Forum Post: The Importance of Dressing In White
Posted 12 years ago on Dec. 2, 2011, 11:09 a.m. EST by MrModerate
(13)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
This is an idea of mine. I'd love to hear your thoughts. I think it'd be interesting if the OWS protesters across the nation should start dressing all in white for the protests, or at the very least, wear a white shirt. Here's why:
- White is a near-universal, cultural symbol of peace across the world.
- It will create a stark juxtaposition between the protesters and the police, who are predominantly dressed in black.
- If and when the police start beating protesters, their blood will be more conspicuous.
- Government agitators who infiltrate the protests can be easily marked with permanent marker or paint.
So, start wearing white. See if it catches on. That's the way it works in OWS.
If anything I would encourage folks to buy a black glove for that raised fist in solidarity with the disproportionate injustices that the oppression of this Wall Street contrived poverty is inflicting on America's minority community.
White shirts and black gloves. Sounds trendy.
Yes, militant anger toward America's right-wing government and their masters on Wall Street is becoming very trendy. A trend that Wall Street and Congress should heed with great trepidation.
I've been a part time activist in OWS since day one and if there is anything that I think OWS should be cautious about it is how pathetically weak we are. Once we have 10 or 20 million people active in occupations then we can talk about Wall Street and Congress (Washington, how about the White House?) being nervous. Before that it's mere hyperbole.
The occupations and marches are representations not total mass. It is not necessary to have every last supporter out in the street for every action. that is an unrealistic and unnecessary ideal.
A change in tactics from the unsustainable high cost occupations to a more creative flash action strategy would be more imposing for the powers that be. It would demonstrate evolution and organization both of which are feared by both Wall Street and their minions in Congress.
I'm not suggesting that everybody be at every demonstration. I'm not. I have a job and medical issues that often keep me away. I am suggesting a much more pervasive development particularly of GAs if not occupations as such. Occupations are important for a number of reason. One is that they are an open public place where people can go any hour of the day or night to find out about the movement. Another is that they have tended to evolve into models of the kind of society that the movement seeks to build.
In some respects, as the governing body of the occupations GAs are even more important. They are they embodiment of the movement. I frankly can't see how anyone can really understand what the movement is all about or genuinely support it without participating in a GA on at least a part time basis. Many of the misconceptions I have seen about the movement on this forum have come from people who claim to support the movement but who have never been to an occupation or a GA. Frankly, I don't think that is possible. I don't mean to be arrogant about this, but in my experience, whatever differences we may have, I think people who have actually been to an occupation or a GA experience the movement entirely differently than people who haven't and, btw, that is also entirely different from going to a demo, even a movement sponsored demo.
Ideally it would be great to see GAs in every community, in every neigborhood, on every block, in every nursing home, hospital, drug rehab center, school, college, military barracks, jail, prison and work place. At that point we would have the institutional structure capable of genuinely challenging the corporate state of the 1%. Meanwhile, it seems to me that the main job of OWS is to keep on doing what it is doing, to keep on organizing until there is a GA in every nook and cranny of the globe.
Occupations hardly cost anything. The NYC GA didn't have a dime on day one of the occupation. By 3 in the afternoon it had a fully functioning kitchen based on the contributions of volunteers. Most of the so-called costs of the occupations are the high labor costs that the corporate state of the 1% choose to pay the police for over time. That's their problem, not ours.
Maintaining permanent occupations is extremely important for a number of reason as a place where people can come to learn about the movement, as a model for the kind of society we want to build and to guarantee the First Amendment right of assembly. Also, occupation is pretty much the defining characteristic of this movement.
I am afraid that you have delusions of grandeur that blind you to the real possibilities and potential of OWS. You sound like you are ignoring the possible in hope of achieving the impossible.
Personally I don't think I have delusions of grandeur, and I am sorry if I have presented myself that way as it has not been my intention, though it could be that we are using words differently.
I think that OWS is pathetically small and inconsequential. Only days before he chose to shut it down Mayor Bloomberg made the point that if you traveled just a block away from Zuccotti Park you would be completely unaware that there was a demonstration there and I completely agree with him about that, which makes it all the more peculiar that he chose to shut it down. I am a part time occupier and whenever I go home I am struck by the fact that most folks I encounter have neither a positive or negative position on the occupations. Most of them are completely unaware of the existence of the occupations.
OWS is really not even a mass movement in the proper use of that term, but it is a movement. My point is that the defining characteristic of OWS as a movement are the occupations themselves. Beyond that they are places where people can go 24 hours a day to learn about the movement. I also think that people who participate in the occupations really do see them as models for the kind of society they would like to build and in my experience most people who spend any time at an occupation tend to come to the same conclusion.
My main point is that I think that anyone who thinks they are a supporter of OWS and has never been to an occupation or a GA would really benefit considerably by actually spending at least a day at an occupation and sitting through at least one GA to learn what the movement is really all about and so come to a more thoughtful conclusion as to what the movement is really all about and whether they support it.
In terms of what is possible and what is impossible, within days of when the occupation began OWS had built a solid alliance with sections of organized labor, something that the radical left had not done since the 1940s. It has also contributed materially (not in the sense of money, but in the sense of people, ideas and spirit) to a dozen other social movement. The anti tar sands movement is an outstanding example, though there are many more. The point is that it's direct action stance has actually contributed more to getting reforms though than would a more moderate lobbying or candidate support approach would have done and it is still a very, very young movement, only weeks old, really not even in its infancy, more like still in the womb.
Raised fists in anger is easier, cheaper and makes a more cogent statement.
While peaceful, OWS is not a peace movement. It is a social and economic justice movement. A universal peace symbol would misrepresent what OWS is.
I promise you that if news camera people see blood they will document it no matter what the background color of the shirt.
OWS is motivated by anger at injustice and poverty. Getting people to spend money that they don't have for a symbol that does not accurately represent their anger simply makes no sense.
Nice.
First sensible reply I've received on this. My hat's off to you, sir.
just another way of labeling and dividing.
The movement is already labeled and divided.
so dividing it more will fix that?
The whole point is managing media perceptions of the movement. At the moment the mainstream media is portraying the movement as a bunch of dirty hippies dressed like homeless people.
here's a video of Kentucky students
On October 8, a delegation of over 40 students arrived at the Wall Street protest from Berea College in Kentucky, seeking to represent the working class and poor of Appalachia.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/oct2011/vide-o19.shtml
i think the movement is doing fine in the media. just because a few ass hats try to discredit doesn't mean they are the leaders and we should respond to every word out of their mouth.
Don't know about white being the universal sign of peace. In China, white is worn at funerals and represents mourning.
Which may still be fitting for this little charade you all have going on.
I thought it was virginity and purity
visibility and cleanliness
How about we also do pink polka dots because the bankers wear pinstripes and all?
You know also know the "evil Wall St CEO's" commonly dress in white shirts also- hence the term "white collar crime"?? Also, you mark me up with paint or a permanent marker, understand, I will personally turn your white shirt crimson. Do you think you could handle a physical retort to your assault?? I'm sure others would feel the same way. Also cops don't always need to beat people, thats what spray and tasers are for. This is why none of this is being taken seriously.
If you would attack someone for marking your $1 white t-shirt then maybe you have anger management problems. As stated, this is just an idea.
For the record, none of my clothes cost a dollar. Someone throwing an unknown substance- paint (if that's all that's in there, I don't know that) in this case- constitutes assault. If someone feels they can do something like that and get away with it, they will be corrected. It's not an anger thing, it's self defense and a deterrant to whoever may see it. Have you ever heard about how people used to get shot just for scuffing up someone else's shoes?? Yes, this actually used to happen. Not in the 1800's where dueling was cool, but in the late 1980's/early-mid 90's. What would give them the right to ruin a shirt I had to work to buy?? Would I be reimbursed for said shirt? How about having to either go home and get another shirt or forced to go to work in a shirt covered in who knows what? So that means if I were to randomly find you and ruin your stuff what would your reaction be?? I know it's just an idea, but wrecking up the place-because we know throwing paint around is messy- shouldn't be something you're about. Low impact for maximum result is what you should be aiming for. Not making something personal because some person doesn't believe what you do.
Surrender: White represents the act of surrendering. OWS is based on anarchy; the black flag. It does not surrender! Instead, it battles forth to conquer.