First, some disclaimers.
I’m not one to typically be politically active or involved. I grew up in an Asian American family, which means I (for better or worse) tend to shut up when it comes to speaking about authority or anything that isn’t “harmonious”.
I would say I was more liberal in High School (though I never learned the meaning of the word Liberal and Conservative until college), and in college became a lot more conservative. Throughout the process though, I’ve learned to never take things as they seem or as the media portrays it. I’ve learned that both the liberal and conservative wings have their own media soapbox. I would say today my views tend to be more on the conservative/traditional side.
As of this point in writing, I would say I am neutral towards #OWS. However, this article/post could be construed as being supportive of #OWS. I simply wish to express expository opinion.
Now that we’ve gotten that out of the way.
There are a few reasons why I am writing this. The impetus was probably the knowledge that SOPA and NDAA, two bills[1] that are about to pass (despite veto), recently are finally starting to come to light. I won’t go into details here, partly because I don’t know too much, and partly because this isn’t the point of my post.
The other driving factor was a heated discussion on my Facebook wall about 10 days ago (hey look, I waste time on Facbeook!) regarding a video I posted, which showed a much longer version of the UC Davis Pepper Spray incident (by now, I’m sure you’ve seen the memes). The part that got me thinking was not the debate about whether the police force itself was warranted, but specifically a seemingly minor point that was debated by two people. Here, I’ll call them C and W.
C was making a point that protests can be peaceful, and that the UC Davis students by surrounding the police were effectively breaking the law. I won’t debate this here. But his point (I think) was that protests are legal and valid as long as they are within the rule of law. I quote:
The protesters have a right to congregate on public space to express their opinion. The Police have a right to be there to protect the safety of the public, protesters and themselves. The police did what they were ordered to do which was take down the tents.
…
History has shown that you can have peaceful protests with out breaking any laws of the land and antagonizing the public and authorities.
W, in response, did not totally agree with that point. In summary, W’s view was that protests by nature are meant to change something, typically some legislation or mindset. I quote:
While I can concede that the students did not behave favorably, a protest is pointless without agitation. A protest by definition is a demonstration of disapproval and the goal of a protest is to change the status quo. The Greensboro sit-ins were technically illegal and those who participated in it antagonized restaurant owners and patrons by sitting where the law said they could not.
First, apologies for seemingly taking the quotes out of context, but my point here again is not to debate about the UC Davis incident and whether too much force was used (if it should’ve been used at all).
Many people say that #OWS has no goals. I was one of them. At first glance, to me the #OWS looked simply like a bunch people whining about not having jobs in the economy. To me, the #OWS movement seemed pointless and goalless, didn’t know what they wanted, and at best was a good emotional indicator of the American people.
Then I read this article, posted by The Guardian (UK), which seemed to contradict that. The reporter, seemingly as frustrated as I was, went and directly asked some members of the #OWS movement what exactly they wanted. She was shocked to find the following three clear goals (which I’ll quote and outline here):
- “The No 1 agenda item: get the money out of politics. Most often cited was legislation to blunt the effect of the Citizens United ruling, which lets boundless sums enter the campaign process.”
- “No 2: reform the banking system to prevent fraud and manipulation, with the most frequent item being to restore the Glass-Steagall Act – the Depression-era law, done away with by President Clinton, that separates investment banks from commercial banks. This law would correct the conditions for the recent crisis, as investment banks could not take risks for profit that create fake derivatives out of thin air, and wipe out the commercial and savings banks.”
- “No 3 was the most clarifying: draft laws against the little-known loophole that currently allows members of Congress to pass legislation affecting Delaware-based corporations in which they themselves are investors.”
[hyperlinking and bullet-pointing mine, emphasis hers]
For extra verification, check out the Occupy Wall Street wiki page too (because we know Wiki is always reliable): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupy_Wall_Street#Goals . The last sentence of the Goals section outlines it well (although why they didn’t format it much more boldly is beyond me). Also, it’s worth reading about a big figurehead for the anti-OWS movement, Peter King, notorious for being chairman of House Committee of Homeland Security, which functions as today’s de facto HUAC against Muslims. His views regarding OWS can be summed up in his quote: “We have to be careful not to allow this to get any legitimacy. I’m taking this seriously in that I’m old enough to remember what happened in the 1960s when the left-wing took to the streets and somehow the media glorified them and it ended up shaping policy. We can’t allow that to happen.”
My point with this is that the Occupy Wall Street protest does indeed have goals. In fact, they aren’t very abstract goals either, nothing like “Give us jobs!” or “End the corruption!”. They are, in fact, very specific, very legislatively minded, and fairly reasonable. Perhaps they aren’t being conveyed succinctly and as clearly to be effective, but that’s not the discussion here.
I want to briefly draw our attention to what is probably the father of non-violent movements and protests in America, the Civil Rights movement. At the same time, please keep in mind a few things, lest my point is lost: (1) C and W’s views regarding the reason and validity of protests, and (2) the specific legislative goals of the #OWS movement.
I realize that many of my readers have probably heard this comparison many times, that #OWS is our generation’s Civil Rights Movement and what not. Rest assured, readers, I am not here to make a comparison, but a contrastion.
The Civil Rights Movement
I don’t claim to know much about the Civil Rights movement. The last time I read about it was in my high school AP US History class, and it’s been a very long time since.
What I DO remember and would like to bring to light, however, were these two points that we discussed in class. If you feel that I may be misrepresenting these points, which is possible because of my old age, please let me know.
- The similarities between MLK and Malcolm X, and why MLK’s vision of non-violent protests ultimately prevailed: MLK tends to be much more well known than Malcolm X because of his vision of using non-violent protests, a strategy which ultimate helped win the Civil Rights Movement, while Malcolm X was much more well-known for his advocacy of violence against the status quo. What is little discussed, however, is the end result of executing each of these strategies. In summary: MLK advocated using non-violence in situations he knew that violence was bound to crop up AGAINST the PROTESTER; essentially, it would be drawing out the injustice (use of force) for all the world to see, essentially giving credence to their goals. In essence, he knew that the use of NON-VIOLENCE would induce VIOLENCE from the oppressors, which would bring much injustice to light.
- Protestors were essentially breaking the law. Legislation at that time could be summarized in one phrase: “Separate but equal”. At that time, colored and non-colored people had separate facilities, that were allegedly equal. Water fountains, bathrooms, facilities, etc. The only way to protest, therefore, was to break these laws – CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE. That is, their form of protest would be by using these facilities, and, as claimed in the above point 1, be arrested, or have violence carried out against them. Examples: Rosa Parks, Greensboro sit-ins, Brown v. Board of Education, etc.
So. How does this relate back to what I said about OWS? Remember the two things I asked you to keep in mind? (1) C and W’s views regarding the reason and validity of protests, and (2) the specific legislative goals of the #OWS movement.
Here is my opinion on why I believe the #OccupyWallStreet movement is seemingly ineffective.
- [The majority] What they are doing is legal. Protesting is a perfectly legal and acceptable activity to do in this age. Contrast this with the Civil Rights Movement – protests back then were NOT looked favorably upon.
- The “illegal” parts of what they are doing is not relevant to their goal. The illegalities that #OWS has been accused of are setting up tents overnight on public property. This is illegal. However, contrast this with the Civil Disobedience in the Civil Rights Movement. A huge part of their illegal activities were pertinent to their goal. Their goal was to do away with “separate but equal” facilities. How? By using the same facilities as the non-colored people. This was illegal. This was also their end-goal. I’m very sure that the end-goal of #OWS is NOT to be able to set up tents overnight.
- It is difficult/impossible to even ILLEGALLY obtain their goals. As stated above, #OWS does indeed have legislative goals. However, they cannot achieve these the same ways that the Civil Rights Movement did. They cannot simply enact these laws on their own, and no form of protest otherwise could directly show what it might look like. Contrast this with the Civil Rights Movement – their form of protest was actually seizing those goals, illegally, and showing the world what it would look like. The #OWS movement has no ability whatsoever to directly seize these goals, indirectly or otherwise. They must rely on the very same government they are accusing of being corrupt to pass these into law.
Do you see the conundrum now?
The #OWS movement seems ineffective, because they essentially have no legs or leverage, not even themselves. Nothing they do, illegal or otherwise, could help them achieve their goal.
You could even infer from this that the fact that protesting is legal is doing more harm than good to the movement.
My opinion is that this is exactly why they must rely on “riled up” activities to try to get their point across. Because essentially, they have no other means.
Playing paranoid devil’s advocate for a minute, let’s assume that #OWS is indeed a fully just and fully right cause. The government knows then that they can’t full-on attack the movement. Instead, they could use enactments such as the new provisions in the NDAA or SOPA to quietly silence. They wouldn’t necessarily chop off the head of OWS, but they’d silently lop it off, limb by limb. Haven’t you ever wondered why there’s so much hush-hush in government regarding the #OWS movement? All Obama did was give a token nod to the protestor’s efforts. Newt Gingrich did nothing but continue with his speech in Iowa after being interrupted by #Occupy protestors. They did nothing that would appear to validate #OWS’s existence.
Concluding Remarks
So, would I say that I would fly back to America right now and join the #Occupy movement? Not necessarily. I still hold to my opinion that there are much better ways to do it. Then again, I haven’t actually gone and seen and visited the movement, but it’s something I’d like to do in my time back. Nonetheless, in light of recent events, I’ve become more sympathetic with their cause, and can see where the frustration lies. I am doubtful the #OWS movement would’ve gained this much traction if not for the high-unemployment rate, but that does not invalidate the validity of their goals. The #OWS protestors have a right to protest, and I think despite all the trouble-making they could be seen as causing, have much more courage than those of us who agree with them but play arm-chair politician. For many of us, we may share the same views, but simply don’t have the courage to fight back against what we feel is wrong.
Is America better because of #OWS? I don’t know this. But I do know that if #OWS were not allowed to exist, there would be something terribly wrong with our government.
[1] The NDAA has actually been passing for the past 50 years, but this year is different, because they snuck in some obscure wording that dangerously infringes on citizens’ rights. No one in the US Government has meaningfully spoken out against it yet.
