigoropoulos was enjoying the evening celebrating a friend's birthday outside a shop in Eksarhia, Athens. The neighborhood of Eksarhia is one where shop owners and residents are known for their love of freedom and self-regulation and their disdain for the often brutal hand of police authority. It is an area where the police presence is minimal and suspect. Alexis met his friends to eat and talk as teenagers do, but somehow this evening of comraderie ended with Alexis shot dead by an officer a Greek policeman. Accounts of the officers and witnesses vary on the circumstances of the shooting.
According to news reports, two special guard policemen exchanged insults with a small group of young people outside of a shop. The officers contacted their superiors and were apparently told to leave. The two guards left the scene, but returned on foot. The officers say they were attacked by an angry, violent mob. Epaminondas Korkoneas, the 37 year old policeman who killed Alexis, claims the crowd assaulted him and his partner with rocks, and other items including molotov cocktails. He testified that he fired warning shots into the air while his back was turned to the crowd in fear. He claims that one of the bullets must have ricocheted, killing the boy. His partner, at some point, threw a concussion grenade at the crowd. Discrepancies in information available regarding the ballistics and forensics reports makes it unclear whether the bullet was a direct hit or a ricochet. Both officers were arrested in connection with the shooting. Korkoneas was charged with murder, while his partner was charged as an accomplice.
Eyewitness accounts are uniform in their failure to report an attacking mob. Some eyewitnesses say the officers confronted and verbally provoked the group. Some report that the officer who fired took aim at the young people. Most recount a strong verbal dispute. In an interview, Alexis' friend says that the he and Alexis moved to the center of the street to get a better view of a disturbance after hearing a loud noise, which may have been the concussion grenade. He says that someone located behind them threw an empty water bottle toward the police. This is when, he says, one of the officers turned and fired a shot toward them. As Alexis lay in the street, the two officers turned and walked away without offering assistance. In a video, captured from a nearby window with a limited view of the area, no mob is apparent. We see the two officers, unmolested, calmly walk away from the scene, which is not visible.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Dave Nalle
I'm not clear how democracy is the problem here. The abusive police in Greece aren't elected and their government still retains lots of characteristics and traditions held over from its fascist antecedents. Seems to me it's that fascist/statist legacy which is the problem and more democracy could be part of the solution.
And why anarchism? Anarchism is fun and all when you're 15, but it's no way to run a country or even a decent revolution for that matter. So often it seems like anarchists get the ball rolling in opposing the state, but then get pushed aside by radical groups whose agendas end up being just as bad as the state their overthrowing.
Dave
2 - Cindy D
Eek, crowd crowd crowd. There was no crowd.
3 - Cindy D
Yikes, remind me to ask for a review after an edit. It changes the careful point.
4 - Cindy D
The guy was a special guard. He was a low-ranking guard duty officer. Not even trained like a regular officer.
5 - Cindy D
Dave,
Here is a photo. It explains why Democracy with a picture.
I like pictures they explain everything without a lot of words.
6 - Cindy D
Anarchism: It's no way to run a country.
I like it Dave! You have something there!
7 - Cindy D
Thank you Ruvy for your inspiring idea. :-)
8 - Cindy D
One last thought before I retire Dave,
Anarchism is fun and all when you're 15
What did you mean? I'm not sure.
Anyway thanks for everything. You were so helpful. :-)
nite nite
9 - Dave Nalle
I like pictures they explain everything without a lot of words.
So do kindergarteners.
Sorry for minimizing the bit about 'special guards' in the article, but you didn't explain it adequately and it was confusing. He was an armed policeman, regardless of how he was trained. It says a lot just by itself that they had relatively untrained idiots running around in uniform with guns at all.
Dave
10 - Cindy D
No problem Dave. I explained it here.
You'll have to answer my question about what you believe Anarchism is before I can answer yours. If it was fun when you were 15 then I assume you knew something about it then?
Or, you can just make wisecracks instead if you like. They're fun. :-)
11 - Cindy D
Dave,
I think this will fall on deaf ears but I'll try it anyway.
In another thread I asked you how you could be for freedom and liberty and yet support a government that would, say, do what the U.S. did to Greece in the 60s (installed a dictator and crushed their democracy).
You said it's not the form of government, it's the people who voted for the government officials.
That implies to me Dave that you believe people have much more power to effect government than reality dictates. Voting every so often doesn't effect much of anything.
Look at the history since the cold war of, for just one example, foreign policy. Whether you voted for tweedledum or tweedledummer you still got about the same thing.
That's simply not freedom and individual liberty. It's just not.
Do you think people can't really handle actual freedom Dave?
12 - Dave Nalle
You'll have to answer my question about what you believe Anarchism is before I can answer yours. If it was fun when you were 15 then I assume you knew something about it then?
Yes, I thought I was an anarchist for a while, but on studying anarchism and learning more about human nature, maturing and studying history, I realized that anarchism is essentially an ideal which cannot exist in the real world in any form where it does not break down into tyranny, oppression and autocracy.
Anarchy is not a social system, even though the term is used that way. In reality it is an objective which you can travel towards, but never reach. In that sense I believe in it - society without government - but I realize that we have to be prepared to accept as much freedom and as little government as we can achieve within the limits of practicality and keep working on it.
I think this will fall on deaf ears but I'll try it anyway.
Always a good idea to start with an insult.
In another thread I asked you how you could be for freedom and liberty and yet support a government that would, say, do what the U.S. did to Greece in the 60s (installed a dictator and crushed their democracy).
Because I understand that government is not perfect and that choices are not black and white. While I may not support a specific action of the government, I can still support the government when it is based on a system which comes as close as any in the world to providing a structure under which individual liberty has the most potential to flourish.
As for the specific practice during the cold war of replacing democracies with dictatorships, I understand why it was necessary and see the validity of the reasoning behind it, even if I have concerns about it. Democracy is an unstable and inequitable form of government. Historically the more democratic a society the more vulnerable it is to mob rule, abuses of power and degenerating into dictatorship. The Romans understood this, which is why they established a republic, NOT a democracy. The same is true of the founders of this nation and of the leaders of early modern Britain who struggled for generations to protect the people from the excesses of democracy and the threat of autocracy at the same time. It helped that they had the object lesson of France where too much democracy and too much power in the hands of the mob led to a cycle of revolution and collapse and chaos and tyranny which went on and on for a hundred years and more.
You said it's not the form of government, it's the people who voted for the government officials.
That implies to me Dave that you believe people have much more power to effect government than reality dictates. Voting every so often doesn't effect much of anything.
How much power the people have depends on all sorts of factors and characteristics of the government and society.
Look at the history since the cold war of, for just one example, foreign policy. Whether you voted for tweedledum or tweedledummer you still got about the same thing.
This is because foreign policy is determined by the needs of the nation as a political entity, not the will of the people. It is almost entirely an expression of the national will to survive and dominate. What's amazing about the United States is that from time to time we've actually managed to let altruism and our liberal inclinations hold sway against the natural urges of national self-preservation, sometimes in a postive way and sometimes with disastrous results.
That's simply not freedom and individual liberty. It's just not.
I don't see much of a relationship between foreign policy and individual liberty within the nation. We could be off conquering and oppressing the world and still allow our own citizens a great deal of liberty. Conversely there are plenty of countries with neutral foreign policies which oppress their own people mercilessly.
Do you think people can't really handle actual freedom Dave?
I think that most people can handle freedom because they understand that freedom comes with certain responsibilities. In any society there is going to be a small element of the population which does not choose to accept the responsibilities which come with freedom and that is why any functional society must have some basic laws and mechanisms to enforce them and protect the liberty of the citizens from potential abuse.
Let me ask you a question. In a true anarchist society where there are no laws and no government, what protects the fundamental rights of the individual to live, be free and have property? And then what happens when a majority of the population decides irrationally that the practices of a minority group such as homosexuality or judaism is unhealthy or dangerous and must be suppressed?
Keep in mind that humans are not perfect, rational beings. And since they are not, how can you have a society without laws and structure which does not become oppressive? All men are born free, but it takes more than a birthright to keep them free.
Dave
13 - Ruvy
Cindy,
I don't know how I inspired you, but thank you anyway. Maybe you would like to explain it to me.
Clever nom de guerre/plume. I've having trouble feeing my cat, Flash (money troubles afflict all of us), and I'm grateful he is nowhere as articulate as you. His steady drumbeat would be about his food-bowl. Learned essays about being unfairly starved would follow long declamations of manifestos calling on all cats to unite in overthrowing the human oppressor!
I remember the Greek dictatorship - they haven't gone away and the "liberties" of the EU are not liberties at all.
We'll see as to whether there is a chapter 2 to this rebellion or not. Kids are often easily distracted.
14 - Doug Hunter
Wow, the article itself explains how the people are openly hostile to police then wonders how an incident such as this occurred. Maybe if the anarchist dipshits would treat others with a bit of respect they'd see it returned.
Maybe their running around destroying people's livelihoods with their firebombs shows that they deserve to be shot. Try and burn down one of my buildings and I might just do it myself
15 - Cindy D
Ruvy,
The title. I read the book in college. I know it was good. Just can't remember why.
16 - Cindy D
But, that's okay. You can't even remember that you mentioned the titled to Walker Percy's novel just about a week ago :-)
P.S. Flash--an unfortunate name for a rebel cat. Keep the matched away from him.
17 - Cindy D
Dave,
Holy smokes. A lot of thought in that answer. Thanks. I'll have to reply tonight when I come home.
18 - Ruvy
Hah! You never know when something you say/write will inspire someone!
19 - Roger Nowosielski
Cindy,
I thought a part of your title referred to Walker Percy's novel. Since we're on the subject, you've got to read "Lancelot."
Great job at investigative reporting. Your piece could well be published by any of the major papers and magazines. I must agree with Dave somewhat that your use of the word "democracy" to describe the political regime in Greece may be somewhat loaded; (Is that what he meant?) From your account of the events, it resembles a fascist state. Other than that, great job.
One other reference for future reading. See if you can get hold of "Contemporary Political Philosophy: An Introduction," William Kymlicka, ed. There's an excellent essay there by a Greek writer on autonomy (can't remember his name now but it will come to me; I have the book but can't find it now). Also, Robert Nozick's "Anarchy, State, and Utopia" is a good account. Again, great job!
I'll keep you in mind when it comes to perfecting my own novel, if you'll be interested of course and think it has potential
Roger
20 - Roger Nowosielski
Dave,
"I don't see much of a relationship between foreign policy and individual liberty within the nation. We could be off conquering and oppressing the world and still allow our own citizens a great deal of liberty. Conversely there are plenty of countries with neutral foreign policies which oppress their own people mercilessly."
Dave, you may be right about the facts of the case. But what kind of message it sends to others who (still) might look to America as an example, not to say a good part of its own populace. We can't afford such a callous attitude, not in this day and age when everyone's watching and the future of the West, culture and civilization (in my opinion) hangs in the balance.
Roger
21 - Baronius
I think that intuitive support of anarchy is part of being 15. Everyone wants later bedtimes and free beer. By the early 20's, most people figure out that life is hard and actions have consequences. (By your mid-20's, if you were in a fraternity.)
22 - Dave Nalle
I agree that we ought to lead by example, Roger. And that could certainly start by increasing liberty at home. As for our foreign policy, there's more than one way to look at it, and what has become the dominant attitude promoted by the left and the media may not always prevail.
What you see as a 'callous' attitude today some might see in a much more positive light a few years down the road. Things are changing. Our radical left tends to look towards Europe for leadership, and Europe is waking up. They're looking for ways to restore capitalism and entrepreneurism and deal with their immigration issues. As they go through a paradigm shift they're going to reluctantly admit that maybe the US isn't the bad guy.
Watch and see.
Dave
23 - Dave Nalle
Good point, Baronius. I can think of no greater concentration of anarchic thought than my fraterinity house on a Saturday night. But then my fraterintiy was about as close as you could get to Animal House in the real world.
At one point our equivalent of Dean Wormer told us he wanted to see us all "hanging in the wind."
Dave
24 - Roger Nowosielski
Dave,
Re #22, I'm slowly beginning to see your way, as per present piece (under submission)and more to follow, the menace of "the Left."
Roger
25 - Roger Nowosielski
Cindy, where are you?
Are you so wiped out by your first piece that you've fallen into dogmatic slumber? We miss you.
Roger