?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Haters gonna hate - in which I object to some of the arguments against #OccupyWallStreet - Tactical Ninja

Sep. 22nd, 2011

09:39 am - Haters gonna hate - in which I object to some of the arguments against #OccupyWallStreet

Previous Entry Share Next Entry

Warning up front - this might get long.

Dunno if you've heard but there are some people attempting to occupy Wall Street in New York. There are a few hundred of them and they've been there since Saturday. What they are protesting is broadly the corruption of the system, and more specifically the complete lack of punishment for the instigators of the US financial meltdown, followed by a taxpayer-funded bailout for the same organisations that created it. They intend to stay there until this is acknowledged and actioned by the US government.

You may not have seen much in the news about it. That's because there hasn't been much in the news about it. There has been a little - CNN posted an article on Saturday, Channel 2 news managed to repeat the article yesterday, Al Jazeera has links to various streams of information. But realistically, there hasn't been a lot of news about it and if you weren't actively looking for it, many people wouldn't know it was happening.


Maybe it's because Yahoo was blocking emails that mentioned it. Maybe it's because police turned up and prevented the group from getting into Wall Street on Saturday, and have been using some very creative reasons to suppress the protest by taking away people's shelter, means of generating electricity, and communication. Oh, also arresting them.

Yet they are still there.

You'll note that the articles published in mainstream media seem a little slanted to frame the protestors in a particular way - the CNN one gives space to a police officer talking about the lack of sought permission and the 'safety issues' of allowing the protest, while the next paragraph discusses the yoga and tai chi classes that were going on within the protest. Dunno about you, but if I were some conservative person reading that stuff I'd automatically write the protestors off as a bunch of disorganised hippies.

Yet they are still there. And they have been learning as they go - there is a list online of things the protestors need. Yesterday they managed to buy a generator, and the food fund reached $10,000. People are donating time and money to this. Tim O'Reilly turned up and added his spoke, suggesting on Google Plus that it was the wrong people protesting - scruffy, idealistic young people, too easily dismissed by those in authority.

Unlike the people in his comments, he actually went down there and walked his talk instead of sitting back in his armchair and judging. And I say good on him and everyone else should shut the fuck up.

Because I've heard a whole bunch of hating going on. Everything from 'first world problems' to 'middle class white kids' to 'look at what's going on in Syria why do these privileged people think they have a right to protest?' to 'what's your point?'

And it makes me wild. I've been studying social movements, as you know. One of the first things we learned is that when there's an uprising, it's not the rich who protest, because the rich have other avenues by which they can change things. It's not the poor that protest, because they are too busy trying to survive. It's nearly always the middle classes that have the education, the time, the resources to protest but don't have the political avenues to not need to protest.

So yeah, it's middle class kids who are protesting and that's to be expected. So why is it kids? Like the articles up there say - they are overeducated and underemployed. To put it simply, in the US at the moment if you have a job, you keep going to it no matter what because if you take time off to attend a protest you're likely to lose it to someone who needs it more, and then you'll join the ranks of 'too poor to protest'. Take out the very rich, the very poor and the Need This Job, who do you have left? The unemployed college students and graduates.

And if leaving college with a $40,000 debt into unemployment isn't a valid reason to be pissed off, then please explain to me where the line between valid reasons and non-valid ones is.

As for the Syria argument, I'd direct your attention to Derailing for Dummies, specifically the entry entitled "Don't you have more important issues to think about?". Now while this page is about arguments with marginalised people and maybe the #OccupyWallStreet protestors are not marginalised in the social justice sense of the word, I think that the suggestion that people getting shot at in Syria means that the issues these protestors have are trivial and not worthy of protest fits right into that argument.

The thing is, what they are protesting is not fucking trivial. You can read up on the global financial crisis here. Wonder at how it was caused by a bunch of unregulated financial institutions in the US playing fast and loose with credit! Marvel at the way in which people were used as dupes so that the investment banks could bet against their being able to service loans and thus make more money! Boggle at the govermental response of bailing out the banks at cost to the same taxpayers who'd been pawns in the game!

And be completely unsurprised by the lack of punishment given to those who caused this. Many of these people not only didn't suffer themselves, they walked away with millions. And a lot of them are still in positions of power. You see in the US, lobbying is big business, and those with the money get to influence legislation to allow them to make more money. And to keep their jobs. Still don't believe me? Go watch Inside Job. Spells it out pretty plainly. And if that's not state corruption, I'm not exactly sure what is.

"But... Syria! They have it much worse over there!" Yes, they do. They are being shot at for protesting pretty much the same thing. They do have it worse. Does that mean that people in the US shouldn't protest?

Bearing in mind, that is, that the US financial meltdown led to a global recession. I don't know how the recession affected Syria, but there's stuff out there about how it's affected India, China, and Africa. Yep, when Americans stop buying stuff, people in other countries starve.


So tell me again why the privileged middle class white scruffy kids in Wall Street are doing a bad thing and should be derided for it? And tell me again why those of us who support protesting the corruption and bullshit that's been coming out of the US and how it's affected the rest of the world should shut up because people are being shot in Syria? And tell me again why it's ok for the police to arrest people for wearing a mask on the back of their head.

Because I'm sure we all agree that people in first world countries have nothing to complain about and therefore we should just ignore their protest or suppress it or frame them negatively so we can be ok with not doing anything about it, right?

Oh wait.

And yeah, five days later they are still there. How long do they have to stay before their protest becomes valid? I'm gonna leave you with this from the Guardian - Why 'Occupy Wall Street' Makes Sense.

[edit] Was gonna make a new post for this but in light of the Troy Davis killing, I'm keeping this update down here out of respect:


Olbermann Calls Out MSM For "Media Blackout" Of Wall Street Occupation

Comments:

[User Picture]
From:bekitty
Date:September 21st, 2011 09:50 pm (UTC)
(Link)
I reckon that it's a damn good way of examining their privilege. Go the Wall St protestors, I say! \o/
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:tatjna
Date:September 21st, 2011 10:16 pm (UTC)
(Link)
It'd be cool if you could enlarge on this concept. ;-)
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
(Deleted comment)
[User Picture]
From:tatjna
Date:September 21st, 2011 10:15 pm (UTC)
(Link)
This protest was inspired by the uprisings in Egypt, Tunisia etc, notably not by anything that happened in a Western country.

Another thing I've learned recently that fits with the 'protest as a tool of the middle class' theory is that the uprisings of the severely downtrodden are generally disruptive and violent - think London riots. Wondering here if going postal is a similar response.

Western governments have done a very good job of suppressing dissent over the last 30 years - Sandra Grey has done some work on how this has happened in NZ beginning with the disempowerment of trade unions - their tools not being a visible, protestable method like violence but instead encouraging a culture of derision towards protest, framing of protestors as ineffective hippies and ignoring even large, well organised demonstrations. The result being what we're seeing now - people really struggling to organise and maintain mass protest despite a large number being dissatisfied.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
(Deleted comment)
[User Picture]
From:tatjna
Date:September 21st, 2011 10:46 pm (UTC)
(Link)
I think we'd all like to know that. However I also think we need to not go "Oh look, someone's finally protesting. I hope they are protesting everthing ever otherwise they still aren't valid."

I'm pretty sure that for most people involved in this movement (based in what I've been reading from people involved in this movement), they are trying to raise mass disobedience against the crimes of Wall Street because it's an example of systemic corruption. And they believe that systemic corruption is the root cause of the poverty in the US - thus, they think that exposing/ending the corruption will reduce poverty. Many aren't clear on how to end it or how it'll reduce poverty.

Now we could take that as a reason to write them off as useless also to accuse them of seeing the US poor as 'non-people', or we could realise that "I don't know how to fix it but I know it's wrong and I feel I have to stand up" is the single most common statement I've read as a motivation to protest this. These people aren't all political scientists and we shouldn't expect them to be. Now would be a good time for the political scientists to get on board with them though - and I think that's what Tim O'Reilly was getting at.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:thesecondcircle
Date:September 21st, 2011 10:55 pm (UTC)
(Link)
"I don't know how to fix it but I know it's wrong and I feel I have to stand up"

This is related to my comment re. anonymity in your other post. You don't have to have solutions in order to protest -- that's not the point. The point of protest is to gain attention and make your opinion heard. Many violent protests aren't the result of poverty, they're the result of being systematically ignored. During the London riots one young man made a comment that they'd marched peacefully, thousands of them, but had been ignored by the press and government alike. But break a few shop windows and set some cars on fire and the press is all over it.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:tatjna
Date:September 21st, 2011 11:02 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Yeah, I read that too.

And once more people become aware of the situation and the fact that others feel the same, more solutions-capable people are likely to get involved. There's tome after tome of dry theory about this stuff but in a nutshell it appears to be a movement's success at framing their cause in a way that aligns with the worldview of a large number of people that indicates their success at achieving their goals.

I've just been reading a bunch of stuff about movements that emerge from developments in technology and their role in creating master frames that are incorporated into future movements. I suspect the thesis of my next essay will be Anonymous as one of these early master-frame-creators for the use of the internet as a technology of protest.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:danjite
Date:September 22nd, 2011 02:52 am (UTC)
(Link)
Also of relevance, in the American psyche a moment of fame or infamy is highy desirable and there are many documented incidents of people going on killing sprees for that reason.

So, take a person who is belittled by the system, sees no option for change, is ignored by authority, has had a psychotic break from some incident piled on a lifetime of incidents and gee, happens to own an arsenal.

Frankly, I am surprised it doesn't happen more.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:ferrouswheel
Date:September 22nd, 2011 01:59 am (UTC)
(Link)
This would be a perfect time for Rage Against the Machine to show up on Wall Street like they did in 2000:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_views_and_activism_of_Rage_Against_the_Machine#.22Sleep_Now_in_the_Fire.22_video_shoot
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:bekitty
Date:September 21st, 2011 10:16 pm (UTC)
(Link)
I've put a link to this on Shakesville, so you might get some commenters here that you don't normally see. Hope you don't mind! :)
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:tatjna
Date:September 21st, 2011 10:16 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Totally fine. I'd like to see more coverage of this everywhere tbh.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:richdrich
Date:September 21st, 2011 11:17 pm (UTC)
(Link)
So, correct me if I'm wrong, but there's this concept that the "global financial crisis" is an isolated event caused by "corruption" (however that's defined) among a small group of "bankers" who should be nailed to the wall for it. With the corollary that the participants in every other part of the capitalist system (like wealthy publishers of expensive textbooks, just as a for-instance) are in no way culpable.

I'd dispute this premise. The bankers are performing a function, sure - they enable middle class people to live a lifestyle beyond their ability to earn money in the current system. That might involve inflating the price of property, it might involve inflating the price of companies, enabling a business model that doesn't really work to float away on a promise.

This cash-pumping's been going on for years. In 1867, the middle classes were a small minority, most people were ultra-poor and self-evidently ripe for revolution. Over the next 150 years, capitalism avoided this by using the surplus from technological advance to create a large, somewhat unproductive, middle-class.

As resources got depleted and expensive and the middle class grew ever bigger (with the developing world, which had acted as a buffer, getting in on the game) the system has steadily started to creak. The bankers came up with various ways to manage this (such as ways to lend money to people who couldn't possibly pay it back). These strategems have been breaking - and will go on breaking.

[As evidence, I'd point to NZ. We didn't have PhDs with the skills to develop CMOs and so on - instead, we had an old bloke in Timaru shuffling billions in and out of shoeboxes, with exactly the same end result]

Thst's the genesis of the world financial crisis - turning round and scapegoating bank workers is no more rational than picking on any other workers. Why don't people go and occupy Infinite Loop?

(What we actually need is to get to a system that gives people control over their own economic destiny - how this could happen and how we could get to it is a hard problem - but it probably involves people understanding that the current system isn't basically ok, it's basically broken).


(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:richdrich
Date:September 21st, 2011 11:26 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Which isn't to say that any form of protest isn't in some way useful, even just to radicalise people. So long as they don't veer to the extreme right (and of course there is a huge taxonomy of blaming the worlds problems on Shadowy International Manipulators).
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:tatjna
Date:September 21st, 2011 11:26 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Yes.

The majority of the people who support this movement, when asked why, have been saying "the system is broken". Which is more or less the same thing you're saying, and the global financial crisis is simply a symptom of the broken system.

However, people who protest realise that 'the system is broken' is not the best way to grab people's attention. It's kind of like 'capitalism sucks' or 'the environment, man'. Effective movements frame their grievances in ways that people can relate to, and talk about solid things. Focusing on climate change, saving the whales, saving Troy Davis or punishing the bankers are all different ways of saying "The system is broken and we need to fix it" - packaged in a more manageable way.

So yes, scapegoating the bankers and exposing US elite corruption will not fix the broken system - but persuading the US government to put regulation in place to prevent it happening again sounds like a move in the right direction.

I also agree with your last point - as do many of the protestors. I don't think you and they are that far apart in what you think is wrong and how it might be fixed.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:ferrouswheel
Date:September 22nd, 2011 01:51 am (UTC)
(Link)
The people at the top of Goldman Sachs knew exactly what they were doing. As evidenced by the emails they were sending to each other. Then using AIG to insure themselves against bad CMOs, and also hedging against AIGs demise. After AIG and the CMOs collapsed, they were still paid 100 cents on the dollar for AIG insurance policy, but paid by the US taxpayer... despite the fact they'd already insured against AIGs demise. This was kept secret.

And why does it not surprise me that the old Goldman Sachs CEO is the Secretary of the US Treasury http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Paulson

I have no issue with the people in the banking system just doing their job. I do have issue with the non-accountability of bonuses that led to the insanity, and the revolving door between the financial world and government.

(I may have got something wrong since I'm going from memory here)
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:tatjna
Date:September 22nd, 2011 01:55 am (UTC)
(Link)
Nope, that's pretty much it.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:hep
Date:September 22nd, 2011 03:20 am (UTC)

this got too long so i split it

(Link)
these kinds of articles are almost always the same about this kind of protest. the 2003 anti iraq war "riots" (how the media framed peaceful civil disobedience in the streets) in san francisco were presented much the same way, the work of a bunch of kids (because i look 12 probably) despite the fact that there were thousands of teachers, parents (im vp of the pta!!), "normal citizens" (aka not college students), wealthy people, actors, and the former head of the SF Stock Exchange. but somehow most of the original reporting slanted it like a bunch of anarchist kids running around just to cause trouble (not that those weren't there, but it was definitely not the bulk of those 7 days.)

however, the corollary is that the privileged protest to maintain THEIR status quo, not to protest on behalf of groups less marginalized. college is a choice, and complaining that you were not guaranteed a job at the end of it is the height of privilege, as is the argument "well i was poor in college". poor in college has absolutely no parity to being part of the actual poor class in america. choosing to forgo luxuries so that you have the ability to market yourself to the workforce later is, again, a choice, and one with the option of bettering your class level from the get-go. 50% of jobs listed in america automatically deny the ability for non-college attending members of the workforce to apply, that is what you are paying for and going through with college. whining that you didn't get a job the second you graduated, or even within a year, or even within 10yr is the height of privilege. it's like the people that bought expensive houses and then complained when the value went down. there is no guarantee in the bill of rights or constitution that if you attend college you will automatically receive work, and if unemployment is that high among new college grads, imagine what it is like among actual poor classes of people who never even had the ability to attend college. and these are the people who really are most affected by the united states financial meltdown, as they are now mostly completely unable to secure loans, have had their pensions bankrupted by unstability on wall street (remember, blue collar working class pensions are often the first to get sacked by poor financial situations in first world countries, because the pensions of white collar workers are more secure, can afford a much higher tier of financial management and direction, and are often already tied to that network of better financial accounting through internal contacts with the system. blue collar pension funds are often directed and managed by blue collar workers of a particular status within the union, people who usually have absolutely no financial training and put their trust into whatever financial managers they can afford. see: the steel workers in the 80s, the pipe fitters in the 90s, and basically every blue collar pension right now. both of my fathers have seen their pension drop by over 80% in the last 4 years, whereas my internet computer friends have lost 5-10% of their iras and you will never hear the end of the bitching)

(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:hep
Date:September 22nd, 2011 03:20 am (UTC)

Re: this got too long so i split it

(Link)
he issue with class legitimacy is an important one, because if your protest is solely limited to a class of people who can honestly afford to take time off to protest (and most of these kids are receiving support from higher class friends and parents, have access and knowledge of networks like kickstarter and other sorts of quick funding, and have the ability, because they are white middle class privileged people, to go into various protest networks and mechanisms and receive instant respect and access to resources (places like indymedia, nyc resistor, crimethinc networks, ANSWER, etc, which is not at all available to members of lower classes, particularly people of color. the welcome and ability to use resources that a white college anarchist grad will receive in any of those venues is light years difference from the welcome and allowance to use resources that is granted to say, a young black male who dropped out of high school and works as a mechanic) it will never gain true legitimacy as it is quite obviously made up of dilettantes who aren't being actually truly affected by the actions they are protesting. usually these kinds of people end up dropping out of the protest scene once they turn 25 and get a real job. which shows that it was more of a hobby and social scene for them, less of an actual committed social justice viewpoint. and people in power know this, and know if they just ignore these kinds of social justice actions because kids will get bored and move on with their lives into something else. then it becomes "remember when we protested back in the day! we really made a difference!" even as they did not affect any real change, and the same social problems are still in effect. you can see this incredibly clearly with certain protest movements in the bay area that have totally stagnated because most of the people who were supposedly most invested in the movement "grew up" and are now part of the class they were formerly protesting against. this is not to be confused with true social justice burnout which will end up affecting all truly committed social justice activists at some point primarily because of activists like i discussed above. it is incredibly frustrating to devote your entire life to social justice organization, and deal with what we call spring break activists or trustifarians, who are just protesting to get back at their parents, or for social scene cred with protest girls, and will disappear from the social justice landscape within a few years (usually 3yr after they graduate college, and they finally are on a true upward mobile career path).

are all social justice actions important? of course. but not on the same level of parity. you cannot compare the actions of say, ANY black bloc protest on the same level of social change as mlk's march on washington. their background, backing, reasons, and most important the future of how they continue to progress their social justice movement has just as much importance towards the legitimacy of their protest actions as the actual social justice movement they are protesting for.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:hep
Date:September 22nd, 2011 03:23 am (UTC)

Re: this got too long so i split it

(Link)
pretend the first sentence says The at the beginning. i did a poor job cutting and pasting.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:hep
Date:September 22nd, 2011 03:32 am (UTC)

Re: this got too long so i split it

(Link)
also also, i am not referring SO much directly to this protest in these posts, i am mostly talking about where the attitude of blowing off protest actions by certain groups of people comes from. some of this stuff probably applies, but i have been concentrating on other social action right now (most notably the troy davis case) so i haven't been paying attention to really any of the wall street protests.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:tatjna
Date:September 22nd, 2011 03:36 am (UTC)

Re: this got too long so i split it

(Link)
Thanks for adding your spoke in, I was interested to hear what you had to say about this.

I don't think these people are claiming a social justice frame tbh, I don't think they are claiming to be marginalised either, nor comparing themselves with mlk, nor saying that their protest is more/less important than any other.

I think it's doing them and their cause a disservice to say that they aren't being truly affected by the actions they are protesting. I am affected by the actions they are protesting. Everyone in the world is - but not everyone in the world has the resources to protest in this way, and as you point out, those most affected really really don't have them. And I for one am glad that someone does have those resources and is finally getting off their arse and doing it.

Finally, I'd like to point out that the uprising in Egypt was also started by small groups of middle class privileged people who had the resources to do it, a lot of them being college graduates.

But you're right with your last comment - the things you, Happy and Rich have said are all pertinent and valid and fit perfectly into the rhetoric that's been used to suppress protest in Western countries since the 60s.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:hep
Date:September 22nd, 2011 04:15 am (UTC)

Re: this got too long so i split it

(Link)
right, but the fact that they have the resources to protest like this, and that they aren't being drastically affected in the ways that most lower class people are being affected is a huge point in the legitimacy of their protests, because it allows people to write off the protests as not important because those people being drowned by this system aren't out there. and that is a huge point. most middle class protest kids could do far more to affect real change by working their networks, ie having their parents, who are often in the upper middle class, pull their money from banks, have their workplaces pull accounts from banks involved, write letters to various public figures and bank officials, having their parents, family members, etc, sign public letters and declarations of various kinds. but that is actual hard work that would require serious commitment and the possibility of real negative change in their lives (vis a vis relationships with those people involved, the possibility of being cut off financially from their support networks and having to then be actually seriously affected by the problems they are protesting, etc) versus an action that is easy *for them* and has little to no social or life consequences beyond spending a night in jail. and social recognition of the impact that the protesting body receives from whatever they are protesting is HUGE in widespread social legitimacy of a protest movement, pretending that one has nothing to do with the other is not going to make that point true. in the iraq war protests, it was not the anarchist middle class kids who made the movement legitimatized, it was the stockbrokers, army members, commissioned officers, etc that added true legitimacy to that protest because it was not only a protest by those with free time and resources to hobby protest, but also those who not only did not have the free time and resources always to protest, but also received actual repercussions beyond doing that night in jail (and remember, for 99% of trustifarian, anarchist, or white middle class college and post-college protesters, getting arrested is a badge of status within their social justice networks. i cannot tell you how many annoying "i was arrested #x" bragfests i've had to sit through in various affinity meetings. it is literally a mark of internal protest social class.) and had actual realized impact for or from the situation being protested. and just because someone is affected by something, particular a global situation, doesn't mean that it automatically confers the same amount of status on someone who is drastically affected. there is a huge difference between some guy who doesn't have a pension anymore, and some kid who will have to defer his student loans for a couple years until the economy booms again (and it will because that is how global economics and, mismanagement of a sovereign state's economic climate works. was re: the first dot.com bust, the s&l scandal of the 80s, economic downturns of the 1970s, etc). i am affected by illegal immigration because i date someone with a green card and i am of hispanic descent, but i am in no way on the same level as the kids being deported for publicizing their identities, actions, and status re: the D.R.E.A.M. act, and to do so would cause a huge disservice to what they face, and the dangers and repercussions from their actions that they are going through.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:hep
Date:September 22nd, 2011 04:15 am (UTC)

Re: this got too long so i split it

(Link)


further, it doesn't matter if the protestors consider themselves a part of a social justice movement or not, because they are. and in fact i would say that the fact that they do not consider themselves a part of a social justice movement is a HUGE part of the problem. there is a large difference between protesting because it's the cool thing to do, all your friends are going, and you don't have class that week compared to realizing the profound affect that your actions can have on shaping society, considering your place in the problem and recognizing whether or not protesting in the streets is a valid and useful move from the perspective of where you stand in regards to the problem, and then protesting because you truly truly believe that it is the best resource at hand to effect the social change you are aiming for. the people who do it just to be seen as a protester in the streets, and get their pictures in the newspaper, and getting arrested so they can talk about getting arrested do a huge disservice and take away from the power of protests who are being seriously waged by those who face dire consequences and actualized dangers, to affect social action. there is a difference between what the bulk of these kids are likely doing (anarchist protest campout on wall street!) and say the tent city protests in sacramento, ca by indigent, homeless, unemployed people affected by the mortgage meltdown, or rosa parks and the boycott of the montgomery bus system (because remember, rosa didn't just sit down in the front because she was tired. it was a planned considered social justice action with the express intent of getting her arrested, with the potential for real dire consequences to her, (such as beating, rape, or death at the hands of the arresting officers, holding officers, dismissal of the problem completely by legal representatives who ostensibly are supposed to help her, etc) to kickstart the movement. a huge difference from kids getting arrested and then bailed out by their parents with MAYBE a black eye, just to brag about it, who will go back to school next semester, or finally get an interview from all those resumes they sent out next month and forget all about this except as an interesting anecdote from their youth)

and you can't compare the situation in egypt to the situation in the us like it has absolute parity. the political climate of one's country has a huge effect on what kind of repercussions one will face and the risks one will have to take to try and push for their social change. my family was middle class in yugoslavia, but that didn't stop tito from mowing them down and charging the family for the bullets, or jailing many of them for upwards of 2 decades for daring to protest yugoslavian social policies. that's a huge differences in how people are treated here for the same actions, where the most you will likely have to face is 24hr in holding and then MAYBE a fine. just because someone in the world is of a particular class level does not make it so their actions have absolute comparable weight across the board, the affectation of their government's reaction to social justice movement has just as much to do with things as does their class level. middle class protestors in iran are in no way on the same page as middle class protestors in the uk.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:tatjna
Date:September 22nd, 2011 05:24 am (UTC)

Re: this got too long so i split it

(Link)
Identity politics is an issue in all social movements, but it's not the only issue.

I get the sense that you are looking at this protest with something of a jaundiced eye, and while I respect your knowledge of the topic I also get the feeling you have judged these people to be 'not legitimate' because of their privilege. That's fair enough and it's your call to make. Maybe you're right, maybe they are all trust fund babies who'll go home on Friday and brag to their frinds about getting arrested. Does this make their point less valid?

Because right now I'm not seeing anyone else standing up and saying "Oi, this is wrong."

On the topic of what else they could be doing, I wonder how many people even know of these things? I mean, I know the information is out there but again I think it's doing people a disservice to assume that because they haven't dedicated their entire life to taking the kinds of action you list, they are fair-weather 'protest kids' who don't really care about the issue.

I attended my first protest as someone on welfare in 1988, and it's only in the last three to four years that I've come to understand the ways in which I can affect real change without getting out there and chanting on the streets. I've got quite interested in the concept of microprotest (or more accurately, microactivism) as a way of overcoming the 'it's all too big and they ignore us anyway' disempowerment that's kept people from making big demonstrations - in NZ anyway.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:tatjna
Date:September 22nd, 2011 05:33 am (UTC)

Re: this got too long so i split it

(Link)
Also, I'll probably be posting on the microactivism thing tomorrow because you've got me thinking. Mind if I quote your list of things people can do from up there in it?
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:damnitnicole
Date:September 22nd, 2011 04:02 am (UTC)
(Link)
Beautiful. Can I repost this, like everywhere?
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:tatjna
Date:September 22nd, 2011 05:14 am (UTC)
(Link)
If you like. I'd be honoured.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From:(Anonymous)
Date:September 22nd, 2011 02:30 pm (UTC)
(Link)
They're protesting big money. Big money controls the media. Big money controls the police. Big money is blind to those that don't fit their profile.

I walk past these kids every day. Yes, 90% of them are kids. I work in the FiDi. I only make about $30,000 a year, am married, have a kid, ect. It's not enough, I'd love to see what they're TRYING to say be heard.

The police have put them in a small, easy to avoid park. The only way their protest is working right now is by making the walk from point A to point B in that area a pain in the ass. Nobody even knows what's going on. I hear that question every day, usually followed by the quote, and I kid you not, "Damned hippies".

Problem is, even if it is heard. It's not going to change anything. They're going about this so very, very wrong. They're poorly planned and disorganized. If you're going to protest against something of this scope, you need to be organized. I saw all the threads and posters and ads leading up to this. It had as much organization as a Flash Mob of people swinging lightsabers at Port Authority. Not to mention, it looks like the same crowd.

You want this to be successful? Wolf in sheeps clothing. Don't go there looking like someone so easily dismissed. These suits only see a bunch of dirty children in raggedy clothes making their commute a little more inconvenient.

Shave, comb your hair, dress like one of them or at least close. Put the thought in the minds of the people looking your way, "Hey, that looks like me, or like the guy who worked in the office next to mine". Organization is also easier. Have everyone wear an Orange t-shirt with the messages written in marker on them if not printed.
Right now, it looks like a gathering of squatters, crust punks and hippies. Seriously. There's people that look more bored than active. Sitting on their cell phones, playing game boy, ect.

They are disorganized, inactive and ineffective.

Greed is a fundamental human trait. People don't like hearing this, but it is very true. Without any recognition to the contrary to put the thought in the head of the movers and shakers, they will continue to ignore the message at hand and find new and inventive ways to line their pockets with sweet, sweet money.

I'm not against this, I'm against the method. What they need to do now is retreat, regroup and reform their "attack".

I could go on, this has been long enough already. I think the point has been made. I'm not against this, I'm against the method. What they need to do now is retreat, regroup and reform their "attack".
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:tatjna
Date:September 22nd, 2011 06:18 pm (UTC)
(Link)
So let me see, you're one of the Need This Job people who agrees with their point but won't actually stand up yourself, yett are ok with walking past them every day then getting on your computer and writing comments in forums calling them disorganised hippies and telling everyone except them what the 'right' way to protest is.

I'm gonna suggest here that you go talk to them in their physical or online space and make your suggestions there, while also letting them know that you agree with their point.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)