Great. The Occupy movement is at it again. As if protesting for four months without any direction wasn't enough, now they've decided to start taking over buildings in Oakland. A recent MSNBC article discusses, in way too much depth, the latest escapades of the "occupiers." It seems now that they've decided that it is a good idea to tear down fences and take over public convention centers because they "need a headquarters." Call me crazy, but maybe they could each find a headquarters wherever it is that they live. But alas, not. Instead, they are clogging up the streets that the rest of us productive members of society need to use to accomplish things. Oh, and did I mention that they also broke into city hall and burned an American flag. Yeah, they're real patriots. So, the police have had to arrest hundreds of protestors for, and I emphasize this, breaking the law. Of course, this has become a major news story because the evil police are brutalizing the humble, well-intentioned "occupiers." Well, at least that is what MSNBC would have you believe. But, I'd like to point out one thing, they're not occupying, they're burglarizing. You know, burglarizing, as in breaking the law, as in something that gets you arrested. I guess this is what happens when a mass of people enter the street with no leader or defined goal. They say they are going to bring change. Right, sure they are. I guess they're just not sure what that change is.
Oh, and another thing. I have a bone to pick with MSNBC. As usual with the media, they're obsessing over the events. For goodness sake this article was updated almost every hour over the course of the night. At 3 am, who in the world really cares what is happening with these "occupiers." Like honestly, its over the top. And, furthermore, the article took a negative tone towards the police and the government. I think my favorite line was this one: "Several protesters at the YMCA appeared to be put hard to the ground as police moved in and at least one protester had blood on his face." Let me interpret what that line really says: A couple people at the YMCA may have possibly been arrested for being violent towards police and one guy had some blood on his face, but we don't really know from what. That line is filled with words that are designed to evoke anger and support for the protestors. The author of this article has no facts to back this ambiguous statement up. The sole purpose of this statement is to make the reader feel sympathetic towards the protestors and make the police look like evil monsters. I think it would be prudent for the media to at least try to be objective and not say things meant to evoke support for people who are breaking the law. The "occupiers" in Oakland say they are going to stand up and disobey police orders. NEWS FLASH, that is a crime. Just because they're protestors doesn't give them a right to break the law, even if they are "saving the world every day."
Its time for the "occupiers" to unoccupy. Maybe they could go search for a job instead of just complaining about how they don't have one. Something tells me that would be more productive. They aren't the 99%, they are the 1%. That is, they are 1% of people who thoroughly annoy the other 99% of society. Come on people, enough is enough. Get out of the streets, get out of our way, and go become functioning members of society.
Robbie, thanks for this post. I love people like you because you challenge me to see the other side of things, and we can still be friends at the end of the day. People I don't necessarily agree with on these issues (Namely, Elizabeth Lukas) have been known to change my views with convincing arguments.
ReplyDeleteOne thing I wanted to start with is that I think the people who are bringing violence and burglary to these movements are not necessarily completely representative of the movements themselves. These movements also aren't necessarily populated with dysfunctional members of society, either. They're not all the unemployed people in town getting together to destroy things, and they're not all collecting food stamps and welfare (I mean, maybe so in Oakland...). I think the people who bring that element and stereotype to the "Occupy" movement are irritating too sometimes (although I do love to watch a good car smashing). Your evaluation of the success of the movement based on these microcosms of rage, however, isn't easy to side with. In mass protests there often isn't one defined goal, which makes them attainable to so many people (hence the term "mass"). Even when there is a reasonably specific subject being protested (for instance, the Vietnam War), there still are dozens of topics to be discussed (war crimes, war spending, use of certain weapons, cultural disrespect, racism, the draft, etc.).
There are a lot of conversations to be had on the Occupy Movement. I think there are many ways of evaluating the success, but one overwhelming idea comes to mind that suggests to me that the Occupy movement is far more successful than you've admitted in this post. That is, the fact that you're angrily posting about it is a sign of their success. They're gained attention (especially in the media), and they have convinced people to watch it. Even you noticed the excessive coverage of these movements, and you don't even subscribe to it. Simply gaining national/international awareness that your cause exists is a victory. It's publicity.
Now, on to your recommendation to "Unoccupy". I agree with this in terms of the burglary, trespassing, police violence, and overall dysfunction happening in some of the movements. That stuff is lame. However, I think a lot of the issues raised in the Occupy movement are worth some more attention on personal, community, state, and national levels. The best way to reach the goals of large, sustainable change is to demand it through our day-to-day choices. For instance, if an "Occupy" group discusses the idea of huge corporations being negative, one can assume they should continue their figurative protest by shopping local for the rest of their lives. If you're passionate about something, have faith that your own personal changes can have an impact. That impact is increased if you convince others to change, like sharing your opinions/views at an occupy rally. Social participation of any kind is really neat and a great experience. I think that, if anything, someone who participates in the bettering of their community is MORE of a functioning member of society than one who shuts out these movements altogether. Obviously breaking windows and blocking traffic aren't good examples of this, but neither is blind conformity to the stagnant status quo.
On a side note, burning an American flag is a disgrace to my country, my family, and me personally. If someone did that in front of me I might shoot them and argue self-defense in court. Seriously not cool.
I love America, and I want to see her improve and succeed and change for the better over time. That's what makes our country so beautiful; we have to work to make her that way. Having a job, supporting our neighbors, voting, sharing our political beliefs, and contributing to societal change are all great ways to do this. I think it takes effort from every side of the aisle and every corner of the room.
Jill,
ReplyDeleteBy your writing ("That is, the fact that you're angrily posting about it is a sign of their success."), it seems that you would think the Occupy movement is trolling the American Media. As brilliant an idea as that is and as in line with the irony of justice, I can't agree. Their goal is to exploit the idea that media attention is directly relative to political attention. Last I checked, however, when you don't have goals all the media coverage in the world won't inspire change.The movement does not, to be fair, lack potential or even energy-- just direction.
I agree with Robbie-- they're getting extreme. They had this charming "occupy our homes" movement around December for moving homeless families into abandoned and foreclosed-upon homes. And "fixing them up" outside of proper building codes. Robin Hood romanticism aside, it's both illegal and dangerous.
I think they'd do more for the economy if they occupied job interviews and the workplace. I appreciate their use of the public forum, but this has gone on long enough.
I have to say that I completely agree with Robbie. While the the idea of going out and making frustration public was a good idea to try and bring about some sort of change, I feel like it is going no where, politically. However, from the first time the occupy movement leaked out on youtube, focusing on the brutalizing force of the police, the occupy movement managed to turn the heads of all people, democrat or republican. The occupy movement, while many of us may not agree with the point of the actual movement and some may even argue it is not a defined "movement" at all, they raised enough hell all over the country, or globe, to attract a media frenzy.
ReplyDeleteI actually feel as though the occupy movements are an amazing example of how the internet and social media sites have started to become major players in the media. The fact that the main stream media neglected to tell the citizen's of the country about the start of occupy wall street and social networks were the reason people became enlightened of the situation says that many people are moving away from main stream media and social networks are becoming more prevalent and more reliable in our lives! AFTER social networks spread the word about the occupy movement and such hype was surrounding it, both good and bad, soon the occupy movement was on every news channel, covering as much as they could, locally and nationally. So while some of us may feel as though the movement was a total flop due to the fact they do not have one cohesive idea, nor a public figure to truly get it anywhere, in regards to the media it shows a HUGE progression in how we get or news and how we share our news.