I fear that I have nothing great to say right now. I've had an exhausting few days. I can't think of much to say about the city, except that I'm slowly beginning to want to leave. When I look at grad schools, I hardly consider the ones here anymore.
--
But what else? I've been watching this again, and again. I don't watch Keith Olbermann that often, but this really got to me. It's a great clip, you should watch it.
Besides that, I've been reading a lot about Occupy Wall Street (including Caitlin's amazing op-ed). I was down at Foley Square during the protest--my co-workers and I left work to march. But, I don't know if there's anything to say about that and the city. Simply that, I can't imagine this starting anywhere. It's becoming reminiscent of the 70s. But, I'm not sure if it has to do with the culture of the city and the sheer mass of people (which, I think, we only begin to get a sense of during these protests) or, as Olbermann suggests, it has to do with New York politics. I couldn't really say.
--
My research is coming along slowly. I regret not doing more during the break. My dad and I talked about ACT UP some when I was home (he was a doctor at public hospitals during the 80s, dealing mostly with AIDS patients). He said that, despite the fact that they were protesting outside of his office what felt like every day, he admires them for getting the national tone to change when dealing with AIDS.
It's called a direct action approach and despite being labeled "militant," they were so helpful to cause. I think I might like to compare their work to what is happening now.
I love that Keith Olbermann called Bloomberg a "human platitude." Priceless.
ReplyDeleteIt's interesting that being militant might be seen as a negative thing (although I get why it sounds terrifying). To many activists--and I would count myself among them--being militant is an ideal to aspire to. When I talk to some of my friends about marches or pickets we sometimes measure how good it was by saying "it was really militant" or "it wasn't very militant." Being militant, I think, means being aggressive, having energy, using direct action, not accepting established norms, etc. For example, on N17 the student march got split up into two marches, one followed and controlled by the NYPD, who kept them on the sidewalk, and another that skirted around the cops and took the streets. We blocked traffic on 6th Ave and Canal St for about a mile and it was totally epic. These two marches have been described as the "fun march" and the "lame march," but I think another way to describe them would be to say one was a lot more militant that the other.
My favorite moment is when Olbermann almost screams "Goddamn Batman movie." Now that is priceless.
ReplyDeleteWe sort of talk about this yesterday, but I think it's worth it to have it on the blog. I think what people don't understand, for the most part, is what constitutes "civil disobedience." Because, yes, it involves doing things that can be perceived as "militant." It involves breaking the law. And it involves not listening to the cops (or as Bloomberg likes to call them, "his own army" — but seriously, can we discuss this?). I like how you described it, "having energy" and "not accepting established norms" because, I think people are way to eager to accept that these protests are out of control or misinformed and side with any sort of authority.
And because I might as well, this is regarding Kent State:
"A Gallup Poll conducted one week after the shootings found that 58 percent of the public blamed the students themselves, while only 11 percent blamed the National Guardsmen"
I think when you get down to it, people are scared to challenge accepted established norms even when things escalate to that level (I mean, four deaths of kids our age). I think we need to be militant, I think that's the only way change actually happens. But I think it's only appreciated in retrospect. Just my two cents.