Context, Editing and “Pedagogical Explanations”

Context, Editing and “Pedagogical Explanations” 

As the debate and various blogging and anti-blogging deconstructs the words of Judy Ancel, noted communist union organizer in Missouri, the most pivotal video becomes the flashpoint: the advocacy of violence to achieve political results.

Ancel’s explanation is that this is out of context in heavily edited videos displaying a pedagogical explanation.

It would be odd to make an entire fuss over just one snippet, one 10 second statement in one classroom among the 3000 four year colleges in the country. There are millions of adults in college, were these 20 the only that mattered? Surely Judy Ancel doesn’t deserve this kind of news attention! This was just a pedagogical explanation!

Are pedagogical explanations everywhere at risk of similarly being taken out of context in heavily edited videos in the blogosphere?

No. Clearly not. Ancel was not giving a pedagogical explanation, she was rebutting the point made directly before, about shunning non-violence. When one student mentioned that one should follow in the social change model of Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Judy Ancel rebutted that point by using a quotation from a former SNCC leader who made the simple observation that violence is an appropriate political tactic.

At least some in the audience did not take away that she was just offering a “pedagogical explanation” but was offering a larger discussion about appropriate political tactics. Mere minutes earlier the statement was made that “no tactics are off the table.”

What tactics would have been off the table? Why, clearly, the tactic of political violence.

Judy cited to the example of revolutions. Previously she had noted that terrorism was a tactic to use that was no longer called terrorism when it was successful.

Let’s say that again so that it’s perfectly clear, terrorism against the people, political violence, leads to revolutions. Revolutions then clean up the historical record and make their people look like freedom fighters, but their tactics were legitimate. Judy seeks radical political change, Judy is a revolutionary. Judy endorses the use of political violence to get results, she just wants it to be successful to be a revolution.

There’s no way to sugarcoat this, and no way to spin this so that it denies the truth of what Ancel is saying: violence is a legitimate and desirable political tactic, terrorism, when it leads to a successful revolution.

The only reason there’s any squirming here is because she’s caught, in the sunlight, with her own words in public view. Judy no doubt expected this seminar to go off splendidly by introducing radicalism into her organizers without any problems. She thought that these casual mentions of political violence wouldn’t be noticed, after all they never had before. Judy thought that she could get them to see a bigger range of options, to use terrorism against businesses, to help bring in the FBI for a week to shut down a business.

Is that someone who thinks that violence isn’t an appropriate political tactic?

What Judy is caught saying is entirely in context with every other salacious thing said at this conference.

Judy wanted to teach these young organizers how to use violence, how to suggest violence, how to use soft terrorism in order to get political results.

She’s only sorry she’s been caught. This was not a “pedagogical explanation” it was a prescription for political tactics. Her explanation was that this was an effective tactic and ought to be considered.

The more Judy Ancel is put into context, the worse her words get. The University of Missouri system ought to be ashamed during these tough economic times, when so many workers are out of work, for spending money and supporting people like Ancel who suggest violence to shut down businesses and hurt other workers.

There’s no pedagogical explanation that can defend what she’s said.