Forum Post: The Attack on Trinity Church
Posted 12 years ago on Dec. 18, 2011, 9:30 a.m. EST by redteddy
(263)
from New York, NY
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Why is this movement attacking Trinity Church? OWS protestors tried to forcibly take over a piece of property for an occupation.
Trinity denied OWS the right to use their lot but they have supported the movement in other ways. From NYTimes
"Even before the protesters were displaced on Nov. 15, Trinity gave many of them hot chocolate, blankets and a place to rest at a space owned by the church. But when the Occupy movement expressed an interest in setting up an organizing camp on vacant Trinity property at Canal Street and Avenue of the Americas, the church said no."
Desmond Tutu who supports OWS and urged the churches further support of the movement came out and said:
Tutu added on Friday that protesters seeking to occupy land at the northeast corner of Varick and Canal streets, where demonstrators and a DNAinfo photographer were arrested Nov. 15, should not use his statement to justify breaking the law.
"It is not necessary to forcibly break into property. Nor is it [necessary] to reinforce or build higher the barriers between people of faith who seek peace and justice," he said. http://www.dnainfo.com/20111216/greenwich-village-soho/desmond-tutu-backs-occupy-wall-street-push-for-duarte-square#ixzz1gtcL99om
The church has allowed protestors to use their offices, meeting rooms and restrooms. So why did OWS try to forcibly take over the property?
I need to hear some valid reasons why this decision was made because frankly I the move left me shaking my head and wondering why OWS is all of a sudden being so foolish. YOU DON'T ATTACK THOSE WHO ARE SUPPORTING YOU!!! You don't DEMAND what rightfully belongs to others. YOU CANNOT DICTATE HOW PEOPLE SUPPORT YOU NOR HOW THEY USE THEIR OWN RESOURCES!! This is nothing but arrogance and stupidity! If I offer someone bread and milk they don't have the right to storm my home and take whatever they want from my pantry. This is a show of arrogance on the part of those who organized it and its destined to piss off a lot of people who are not a part of OWS but definitely among the majority of the 99%.
So now that you have Desmond Tutu backtracking to say he doesn't support the movement forcibly trying to take the property what the hell were you thinking? WHAT WERE YOU THINKING?!!!
Trinity church and what they do or do not do isn't the 1%, they are not the legislators who deregulated the economy, they are not the politicians who gave financial institutions the bail-outs, they are not a large corporation polluting the planet or giving the poor slave wages in the name globalization. They are not the bankers who defrauded people's pensions.
I'm beyond amazed that this is how the movement is using its resources. Please someone explain the attack on Trinity before I remove my support from OWS.
Footage of the storming can be seen here, its approximately 12min: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z38p4XpiWqU
Is there any "public" property in Manhattan, that OWS can USE?
Unfortunately there is very little public space left in Manhattan, its taken years of the privatization of almost everything to bring that about. Zuccotti Park wasn't private either, indeed it was owned by Brookfield Properties but even they did not have a problem with the occupation, at least in the beginning. Trinity came right out and decided that the lot was not good for OWS reasons and so denied the request. That request can be reviewed and if enough people had pleaded on behalf of OWS maybe...just maybe...they would reconsider but to forcibly try and take over the area just bleeds of so much disrespect. I don't know, maybe they will change their mind but they have less reason to now.
Sadly, this is true, and is part of the reason I am now advocating a leader for the movement. The NGA has simply failed in that capacity.
Well good luck with that. OWS is constitutionally opposed to having any leaders.
Their leader is Mumia Abu-Jamal
Well then those of us who recognise reality will just have to go our own way. Nobody owns an idea.
[Removed]
[Removed]
I think churches abuse their tax-exempt status. Seems like wasted space 6 days a week.
Maybe they do but this church was helping OWS, it was a supporter. If its tax exempt status everyone is worried about then why not take over every mosque, synagogue and church in town? Why try and take the lot at Trinity? Can you imagine that? If OWS had done this to a mosque or a synagogue? Quelle horreur!
Doubt they will help now that The website is supporting Mumia Abu-Jamal
"I think the sense from [CB2] is that we would encourage Trinity and LMCC to engage in good faith negotiations with Occupy Wall Street to determine whether an agreement among the parties could be reached for the use of this vacant lot," board chair Brad Hoylman said Friday.
Read more: http://www.dnainfo.com/20111216/greenwich-village-soho/desmond-tutu-backs-occupy-wall-street-push-for-duarte-square#ixzz1gvxLP3h6
Breaking into a church? Where is that in this article?
Was it "breaking into property" or standing on empty land?
Look at you justifying it like a criminal.
here you are with your lipstick smeared http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_606w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2011/11/02/Interactivity/Images/d-111102-06.jpg
Go ahead and break laws Blue, the government will pay for all of the damages.
Some states allow the public to congregate on privately owned property in many cases, even if the owner refuses.
Yeah, congregate in a church so that your people can smoke, defecate and fornicate in a lovely, holy place. But of course, there can't be any rules for your gaggle because that would what... upset people?
your leader is Mumia Abu-Jamal hardly the church going type!
Doesn't mean someone doesn't own it and have the right to keep anyone off of it.
Is that just a comment out of nowhere or is it your response to the question in this post? Because you don't like their tax exempt status it's ok to forcibly take over their property?
What's funny is the government can use eminent domain to move anybody out at any time.
Don't forget that churches have special rights--they pay no tax.
Neither do synagogues or mosques but you wouldn't dare try to take over any of their property would you since its not politically correct but yeah none of them pay any taxes. Meanwhile you have large corporations making billions upon billions of dollars some of that money coming from tax payer bailouts and yet...and yet...the focus is on a god damn church. If its tax exemption your worried about then look towards the worst offenders not taking it out on an institution that actually showed the movement support.
Your side burns down Mosques. That goes beyond pc.
My side? What side would that be? You see again, you are going to accuse me of something when I am one of those people who supported the movement. I was one of those schmucks who went down there with water, toilet paper and soap and other items requested. I gave money and joined in protest and took part in GA's and talked and networked with other people who were there. But now because I completely disagree with this move against Trinity I am on the side of those who burn down Mosques? You give the movement a bad name. It doesn't need twits.
With the websites conformation of the good works of Mumia Abu-Jamal. all OWS protestors efforts are now seen by many potential new members as big waste of time. So good luck to a great idea with to many fundamental flaws!
The simple fact is that Trinity Church is siding with the freedom-hating fascists (those who conjoin corpoRAT and government interest). OWS is in dire need of encampment space. Trinity has an excellent space -- but they side with evil.
I was on you side until, Mumia Abu-Jamal
Was there a posting for Vaclav Havel? Now he is someone who deserves attention, especially form a movement like this.
Really? I mean seriously? Please explain then why is it that the movement accepted their charity when it was freely given? Why accept the use of their meeting rooms and offices if they are 'siding with the freedom-hating fascists'? That would make you feeding off of the 'freedom hating fascists' would it not? The movement needs space but it doesn't give the movement the right to forcibly attempt to take their space. If you really were against the 'freedom hating fascists' then you would occupy Mayor Bloomberg's $20 million Southampton estate!!
OWS is an ulcer of health in a cancerous system. That's why Bloomberg and the PTB hate it. They sneer at demos but are afraid of occupations (Peter King: “We have to be careful not to allow this to get any legitimacy”, http://crooksandliars.com/john-amato/rep-peter-king-attacks-ows-ragtag-mob-a).
Trinity/the Episcopal Church needs to decide what constitutes its mission. Siding with power -- which was the principal that birthed it (Church of England/King Henry VIII) or following the teachings of Christ.
There is no such thing as pain free support for the downtrodden. While Trinity's past support is no doubt appreciated, OWS is now asking Trinity to step up its game.
The other part of this that doesn't make a lot of sense is that Duarte triangle is in SoHo. What does forcibly occupying church property in SoHo have to do with Wall Street?
It was close enough to Wall St. To tell you the truth I don't know how that particular space became the end all be all of places to set up camp. Personally I would have accepted the churches refusal and looked for a better more symbolic spot but that's just me.
Ok, now it's your time to do it. Don't just sit in front of the computer 24 hours talking about how you are going to do it. Go to the street and do it! I give you 3 months time to do it. Now go!
You don’t need to be religious to understand -and embrace- the idea that "Whatsoever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me." But the 1%, in their blind greed and schemes, have forgotten and closed their eyes to what the word "society" should really mean. Because of Occupy Wall Street, we are finally talking less about CUTS and more about BLEEDING. Instead of demanding m-o-r-e budget cuts -to be borne by the middle class and poor- we are FINALLY focusing on the shameful bleeding that the poor and middle class has endured for all too long. Instead of talking about even m-o-r-e cuts in the taxes of millionaires....we are now talking about fairness and justice - about an economy and a political system that is increasingly run for the rich, and by the rich. Instead of talking about LESS government, we are talking about a government that WORKS FOR ALL OF US, not just a favored few. Thank you OWS, for reminding us that people -ordinary working people- really DO matter, and for helping open our eyes to what’s really going on in this country. Trinity Church should look deep into its collective soul, and at its ultimate mission. It should do the right thing, and help OWS. For I would bet my life, that if He were physically with us today...as He was 2000 years ago, He himself would be among the FIRST to climb those fences, and occupy Trinity’s Duarte Square. Of this I am certain.
You are not just calling on the church to do the right thing - by your definition, they have alread been doing that, by offering support and compassion to the protesters. You are demanding that they allow you and others to define the right thing that they should do, and if they refuse and instead chose to act like adults and determine their definitions of right and wrong, you are defending those who would impose on the church their own definitions. I would imagine that you scream loudly when the religious right tries to impose it's values on you...how ironic to see you defending the same actions by the protesters.
And how does camping out in Duarte Square help those that are bleeding? How does it address corruption? How does it regulate a deregulated market? How does it feed children? How does it stop wars? How does it force billionaires to pay their share of taxes? You see while you are focused on the square you have corporations who dont pay any taxes because its hidden in off-shore subsidiaries, yeah. And while you are focused on the square there are more people being thrown out of their homes, that's right. While you are focused on the square longshoreman and truck drivers are fighting to set up unions so they can have a decent wage and a safe working environment and bloody toilets! Yeah their doing the real work and they are asking the help of OWS but what is OWS doing in NY right now, fighting to tear down a fence so they can occupy church space so they can camp out. A space owned by an institution that showed the movement support. Now that's rich isn't it? Goldman Sachs meanwhile is laughing and continuing to make billions off of their hedge funds while you are fidgeting over the bloody space. Why don't you choose a different space? Why does it have to be that lot? Why isn't it one of Bloombergs many estates? Why isn't it property owned by Goldman Sachs? Of course not. Things are getting worse in this country and all you want to do is piss about.
You would need to rewrite the New Testament to support your theory that Jesus would have occupied Trinity's Duarte Square. There is nothing in the New Testament about Jesus protesting the Roman Government. Not one single thing. He also made it clear that he wasn't around to abolish the law, but to fulfill it.
Trinity has helped OWS, probably more than any other organization. Do they have to do everything that OWS wants?
WELL DONE Mr FOX
WHAT A SACK OF LIES
Why is this movement attacking Trinity Church?
OWS protesters tried to forcibly take over a piece of property for an occupation.
Where are the pictures of the ATTACK ?
Where are the pictures of the FORCIBLE TAKEOVER ?
WHAT A SACK OF LIES
You can see the video footage of OWS protestors attempting to take over the lot here:
http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/12/video-mass-arrests-occupiers-duarte-square
Statement by Reverend Dr. James H. Cooper, Rector of Trinity Church December 17, 2011
“We are saddened that OWS protesters chose to ignore yesterday’s messages from Archbishop Tutu, from the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church, Katharine Jefferts Schori, and from Bishop of New York Mark S. Sisk. Bishop Tutu said: “In a country where all people can vote and Trinity’s door to dialogue is open, it is not necessary to forcibly break into property.” The Presiding Bishop said: “Other facilities of Trinity continue to be open to support the Occupy movement, for which I give great thanks. It is regrettable that Occupy members feel it is necessary to provoke potential legal and police action by attempting to trespass on other parish property…I would urge all concerned to stand down and seek justice in ways that do not further alienate potential allies.” Bishop Sisk said: “The movement should not be used to justify breaking the law nor is it necessary to break into property for the movement to continue.”
OWS protestors call out for social and economic justice; Trinity has been supporting these goals for more than 300 years. The protestors say they want to improve housing and economic development; Trinity is actively engaged in such efforts in the poorest neighborhoods in New York City and indeed around the world. We do not, however, believe that erecting a tent city at Duarte Square enhances their mission or ours. The vacant lot has no facilities to sustain a winter encampment. In good conscience and faith, we strongly believe to do so would be wrong, unsafe, unhealthy, and potentially injurious. We will continue to provide places of refuge and the responsible use of our facilities in the Wall Street area. We are gratified by the support we have received from so many in the community.”
-The Rev. Dr. James H. Cooper, Rector of Trinity Church
and where is the ATTACK on Trinity church?
Any time anyone storms private property after being told that they did not want to loan the property to the movement its an attack. If you take something from me forcibly its an attack, if you break into my house and sleep in my bed after I asked you not to, the excuse of homelessness doesn't make it any less of an attack. An attack is nothing more than an aggressive move against someone or something, if I start hurling expletives against someone its an attack, if I invade their property its an attack.
I'm not gonna reread this article. Can someone who actually read it tell me where OWS was "attacking the church"? A whole lot of strongly-worded accusations in this post.
Well perhaps you won't have any problem reading this:
And now the Occupy movement, after weeks of targeting big banks and large corporations, has chosen Trinity, one of the nation’s most prominent Episcopal parishes, as its latest antagonist.
“We need more; you have more,” one protester, Amin Husain, 36, told a Trinity official on Thursday, during an impromptu sidewalk exchange between clergy members and demonstrators. “We are coming to you for sanctuary.”
Trinity’s rector, the Rev. James H. Cooper, defended the church’s record of support for the protesters, including not only expressions of sympathy, but also meeting spaces, resting areas, pastoral services, electricity, bathrooms, even blankets and hot chocolate. But he said the church’s lot — called Duarte Square — was not an appropriate site for the protesters, noting that “there are no basic elements to sustain an encampment.”
“Trinity has probably done as much or more for the protesters than any other institution in the area,” Mr. Cooper wrote on his parish Web site. “Calling this an issue of ‘political sanctuary’ is manipulative and blind to reality. Equating the desire to seize this property with uprisings against tyranny is misguided, at best. Hyperbolic distortion drives up petition signatures, but doesn’t make it right.”
The criticism of Trinity was coming not only from protesters, but even from some Episcopal priests and other Protestant clergy members.
“Trinity Church had a fantastic opportunity to be a Christlike presence by openings its doors to the protesters,” said the Rev. Milind Sojwal, the rector of All Angels Church, an Episcopal parish on the Upper West Side. “And I believe Trinity blew it.”
On Thursday, some church leaders and protesters brought a Nativity scene to Trinity’s main entrance on Broadway, with a sign attached. “There was no room for them in the inn,” it read in part. “Trinity has plenty of room.”
Occupy Wall Street plans to hold a demonstration on Saturday at the lot. Some clergy members have said they planned to attend, and a handful said they may join protesters who have discussed taking down the fences around the lot, risking arrest.
“I’m willing to occupy space in an act of civil disobedience in order to shine a light on social and economic injustice,” said the Rev. John Merz, of the Episcopal Church of the Ascension in Greenpoint, Brooklyn.
Trinity is not the first Anglican church to grapple with how to respond to the Occupy movement. In London, protesters have camped outside St. Paul’s Cathedral for weeks, and the city has sought to evict them.
So vexing is Trinity’s dilemma that one of the world’s most prominent Anglicans, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, has issued two statements on the matter: one posted on the Occupy Wall Street Web site, imploring Trinity to “find a way to help” the protesters, and a second, posted on the Trinity Web site, in which Archbishop Tutu said his comments were “not to be used to justify breaking the law.”
Bishop Mark S. Sisk, the Episcopal bishop of New York, and Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori, the top official of the denomination nationally, issued statements on Friday supporting Trinity’s position.
“It is regrettable that Occupy members feel it necessary to provoke potential legal and police action by attempting to trespass on other parish property,” Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori said. “Seekers after justice have more often achieved success through nonviolent action, rather than acts of force or arms. I would urge all concerned to stand down and seek justice in ways that do not further alienate potential allies.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/17/nyregion/church-that-aided-wall-st-protesters-is-now-their-target.html?_r=1
Its two pages long if you care to read the rest
I am sorry, but most people are going to take the OWS side and not listen to reason...you aren't going to get a logical answer.
Perhaps you're right but I had to ask, I had to bring up the issue.
amigos trabalho com de webdesigner http://www.eaglewebsites.net http://www.mrrepresentacao.com
Why did they name their church after the first nuclear bomb?
LOL! I think it had more to do with the holy trinity (father, son and holy ghost)
Maybe the bomb was named after the church.
The other day I was at the McDonald's just off Zuccotti Square. I bought hamburgers for the occupiers that were there. One of them asked me for French fries too, which struck me as looking a gift horse in the mouth, but I didn't think of it as such a big deal either. Neither is asking Trinity for more when they have so much. Property is theft.
Asking them is just fine but to storm the place is a form of gangsterism. If property is theft then you shouldn't feel too badly the next time someone takes your watch or your wallet or anything else you own. If someone is forced by a gang to hand over their car I suppose they should feel bad that they own a car and so transfer ownership to the gang. This is not the spirit in which I joined this movement, actually I find the attitude that no one has any right to what they own to be an affront. I thought this movement was about political and economic corruption not taking what you can from anyone you please.
We stormed Zuccotti Park. When we were prevented from from occupying Durante Park we occupied Times Square. That's what OWS does it opens up, redefines and retakes the commons. That's the defining characteristic. Occupy Wall Street is not called Occupy Wall Street for nothing. What it does is occupy. We did this without weapons and we have been consistently nonviolent. For a movement of our size incidents of actual violence have been rare indeed which is exactly why so much of the general public supports such an apparently radical movement. For many people it appears like virtually all the violence has been perpetrated by police against essentially nonviolent protesters. Of course there are those elements of the general public whose sympathies are so strongly vested with order and police power that they tend to see any act of resistance against police as an act of violence, but not eveybody sees it that way which is why 30% of the population is in support of OWS, not a majority, to be sure, but a significant minority, a percentage that most Republican Presidential candidates would be proud to claim.
I've been mugged several times and had my house broken into several times. None of this was especially influential in turning me into a reactionary supporter of police power, In no case were they at all helpful in getting my property back, much less (fortunately) going after the guys that mugged and burglerized me. In one instance I was in a position to kick my mugger in the nuts which I did while explaining that I understood that he was a victim of society, but that there was no reason why we should both be victims of society at that moment.
I do not expect everyone or even most people in OWS to agree with me about this. That is the beauty of OWS as a movement. It is open to all kinds of diversity, cultural, political and otherwise, But I do think that the essence of OWS is to occupy. Otherwise why would it be called Occupy? People have all kinds of different rationales and explanations for why it is important to occupy and why they occupy but to occupy is the defining essence of OWS.
What is the point of occupying church property in SoHo? What does that have to do with Wall Street?
I think it is very important that OWS occupy space relevant to its over all vision, Ultimately, I think Occupy Wall Street, to be consistent both with its name and with its original call ought to actually occupy Wall Street
Failing that, there are necessarily strategic and tactical considerations, I think, even more important that occupying a relevant space is occupying some publicly visible space somewhere for a number of reasons, First that is the name of the movement and it ought to be consistent with the name, Second, re-occupying the commons is crucial to our movement and central to focussing on the issue of power relationships in our society, Also, I think this was unexpected but the occupations did begin to provide a model for the kind of society we would like to construct for the perspective of the kind of social relations that evolved at the occupations, Finally and most important or at least most moving to me is the fact that open, public spaces provide a place for passers by to come at any hour of the day or night to find out about the movement, It is much easier to find or run across than taking the effort to find an organizational office some place, Some of the most interesting political discussions I have ever had have been at Zuccotti at 3 and 4 in the morning,
There are strategic and tactical considerations, OWS could actually probably get public space somewhere if it applied for permits to do so, That is what the Stop the Machine movement at Freedom Plaza in DC did, It is not, however what Occupy DC did at McPherson Park, As a matter of principle OWS has chosen to specifically not apply for parade permits or other permits to demonstrate on the grounds that free speech and the right to assemble are protected under the First Amendment and no other permission should be necessary, Whether or not you think this position is appropriate the fact is OWS is open for its reconsideration and so far, at least, that is the consensus,
So very clearly give those constraints OWS has to figure out what will work strategically and tactically, I had a friend who was a war tax resister, He didn't want to go to jail, but he didn't want to pay taxes either and the only way around that was to figure out how to live on so little that he would not be taxed, which is exactly what he did.
OWS is faced with a similar dilemma, It wants to occupy but it doesn't want to ask permission, Every time it has tried to occupy a completely public space (most often Washington Square) it has been rebuffed by a massive police reaction, An obvious alternative to this is the occupation of a public/private place, which after all, worked at Zuccotti for nearly two months and that being the case there is no reason to presume that it would not work at Zuccotti or some other public/private space again at least for an extended length of time, At least that is my thinking on the subject,
A common criticism of Occupy Wall Street that I've been hearing for months is that it's more about the "Occupy" and less about the "Wall Street". Your response seems to come from that angle.
The Occupy movement seems to have very little concern for the difference between effective action, and counter-productive action. We've seen two different port occupations on the west coast that had no tangible benefit other than convincing people across the country that Occupy is a potential threat to law and order. We've seen Occupiers in NYC attempt to shut down the Brooklyn Bridge, an action with no positive benefit that also alienates the mainstream. Recently Occupiers have been marching against traffic up streets in NYC, aiming to forcibly occupy church property in SoHo. Which seems to have nothing to do with Wall Street, and everything to do with protesting for the sake of protesting.
Very disappointing.
When Ghandi coined the term passive resistance he put the emphasis on both words and insisted that you needed both, It needed to be passive to put the onus of violence on your opponents but it also had to be real resistance because, without it to be passive alone is the equivalent of being dead,
The same, to me, applies to Occupy Wall Street in that I think the emphasis has to be equal to both occupy and Wall Street. This is especially the case in New York the physical location of Wall Street, Personally, I think one short term goal is to actually occupy Wall Street, not Zuccotti Park or 6th and Canal, and that short term goal has yet to be accomplished,
Since OWS quickly became a national and international movement with occupations taking place in public spaces all over the place, outside of New York and to a certain extent within New York the idea of reclaiming the commons has become a central issue for the movement, This really is not all that far from physically occupying Wall Street itself because it is basically corporate power that has eroded the commons,
What kind of actions to take are always discussed in great detail in GAs and Working Groups, The decisions made are not always to my preference but for the most part the decision making process allows anyone who wants to to speak and say their piece, In terms of the effectiveness of various OWS actions, personally I was opposed to the action that led to the mass arrest on the Brooklyn Bridge, but I also have to admit that specifically because of that mass arrest activity in and support for OWS shot up and there is no arguing with success, Of course it is also true that people began to take issue with OWS but not quite at that point, Up to the Brooklyn Bridge arrest OWS was not in the news much, As a result, before that most people didn't know about OWS so they had no basis to be either for or against it, As the news media began to report on it more, of course more people took issue with it, That's the nature of democratic politics It fosters conflict and debate,
As far as law and order goes, OWS began with an act of civil disobedience, It starts from the premise that the state has become so corrupted by corporate power that we have basically been excluded from changing things through the electoral process or through legislative action and that the only avenue open to us is to use civil disobedience to pressure the state, which is to say both major political parties and their agents, to address the needs of the 99% rather than dwelling on what are irrelevancies to most people such as the deficit,
As far as the port shut downs go at first I was skeptical of them to, though I was in no position to influence anything as I don't live in the Bay Area, and to call the first shut down a general strike is certainly a misnomer, However, again, it's hard to argue with success, and I am not here talking specifically about the success of the shut down per se, What is significant is that the action really did bring more supporters to OWS everywhere, Did it also create more opponents? Of course, Every mass social movement tends to polarize people one way or another, The last I saw about 29% of the population say they support OWS including not only its values, but also its strategy and tactics, That is a minority but it is a minority that many Republican Presidential candidates would love to have, More important are the number of people actually engaged as activists in occupations around the nation, That is harder to gage than an opinion poll and even harder to gage since the evictions, but I go to working groups regularly and I have the impression that despite the set backs of the evictions the activist base of the movement continues to grow and new GAs and occupations continue to spring up,
In terms of the relationship between all this an Wall Street, well in so far as that goes the actual physical shut down of the ports was important to stop capital flow as a physical reality, That, after all, is what Wall Street is all about and it is important for people connect the dots, Sometimes connecting the dots is an intellectual exercise, but sometimes it is a palpable physical reality,
We are a tiny and new movement, At this stage in our infancy or major project is to build the activist base of the movement. Some people think that the road forward is basically to abandon the principles or at least the tactics on which we are based or at least were the basis on which the movement began notions such as: civil disobedience, nonviolence, democratic decision making, and re-occupying the commons, Of course the focus needs to remain on the power of the corporate state, but that manifests itself in many ways including: homelessness, unemployment a perpetual state of war, neocolonialism, a lack of adequate health care, debt, foreclosure, racism, the erosion of the commons, the excessive use of police power to shut down free speech and a myriad of other problems which OWS addresses on a daily basis,
Meanwhile OWS has built the first alliance between sections of organized labor and the left intelligentcia since the 1940s, it has built an alliance with sections of the religious community, with the debtor class, with the stop stop and frisk movement, with the homeless, with the foreclosed, with the unemployed and with many other social sectors,
Because we are such a tiny and new movement I believe that it is way too premature to talk about a change of direction or to argue with the very real successes of the movement. Right now we need to continue to organize, Once there are 10 or 20 million people occupying nation wide will be time enough to talk about a change of direction, It may take us a very long time to get there, but I don't see the economy getting any better world wide and the crises are systemic rather than cyclical,
Absolutely amazing. I'm occupying an office right now. I guess I'm doing my part, if "occupy" is the aim and not "Wall Street". I'm going to go and focus on my occupation now, while you spend your time plotting toward your carefully-chosen strategic goal of squatting on real estate.
In 10 months in 1936 and 1937 a half a million workers violated property rights, occupied their work places and refused to leave until the boss negotiated with them their right to form a union and bargain collectively. In those days they called it a sit down strike, What you are doing is functioning as a wage slave for the boss, that's not an occupation. That,s wage slavery, I actually think that the next step for the occupation movement will or ought to be the reinsitution of the sit down strike or the literal occupation of the work place,
I am the boss, which makes me a slave to our customers, which believe it or not is a common occupation. And if you think that you would be helping anybody out by 'occupying' my office and interfering with our company then you're unbelievably sadly misguided. How could a movement aimed at shining a spotlight on wealth inequality have devolved into a movement aimed at squatting on real estate, shutting down shipping ports, shutting down road ways, and shutting down businesses?
Unless you are really one of the super rich, one of the 1% even though you are a boss, I would not characterize you as part of the ruling class,
As the CIO developed in the 1930s and 40s, by the beginning of World War II it had organized virtually the entire industrial working class, but its organizing ethos continued and it began to organizing supervisors, The logic of its organizing drive would have had it organizing up the hierarchy of corporate power, ultimately organizing managers, corporate vice presidents and perhaps even corporate presidents, bringing them all under the aegis of organized labor rather than the corporate form of social organization, At the same time many small business owners began to identify with the CIO rather than with corporate power, All this was halted when unions of supervisors were declared illegal combinations by the Court and this was formalized in the anti labor Taft Hartley Act which began the long retreat of labor and a vision of a solidarity society,
To some degree that retreat was reversed or at least halted for a time in the late 50s and early 60s with the rise of the civil rights movement, but its emphasis on racial equality tended to limit its class wide appeal. That might have been changed as Martin Luther King seemed to be heading toward building a class based movement as his support for the Memphis garbage strike indicated, but his assasination brought that to a halt,
In many respects OWS is not really comparable to anything in historical memory, It is certainly politically broader in its vision than was the civil rights movement of the 50s or the antiwar movement of the 60s which were very specific and narrow in terms of their goals, It is even broader than the rise of organized labor in the 1930s in terms of its vision, I think the only thing comarable is probably the rise of the Socialist Party in the first two decades of the 20th century or perhaps the Populist movement in the 1890s, though it is no where near as large as either of them yet and there is no popular historical memory of either of these old movements,
Occupation is not such a new strategy, Rosa Parks occupied a bus seat, Students in Greensboro North Carolina occupied seat at a Woolworth's lunch counter to demand service, And I have previously pointed out the sit down movement of the 1930s. There is great significance in the act of occupation, It raises many issues, it creates a community where we can begin to learn what social relations in a truely just society would actually look like, It is a visible public space where people can come, any hour of the day or night to learn about the movement with much easier and more visible than an office hidden away somewhere and with restricted office hours, Especially, it is a concrete example of taking back the commons as more and more of the commons are eroded through privitization.
lol. Yeah, I'm occupying my kitchen right now, and my laptop of course. Next I'm going to occupy the mall with a little last minute Christmas shopping! This movement is stupid.
Did you see GypsyKing and some others want a leader? Russ Feingold seems to be the top contender so far.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/i-have-advocated-a-leaderless-movement-but-no-more/#comment-518284
RedJazz43 illustrates the value of leadership. The lesson that Occupy Wall Street has taught is that if your organization lacks structure and leadership, then your strategy and policy will be set by guys like RedJazz43, who can't tell the difference between symbolic rhetoric and real life. The joke about Occupy Wall Street being more about the "occupy" than the "Wall Street" just got a whole lot funnier today.
You may also recall that the owners of Zuccotti Park didn't offer any resistance. When asked they said it was fine that the protestors occupied the park, it was only when the sanitation issue came up did they put out a statement showing their concern over the situation. The Trinity lot is different precisely because they were asked if the lot could be used and whatever representative in charge of those affairs said no. Zuccotti Park is privately owned but it is a public plaza Trinity's lot is not a public plaza or a public space.
The owners of Zuccotti Park offerred a lot of resistance, They prohibited public address systems. For a long time they prohibited tents and it took a long time and a real struggle to get tents established on the site. They also changed the rules for using the park after the occupation began to prevent many of the activities that had been allowed before the occupation. This particular maneuver was effectively countered in court by the OWS legal defense team.
Bloomberg complained about sanitation but he also prohibited OWS from installing port a potties, a curious and convenient contradiction.
We didn't ask to use Zuccotti. We just occupied. The very fact that we have been willing to negotiate with Trinity shows our flexibility in this regard. In general we don't ask and we don't think we should need to ask to reclaim the commons or to assemble or to march. We just occupy and march which we believe is Constitutionally protected. Whether it really is or not has yet to be determined by the Court, but it will get there.
Yes they had restrictions. I too have restrictions if you come to my house. For the owners it was a public park open to all and they allowed it to be used but yes there were restrictions. There are restrictions in Central Park too and that is owned by the city and the people who pay taxes. It wasn't just Bloomberg who complained about the park he just jumped on the bandwagon. Commissioner Kelly came out and said "The owners have put out regulations about what's allowed in park. The owners will have to come in and direct people not to do certain things."
Then a spokesperson for Brookfield Properties expressed concern over sanitation and made this statement in October "Sanitation is a growing concern ... Normally the park is cleaned and inspected every weeknight... because the protestors refuse to cooperate ... the park has not been cleaned since Friday, September 16th and as a result, sanitary conditions have reached unacceptable levels." Then as you probably recall everyone got together and cleaned the park.
It was the New York Supreme Court that issued the injunction against allowing protesters to camp or sleep in Zuccotti Park.
Its dishonest to say you are being flexible with Trinity when protestors already tried to forcibly take over the park after being denied the use of the park. Its dishonest to pretend there is a negotiation over what doesn't belong to us, it isn't a negotiation when I try and take something from you by force, that's thuggery.
The problem with Zuccotti owners was not simply that they had restrictions but that the nature of these restrictions changed in the course of the occupation, clearly to influence the behavior of the occupation. As it happens this was declared ex post facto in municipal court and the Zuccotti owners had to legally back of changes they made in park use after the fact,
It is not exactly reasonable to compare the nature of ownership at Zuccotti to one's private residence. In fact these public/private parks exist all over New York. Zuccotti is just one of them. They exist in this peculiar public/private arrangement because of spectacular real estate deals that the "owners" have made with the city for which, in return, they guarantee some of their open, private space for public use,
It may have been Brookfield that complained about sanitation, but not only did Bloomberg jump on the band wagon, he specifically prohibited OWS from installing port a potties which would have considerably alleviated the sanitation problem, OWS was very consciously aware of the sanitation issue as it was of every other issue that the city might use to evict and a Sanitation Working Group worked dilligently to keep the park clean. One indication of that was that the OWS kitchen got an A rating from the Department of Health, which many brick and mortar restaurants don't get.
Re Trinity, my point was that OWS did try to negotiate with them before any occupation was attempted (that was first on 10/15 as I recall but I could have the dates wrong. But I do know that it was before any attempt at occupation of 6th and Canal, immediately after the eviction from Zuccotti. There was never any effort to negotiate with Brookfield before the occupation of Zuccotti began, There was an effort to negotiate with Trinity before the effort to occupy it began, That is the difference.
There was no force involved here excepting the force necessary to lift up a fence, Certainly the only force against human beings was the force that the police used to arrest protesters.
Well no actually they could have simply said they didn't want anyone sleeping there from the very beginning. You have to remember that their interests as owners of the park are not the same as those of OWS, if an occupation doesn't want its behaviour to be influenced then it has to choose a different space. You are right that the park isn't the same as a private home, I agree with that, my point is that they have restrictions as owners who wanted a recreational public park. Central Park should technically be owned by the people of NY but there are park restrictions.
There was negotiation before the protest but the answer was no, you do not negotiate in good faith only to attempt to take what you want by force, that is not a show of good faith. Its not YOUR fence!!!! The fence doesn't belong to the public nor to OWS! Of course the police forced people out of the space, what did you expect? They were protecting private property just as they would if someone tried to take down the fence in my front yard!!!
Brookfield could not ex post facto prohibit people from sleeping in the park when they had not so ruled prior to the beginning of the occupation, So ruled the court,
Central Park, unlike Zuccotti is a genuine and completely public park and besides its out of the way location, therein lies the problem strategically as there is a midnight curfew in completely public park whereas, ironically, exactly the opposite rule applies to private/public parks and by law they have to stay open and available to the public for 24 hours, Efforts to occupy completely public parks in NYC have been met with massive police opposition,
I suppose OWS sincerely expected an outcome in their favor, but were ready to act in any event, The movement is, was and will remain nonviolent, The exceptions to this have been few and far between and definitely not sanctioned by the movement as a whole, although it is an ongoing matter of internal debate. Any force that was used has always been initiated by the police and most objective observors and many people quite hostile to OWS have concluded that the police use of violence has been far in excess of that necessary to arrest and detain nonviolent demonstrators,
Of course I expect police to obey the commands of their superiors, People in much less authoritarian environments regularly follow the instructions of their superiors at work after all, The actual level of police violence is another matter and I personally can't say for sure exactly where that is coming from, whether it is from individual police or from a culture of violence or if it is being ordered from above I do not know, I do know that it is generally far in excess of what is necessary to arrest and detain people, especially nonviolent protesters who may link arms or engage in other forms of passive resistance but who make no active effort to fight back or otherwise resist the police.
I also know that on the night of the eviction the police that regularly patrolled Zuccotti who had developed and empathy with the occupiers were replaced by cops from other boroughs, It is also the case that rookie cops were lied to and told that they were on a practice maneuver so that they would not leak the information regarding the eviction to the ocupation, I know this because a cop told me,
So then why don't you try and take it back then? Notice how the discussion of occupying property somehow doesn't leave a lot of time to really do something useful like address government and corporate abuses? See how its all about where you can pitch a tent? Its a waste of time and resources, nothing was so better considered than the office space OWS rented.
I am one person. Personally I am all for trying to take back Zuccotti, but if you have been there lately and seen how it is surrounded by barricades and a police presence that far outnumbers the people in the park most of the time you would see what a formidible task retaking Zuccotti would be, I'm all for it, but it would be no cake walk, especially nonviolently,
With regard to the notion that addressing government and corporate abuses, that is exactly the kind of space that the occupation provided for and it was exactly in that kind of re-occupied commons that the most creative discussions and ideas regarding state and corporate abuses took place, which is yet another reason why a reoccupation is so important and the exact place important, but less so,
There are many many reasons why physically occupying a visible open public space is important but for me one of the most important is that it provided a space for passers by to find out about the movement at any hour of the day or night, I had some of the best political discussions of my life at Zuccotti and 3 and 4 in the morning, A rented office space is no substitute for that, I know that some people would already like to incorporate OWS into the left wing of the Democratic Party which, in my view, has been the grave yard of every mass movement in America since the days of the Populists, Certainly others are entitled to have contrary views, but so far such notions have no consensus in OWS,
I didn't mean to imply that it was important to take back Zuccotti, to the contrary I believe that there needs to be meeting places where people can converge, discuss, organize, protest and educate but it doesn't need to be a permanent camp. As a matter of fact its a lot less easy for the establishment to corner and harass a movement if it has no particular base, if there need not be a leader then there need not be a camp. The movement is an idea, its about community and its about bringing people together to work towards social, political and economic change. There needs to be some more creative brainstorming as to how this can come about without being reliant on a specific space. This is a global as well as an international movement which means that anywhere people are gathered doing the work in the spirit of OWS is meaningful. The rented office space is a working space open only to representatives of the working groups its not meant to be a gathering for events such as GA.
Well I think a permanent camp is extremely important. It became a tourist attraction, It was a place where people could find and go to any hour of the day or night to find out about the movement, I had some of the best political discussions of my life in the middle of the night at Zuccotti, Other types of meeting places are no substitute for that. In addition the kind of community that developed at Zuccotti which, in terms of social relations, is a model of the kind of society we want to build, I think is only possible at an open, public, permanent occupation, I am not by any means disputing other forms of occupation, especially work place occupations which have yet to re=emerge, I am simply emphasizing the singular importance of occupying and open public space,
The movement doesn't need 'tourists', its not meant to be a curiosity, its meant to garner true support, its meant to motivate others to participate in any way they can for social, political and economic change. What are you going to print up post cards next? Occupy is not a circus, its not meant to be entertaining, its meant to be a serious movement. If getting the message out is the issue, if educating others is the issue you don't need a permanent camp to do so.
Revolutionary tourism is a fact of life. The fact that people can now experience it without ever leaving the country is an added benefit, It is an important basis for recruitment, especially individual recruitment, I don't put much stock in gradual accretion but the fact is at least some tourists will go home and start a GA in their own communities, I talked to literally dozens of people who planned to do exactly that,
One of the great things about OWS is the fact that it is full of irony and absurdity, Of course it is serious and I personally often have little patience with people who claim to be movement activists or supporters but who don't appear at all serious, But that is my problem, I talked to drummers active in the drum circle who argued (and often very articulately) that drumming was the revolution, not that it was even a part of the revolution, but that actively drumming with a lot of people day and night was what the movement was all about or should be all about, Now personally I think that is a genuinely nutty position, but my point here is that the movement really was extremely broad based and it was important to be tolerant and open,
I think occupying is of signal importance for the movement for many reasons, among which is that it is the defining characteristic of this movement and that completely leaves aside the issue of occupying open public space and taking back the commons, Besides being the defining characteristics it is quite literally what the movement is about, The movement is about occupying, It is called Occupy Wall Street, If it wants to be something else, if its primary purpose or goal or meaning is to do something other than occupy then it would seem reasonable to me that it take the notion of occupy out of its name, But so far their is no consensus to do that in any GA that I am aware of,
You have a weak case when you try to occupy public property. You have NO case when you try to occupy private property. The fact that you can't see the difference will cause others to see you as a dangerous individual.
It's not a matter of a case weak or strong. It's more a state of being. Occupy Wall Street is about occupying. That is in the name of the movement. Right or wrong that is what it does and what defines it and for whatever reason within days after the occupation began, literally millions of Americans who previously strongly believed in the right of property as absolute, were polled as being in support of or agreement with OWS. That number has fallen subsequently and there is a difference between support for the perceived values of OWS and its tactics and strategy, but even in terms of tactics a very substantial minority of those polled are supportive of OWS. The openness of ordinary people to this kind of challenge to state power is remarkable indeed and judging from interviews with movement initiators, not at all something they expected. I was there on day one and many times since, I've been active in social movements since 1964 and I never expected OWS to unfold the way it has or experience the successes it has.
Besides the initial occupation, I have been quite skeptical of many of the actions of OWS, beginning with the mass arrest on the Brooklyn Bridge. I thought that this might fundamentally undermine public support for OWS, but the opposite seems to be the case and it's hard to argue with success. So far and despite the evictions and police harassment the success of OWS was and remains remarkable.
No its not. OWS is not simply about occupying, its about challenging a corrupt financial system, its about corrupt political officials, its about the disenfranchisement of the electorate, its about corporate influence on government, its about bailouts and a dwindling middle-class and americans making their voices heard, getting their grievances out in the open, not simply the act of occupying some space.
As for public support recent polls show that their favorability has only decreased slightly in the poll, from 35% in October to 33% now, but those opposed to OWS have increased from 36% to 45% in that time. It was added that:
"I don’t think the bad poll numbers for Occupy Wall Street reflect Americans being unconcerned with wealth inequality. Polling we did in some key swing states earlier this year found overwhelming support for raising taxes on people who make over $150,000 a year. In late September we found that 73% of voters supported the ‘Buffett rule’ with only 16% opposed. And in October we found that Senators resistant to raising taxes on those who make more than a million dollars a year could pay a price at the polls. I don’t think any of that has changed- what the downturn in Occupy Wall Street’s image suggests is that voters are seeing the movement as more about the ‘Occupy’ than the ‘Wall Street.’ The controversy over the protests is starting to drown out the actual message."
http://www.mediaite.com/online/new-poll-shows-occupy-wall-street-protests-waning-in-popularity/
If Occupy Wall Street is not about occupying Wall Street and in general reclaiming the commons, then why in the world would it persist in calling itself that and why would it not seek some other designation. There is a 99% movement out there quite distinct from OWS but based on a notion first promulgated within OWS. But OWS is about occupying if you want to do something else, perhaps the 99% movement is for you.
I'm not saying that anybody has to do this or that, but if OWS is not about occupying then it seems reasonable to me that it should divest itself of that designation and it would probably be a good idea for those people active in OWS who think that OWS should be about something other than occupying to do what they could to get OWS to divest itself of the name OWS and begin to call itself something else. If OWS is not about occupying then it is at least a misnomer if not an outright lie.
Now the reason why the original occupiers occupied is because they were completely out of sympathy with both the corporate state and the corporations that control it. They way they express that antipathy is to occupy. If a consesus of people in OWS think it should do something other than occupy, if they think it should abandon the strategy of retaking the commons, then if for not other reason than public relations, on of the first and easiest priorities ought to be to change the name of OWS and delete the notion of occupation. It would be both honest and consistent with a revised strategy, but I don't see that happening any time soon as I do not believe that there is a consensus in any GA to try some alternate major strategy other than occupying. I am not saying that OWS doesn't or shouldn't do things other than occupy it does and it has virtually every day of its existence. Nevertheless, its defining characteristic is to occupy and if its definining characteristic is to change then it would seem logical, consistent and strategically appropriate to me that it should also delete the notion of occupation from its name.
Its symbolic Red. The location is an indication of the financial meltdown and the bailouts that came after that, its symbolic of corporate money and corrupt financial institutions. Its the occupy movement, and the occupy movement began on wall st. If you suggest that the location makes the idea then the idea would die the moment they no longer have the location. Reclaiming the commons is an off-shoot of the movement not what sparked the movement. The movement is still about (or at least it used to be about) financial inequality. The commons was never without 'private space'. To take away all or any private space and turn them into commons is something else entirely.
Also OWS now has office space "...it has a new office two blocks from Wall Street. Since Nov. 7, activists have been quietly occupying 2,500 sq. ft. of workspace located on the 12th floor at 50 Broadway. The rent is $5,400 a month and paid for by anonymous donors."
You can read the rest of the article here: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2101920,00.html#ixzz1gvpTHla9
Why you think it follows that they should change the name is beyond me. You can occupy someone's mind as well as their backyard.
I'm a part time but regular occupier and a participant in several working groups. As such I am fairly familiar with the day to day workings of OWS, though not intimately so. In every working group that I have participated in and at every GA the consesus is that OWS is about occupying that is the name and that is what we do. It is symbolic, but it is more than that. It is about having an open public space where people can come 24/7 to learn about the movement. I have had some of the most interesting political discussions of my life at 3 or 4 in the morning at Zuccotti Park. It is also about building a model community of the kind of society that we would like to live in, This is not about some hippy commune and clearly there are problems. In our ideal society of course we would not have to sleep in tents, on concrete or face the constant harassment of police, but the social relations that developed in Zuccotti and not something I experienced before in nearly 50 years of social activism.
OWS is about occupying. That is the consensus of its active base. If that were not the case then I am sure you would see GAs take the intiative and raise a different name or slogan.
Reading this exchange was very sad. "Occupy Wall Street is more about the 'occupy' than the 'Wall Street'", has become a popular meme across the country. A water-cooler joke. To see one person live out a Comedy Central joke in real life by obsessing with the actual act of occupation is disconcerting, but the idea that entire groups that dominate the power structure of the Occupy movement are focusing their energy on the literal occupations instead of on actual societal problems -- it's just sad and disappointing.
Korzybski pointed out that the map is not the territory. The map represents the territory. You guys are confusing symbolism with reality. Literally occupying real estate will not solve anybody's problems. You're throwing down maps and jumping up and down on them and pretending that you're literally stamping out the world's problems. You're not. It's about the "Wall Street", not the "Occupy". If you can't even keep that straight, then all hope is lost.
As occupations spread, not only in the US, but around the world, even when they are in solidarity with OWS, naturally the emphasis will tend to be more on the occupation of the commons than on Wall Street directly for the simple reason that most people outside a radius of Manhattan are not in physical proximity to Wall Street, That does not invalidate their occupations, or the effort to re-occupy the commons, or the connection between occupations world wide and nation wide and the power of the corporate state, It would seem that municipal governments understand this connection very well or else why would they deploy militarized police using excessive force against peaceful demonstrators? Sanitation? What a convenient excuse. They never worried about the sanitation of the homeless before, or for that matter they show no particular interest in the sanitation of the people they rendered homeless through the evictions.
While I am writing this I am listening to the news about the repression of the demonstration in Tahrir Square. Now of course we have not reached that point, but the principle is the same. The difference is only a matter of degree, which is admittedly extreme, But the occupation of Zuccotti Park and other locations is no more symbolic than the occupation of Tahrir Square and the demonstrators in Tahrir Sqaure who sent pizzas to Zuccotti on day one as an act of solidarity and who have visited Zuccotti and spoken there understand that we are one movement internationally,
If it were the "STAMP OUT WEALTH INEQUALITY" movement, then you would be the guy in steel-toed boots, going around literally STAMPING OUT things, totally oblivious to the symbolic nature of the stamping-out.
As I write this it is hardly a symbolic act on the part of the Egyptians occupying Tahrir Square right now or to the military forces actively engaged in killing them, Now again, we are no where near that in the US, but the difference is only one of degree, extreme degree I would agree, but degree nonetheles, and not of kind,
So then why not occupy Central Park? Why does it have to be Trinity's lot? Why not go and occupy penn station or grand central? At lest its warm. If its only occupying that's important then why the pretense of trying to move towards economic and political change? Why speak of inequality if all that's important is occupying some of this and some of that? Because the preoccupation with occupying isn't changing anything at all, its not the same as taking over a foreclosed home, its not the same as storming Congress and refusing to leave. Its a lot on Canal street for fucks sake!
There are actually real strategic problems in trying to occupy a completely public space in NYC in that there is a midnight curfew in public parks that do not apply to the public/private spaces that must be available, ironically, to the public 24 hours. Previous efforts to occupy Washington Square, for example, have bee met with extremely strong police opposition,
There is a further problem with Central Park in that, from a tourist or business perspective it really isn't all that central. It is much less likely that passers by and tourists would come to a Central Park occupation, that is assuming that OWS was able to establish an occupation there to begin with which would have considerable strategic difficulties.
I was not personally engaged in the discussions that led up to the decision to try and occupy 6th and Canal and I'm not especially interested in that discussion, though I am sure I or anyone else could find out more about it if they cared to, There are other public/private spaces that may have been considered. For now a completely public space is being ruled out for the reasons outlined above, though Times Square I believe is a public park and if so the police regularly allow the midnight curfew to be violated there.
I suspect that the 6th and Canal location may have been chosen because of its relative proximity to Zuccotti in comparision to other alternatives and also perhaps because OWS was already engaged in negotiations with Trinity and undoubtedly hoped for an outcome more in its favor.
In terms of changing anything we are talking about a social system that took centuries to evolve. One cannot expect to change that in a matter of weeks, or even years, Such changes will probably take decades and very possibly several lifetimes.
The idea of reclaiming the commons is a very important aspect of movements of social opposition and have been since the middle ages and it is very much an aspect of inequality, The drive towards privatization is a drive to transfer wealth to the super rich from everyone else. The effort to take back to commons is a countervailing force which would seek to redress that by expanding the commons and therefore transferring wealth from the super rich to everyone else,
Whether or not to occupy a train station or some other closed public space is essentially a strategic question and not a matter of principle, I'm not sure if that has been discussed but I have not been a regular member of the Direct Action Working Group,
It is important that the occupy movement have an open public space for a number of reasons, One is, as above, opening up the commons, Another is that passers by could find out about the movement 24/7. I have had some of the most interesting political discussions of my ljfe at 3 and 4 in the morning at Zuccotti. Another is the community that evolves at an occupation and especially the social relations that develop which are really a model of the kind of society we envision,
Well I actually knew that already about the parks, the thing is that anywhere you occupy whether public or private OWS is going to come across resistance. The thing is that when you try and occupy an institution that is already supporting the cause it comes across as bullying. If there was a struggle with police to occupy a space that was more symbolic of the nature of the problem, like a bank for example, I would not have been concerned but Trinity has been on the side of the movement and then the movement went about trying to take a space they were denied, not because its attacking a corrupt institution but simply because it wanted it for itself. This is wrong.
I understand all about the commons but the lot in Trinity is not a common and you are not going to change the law on private ownership by attacking YOUR FRIENDS!!!
I wouldn't consider the third largest real estate owner in lower Manhattan a friend no matter how many cups of hot chocolate they give me,
Oh so they were okay when they were allowing members to use their facilities, the meeting rooms offices, restrooms and wifi that happens to be on THEIR property. Their not your friends so they were used then? And because you feel you have the right you can take from them that they wouldn't willingly give? Nice that. Why don't you go and try that with some other large real estate owners in the city and see where it gets you. Ingratitude is really what comes to mind. Your statement make me feel ashamed of the movement.
Well I don't consider Brookfield a friend of OWS either and we use their property, We still do, in fact, though our freedom of action is severely restricted. Should OWS respect private property? That was certainly not Rosa Parks view when she refused to get up from the bus owned by a private bus line, Nor was it the view of the students who sat dow at a privately owned Woolworth's lunch counter in Greensboro NC and demanded to be served, Nor was it the position of nearly half a million workers who violated the rights of private property in 10 months in `936 and 1937 and sat down or occupied the private property of their employer until they achieved union recognition, At the same time and in coordination with those occupations 5 million working people organized themselves into industrial unions. And the issue was not how friendly the boss was. It was their power vs, that of the boss,
I'm here completely leaving out foreign examples such as those of Ghandi, On the other hand Ghandi did have quite cordial social relations with some Englishmen but he didn't necessarily consider them his friend just because they enjoyed genteel intercourse,
Rosa Parks was discriminated against, as were the students who sat down at a privately owned Woolworth's lunch counter. What they did was actually courageous, as they faced far worse consequences for their acts of defiance. They weren't demanding special treatment - they were fighting for equal rights.
Trinity provided services to OWS. Meeting rooms, offices, restrooms and wife - as redteddy pointed out. Free of charge, despite the fact that OWS has received over $600,000 in donations and could have easily paid for services.
Are you a shill for the anti-OWS folks?
OWS is not demanding any special treatment. In fact OWS has no demands at all, a fact which the main stream press dwells on considerably and which even liberal supporters of OWS fret about, OWS made no demands on Trinity Church, It simply tried to occupy space that Trinity Church owns for which it was set upon by the NYPD, Taking the initiative to do something is not a demand,
I have been active in OWS since day one, I have been active in a variety of social movements for the better part of 50 years, I am not a shill for any opponent of OWS, at least not consciously or willingly, I am in fact an active member of the Society of Friends and many opponents of the Trinity position are themselves quite religious and in many instances clergy, In fact the very first person to attempt to occupy the space at 6th and Canal was, as I understand it, a retired bishop,
Not that they are always necessarily right but it is interesting to note that even the religious community is divided on this question, Personally I hold to my initial position that Trinity could prove its religious roots to me if it allowed OWS to occupy its space without opposition, so long as it does oppose the use of its space for an occupation so far as I am concerned it is not a religious organization but a real estate owner hiding behind the skirts of organized religion and tanker cars full of hot chocolate will not change that,
Polling is part of the propaganda machine. MSM can influence polling result any way it wants to. Polling is a joke as is MSM.
Where do you see MSM polling? Why do you assert polling that is in favor of the movement? Often early on in the movement everyone would say how popular the movement was due to what was said from the polls, that too comes from MSM.
Any polling is a joke because MSM can influence polling result any way it wants to.
Where they also influencing the polling when the results came out favorable to OWS? Why is the polling only being tampered with when the opinions changed? Why were members using those polls when the results were positive?
[Removed]
A victim? Of society?You have to be nuts guy. He's a damn thief, because that is the path he has chosen.
I don't think I'm nuts, but I do believe in the Golden Rule and turning the other cheek. There are churches on every block in this nation that preach that. I think what OWS is about is actually putting those notions into practice in secular society.
So, OWS is a Christian organization?
Of course OWS is secular, and it is also a movement and not an organization, Because OWS is horizontally organized every OWS activist speaks for themselves and no one else, Having said that I have met many OWS activists who are primarily motivated by Christian values, Before the eviction nondenominational religious services were regularly held at Zuccotti as well as some denominational services. And ultimately, to me the values of OWS seem to be a secularized version of first century Christianity.
I think those are good values, and people from other organizations (like Trinity Church) have been putting those notions into practice in secular society for a couple thousand years or so. What's not cool is when you try to force it onto others - and I'm not saying that OWS as a whole is doing that.
The Occupiers that tried to take Trinity's vacant lot did try to force Trinity's hand. I believe that they thought they could shame Trinity Church by "martyring" themselves. There's a fundamental disconnect there - I would say some sociopathy as well.
You take Trinity Church, who have been helping the less fortunate for, what? 300 years? And you take OWS, which has been helping itself for, what? 3 months? And who do you think people will side with? The church, or the movement that bit the hand that fed it?
I'm sure the preachers at Trinity say all the right things every Sunday morning, but it is also the case that Trinity is one of the largest real estate holders in lower Manhattan, hardly a Christian value. As Jesus said, it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get to heaven,
It sounds like you would probably characterize nearly every act of civil disobedience as sociopathy, which would certainly put Ghandi and MLK off your list of revered citizens, You'd be in good company as Churchill referred to Ghandi as a loined cloth barbarian, In his more generous moments Churchill said Ghandi was a saint trying to be a politician to which Ghandi quipped that he saw himself more as a politician trying to be a saint,
Ghandi called his strategic ideas regarding social movement passive resistance and he said that equal emphasis had to be placed on both words, that if you were passive you were dead but if you were merely resistant it showed little regard for you adversary,
So of course, civil disobedience and passive resistance always involves some force, but not violence per se, That is, it is not armed struggle, People do not bring or use weapons (though this has happened in the past with previous social movements in America, particularly in the 18th and 19th centuries. What passive resistance is all about is people putting their bodies on the line, which they do not construe as violent. It is then up to those institutions in society that have a sanctioned monopoly on violence and the authities that control them to choose to use violence against the resisters or not and the level of violence that they choose is also up to those institutions in society that have a sanctioned monopoly on violence, In most instances a minority but very large proportion of public opninion, including elements of the public quite hostile to both the tactics and values of OWS, have, based of streamed videos, come to the conclusion that police have used violence far in exccess of that necessary to arrest and detain nonviolent demonstrators,
Trinity Church isn't a man, RedJazz43. I also believe that civil disobedience is a valid and effective form of protest. I admire Gandhi and revere MLK Jr.
You're straying from the topic...
Trinity is a major capitalist project thinly veiled as a religious community which undoubtedly comes in very handy when it comes to property taxes,
For my own mental health, I am ending this conversation with you. I'm sure you're useful for OWS when they need bodies, and completely useless when they need brains.
I have a PhD in history with concentrations in American labor history, US social history, modern European history and the history of science and technology. With all that I am somewhat insecure about my intellect, but still, I could do without the insults and I am sorry if you have felt insulted by me,
I think I'm not explaining myself well, I have nothing against dressing up in clown suits or drumming or using street theater as satire or any of that. I'm not saying there is no place for this, what I am saying is we shouldn't get hung up on being theater OR having a place where people can see us everyday as if in a zoo. Its not necessary because the ones who are going to truly participate either by joining a protest (the least one can do) or joining a working group whether it be full or part time or whenever one can get a baby sitter or creating a group in their community are the ones who 'heard the call' not the tourists. Tourists gawk, talk, take pictures and then go about their business. Okay maybe a stray tourist will get involved, I don't have statistics so this is just my opinion.
Well yes I agree that being there and being a part of a GA can be an exhilarating experience, a moving experience especially when you were sitting isolated wondering why all of these economic, political and civil injustices were taking place without any public challenge whatsoever. I cannot tell you how many times I asked "Where the hell are they?" So yes OWS was welcome and invigorating and I am thankful for its presence, but now I am wondering where the original message has gone, its not completely gone of course. I mean I wonder why all time and energy is being spent targeting sympathetic institutions such as Trinity and not the real agents of wrong-doing. Its frustrating to see energy spent where it is inefficient, ineffective and ultimately disadvantage to the movement. I mean look at his footage http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z38p4XpiWqU, the calls to 'occupy space'. How vacuous is that? Occupy space. If this movement refocused on the real corporate crimes and not just looking and raiding space there would be more people who would gravitate towards the movement. Right now this recent move just seems childish, self-serving, ungracious and arrogant.
And by the way I think the NYPD has learned from their mistakes because they handled this very well and showed restraint considering the numbers were against them and at some points even had them surrounded.
My point is that in my personal experience many people who ended up joining the movement started out by being little more than curious tourists, One of the most remarkable things I have experienced in my life time is how a day in Zuccotti Park transformed most people who spent time there, In fact one of the things that I encourage people on this forum who are serious but hostile to OWS to do is to spend a day at an occupation or a GA which I have found is a life changing experience for many people. I don't have any statistics on this either, but I do know that I have personally experienced talking to dozens of people who apparently came to check out the occupation as tourists and ended up being extremely moved by the experience and I mean moved in the literal sense, not merely as an emotionally moving experience, but rather that as a result their thinking actually changed,
Revolutionary tourism? When I went to Zuccotti Park I was answering a call, I wasn't sight seeing. Like I said if you are dependent on a site then you remain compromised without one. There are many movements that have taken off without succumbing to 'revolutionary tourism'. Also as far as Trinity is concerned, they didn't see it coming. When a large group takes a ladder and begins to enter a private space then they should automatically expect that someone will call the police. You keep bringing up hot chocolate and conveniently leave out the offices, meeting rooms, restrooms and wifi they freely provided to OWS members. If the movement is so dissatisfied with Trinity then perhaps they shouldn't take what is offered and look to someone else who will give offer them this and more....but then again this move would make any do-gooder chary of involvement. As Bishop Sisk said "I would urge all concerned to stand down and seek justice in ways that do not further alienate potential allies."
When I went to Zuccotti Park on 9/17 I too was answering a call, but I've been involved in social movements for the better part of 50 years and people come to social movements for all kinds of reasons, some good in my judgement, and some bad, but ultimately who am I to judge and the best thing about the best social movements are that they are not judgemental about other peoples motives,
There was a book that that came out in the 60s called Revolution for the Hell of It, which to me is frivolous and absurd, but there is a lot that is frivolous and absurd in any social movement, Why do people dress up like clowns and how are they to be prevented or should they? Emma Goldman said that If she couldn't dance she didn't want your revolution, Now Emma was a great revolutionary and not much of a dancer, but the statement was essentially a metaphor about the absurd aspects of revolution and a willingness to embrace the revolution as a whole, even the parts that she didn't particularly identify with,
I've been active in social movements for nearly 50 years and every revolutionary movement that I've seen internationally in that time has been the subject of revolutionary tourism, beginning with the Cuban Revolution, The reason why there has been no revolutionary tourism in the United States is that there haven't been any revolutionary movements in the United States to speak of for nearly 100 years, at least not since the suppression of the Socialist Party for its opposition to World War I in 1917. Subsequent social movements in the US, noble as they have been, cannot reasonably be characterized as revolutionary, That is not the case with OWS, It is self consciously revolutionary, At least that is what it says at the top of this page and I and most other GA participants take that literally, not as a metaphor, which is not to say that a revolution is not both serious and absurd,
I don't think that the third largest real estate owner in lower Manhattan is an ally no matter how many cups of hot chocolate it gives us, It is part and parcel of the 1% hiding behind the skirts of organized religion,
You said that you don't consider the owners of Zuccotti Park your friend, but I wasn't speaking of them. I was referring to Trinity which had extended itself to the movement and showed solidarity by doing so.
If they were really our friends they wouldn't have called the cops to keep us from 6th and Canal. As the saying goes with friends like that who needs enemies, I don't know how many cups of hot chocolate it will take to make up for that. I can't count that high,
Well said, Floyd.
Well dandy for you. Is that why you kicked him in the nuts? Because you believe in the golden rule?
As the famous gay anarchist poet Walt Whitman said, "I contradict myself, well then, I contradict myself." I've seen the same quote attributed to Lenin, but so what?
You belong on saturday night live too.
Why? I'm really not that funny and certainly not all that quick on my feet with reparte, I don't think Walt Whitman or Lenin would have made it on Saturday Night Live either, Maybe Whitman, Certainly not Lenin,
Red, are you seriously defending this attack with a lame analogy like that? Your experience was nothing like what happened to the church lot, unless the protesters you had fed took issue with your refusal to provide fries, held you on the ground and tried to take money out of your wallet until they were pried off of you by the cops. Give me a break, and open your eyes. I was a bonehead move by the protesters, and will cost the movement dearly - more so if it is defended.
Property is theft was an old slogan first coined I believe by Pierre Proudhon, the father of anarchism. In the movie Reds, John Reed had the slogan posted above his apartment door in Greenwich Village. Actually, what it said was, "Property is Theft, Enter."
This is not a demand to collectivize the tooth brushes but it is a demand for all capital to be publicly owned and democratically controlled, which is not at all the same thing as state ownership. If it was we would all recognize the US Postal Service as a socialist institution, which it clearly is not.
There's a word for the forcible imposition of your philosophy on the private property of others who do not agree with it. It's called breaking and entering, and robbery...and OWS will dry up and blow away if it becomes associated with that and defends it. So by all means, please continue...
In terms of private property I would draw a sharp distinction between a tooth brush (metaphorically speaking) and capital.
Well actually one guy did take issue with the fact that I didn't provide him with French Fries. The situation almost rose to that of a minor altercation, but as there were a lot of other OWSers there (including me) it quickly devolved into absurdism. Anybody who is regularly engaged in OWS has to have a deep appreciation of the absurd as it happens in OWS on virtually a moment by moment basis. Now the guy might have tried to nonviolently assert his right to French Fries. He didn't but it would have been interesting if he had. If he had wrestled me to the ground that would have been contrary to OWS values of nonviolence and I am sure the other OWSers on the scene would have nonviolently intervened to de-escalate the situation. I've seen it done, but ya hadda be there. Actually, were that to happen and the cops did try to step in we all would have stepped in to prevent the cops from arresting the guy. Property is theft. BTW I don't lock my door either, but on the other hand I don't have much to steal.
The majority of the OWS crew are atheist, yet they try and park their azzes on the church property. Funny
Because OWS is a your for us or against us movement now. You could have donated time, money or food to them for months but if you say no one time, you are now against them and the smear campain is on. Although you will note they were very quick to put Arch Bishop Tutu's letter on there web page to gain the publicity.
Yet they didn't put his second statement on the website where he says "It is not necessary to forcibly break into property. Nor is it [necessary] to reinforce or build higher the barriers between people of faith who seek peace and justice,"
The same kind of thing happened in LA, where stubborn protesters so alienated the pro-OWS mayor and city council that they finally lost their support and the movement has basically disappeared. Now this shameful attack on the private property of a church that had been supportive, reinforcing the public impression that the protesters feel entitled to what doesn't belong to them. Biting hands that feed them is becoming standard OWS tactics.
But there was no need to bite their hand. All they had to do was muster public support and we would all have gladly sent letters begging the church to donate the space. We would have done so with sympathy and understanding that the church was basically on our side and we were only asking them to take a next bold step in support. But to storm the place and make it seem as if Trinity is somehow a bad guy here and worthy of a brow beating is just wrong.
[Deleted]
Well I hope I am not a pawn. I truly believe in the original message of OWS, I believe it is time for americans from all classes to become active politically and on the streets to seek change and reform a corrupt system but I don't see how attacking Trinity which has shown itself to be a supporter of the movement leads the nation in the direction of change. If OWS is an idea then it doesn't need the lot to further its movement, it simply needs to pass on the idea.
I'm amazed and saddened by the attack on Trinity. I don't understand it and I need someone to explain it to me. I would like to know who came up with this idea, the movement really doesn't have leaders but I would like to know what working group came up with this and why the core members of the movement believed this to be a good idea. This isn't in the interest of democracy its simply gangsterism.
And yes I agree when you say that it does look as if they will attack you if they cannot control you. That's the message that this action has speaks.
The best thing for you to do is to walk away from OWS entirely. The movement is FOR themselves and AGAINST everything and everyone else who doesn't agree with them.
I sincerely hope that you will take your issues, whether I agree with them or not, to a different level.
Change in this country is made through the elections of people who represent your concerns. I encourage you to get active in ways that truly have impact and are not riduculed.
I don't believe that the action is reflective of the whole movement. Its something I certainly would not have supported.
haha.. What a dumb post