Occupy Wall Street is Nothing Special

But what do they want? – by Tom Tomorrow, Oct 2011

Much has been made of the OWS movement’s apparent lack of leadership and concrete goals, its direct-participation organization and the idea of occupation as a radical act, and its utilization of technology. Based on my own historical research and the research of my colleagues, it appears that in truth, the only unique feature of OWS as a protest movement/mass demonstration is the technology, and this is only because such technology (and the resultant social organization/attitudes) did not exist in the past and so comparisons in that regard are apples-to-oranges. So in response to the question of “What is Occupy Wall Street?” my answer – from a historical perspective – is that it’s, well, nothing special.

Kara, in her post “What is Occupy Wall Street?“, discusses how OWS’s organizational principles are in line with long-established principles of true anarchism: loose organization, consensus-based egalitarian leadership, addressing economic grievances, and raising awareness. In addition, anarchism “seeks to transition the old system into one that fits their needs,” as opposed to a thorough overthrow of the existing system.

Erin has observed that the Great Depression saw similar economic-injustice/class-based protests. Protests on that subject go back to the 1800s with Coxey’s Army marching on Washington, D.C.–then, as now, the protestors were widely perceived as a disorganized mob.

So in this regard, the only radical thing about OWS is the literally radical (root-based) organizational mentality.

Oakland – Indigenous People’s Resistance Day 2011

OWS’s use of the word “occupy” is another radical, original action that the movement is credited with – yet this blog post, by somebody self-identified as unaffiliated with the movement, highlights how OWS has only been employing a superficial sense of the word. To be situated in, to engage, to take possession of. The movement as a whole has not been engaging with the highly problematic history of the word as a key referent to white colonialism and oppression. Sophie Lewis suggests that, since the word is now so entrenched, people should consider actually radicalizing the concepts espoused–in other words, actually pursuing equality for all, rather than reinforcing various forms of oppression such as cissexism and the erasure of people of color. The Albuquerque movement, happily, is one example of an active attempt at true radicalization: it has chosen to call itself “(un)Occupy” to more accurately reflect the goal of decolonizing the 1%. If such cases of true radicalization (e.g. discussion of social privilege) become more widespread and even part of the popular discourse, then OWS could be said to have more of a unique aspect to it.
(Adrienne K. of Native Appropriations also applauds the Denver movement, and her whole post is worth reading in addition to Lewis’s writing.)

With regards to technology and OWS – my comparison of the Kent State shootings and the November, 2011 pepper spraying at UC Davis revealed that, while the internet is more “immediate and personal” than other media, images from the Kent State shootings spread just as rapidly after accounting for the built-in delay of media development. Therefore, it seems unfair to say that OWS is a wholly new form of protest due to the inclusion of instant-communication technology; rather, it is simply a protest of its time, of a society infused with current technology, just as previous protests were products of their technological means. Coxey’s Army did not have television or radio coverage to help speed the dissemination of its message like the social justice and anti-war/nuclear protests of the 1950s-60s; were the mid-20th century protests new forms of protests because they had ham or CB radio available for popular use (cf. twitter) or television to help get their message out to the public faster?

One could argue that there have always been “slacktivists” – people who say they support the cause, but don’t actually get themselves out there to do anything. Is writing letters to the editor, for example, a form of pre-internet slacktivism? Attending the big, publicized protest but not any other events? Wearing a shirt with the anti-nuclear symbol (now known as the peace sign) and leaving it at that? I am skeptical of claims that “Facebook activism” is somehow worse than previous ways of failing to commit to a cause.

In conclusion – OWS is just another protest that may or may not end up being effective the way it intends, like the Alcatraz occupation with which (surprise) OWS shares its current momentum thus far.

Cody VC

From Alcatraz to Zuccotti: Part 2

American Indian people and their supporters wait for the ferry to Alcatraz in ’69 or ’70. (Ilka Hartmann, via California State University)

My previous post narrated the basic history of the 1969-71 Occupation of Alcatraz. This was the takeover of the then-abandoned former prison by a group of American Indians, mostly California-area college students, in response to unjust treatment of the First Nations by the federal government. The occupiers wanted their grievances heard, and demanded the deed to the island in order to establish an university, cultural center, and museum. The government refused to listen to their demands, the initially sympathetic press grew disdainful, and as the basic organization of the occupiers degraded the government found reason to invade and remove everybody from the island.

The occupiers’ concrete goals were not achieved, but public awareness of their objections was raised and the government policy of ending First Nations sovereignty was gradually halted. While the basic arc reads as very similar to that of the Occupy Wall Street movement thus far, as my colleagues have observed there are some significant differences. OWS has not articulated goals that are as specific; OWS is a larger, more amorphous group; llaurenfrank: “for OWS there doesn’t seem to be anything specific that the government can do in order to end the protest.”

While it is true that OWS’s goals have remained comparatively broad, a recent Washington Post article indicates that their basic goal of correcting economic inequality remains the same. Brittany Duck, a participant in the D.C. May Day protests, said that “[T]here’s still a lot to do. Politicians say the economy is turning around, but for many people out here, the blue-collar workers, it hasn’t.” savannahredwards1 asks, “are [OWS] actually trying to get a specific goal accomplished like the Alcatraz ‘occupiers’ or are they just trying to change the way we think?” The Post article, as well as the articles included in this round-up of coverage of the May Day protests, illuminates that a large number of OWS participants are not satisfied with having “made a lasting contribution to the national debate about income inequality.”go

A group of American Indian people at Pier 40 following the June 1971 removal. (Ilka Hartmann, CSU)

The larger scale of OWS is indeed different from the Alcatraz occupation, but one could argue that there is some similarity to be seen in the diversity of the Alcatraz occupation–over 20 tribes were represented, which is part of what led to the development of factions (Winton). Their individual goals differed, but the overall goal of government respect and recognition was the same. This can be compared to regional differences among OWS groups, where the individual goals differ while the overarching goal (correcting economic inequality) remains the same.

With regards to how the government can respond to the OWS protests: it’s possible to argue that there is, in fact, something specific that the government can do to respond to the demand(s) of OWS. If the root problem is income inequality, then bills could be introduced raising the minimum wage to align more realistically with the current cost of living. This would turn the minimum wage into what is known as a living wage; Pennsylvania State University has a website that calculates the living wage for localities across the USA and shows the disparities, illustrating how the difference can contribute to poverty and economic inequality.

That is just one example of a concrete solution; debates over progressive tax rates, another potential concrete solution, are currently ongoing but do not seem likely to go anywhere.

So how does this link back to the Alcatraz occupation? Again, there’s the impact on the national discourse without (immediate) concrete gain. It’s possible that in the long run, due to OWS, we will see real attempts to address income/economic inequality, like the Alcatraz occupation helped end some discriminatory policies.

nb: it should be pointed out that, as has been observed repeatedly by my colleagues on this blog, the majority of ows participants are socially privileged in a way that the alcatraz occupiers were not. it could be argued that this is why their trajectory has bottomed out earlier than alcatraz’s; the perception of this privilege caused people/the media to dismiss them more quickly. however, what will be the real long term effects remains to be seen.

CVC

From Alcatraz to Zuccotti: The Trajectory of Popular Occupation (part 1)

Two of the American Indians occupying Alcatraz in 1971. Photo by Ilka Hartmann, via the National Park Service.

Much has been written by our colleagues and others about similarities/differences between Occupy Wall Street and past populist-protest movements, but I have not seen much discussion of the 1969-71 Occupation of Alcatraz by American Indians. The trajectory of this occupation and its impact on the larger American public has, I believe, strong potential to be a good model for OWS – or at least the more prominent OWS locations in New York, DC, California, and elsewhere.

In the 1960s, the First Nation peoples were protesting the Indian termination policies that dismantled their sovereignty. Though Alcatraz’s prison closed in 1963, the island still had many facilities on it and it was these that a group of UCLA college students decided to take over. (There were about 20 other urban people in addition to the 80 students, but it is the students who provided the main impetus of the early occupation.)

At first the federal government – under a Nixon presidency – demanded that they leave, but eventually agreed to hear their demands. The demands were specific at first: “They wanted the deed to the island, they wanted to establish an Indian university, a cultural center, and a museum.” (Johnson) The government denied all of these, and the people stayed. Over time, other people outside of the American Indian culture joined the occupation, as well as American Indians who were not college students and hailed from different places – factions arose, and the de facto organization/leadership fell apart.

The occupation continued, but its demands grew less flexible – full title to the island, and no compromise on the university/cultural center. The press, initially sympathetic, began focusing on violence within the occupation when it did cover them at all. Soon the government found a reason to invade the island and remove everybody left.

While the occupiers failed to get their specific demands satisfied, public awareness of their grievances was raised and the Indian termination policy was gradually ended. Obviously the comparison with OWS is not exact, and I will explore this topic in more depth in my next post, but I think that the general arc is close enough to what has been observed with OWS that it is worth looking at the occupation of Alcatraz. How has the local or federal government response differed between these protests, for example? (Is this just standard procedure for populist protest by those less well-off than those in charge?) Is there anything for OWS to learn for Alcatraz, or is it too late for that?

Whether you disagree or agree with the basic comparison, I’d like to hear your thoughts.

http://www.nps.gov/alca/historyculture/we-hold-the-rock.htm

[PART TWO]

Ice Cream Occupation

The New Yorker‘s April 23 “The Talk of the Town” feature included a piece on Ben Cohen, from Ben & Jerry’s, and one of his more recent publicity stunts for OWS. An educational-fair-use copy of this article is up on the wiki, under Occupy Wall Street Sources – I’m not linking directly so as to reduce unlawful redistribution. The most relevant parts are quoted below.

Cohen bought a van, called it the Illuminator and attached a Batman-like projector to it that would throw an illuminated Occupy Wall Street “logo” (a circle with “99%” in it) against any surface, and drove it through the streets of New York. He says that he has “this notion that mobile-vehicle promotions are really effective,” and that “you can spend thirty thousand dollars on a less than full-page ad in the Times, or you can spend that on an unusual, eye-catching vehicle.”

He and Marantz also describe how, early in the movement’s history, he visited Zuccotti Park to hand out ice cream and some of the protesters boycotted his visit, denouncing the Ben & Jerry’s corporation as part of the problem against which OWS is fighting. Cohen remarks that “I understand [their] point of view. All I can say is: the line for ice cream did not get any shorter.”

The rest of the piece addresses his efforts to “find one-per-centers for the ninety-nine per cent,” and raise money that is disbursed “like a foundation, funding projects on the strength of written proposals.”

I’m sharing this article because I think it would make good discussion for those focusing on the arts (what visual tactics have really been the most effective? why might that be?) and for those focusing on the contradictions/criticisms of the movement. How does bringing in the “one-per-centers” affect the movement? For example: if Cohen no longer has control over B&J’s – it was sold against his will in 2000 – then why bring B&J’s ice cream to the Park? Why not bring that of an independent vendor instead of banking on corporate brand recognition? Is this mentality a problem unique to wealthier participants or can it be seen on a broader scale? (What can be said of the people who had no problem consuming the ice cream? Can this mentality be seen in any of the international OWS protests? What about the way in which access to funding is controlled?) And so on.

CVC

Far from Kent State: The UC Davis Pepper Sprayings through a Lens of Technological and Cultural History

One of many videos from the scene: this one shows Lt. John Pike stepping over the protesters and includes a second cop deploying pepper spray.

On the afternoon of November 18, 2011, a group of peacefully-assembled Occupy student protesters were pepper-sprayed directly in their faces. Onlookers recorded this police action with their cell phones, uploading image and text updates to the internet. As the images spread, commentators both in and out of the mainstream media began comparing the event to the Kent State shootings of 1970 (Kennicott). This is in part because “protest images that become iconic show us faces in anguish” (Judkis), and arguably in part because of how the images and news were disseminated.

A sample news report on the Kent State shootings.

While the Kent State shootings did see coverage as soon as the night of and the day after, both on television and in the newspapers (which is where John Filo’s Pulitzer Prize-winning photograph was disseminated), those mediums are still not as immediate and personal as the internet. After Louise Macabitas’s photograph of Lt. Pike using the spray was posted on Reddit, meme versions of the image arose and quickly proliferated (Jardin). The institution of UC Davis faced protests in response to the incident, which is where most of the backlash seems to have been concentrated outside of the internet, and various already-existing Occupy sites expressed solidarity; after the Kent State shootings, not only were there student protests across the United States but there was a large protest in Washington, DC less than a week later (Doyle).

The Kent State/Cambodia Incursion protest in DC – around 100,000 attended.

The comparative lack of nationwide, in-person turnout after the UC Davis incident would seem to support Gladwell’s position that the “weak ties” of the internet do not often lead to “high risk” activism. However, it could be argued that the lack is due in part to there being no fatality and, by extension, less emotional impact. Either way, because there is no period so remote as the recent past, it is still difficult to accurately gauge whether the UC Davis incident has had an outsize cultural impact. Creating imagery that is then made indelible through both common media and memes is one thing; being a catalyst for significant change is something else entirely.

(Food for thought, or for the “arts in the movement” bloggers among our colleagues: had the photograph of Dorli Rainey, discussed by Jardin, not been superseded by the UC Davis imagery, could the discourse around OWS be different today? Why was it superseded in the first place?)

CVC

Social Responses in Historical Context

One of the earliest well-known instances of populist, organized protest in the United States is the case of Coxey’s Army in 1894. A contemporary New York Times article covering its genesis emphasizes the presence of “tramps,” including a “colored man” locked up before “his comrades [could] attempt to invade the town”; suggests that Jacob Coxey is disreputable; and uses the term “well-informed” to describe people denigrating Coxey’s efforts. Part of all this is arguably due to the generally spontaneous nature of the march–Coxey’s uncertainty of when people will show up is mocked and the comparatively sudden massing of people is played down as a threat to the establishment.

Similar elements can be seen in responses to the Occupy movement and its organizational kin. Bill Wasik describes how today’s easy access to instant communication technology makes spontaneous popular protests possibly more effective than before such technology existed; tools such as internet/text/BBM messaging allows for better coordination (cf. the Enfield riot) and are seen as largely unstoppable due to how wide-ranging they can be, which contributes to public fears. The internet in particular helped to rapidly spread Occupy’s Tumblr images, “the visible symbol of the giant, subterranean mob of Americans struggling to get by,” and Wasik’s use of “mob” here is telling–the danger he describes as seen in “a disconnected group getting connected” is not so different from the danger seen in Coxey’s Army.¹

CVC

^{1: Wasik, 10-11.}