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

What is OWS?

After looking at my previous posts and at the other posts on this blog, I have come to the conclusion that Occupy Wall Street is a protest. However, the question now is what type of protest is it, and how does it compare to past protests? According to the post Types of Protests by Kara, which is a more in depth analysis of the brief post I made containing definitions of protest, revolution, and demonstration, OWS includes aspects of both Passive and Direct action. OWS has included in its actions the displaying of signs, distribution of flyers, petitions, and passive picketing, as well as a more direct approach, such as occupations, lock-downs, disruptive picketing, demonstrations, boycotts, sit-ins, and strikes. Basically, whatever is considered part of a protest, OWS has done it. However, how does OWS compare to past protests, like the Vietnam War Protests? Did it start out the same, and what was the end result of the Vietnam protests? When the Vietnam War started in 1964, the venture was sold as very patriotic, and thus, not many people protested. After nearly 20 years in the Cold War, the American government used the logic that if America did not intervene, then what was going on in Vietnam would spread, according to the Domino Theory. While at first this seemed to appease the American public, it eventually started to lose favor with the increase of the draft. The draft increase particularly affected the working class and the poor, since they did not have the means to dodge the draft. Burning the draft papers became one of the first forms of direct action. The second round of protest increases started when the dead soldier count increased in Vietnam. The war had promised victory, but instead was taking many young lives. In fact, one line used by name protesters was “Hey! Hey! LBJ! How many kids did you kill today?” This line was shouted after it was found out that the US government had sanctioned the killing of innocent people in Vietnam. As the years went on, the Vietnam protests grew larger and larger, eventually leading to rallies in New York City and Washington DC. The veterans threw their medals and ribbons away in a demonstration that shocked many people, making them think that “ those who had worn the uniform of the US military had come to think that the only way ahead was to discard the very things that had been issued to them to represent their bravery” (History Learning Site). At the height of the war, the hippy movement preached peace and love (not war), and many young people wanted to drop out of society. Both of these went against the concept of doing the right thing for your country. The US media definitely played into this, since they were able to bring the war right into people’s homes. The media was able to portray the war for what it actually was, which led to even more opposition against the US government. The Kent State University incident in 1970 is a good example of a peaceful protest that turns violent in a flash. The students at the university burned down one of the buildings on campus, which caused the National Guardsmen to come in with rifles to try to subdue the demonstration, however, things got out of hand quick, with four students being killed at at least ten wounded by gunfire. With the news of political assassinations, indiscriminate bombings, and drug trafficking in Vietnam, the American public viewed the American government to have lost all accountability (Mark Barringer). The antiwar protests had become institutionalized, and eventually led to President Nixon ending US involvement in Vietnam in 1973. So after this long, brief history of the Vietnam protests, how does OWS compare (or contrast)? According to the post made recently by Savannah, Occupy Proposes a “Real Democracy”, OWS is about the fight for representation. The question she poses is more along the lines of whether OWS wants to change the government, or just change the way we are represented by our congressmen and senators. From what I can tell, OWS seems to be heading toward neither. According former Clinton pollster Dough Schoen, OWS “reflects values that are dangerously out of touch with the broad mass of the American people.” He added that the protesters “are bound by a deep commitment to radical left-wing policies” and comprise “an unrepresentative segment of the electorate that believes in radical redistribution of wealth, civil disobedience and, in some instances, violence” (Greg Sargent). However, Schoen’s poll reflects none of his claims. It finds that only 6% of the population say that income inequality frustrates them about the political system of the US, while 35% want the OWS movement to emulate the effect that the Tea Party had on the GOP, and apply the same effect to the Democratic Party now. The poll also finds that less than a third of the population wants the protest to become violent. Schoen’s poll, instead of following Schoen’s radical claims, instead follows suit more with the thought that OWS is leaning more toward being a protest that focuses more on passive action rather than direct action. While there have been reports of police brutality in the OWS movement, I think that, in line with the poll, OWS is heading toward a change in the way the US population is represented, with use of passive action more than direct action. I do not think that Americans, for the most part, want to overthrow the government, but would rather see a change within the government by transforming “the interests of the politicians from big business to their constituents” (Savannah Edwards). While the Vietnam protests also included passive action, I think that OWS is going in another direction from that form of protest because, ultimately, it wants a different outcome. The Vietnam protests, while wanting to pull US troops out of Vietnam, were different from OWS, since the OWS wants to change representation rather than pull us out of a war (which, by the way, only got 8% of the vote on Schoen’s poll). While US involvement in Afghanistan is a big deal, OWS would rather focus on more domestic issues, which is why I think that the movement will lean more toward passive action and trying to change the way the US population is represented in domestic politics.

-Erin

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/protests_vietnam_war.htm

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/kent_state_university.htm

http://www.english.illinois.edu/maps/vietnam/antiwar.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/what-occupy-wall-streets-critics-are-really-trying-to-accomplish/2011/10/18/gIQAr6MIvL_blog.html

http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/politics/2011/10/3790409/survey-many-occupy-wall-street-protesters-are-unhappy-democrats-who

Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc

I happened upon that YouTube video when looking for evidence of crimes that occur during Occupy protests.  The video sounds like a great resource at first: they haven’t articulated their mission, you say?  Why yes, having read their call to action, it does seem like they are without a specific goal.  They seem to be protesting “everything under the sun,” you say?  I agree, it does seem like people just label everything as “Occupy something” nowadays.  But wait a minute, “unorganized group of punks and entitled socialist dirt bags”?  Okay, maybe this video isn’t so unbiased after all…

However, putting the opinions of the vlogger aside, there is a lot of solid content about crimes that occur to and by Occupy protesters.  This lead to my search for unbiased reporting on the criminal acts at Occupy protests, and let me tell you, this was no easy feat and I feel that I am still very unsuccessful.  As David Meyer said in an ABC News article, “’These protests have a history of welcoming everyone and just assuming they’re on your side’” and as a result, people with maligned intentions have the ability to misuse the cause for their benefit.  However, onlookers do not simply consider that the relationship between crime and Occupy ”was just random variation and no causal relationship had been definitely established,” like Ben Adler did in his article for the Nation.  Cara Buckley explains in her article for the New York Times that “stories of crimes and dangerous behavior [...] have been used as fuel by those who say the protesters must go.”  As a result, especially within the media it seems, the actions of the few somehow end up representing the masses who attend the Occupy demonstrations.  Thus the bias.

Such is the case in a Yahoo News article by Mark Whittington.  When delivering a break-down on crimes that occurred during the Occupy movement across the country, he muses that “’Occupy Oakland’ has devolved into something resembling Lord of the Flies” and reports that the protesters who are a part of Occupy Oakland are ”a group described as ‘bullies, the mentally ill, drunks, thugs and anarchists’ [who] have turned the encampment into something resembling a state of nature, where the strong terrorize the weak, and where ad hoc rule making has caused a combination of anarchy and oppression. ”  Whether this be the case or not, there is no need for name calling.

You can find my post on the Occupy crime report findings here.

Iliana

Interview with the Founder of Adbusters

So I was reading a transcript of a conversation on National Public Radio with the editor and founder of Adbusters, and I thought that it would be an insightful post to talk about the origins of the OWS movement and where it might be heading. Kalle Lasn from Adbusters stated in his interview with NPR that the idea for OWS started with the anarchists in Greece and Spain, and then the events in Tunisia and Egypt contributed to the influences. Then Lasn and the other members of Adbusters thought that it would be a good idea to have a soft regime change in America as well. After the OWS movement was started, it began to move on its own, affecting cities throughout the country. Last October (2011) the movement crossed the border into Canada, and is now taking place in over 1,000 cites worldwide. According to Lasn, the soft regime change is reminiscent of Tahrir Square in Egypt. While Egypt had a dictator, and their regime change was considered hard regime change, America also has an oppressive regime, according to Lasn.  The rich and the financial people on Wall Street and the lobbyists and corporations of Washington DC control the economy and the laws that are being implemented. Every aspect of our lives is being run by megacorporations. Lasn believes that soft regime change is definitely wanted in the US. He also states that the young people around the world are worried that their future is uncertain and full of crises, like climate change and financial crises. They are worried that the world will revert back to the 1930s, where the people who are supposed to fix the political crisis are corrupted by money. Lasn continues to remark that the young people of the world feel that they should fight for the future that they want, or else there won’t be a future. However, while Kalle Lasn is the founder of Adbusters, we must keep in mind that there are no leaders or hierarchy in the OWS movement. Lasn is merely stating the reasons as to why Adbusters began the movement in the the first place, and where they are hoping that the movement will go. I agree that America is run for the most part by giant corporations, but I also think that the people wanted it that way. Perhaps it isn’t the best way to get equality, but there do need to be some people who run the corporations. Otherwise, I think that the world would run less smoothly. For example, if Wal-Mart and Target ceased to exist, I think that the markets that rely on these megamarts would slowly collapse. Perhaps they would be able to find another means of providing goods, but for the most part, there would be a huge deficit of common products and conveniences that would be missed. However, I do think that there needs to be some political change and economic change in order to benefit the people more effectively. For more information on this topic, I have included the link to NPR’s website, where I found the transcript. It includes some oral histories from a few of the occupiers, as well as more thoughts from Kalle Lasn. Let me know if I can provide any more information on this topic. In my next post I hope to look at the protests from the Vietnam War and the OWS movement, and compare them.

Erin

http://www.npr.org/2012/02/09/146649883/occupy-wall-street-the-future-and-history-so-far

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]

Red Propaganda?

Notice anything about these two images? The top one is an image being used by the Occupy Wall Street movement, while the bottom image was used during the Soviet period in Russia. Both use the same format, with a person, in this case a working woman and Lenin, on the Right, looking to the left, and Roman numerals on the left, with grain detailing. The OWS protesters seem to be using old propaganda from the Soviet Union and reusing it now.

Here is another image being used by OWS. Again, they are incorporating more Russian and Soviet motifs, like the sickle and hammer that is the Russian national symbol. Like in my post “What do We Really Want,” it seems like the OWS movement is taking notes from the Bolsheviks and the Soviet system. Both OWS and the Bolshevik Revolution have focused on the working class as their primary point of interest. Just to point out something, all three images that I have posted have a common primary color being used: red. Red was a symbol of Communism and still connotes that today. While it does draw the eye, does it also hint at something a bit more sinister? Food for thought.

-Erin

http://atrueott.wordpress.com/2011/10/23/the-truth-about-occupy-wall-street-exposed/

Just a disclaimer about this site: I do not support this site, nor do I agree with everything that is mentioned on the blog. I merely used the site because that is where I found the images that I used.

Protesters during the Great Depression

While it may seem like Occupy Wall Street is unique in its approach to protesting, according to Gary Gerstle, a Vanderbilt professor of American history and social movements, the OWS movement is similar to the protests that  occurred during the Great Depression. Capitalism had developed rapidly, creating a huge rift between classes, which exacerbated the split between rich and poor. Today there is another huge rift appearing between the rich and the poor, between the 1% and the 99%. However, Gerstle makes the point that the major difference between now and the 1930s is the “relative lack of protest.” According to Gerstle, during the Great Depression, people were flooding the streets, raising their concerns. However, today, there seems to be a lack of people flooding the streets everywhere. Most of the movements today happen in the large cities in the country, like New York, Washington, and Seattle, but in the 1930s, people were protesting everywhere. However, what the people during the Great Depression didn’t have was the power of the Internet. Maybe that is what will separate the OWS movement from the past protests in American history.

Erin

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.}

The Efficacy of Physical Presence versus Electronic Presence

Protests have been around since man decided that things in his world needed to be changed. There is not just one particular type of community or society that is prone to protests, but rather, every society has seen some sort of movement calling for change. In Malcolm Gladwell’s article “Small Change” in The New Yorker, Gladwell recounts the Woolworth’s incident in Greensboro, North Carolina, where four black men sit at the counter designated for whites only. The protest spread in a matter of days to over a thousand people, by just word of mouth. Now, protests such as the Occupy Wall Street movement have gained supporters through social media and networking, such as Facebook and Twitter.  With so many people on the Internet these days, it is amazing how quickly news can spread. Facebook and Twitter have become some of the main ways for protesters to get their claims heard and to get more people involved. However, as Gladwell claims, just because a protest is supported on the Internet, does this make it more effective? What made the 1960′s civil rights protests so effective was that everyone involved was committed. Since anyone around  the world can join the Occupy Wall Street movement, perhaps people are interested in the movement, but are they willing to become committed to the protest? Perhaps the social networking and media perspective will only be useful on a broad platform, merely introducing people to the topic, and from there they can choose to become committed to the project or not.

Erin

Gladwell article: https://hnrs353.wikispaces.com/file/view/GladwellMalcolm.pdf