I fully support the general goal of OWS to shine a spotlight on income inequality. I think most all of us do. But it indeed seems to have become almost exclusively about the supposed "right" to camp out in parks. This was debatable when the original OWS started in Zucotti Park, because it is a privately owned "public" park. It could never have happened in Central Park or Madison Square Park or Union Square Park, because the NYC Dept. of Parks and Recreation has had long-standing rules that prohibit camping in city parks. See
http://www.nycgovparks.org/sub_faqs/faq.html#rules. You can't let your dog poop anywhere, you can't drink alcohol in the parks, you can't cook except in designated barbecuing areas. It's not about free speech. That is why protesters have been allowed to come back into the park, but without their tents and cooking gear, etc. Most park districts require permits for "special events" that have more than a certain number of people, and you have to get general liability insurance (usually for $1 million). I know this because my son got married in a city park facility in Chicago more than a year ago, and there were all kinds of rules (we had to add the liability insurance to our homeowner's policy--it wasn't really that expensive, I think like $75).
The message has been completely lost, and what is more, the original organizers of OWS think this is the case, too. Yesterday I posted the article from Chicago OWS, which decided early on not to press for camping and instead to spread its influence through teach-ins, lectures, direct actions, and targeted legislative efforts. They specifically think they've been more successful by doing that than by fighting to sleep in a park and gaining negative attention. Just today in the NYT:
In New York, where the police temporarily evicted Occupy Wall Street protesters from Zuccotti Park early Tuesday, and in other cities, dozens of organizers maintained that the movement had already reshaped the public debate. They said it no longer needed to rely solely on seizing parks, demonstrating in front of the homes of billionaires or performing other acts of street theater.
They said they were already trying to broaden their influence, for instance by deepening their involvement in community groups and spearheading more of what they described as direct actions, like withdrawing money from banks, and were considering supporting like-minded political candidates.
Still,
some acknowledged that the crackdowns by the authorities in New York and other cities might ultimately benefit the movement, which may have become too fixated on retaining the territorial footholds, they said.“We poured a tremendous amount of resources into defending a park that was nearly symbolic,” said Han Shan, an Occupy Wall Street activist in New York. “I think the movement has shown it transcends geography.”
Even before the police descended on Zuccotti Park overnight, some early proponents of Occupy Wall Street had begun suggesting that it was time to move on.
On Monday, Adbusters, the Canadian anti-corporate magazine that conceived of the movement, indicated that the protesters should “declare victory” and head indoors to strategize.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/16/nyregion/occupy-wall-street-organizers-consider-value-of-camps.html?hpAs we all began to say in the late 90s: Move On. This movement is not about setting up camp. It's about changing the stranglehold of corporate influence. Bonfires and tents and drums are not going to do that. The message is out; now start doing some real work.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
