I realize they didn't want to get booted from the park, but is that really what's important to the movement? Is sitting in the park really going to be the thing that changes anything? The park doesn't matter, the message does and for some reason many people seem to think that the park is essential to the movement...I don't see it and I don't see any reason to really get bent out of shape over it. The movement hasn't done too much from the park other than create news anyways, so why not try a different tactic?
I guess I must just not "get it."
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/16/nyregion/police-begin-clearing-zuccotti-park-of-protesters.html?_r=2&hp
Here are two interesting quotes displaying the differences in opinion of the movement from people inside the movement...I think the first guy gets it right.
He said he didn't see much reason to restart a tent city.
"I'd like to see the tents replaced with booths, community resources, workshops, teach-ins, and maybe even a kitchen still serving the homeless," Owens said.
then there's this guy
"If they (police) take over the camp, we're going to reoccupy," Ronald "Rasta" Jones, 31, an Oakland resident who had lived in the Occupy Oakland camp since its first day, Oct. 10, said before officers moved in around 5 a.m. to evict people. "Our objective is for them to keep spending money. ... We're not going to stop."
I dunno about you, but I thought the movement was meant to help the community, improve knowledge of the situation and eventually change the rules that allow the ultra rich to continue building wealth through loopholes while the poor continue to struggle...The second guy seems content with the simple concept of protesting for the sake of protest...to COST the city money and to waste money continuing to evict the protestors...that doesn't sound like the 99% i would want to associate with.
No comments:
Post a Comment