Occupy What, Where, Why? by Q. Reyes – Artistic Warfare #103
January 30, 2012 Q. Reyes 2 Comments
It’s going down in Oakland. Occupiers and police clash and things are not looking so good. Last night’s protests got especially violent and the scene looked like something straight out of Lybia.
Yet, even though the world is watching, our own domestic coverage of these events is sporadic and that keeps people like me from fully and completely understanding what’s all the protesting about.
I mean, I know what I hear, taxes, corporate wa-la wa-la, but… When I say “understanding” it’s not just about the reasons for the protest, or even the process of the protest itself, but rather what is the outcome of all this? I can’t comprehend what happens after the protests.
Okay, so you burn down all the banks in the country. Then what? You still will have zero in your bank account and your student loans will still be outstanding. The worst, is that now they will cancel your ATM card and you won’t be able to overdraw your account so that you can buy food. Of course, this is an extreme example, but the idea is the same.
I agree with Thomas Jefferson when he said that every generation needs a revolution, but I also believe that revolution needs to have a clearly defined outcome. When Martin Luther King marched, there was a clear goal to be reached. Nonetheless, most likely is my ignorance and lack of knowledge on the Occupy Movement, but I can’t clearly see what is the end goal from this events.
What I don’t like to see is for people risking their lives and getting hurt for an undefined goal. Either I need to do more research or Occupy needs to Organize – and I’m afraid it’s a bit of both.
—
Follow me on Twitter for naked pictures: http://www.twitter.com/qreyes
Like me on Facebook for a chance to win (naked pictures): http://www.facebook.com/keureyes
R. Maheras
January 30, 2012 - 3:24 pm
Once upon a time, when I was a young man toiling away at my warehouse order-filler “day job” circa 1977, an older co-worker, after listening to me babble aimlessly about my “plans” for life, said, with Chicago-style bluntness, “Russ, you’re a ship without a rudder.”
Kudos for calling out “The Occupier” crowd in the same way.
George Haberberger
January 30, 2012 - 3:52 pm
What I find intriguing is that the Occupy movement and the Tea Party appear to have similar complaints: dissatisfaction with the status quo. Both groups are no fans of the Wall Street bailout.
You have to admit that the Tea Party is bit more organized. They are trying to effect change through the system by electing like-minded candidates. When they protest, they obtain the necessary permits, gather there, give some speeches and then go home.
The Occupy movement camps out and…. what?
Reg
January 30, 2012 - 5:14 pm
I’ve been curious as to who is making money off of this. Because someone for dang sure is.
Rene
January 30, 2012 - 6:30 pm
It’s a sad fact of life for us Liberals that Conservatives are simply more organized and focused, I gotta admit.
Also, in the case of Occupy Wall Street vs. the Tea Party, I think a lot of it can be explained by who they are. The Occupiers are mostly the college-age crowd. The Tea Partiers are typically middle-age or older, family men and women.
Only one of those groups is likely to be practical.
A pity that. I agree with the Occupiers that extreme economic inequality sucks, and that unrestricted capitalism is not the answer to anything. But it seems like they lack leadership that can focus their indignation.
R. Maheras
January 30, 2012 - 7:05 pm
Rene wrote: “It’s a sad fact of life for us Liberals that Conservatives are simply more organized and focused, I gotta admit.”
Not in Chicago. There are exactly zero Republican Chicago aldermen on the City Council, and Democrats have run the city for more than 75 years. I don’t think you’ll find another large city in America where Republicans have historrically had so little representation in government. New York City has both parties represented on the city council, as does Los Angeles.
It’s really kind of sad how unfair it is for Republicans in Chicago. Too bad most folks in the theater community are liberal, because the theme of a sad and lonely Republican candidate trying to overcome such massive, insurmountable odds every election year would actually make a great tragedy.
Vinnie Bartilucci
January 30, 2012 - 7:39 pm
For any protest, you’ll have x percent there because they beliec in the cause, X percent who believe in THEIR cause, and are using the crowd to as a platform for their agenda, and X percent who are, to steal the tagline for Mallrats, Just There. And as a rule, it’s the ones who are Just There who make all the trouble.
The leadership and the core of the Occupy movement know why they’re there, and the rest think they do.
It’s the actions of banks that seem predatory, but can more correctly just be described as acts which put the needs of the company ahead those of the customers. That’s what people should be angry about.
MOTU
January 31, 2012 - 12:36 am
George Haberberger wrote,
“What I find intriguing is that the Occupy movement and the Tea Party appear to have similar complaints: dissatisfaction with the status quo. Both groups are no fans of the Wall Street bailout.”
Yep-you would think that the two groups would find common ground so that the protest would be about the betterment the country and not the group.
Wishful thinking…
Jonathan (the other one)
February 1, 2012 - 10:56 am
Rule of thumb:
For a week or so, you’re “occupying in protest of” whatever.
After a week, you’re camping.
After a month, you’re homeless. There’s no shame in being homeless – been there myself – but please quit trying to dress it up as a “political protest” and just say out loud that due to current conditions, you can’t afford to live in anything but a tent, and at the very least it’d be nice if folks could give you a place to pitch said tent without a ton of hassle.