I had what, in the scheme of things, may be a pointless question (or perhaps one that’s already been done to death, and I just missed it): why are we “occupying” things?
I’m not asking what the point of the Occupy movement is, or why they’re using the tactics they are, but rather, why is it called “occupying” and is that a good idea? Isn’t the metaphorical point more to remove an occupation than to engage in one?
The original “Occupy Wall Street” actually makes sense: a parody of US foreign policy being visited upon on a tiny “foreign” nation whose inhabitants have probably caused more damage to this country than any terrorists are ever likely to.
But “Occupy Oakland”? “Occupy Boston”? If “we are the 99%”, then we are Oakland, we are Boston. Isn’t the real point that the 1% are occupying us? That we are, in effect, living under their puppet regime?
Wouldn’t it make sense to use language that implies we are actually defending our homes from an abusive force rather attempting to invade something? The message to our elected leaders rulers is not necessarily “we will overthrow you”, but perhaps more like “you’re killing us, and we aren’t going to take it anymore”. That at least has the potential to be turned into an invitation to return to being the government they were, in theory, democratically elected to be — that is if they truly can, in fact, figure out how not to be elitist, authoritarian, collaborationist “rulers” (an “if” which, in most cases, is probably more about moral high ground than realistic expectation).
The “occupy” message also has the potential to make those who don’t identify with the movement feel like their land is being invaded. It risks breaking the 99% into two groups, each of which thinks they are defending their homes and families from each other. The 1% always likes that.
This is probably all moot as the “Occupy” brand has already sailed, so to speak. Perhaps, the “we are the 99%” message is enough to counteract the metaphorical problems of “occupying”. Though I still wonder what different tactics and rhetoric might be considered if the underlying message was one of defense from, well, “colonization” might be the best word for it.
I was! I was totally not going to bed until after 1 am for this question.
But what is the magic word? Abide seems a little too passive (not to mention, movie reference). Wolverines! belongs to the gun nuts.
???
~
“Reclaim” or “Take Back”. But the Occupy brand has succeeded so who are we to second guess?
Yeah, “occupy” has been, in effect, the magic donut.
“Take back” language has been used for a while, to apparently little effect. It’s also the case that “reclaim” and “take back” are more like goals, where “occupy” has a far more direct relationship to the form of action. My guess would be that this directness has something to do with the way the movement maintains it’s momentum.
But are there people, both in government and the population, who feel threatened by the “occupy” language who shouldn’t be? (As opposed to all the ones who actually should.) What interactions with existing power structures are allowed and disallowed by this approach? Is there another direct language that might facilitate a more useful set of relationships?
I’m just asking the questions that occur to me. It’s more curiosity than critique.
I’ve seen some resistance from some subsets of online feminism, for whom “occupy” sounds a little threateningly patriarchal. And of course it is alienating if you’re focused on anti-colonialism. There’s a fear out there, in some quarters, that this is about young white boys and some older sympathizers, yet again, even if it really isn’t. I mean, there’s a conflict going back into the 70s between the “identity left” and the “economic left”.
This is a melon scratcher. It nicely illustrates the evolution of memes- we end up with what we end up with due to strange reasons, not what works best wins.
Note to self: Pinko does not believe in the invisible hand.
~
Does the invisible hand scratch ghost melons?
Does the invisible hand scratch ghost melons?
It thumps them, to see if an idea is ripe.
El has been pondering this all morning, and realizing he might be distracted by his despotic inclinations, he passed it on to someone who might have more to add.
The following response comes from El’s friend, Kimmie Dee:
With regard to language and picking out the ‘proper’ or more so, politically correct and that’s what this is saying, choose the politically correct way to get their attention, is to play their game as opposed to exercising our First Amendme…nt right. Meaning that, to use the “you’re killing us” slogan would, I believe, do nothing more than please them. They have no problem killing us! Killing us with oil spills, killing our kids in war, killing us by not providing affordable health care, killing us by outsourcing jobs, killing us by foreclosing on houses, killing us by taxing the shit out of us while giving themselves and friends loop holes and breaks, killing our spirits, killing our will, killing our desire to fight back, keeping us docile and making us think we don’t have a choice in a land where they dangle the carrot of freedom constantly.
To “Occupy” IS to use Their language and since they know exactly what that means, that’s the reason they’re so freaked out. Think about what the actual definition of “occupy” is: oc·cu·py (ky-p)
tr.v. oc·cu·pied, oc·cu·py·ing, oc·cu·pies
1. To fill up (time or space): a lecture that occupied three hours.
2. To dwell or reside in.
3. To hold or fill (an office or position).
4. To seize possession of and maintain control over by or as if by conquest.
5. To engage or employ the attention or concentration of:
My guess is, they pick #4. And think about how that has been bastardized by politicians with personal agendas and that of their corporate sponsors. They know the real meaning of an occupation of brown people around the world, and that it means deep shit for those people. So, one can only hope they have the same reaction and understanding of the word occupy when it pertains to them.
Which I’m guessing it does, considering the midnight move of “Operation Bum Roll.” Using force, violence on a group of sleeping people, throwing out their food source, their medical supplies, their ‘homes,’ their library … THAT was the real occupation, done by billionaires for billionaires. We, the 99%, are actually taking back our rights, our money, our business, our country and OUR LANGUAGE!
El Snacktator for President!
~
I suppose it’s good to know that El realizes that his despotic inclinations might be biasing, a truly elevated level of self-awareness for one in his line of work.
*
Hi Kimmie,
I’m pretty sure I get what you’re saying, but I don’t see how it answers the question, I’m asking.
A few points about what I’m not doing:
1) As I said above, my question is not directed at the motivation or the tactics of the Occupy movement.
2) My point is not to say anything like the Occupy movement or language is “too radical” or some such BS. I don’t know if that is how you understood me, but it seems to be one thing your response might be directed to.
Here is how I understand what you’re saying and how it relates to the point I was making:
With regard to language and picking out the ‘proper’ or more so, politically correct and that’s what this is saying, choose the politically correct way to get their attention, is to play their game as opposed to exercising our First Amendme…nt right.
In what way is the argument you are making not an argument for what language is “politically correct”? I mean that in its literal sense, not as an epithet. Any political language is chosen for a reason, whether that choice is explicit or intuited. If you are suggesting my point is to “soften” the language, that’s not what I’m getting at.
Meaning that, to use the “you’re killing us” slogan would, I believe, do nothing more than please them. They have no problem killing us!
That language was just a suggestion that came to mind. I certainly don’t know what would be the best way to go. However, I can give the reasons why something like it might be considered.
There are (at least) three players in non-violent resistance: the protesters, the authorities, and the audience. As I understand it, part of the point of non-violent resistance is to make visible and incontrovertible to the audience the violence in the system that they usually do not — or choose not to — see. Yes, many of the 1% have no problem with policies that kill us, the point is to make them say it in ways that show how hollow their usual euphemisms and doublespeak are, the point is to make their attitudes and choices visible. The “occupy” language might offer the rhetorical cloak that they are putting down an insurrection, rather than destroying people standing up for their rights.
To “Occupy” IS to use Their language and since they know exactly what that means, that’s the reason they’re so freaked out. [...] They know the real meaning of an occupation of brown people around the world, and that it means deep shit for those people. So, one can only hope they have the same reaction and understanding of the word occupy when it pertains to them.
Here we’re getting closer to my original question. As I originally noted, the “occupy” language makes sense in the case of “Occupy Wall Street”, and for that case, I pretty much agree with this line of reasoning. The issue I’m raising is the difference between “Occupy Wall Street” and “Occupy Oakland” (or Boston, etc.)
Which I’m guessing it does, considering the midnight move of “Operation Bum Roll.” Using force, violence on a group of sleeping people, throwing out their food source, their medical supplies, their ‘homes,’ their library … THAT was the real occupation, done by billionaires for billionaires.
You’re making my point here: in most of the country, it is the 1% who are occupiers.
It seems to me that the language of “Occupy Oakland” risks making Oakland in principle equivalent to Wall Street, a place not just ruled by, but also inhabited by and the native province of the 1%.
The theater of “occupying” Wall Street or other precincts of privilege may be a useful exercise of popular power, but the 99% does not need to invade Oakland. The 99% is Oakland. We want to defend the cities we live in, not invade them.
And the question I’m left with is: what does that “invasion” look like to those not identified with the movement, the audience I mentioned earlier? My point isn’t that there is anything wrong with “occupying”, but that there might indeed be something wrong with “occupying” Oakland if the people of Oakland — not the authorities in Oakland — sees this as an invasion, and especially if it allows the authorities to portray the protesters as an invasion or an insurrection rather than people standing up for rights.
The smallest change of language that might avoid this would be to name the various groups “Occupy Wall Street – Oakland” etc. And it is perhaps the case that one reason the “occupy” language works is because the current names can be seen as a shorthand for that (especially alongside the “we are the 99%” language). It’s not a question of making the rhetoric less threatening, it’s a question of making sure it affects the targets we want without hitting ones we don’t.
I’m also curious as to what choice Jean Quan thinks she’s made. In theory at least, she’s about the last mayor who should be likely to do what she’s done. There’s no obvious reason (that I know of) why she couldn’t have sided more with the protesters. So I wonder if, in some sense, the “occupy” language in its current form might have forced her hand, might have made what’s at stake appear different to her than it could have. It is, of course, entirely possible — even likely — that she would have acted the same way no matter what. But it is probably for people like her that the choice should be as stark as possible. If someone like her is going to side with the authoritarians, she shouldn’t be able to escape that she is ruling, imposing her will (or the will of those she obeys), not that of the people.
As I’ve said, I don’t have the answers here, I’m just raising the questions I see. I hope this has made my point a bit clearer.
Possibly relevant.
Certainly to the blog, and possibly this post.
Ezra Klein, who seems to have been born with a silver laptop in his mouth, mouths the New Wisdom of Giving In.
~
Could we go with “Shut your ass face, Wall Street”?
Sounds like Klein et al have bought the line that street protest doesn’t matter in a digital age. And that currently existing capitalism is all we have to look forward to.
Anyone else remember Klein on Pandagon? Those whom the internet would destroy, it first makes successful? There may be a tautology in that.
Ezra is a s/tool.
Brando- I may have to bite my pillow because of what you said.
lol @ Brando.
Question: Is Ezra Klein really that bad? Why?
fish and Pinko and company are far more familiar with the topic in question, bg, but here’s a post I read today.
~
Ketchup is a vegetable!
When Yggy orders a pizza it comes with an organic heirloom pepper carved into the head of Chris Matthews.
Also, Brando probably has the right idea…
“Oooooh, on first glance GWB’s healthcare plan isn’t that bad! WOOOPS, my pretend specialty was healthcare and it was that bad, I actually am a moron with pretend college term paper experience in policy, plus I have a blog. Also, that one SMRT trustworthy Congressman who wants to get Randy with Gubmint, he’s tough and SMRT because that is what people around here say, even though I have no evidence of it. Also, I do not have an internal spine, just a paper machier exoskeleton. Will you still love me? Oh, hippies. Why are you so smelly?”
I’ve wondered about the term “Occupy” too. They’ve co-opted the enemy’s word. It’s saying, “We’re not leaving, no matter how you feel about it, what you say or what we have to do.”
RE Ezra. Never read him all that much. I was never one of the cool kids (like Jedmunds-remember Jedmunds?! Wonder where he is now.) who hung out over there.
It seems to me that the language of “Occupy Oakland” risks making Oakland in principle equivalent to Wall Street, a place not just ruled by, but also inhabited by and the native province of the 1%.
My thought is… How many of the 99% are/have been passive or aggressive enablers of the 1%? I’ll use myself as an example. I am complicit in this whole mess if for no other reason than I came of age in a time when that’s how things were going. And although there was a lot I hated and spoke out about (to family & friends, on a blog) at the same time, I went along with a lot of it too simply because that’s the way our society was structured.
Yeah, we are the 99% but they are also Occupying a very high percentage of us, who are the 99%. A *system* needs to change, priorities need to change, mindsets needs to change. So Occupy Oakland is also meant to “wake up” a very large percentage of Oaklanders. Oaklandites? Oaklandians?
Oaklandroids of course.
I said I wanted a revolution.
BG, just because many in the 99% may enable the 1% doesn’t mean that the 99% aren’t the population of the cities. Even if people need to “wake up”, I don’t see why they need to “occupy” their own home. It seems like the point should be to drive the occupiers — the 1% — out. I’m not sure how the occupy metaphor implies the kind of change in the system that you mention.
Mandos- HEH
BRAINS.
use BRAINS.
As in BRAIN Wall Street.
So it’s fish that’s been stealing all the revolutions? That explains a lot…
Well you know, we all want to change the world.
batproblems.net — perhaps this is what Jennifer has been looking for?
Even if people need to “wake up”, I don’t see why they need to “occupy” their own home.
Because if it’s only going on in NY, then people across the country are going to think… “That’s going on ‘over there’ not ‘here’ so we don’t even have to think about it!”
Those crazy New Yorkers! Always up to something weird!
People, especially the people who aggressively defend and enable the 1% with “other” them. It needs to hit as close to home as possible.
WILL other them….
Plus, there are a lot of disgruntled and disillusioned people who live in every city who can’t make it to NY to Occupy Wall Street. I’m assuming they want to show their support while letting their local politicians know how disgruntled and disillusioned they are.
Why don’t they call it Occupy Wall Street-Oakland then?
The shorter the message the better, I say. Occupy Wall Street’s the mothership — everyone gets it.
BG, I certainly wasn’t suggesting that people not protest in various cities. It’s not what people are doing that I’m concerned about, but whether or not calling what they’re doing “occupying” has unfortunate consequences.
whether or not calling what they’re doing “occupying” has unfortunate consequences.
Like what kind? Give me a couple of examples.
BG, there are others in the post and long comment above, but the chief possibility seems to be:
what does that “invasion” look like to those not identified with the movement, the audience I mentioned earlier? My point isn’t that there is anything wrong with “occupying”, but that there might indeed be something wrong with “occupying” Oakland if the people of Oakland — not the authorities in Oakland — sees this as an invasion, and especially if it allows the authorities to portray the protesters as an invasion or an insurrection rather than people standing up for rights.
By stating they are “occupying”, the protesters risk presenting themselves as an “invasion”. The same protests under a different name might present as something different.
This is just speculation though. I was asking the question to see what other people have to say.
I KNEW you had probably already answered that earlier in the thread. I was too lazy to re-read. Sorry!
sees this as an invasion, and especially if it allows the authorities to portray the protesters as an invasion or an insurrection rather than people standing up for rights.
By stating they are “occupying”, the protesters risk presenting themselves as an “invasion”. The same protests under a different name might present as something different.
No, I don’t think so. They could have named it Happy Rainbow-Jumping Four Leaf Clovers and they’d still get pepper sprayed in the face. Actually I like “Occupy” — it’s both meaningful and somehow non-threatening. I think they chose well.
Now please everyone, come over to my place and declare which side you are on.
In your quote, you left out an important bit:
there might indeed be something wrong with “occupying” Oakland if the people of Oakland — not the authorities in Oakland — sees this as an invasion
The authorities are going to do what they’re going to do. Some few might perhaps be more amenable under a different metaphor, but not enough to making getting pepper sprayed much less likely. It’s the perception of regular people who don’t identify with the protesters that I’m thinking about mostly.
I think if you are on the side of the 1%—if you are on the side of authority and the status quo—it doesn’t matter what the group is called — they’re “othered” right off the bat.
I grew up close to Kent State and remember people I know (so sadly, so irrationally, so hatefully) defending the Nat’l Guard for killing those kids. Wrapping themselves into pretzels, rationalizing that “that’s what they deserved.” Even when it was pointed out that a couple of them were not part of the the anti-war movement and were just walking to their class when they were shot and killed.
If there are people who can defend *that*—kids doing what *they were supposed to be doing*—KIDS—18 year old kids!!—what the group is called doesn’t matter.
Now, I will say this. My mother in law was visiting last weekend (she still defends Nixon!!) and when Occupy Wall Street was brought up, she did not criticize them. Even *she* got what they were doing. That’s a miracle right there!
What happened at Kent State still makes me so sad.
BG- you are convincing me.
College students just rioted and tipped over a news van in Happy (Ending) Valley because they were mad a football coach got fired for coddling an alleged serial pedophile. They weren’t out rioting because an organization appears to have covered up child abuse. They weren’t out rioting against the soaring cost of higher education and the crushing debt burden that development is leaving on a lot of graduates. They weren’t out asking why their tuition has probably dodecatupled in the last two decades, why no one seems to be noticing that the severe cutbacks government budgets are passing the savings right up the collective tailpipe of the middle class.
That’s precisely why I really don’t think this movement will do much. You can’t make a bottom become a top, and too many of the 99% of the are happy being bottoms or at least are content enough to lie back during the icky parts and think of England. I can’t say that I’m necessarily any better in that regard as I am typing this from a Starbucks.
Don’t beat yourself up too much, Brando. Howard Schultz seems like a cool dude.
Speaking of Kent State, check this out: http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/11/police-abuse-on-parade.html
OMG, you guys have to watch that entire video. Scary, awful and unbelievably inspiring all at the same time. I love those kids!!
BG- the now iconic pic of the guy just hosing the seated demonstrators is really powerful. So glad that Sullivan- he of the 5th Column fame seems to feel like it now is important. He’s on the bloghateroll, unfortunately. So negative!
I like Andrew Sullivan’s blog for all the subjects and links. Always lots of great reading. BUT! I do understand why he’s on the Hateroll. He had a post up a couple of days ago about being in L.A. and running into Bill Bennett and that idiot rat Andrew Breitbart. And the post was all lovey-dovey, and he was so glad neither of them takes his point of view on his blog too seriously. In other words, “It’s nothing personal, it’s just business.” Which is a morally bankrupt philosophy to me. So, I understand his Hateroll status.
I didn’t mean to link to Sullivan as much as the video itself. And yes, I saw that photo, too. Very powerful. MADE ME SO MAD. Have you read the open letter one of the professors wrote and posted? Awesome stuff.
I read a quote from the letter. I’m glad it was written. F bombs galore to the UC Davis Chancellor. Note to Homeland Security: F bombs are nasty words.
BG- the post that takes the cake for Sullivan- I’ve mentioned this before- he was taking the Catholic Church to task for not allowing a gay man a Catholic funeral, and had the chutzpah to say “[blah blah] from a Church that knows better”- somehow eliding the fact that the Catholic Church unfortunately appears to have been an international conspiracy to aid, abet, promote or minimally protect child molesters. So, not gonna read that guy!
You are livening up our place this week and I feel happy that we can have these discussions here.
I need to wake up!!!
BG, I had not heard about that kind of defense of the Kent State shootings, though I can’t say it’s that surprising. And it’s good to hear that at least some people who might not have much sympathy for protesters understand what’s going on.
However, whether or not it “sounds right” to you or me or anyone, we ignore language at our peril. There are too many well-documented unconscious effects to think that the language doesn’t matter. But, on the other hand, it often doesn’t matter for the reasons we think it does, or have the effects we might predict — which is why I keep stressing that I’m just asking questions here.
I keep poking around for a different perspective because I don’t think the things that are predictable, like the demonisation of protesters, necessarily tell us much. I’m asking, what do learn from this? And what are we missing?
It may also be the case that I’m too ploverian for my own good, but there it is.
Here’s my version.
~
whether or not it “sounds right” to you or me or anyone, we ignore language at our peril.
I agree with you, plover! I just don’t think we can know. I can tell you that this is the only discussion of it that I’ve heard/seen anywhere, so maybe it’s either a good phrase or a phrase that’s not too negative.
But, you’re right. There are always unintended consequences, so I guess we’ll watch it unfold and find out what those are. Although I’d rather not focus on the negative, I’d rather focus on the positives that could come out of this. Have you seen the lobbyist memo yet re OWS?
Also, I am going to Occupy Midas. As they lied to me yesterday and totally tried to rip me off.
Thanks for being such a great host, PP!
I love how BG is gonna occupy a place that has free WiFi.
Free WiFi that is paid for by customers they completely rip off!
But are you gonna boycott it while waiting? I think since you paid for it, you have every right to occupy it.
I’m going to go sit on their front lawn with a sign! And I’m not going to leave until I get thrown out. Even if I get pepper strayed! So that as many people as possible in this community know that there’s a good chance they will be lied to and ripped off if they patronize Midas!
Or maybe not. Maybe I’ll just write a bad review on their site. Or just complain about it here. lol
No, I’m gonna do something!
Question: how do you know you were lied to? Perhaps the person that told you that you were lied to was lying themselves. Trust no one.
Question: how do you know you were lied to?
I’ve seen the sekret header! It’s here, now!
~
RLY? I just got the Pugsley chomping on a hippopotamus.
Question: how do you know you were lied to? Perhaps the person that told you that you were lied to was lying themselves. Trust no one.
Therein lies the key to my Non-Occupation thus far.
We got our Volvo repaired at a Volvo place. We spent a lot of money at the Volvo place. One of the things we had replaced was the “right front bearing.” Whatever that is.
When we picked it up from the Volvo repair place, The Skimmer said, “It is still making *that noise*.” He called the Volvo repair place. They said, “Yes, that is your “left front bearing.” It doesn’t need to be replaced now, but you’ll have to do it within the next few months.
The Skimmer decided to take it to Midas, which is right around the corner, to see how much they would charge to replace the “left front bearing.” Thinking they might be cheaper and if so, are two seconds away, hence and therefore more convenient. The Volvo repair place is 40 minutes away.
Why did The Skimmer even take it to Midas to check on it since Volvo repair place said it had a few more months of life? Blue Kid will be home (yay!) for Thanksgiving and will be driving it. We want it to be safe.
Anyway, I got a call from the Midas guy yesterday who said the “left front bearing” needed to be replaced immediately. And not only that! So did the right one. It was ready to blow, or whatever a bearing does when it goes bad.
LIE.
BUT.
Could the Volvo place have lied? Could they have SAID they replaced something they did NOT replace? Possible, but not probable. We have a receipt saying they said they replaced it. And they could have gotten MORE money out of us by saying that the left bearing needed to be replaced immediately, which they didn’t.
We need to take it to Roy, our awesome mechanic who is back in our real home town. Two hours away. Will the car make that long trip? Or will bearing(s) blow?
One isn’t sure.
But, as soon as I learn the truth! Someone’s getting occupied.
I’d say it is 50/50. For example- why would the Volvo place not even SAY anything about something that would need replaced in a few months, considering the lifetime of a car is measured much longer than that, and considering you took it in to get a noise fixed, and they didn’t fix the noise and you had to specifically ask about it. I would say that you are in the black box of mechanic zone. We are there ourselves, so I have to play autoshop roulette with what could be a 300-1400 dollar job. Funny how that works. Yey.
The black box of mechanic zone should go on the Hateroll!! And so should Muffie: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/20/fashion/muffie-potter-aston-what-i-wore.html?_r=2&scp=1&sq=muffie&st=cse
What would Muffie wear to Midas? And would Bracie tag along?
Hey, BG, she’s involved in good causes, so you shouldn’t be so snarky. Though, I am tempted to suggest that submitting to that sort of profile does not perhaps make one look like a person of depth. Thank God the girls have to wear unis to school- imagine the absolute torture of getting them ready in different outfits- different fashionable outfits. The mind, it does boggle.
This is for Plover: http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/ann-coulter-kent-state-6590282
I cannot not be snarky about a woman named Muffie who writes about what t-shirt from her charity event grab bag she decided to wear. Actually, I can’t even give her that much benefit of the doubt, even after I’ve pondered it for a few seconds while typing this up, trying to be a better person. I say she uses the charity events as her social life and not as any sort of do-gooder, bleeding heart type deal. But, I guess she could be a really good person and I’m just being too judgmental. Or not. One will never know. But still: Muffie.
BG, I was just giving my inevitable slam of her perceived shallowness and even shallower veneer of credit for her channeling a non-zero portion of her gigantic money pile to some nebulous collection of causes, which are probably both tax write-offs and conscience compliance with human function write-offs.
She probably doesn’t even claim her free plastic surgery as income.