Final Paper-OWS

Scott Autenreith

5/5/16

Eng 306

Final Writing Assignment

Fixing Occupy Wall Street

            On September 17, 2011 the protest movement, Occupy Wall Street, took a stand against bankers, politicians, and the growing gap between rich and poor suddenly burst into the public view. On that day, nearly 2,000 protestors went to Manhattan and took over a “privately owned public space” called Zuccoti Park near Wall Street (NPR). That was a strategic place to locate because Wall Street was thought of as a place of money hungry and selfish rich people (SPS). Although public attention was initially slow, within a week, the reports of the movement blew up thanks to social media and the Internet. According to Griffin, this would have been the “period of inception”. Chants were used such as “We are the 99%” referring to the protestors and the other 1% referred to the stock traders and the higher reps for the financial companies. It grasped the American people through pathos. Throughout the entire protest, this was a chant that benefited their cause. Within a month, the protest spread to 951 cities in 82 countries (NPR).   

            The movement in Manhattan and across the world thrived until November 15, 2011. That day, the New York City Police Department used force to remove protestors. Those who refused to leave were arrested. This created a ripple effect across the country. Four days later, in Oakland, protestors who were walking peacefully on a public walkway were pepper sprayed by police (The Week). Since mid-November of 2011, Occupy Wall Street did not continue its force in numbers due to being forcibly evicted in many cities. In Griffin’s writing this would have been the “period of consummation”. Although the movement carried on for years and even carries on today (OWS), there was no significant impact made. For the American people, the idea of requesting change of the financial system in the United States was a good idea. The movement created a stir on the Internet but no official changes were made. Because no changes occurred, some can say that Occupy Wall Street was a failure. In this paper, the specific failures will be analyzed, as well as possible changes in the strategies used during the movement that would have led to changes that benefited the “99%”.

            First, the largest failure that the movement had was the absence of a single leader. Although there was a group of experienced political activists that planned the protests (SPS), there was not a face of Occupy Wall Street. With the movement attempting to change such large issues of financials in the United States, a leader would have been helpful in gaining more followers and progressing the protest to legislation. Someone with political experience within the United States Government could have pushed for changes to be made rather than just groups of people chanting outside of Wall Street.

Although the protestors prided themselves for being leaderless, that led to a variety of issues that were brought up at Occupy Wall Street amongst the protestors. The IBT Times wrote that the issue of social inequality was a huge category to tackle and that led to different people protesting different things. For example, sub-groups within the movement protested for the equality of woman. That was a broad range of issues for the protest. How could the protest be effective if different topics were being argued? For Occupy Wall Street to have a clear message, the protestors needed to come together and decide exactly what the purpose was of the movement and what they wanted to accomplish.

Also, a number of protestors were unaware/unknowing of critical aspects of the strike. Ross Everett, a YouTuber posted a video where he interviewed several protestors in Zuccoti Park. For example, Everett asked a man if he knew Brian Moynihan (CEO of Bank of America), Ben Bernanke (Federal Reserve Chairman), or Jamie Dimon (JPMorgan Chase Ceo). The protestor responded with, “No.” Those three men were in charge of massive financial corporations and the protestor should have known who those men were and what impact they had within their roles. Also, Everett asked the gentlemen if he knew who Kim Kardashian was and the man responded, “Oh yeah! She’s that chick with the fat ass!” This instilled that some protestors were there to protest but they knew little about what they were protesting. Also, Everett asked a woman about how the issues that were being protested could be resolved? She responded by saying, “Give the little people jobs!” That statement was very odd considering that giving jobs to people is not an issue of inequality. The woman was there for her own personal beliefs and protested that more jobs will solve the financial inequality in America. Ross Everett finished his video by sarcastically summarizing that, “The protestors want to be heard about equality, or jobs, or Medicaid. Either way, they want to be heard. Take that 1%”.

Once again, a leader with political experience would have been the most beneficial strategy for the protest. When a group has single leader that is experienced, according to Griffin, it establishes credibility within the group. Also, the leader would display a certain set of beliefs. As a result, the protestors would have been a select group that all believed in the same ideals rather a mass amount of people protesting about various issues within the United States. Therefore, the protestors would have a better understanding of what was being protested and why it was being protested. [SA1] 

               The Occupy Wall Street protest had a great beginning but never accomplished any of its goals. Early on in the protest, thousands gathered across America and even other countries to recognize the financial inequality within our society. The leaderless movement relied on bringing people together as the “99%” and to unify as one to bring down Wall Street and the large financial corporations. Once it became difficult to protest without being forced out by police, the protest failed collectively. Even though the protest was thought to have failed after NYPD forced people away from Zuccoti Park, the movement failed from the start. Without having a leader, the goals were always unclear. Although the purpose was to solve the financial inequality in America, no steps were actually taken to challenge the current system. A political leader would have fought for changes to happen in Washington. No changes could have happened in New York. Ross Everett interviewed a Wall Street stock trader and asked him if the protestors were affecting anything? The trader responded, “The only thing they are affecting is my route to work”. Occupy Wall Street had so much potential to be affective. They had the supporters; they just needed a different strategy that would have accommodated to changes for the “99%”.

*The purpose of the conclusion was to reiterate the main points brought up throughout the paper. I wanted to incorporate the potential that the protest had, while explaining the possibility of having an effective leader that could have resulted in changes for financial equality. I offered a takeaway of what the OCW protest “could have been”.

Works Cited

Billera, Michael. "Occupy Wall Street: The Major Problems With the Movement." International Business Times. World, 03 Nov. 2011.

Conen, Neal. "Op-Ed: Occupy Wall Street Protesters' Goals." NPR, 17 Oct. 2011.

Everett, Ross. "Occupy Wall Street FAIL." YouTube, 21 Oct. 2011.

Griffin, Leland. "The Rhetoric of Historical Movements." Readings in the Rhetoric of Social Protest. 2013.

 Milkman, Ruth, Stephanie Luce, and Penny Lewis. CHANGING THE SUBJECT: A BOTTOM-UP ACCOUNT OF OCCUPY WALL STREET IN NEW YORK CITY (n.d.): n. pag. CUNY School of Professional Studies, 2013.

Staff. "Occupy Wall Street: A Protest Timeline." Occupy Wall Street: A Protest Timeline. Feature, 21 Nov. 2011.