![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I'm getting worried about Occupy. I support the movement, but not everything it's done. You do have to make some noise in order to be heard, and I'm glad they've kept themselves non-violent while doing so. But some of the direct actions have gone too far in my eyes. Become counter-productive.
Shutting down bridges and subways? Shutting down ports? Hurts the 99%. Makes life harder for the regular people the movement is supposed to be fighting for. Makes it harder for them to get around. Takes money out of their pockets. Gives them yet another hassle. These are the people the movement is fighting for. Their lives are hard and unfair enough already. That's exactly why Occupy exists.
Last week, there was a showdown at Trinity Church. Trinity had long expressed support for the movement. Occupy Wall Street, having been kicked out of Zucotti Park, had set up camp at a small public park adjacent to the church. They asked nicely if they could expand into the churchyard. The church responded politely that while they continued to support the movement and the general fight for the poor & downtrodden, they did not want their yard to be taken up by an encampment. Which is quite reasonable, and well within their rights. Kudos to them if they'd said yes, but there are good reasons for saying no.
That's when things went south. Occupiers decided not to take no for an answer. Decided it was their right to take over the church's private property in the name of the movement. And made a big celebratory fuss as they scaled the fence and set up camp. That's not helping anyone. Certainly not the optics of the movement. In fact, I'd say it gives good ammo to the movement's detractors, who would want to paint it as a bunch of young hooligans who just take what they want whether it's theirs or not and trash everything along the way. That's not what it's about. It's not what most occupiers have done. But when you do something like lay siege to a church after you've been politely asked not to... it doesn't look good.
Meantime, on the road, Occupy The Highway has been doing some good. They marched from Wall Street to DC to protest the Supercommittee and picked up some new people along the way. From there, some of them decided to continue on to Atlanta, spreading the message along the way, talking to people who hadn't seen what Occupy was all about. Fantastic. Exactly the sort of grassroots outreach the movement needs, the movement was founded on.
Then, this past weekend, they decided on a little "civil disobedience." Instead of walking along the sidewalk, they marched in the street. When the police told them not to, they ignored the order. When officers steered them back onto the sidewalk, they stepped back out onto the road. A bunch of them got arrested.
There's a lovely post about how inspiring that was, and that's great. Shows the tactic did some good. Managed to reach at least one person. Invigorate the movement. That sort of thing. They got some media attention, too. Which is important because Occupy has been going for three months now and some people are getting burnt out about it or just thinking that there's nothing new to the story.
But you know what else happened? They had to pay the bail bondsman, which took a deep bite out of the funds they'd been given for the march by the General Assembly. So they had to fret about how they could continue the march and ask for donations and scramble for help from the local Occupy encampment. All because they decided to block a roadway. Civil disobedience for the sake of civil disobedience. Disruption for the sake of attention. Nothing special about that road. Nothing specific being protested by blocking it.
The effects of doing so? Traffic was blocked or slowed down. Not for any greedy fat cats. Not for any corrupting lobbyists. Not for any obstinate lawmakers. For regular people. The 99%. Work, stress, and difficulty for the cops. Who are also the 99%. (Something many occupiers, including the marches in question, have made a point to highlight.) And those people came away from the experience with a negative impression of the movement. This was in North Carolina, too - likely, many of the people who witnessed this were Fox News viewers, who have been told nothing good about Occupy. Instead of reaching them, explaining things to them, maybe opening up some eyes... they blocked traffic just to get some attention. Not helping.
The movement has been doing good lately. Bringing attention back to foreclosures, fighting evictions (sometimes successfully!), getting people to see the problems in our society, changing the conversation. But when it disrupts the lives of the people it's fighting to support, when things get illegally occupied, when the attitude is "we're Occupiers; we have the right and the privilege to take this over," when asserting the movement means trampling the rights of others (to private property, to free speech, to go about their daily lives)... it's just not helping.
Shutting down bridges and subways? Shutting down ports? Hurts the 99%. Makes life harder for the regular people the movement is supposed to be fighting for. Makes it harder for them to get around. Takes money out of their pockets. Gives them yet another hassle. These are the people the movement is fighting for. Their lives are hard and unfair enough already. That's exactly why Occupy exists.
Last week, there was a showdown at Trinity Church. Trinity had long expressed support for the movement. Occupy Wall Street, having been kicked out of Zucotti Park, had set up camp at a small public park adjacent to the church. They asked nicely if they could expand into the churchyard. The church responded politely that while they continued to support the movement and the general fight for the poor & downtrodden, they did not want their yard to be taken up by an encampment. Which is quite reasonable, and well within their rights. Kudos to them if they'd said yes, but there are good reasons for saying no.
That's when things went south. Occupiers decided not to take no for an answer. Decided it was their right to take over the church's private property in the name of the movement. And made a big celebratory fuss as they scaled the fence and set up camp. That's not helping anyone. Certainly not the optics of the movement. In fact, I'd say it gives good ammo to the movement's detractors, who would want to paint it as a bunch of young hooligans who just take what they want whether it's theirs or not and trash everything along the way. That's not what it's about. It's not what most occupiers have done. But when you do something like lay siege to a church after you've been politely asked not to... it doesn't look good.
Meantime, on the road, Occupy The Highway has been doing some good. They marched from Wall Street to DC to protest the Supercommittee and picked up some new people along the way. From there, some of them decided to continue on to Atlanta, spreading the message along the way, talking to people who hadn't seen what Occupy was all about. Fantastic. Exactly the sort of grassroots outreach the movement needs, the movement was founded on.
Then, this past weekend, they decided on a little "civil disobedience." Instead of walking along the sidewalk, they marched in the street. When the police told them not to, they ignored the order. When officers steered them back onto the sidewalk, they stepped back out onto the road. A bunch of them got arrested.
There's a lovely post about how inspiring that was, and that's great. Shows the tactic did some good. Managed to reach at least one person. Invigorate the movement. That sort of thing. They got some media attention, too. Which is important because Occupy has been going for three months now and some people are getting burnt out about it or just thinking that there's nothing new to the story.
But you know what else happened? They had to pay the bail bondsman, which took a deep bite out of the funds they'd been given for the march by the General Assembly. So they had to fret about how they could continue the march and ask for donations and scramble for help from the local Occupy encampment. All because they decided to block a roadway. Civil disobedience for the sake of civil disobedience. Disruption for the sake of attention. Nothing special about that road. Nothing specific being protested by blocking it.
The effects of doing so? Traffic was blocked or slowed down. Not for any greedy fat cats. Not for any corrupting lobbyists. Not for any obstinate lawmakers. For regular people. The 99%. Work, stress, and difficulty for the cops. Who are also the 99%. (Something many occupiers, including the marches in question, have made a point to highlight.) And those people came away from the experience with a negative impression of the movement. This was in North Carolina, too - likely, many of the people who witnessed this were Fox News viewers, who have been told nothing good about Occupy. Instead of reaching them, explaining things to them, maybe opening up some eyes... they blocked traffic just to get some attention. Not helping.
The movement has been doing good lately. Bringing attention back to foreclosures, fighting evictions (sometimes successfully!), getting people to see the problems in our society, changing the conversation. But when it disrupts the lives of the people it's fighting to support, when things get illegally occupied, when the attitude is "we're Occupiers; we have the right and the privilege to take this over," when asserting the movement means trampling the rights of others (to private property, to free speech, to go about their daily lives)... it's just not helping.