Nine years ago, in 2002, I got on a bus bound for New York City to take part in a protest against the Iraq war. About a year before I had found pacifism, and that transformative experience was, by then, starting to manifest itself in my life in myriad ways. Upon arriving in Manhattan, I walked east from the Port Authority bus terminal and tried to get as close as possible to the UN headquarters, the epicenter of the protests. But the police blocked the growing crowds at Third Avenue, so right there 33rd and 3rd I joined the Asians for Peace and we chanted and sang and drummed and prayed that the clouds of war that were growing on the horizon wouldn't become a reality.
And we all know how well that worked out.
So, I don't mind saying that I was jaded by that whole experience. I also don't mind saying that I'm easily jaded. But, I'm also hopelessly optimistic. I want to be a part of a movement for positive change that works, that takes hold, that has effect.
That's why, last Friday afternoon after I was done teaching for the day, I took the subway to downtown Boston to see Occupy Boston for myself. I exited at the South Station T stop expecting to find a raucous crowd of protesters like I'd seen in footage from New York. I don't know if I imagined that the protest was ongoing, all day and all night, or that musicians and other popular figures were just hanging out, but what I found was a rather subdued tent community, organized neatly around a statue of Mahatma Gandhi. I wandered up down the makeshift "streets" reading signs posted on tents, eavesdropping on conversations, and trying to get a handle on the character of this protest.
I first heard of the Occupy Wall Street Movement last month, a few days before it was set to begin. My friend and sometime editor Nathan Schneider was participating in and covering the event for his website Waging Nonviolence, as well as for other media outlets like Democracy Now. I read his reports hungrily, eager to ascertain the group's intentions and demands. I resonated with their anger and frustration. I understood their complaint, but I still wasn't sure what they intended to do about it. But if anything, I thought, it would be helpful to put a consistent reminder outside of the offices of Wall Street, to let those who work there, most of whom are honest and decent people, know that their greedy actions and those of their colleagues, bosses, and subordinates were having a tremendous and often negative effect on too many working Americans.
Attention to the occupation was slow going at the start. Those few Twitter friends in my feed who knew about it complained about this lack of attention in those early days. But, sure enough, over time the media's attention shifted in their direction and, as Occupy Boston indicates, the idea caught on in other cities.
But, for me, the questions that I had in the beginning still remained. I wasn't sure what the plan was. What were they trying to accomplish? I hoped that by visiting the Boston site for myself, I would have the opportunity to learn.
Some of the people I saw gathered in Dewey Square in Boston fit the stereotype that has been cast on them in the media. I saw dreadlocked college kids, veterans -- perhaps war veterans, but definitely protest veterans -- playing folk songs, as well as a few less obvious peaceniks. In snippets of conversations I heard oft-repeated refrains, "Because of the media . . ." and ". . . then we'd have all the energy we need!" And I sympathized. I agreed. But I didn't join.
It occurred to me that all the criticism of the movement, both from people like me who are sympathetic to their general cause, as well as from those on the right, is rooted in the sad fact that the protesters are trying to be something that they are not. Take a look or a listen to the consistent criticism. Many point to the fact that the occupiers are inconsistent. There is an image floating around online contrasting the anger they direct at corporations with the plethora of brands that the protesters are wearing and using. On the other side, the occupiers are accused of not having a clear goal, and thus causing disruption without providing any way to satiate their concerns.
Both of these criticisms stem from the fact that Occupy is a mid-20th-century protest staged in the 21st-century. Sure, it incorporates social media, but aside from that, it is very much an imitation of '60s protests -- another piece of nostalgia from a generation that loves to look back almost as much as we like to look inward.
Their concerns are right on, and no one is really unsure as to the kinds of things they would propose, if they got around to proposing things. But they aren't telling a compelling story because chants aren't a very good storytelling medium. Neither are tweets. In fact, Twitter is a natural partner to protests such as this one (not to mention the Arab Spring) because tweets work in much the same way as chants: short, pithy, and most effective when repeated by a number of people. But, ultimately, tweets and chants function like bumper stickers; they allude to a greater story but fail to tell it. In the 21st century, we need stories, not slogans.
In the '60s, getting the attention of the national media was the only way to get your message heard by people across the country. But this is no longer the case. Rather than sitting in tents, holding handmade signs and occasionally chanting, the occupiers should be occupying the Internet -- using the countless avenues that technology has made available to them to tell compelling stories. Fortunately, some are doing this as a companion action to the physical protest, "We Are the 99 Percent," for example.
At Occupy Boston I noted that many of the young people there are around my age. This is my generation's time to speak up, but we're doing it the way our parents' generation did. In the 21st century we have better options than pitching tents in public parks and getting arrested.
Take to the internet. Take to the airwaves. Let's get out of the tents and onto the web. We know what we want and we have the means to say it. We have 21st century problems that need 21st century solutions. I would love to see my peers in the Occupy movement join us here.
This post originally appeared at Patheos.com.
Follow Jonathan D. Fitzgerald on Twitter: www.twitter.com/jon_fitzgerald
The OWS movement manifested itself as a small group of people (from all walks of life) gathering with home-made signs and chants of "They got Bailed Out, We Got Sold Out" in a small city about an hour from my home. I made my own signs and joined right in.
Finally!
I thought finally someone like me who's had enough! I went, I learned, I marched, I chanted in front of BofA and Chase. From that day on I've been to every rally I could attend on the weekends. Last week I drove over an hour to attend at my state's Capitol. If I could, I'd be there every day.
I'm not going away. This crap has got to change. My children deserve a future.
99%
Sure, strategic occupying of the internet is a great idea, have you heard of Anonymous? The people will take this message where it needs be heard, have no worries on that. Expect us.
https://sites.google.com/site/the99percentdeclaration/home/the-steps-to-non-violent-revolution
I can understand why the media, political leaders and others want a clearly defined "list of demands" and a boiled down soundbite. It's just not going to happen.
We have so many diverse voices that to single out only a few would discredit the movement as a whole. We know what it's like to be unrepresented and unheard. We will not do that to others.
If the government or the media (or whomever) cannot understand the movement for what it is that's their problem. The inequities in our society didn't occur overnight and we shouldn't have to spell them out for those who choose to be blind.
It's not time to clear the streets and revert only to the safety of our computer desks. It might not ever be the time to clear the streets. When will it end? Who knows. We've only just started.
(And I say all this as a computer scientist, I am by no means a technophobe, but I know the limitations of technology)
IRL protests still have a role to fulfill if you're serious about achieving social change. The Internet can be used as a means of amplifying the physical protest, to spread the word, to organize, but it's hard to use it to actually achieve your goals. People are too trapped in their respective bubbles, those not engaged in politics will not visit discussion boards for politics, right-wingers will visit only right-wing websites, left-wingers will visit left-wing websites and so on.
There's no way the 60 people who began camping out in Zuccoti Park could have had any effect even remotely similar to what they have achieved if they staged their protest online.
Did I mention vote for a third party? Because honestly, that's the only way you're going to get the attention of politicians that you're serious. I'm personally looking forward to Jill Stein announcing her intent to run on the Green ticket this time around. After all, if there's all this outrage at the status quo and we vote in Obama again, we will have gotten absolutely nowhere.