EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Get Apocalyptic: Why Radical is the New Normal
- Think Fracking Is Bad? Wait Until You Hear about the Gas Industry's "Acid Jobs"
- We’re Being Watched: How Corporations and Law Enforcement Are Spying on Environmentalists
- Move Over, God, the Biotech Companies Are Here
- Why Tim DeChristopher Went to Prison for His Protest
Popular content
Today's Top News
Mellower Occupy Movement Grows in the Suburbs
Gerri Field stood with hundreds of protesters in front of Tiffany's in Walnut Creek this week, railing against economic injustice at the top of her lungs and drawing approving honks from passing cars with her sign, "Heal America, Tax Wall Street."
Occupy Walnut Creek protesters rally outside Tiffany's at the intersection of Mount Diablo Boulevard and North Main Street. (Photo/Michael Macor) For two sunny midday hours, the crowd did its best to "occupy" the busiest intersection in town, Mount Diablo Boulevard and North Main Street, singing "This Land Is Your Land" and denouncing corporate greed and the ultrarich 1 percent.
Then it was time for lunch. Time to put the signs away.
No thrown bottles at police. No tear gas or cops in sight. And certainly no tents.
"Camping? My idea of camping is a room in the Hyatt," said Field, a 50-year-old schoolteacher. "That's not what my protest is about."
In the suburbs, the Occupy movement has a whole different flavor.
And there is, unbeknownst to many, a lot of occupying being done beyond big city borders. At least 30 Occupy movements exist from Santa Cruz north through Alameda and Concord to Vacaville, Napa and Santa Rosa.
The message is the same as in the big cities. But most of those movements, with a few notable exceptions such as Santa Cruz and Santa Rosa, don't involve tents, and even there the method is mellower - more upscale, less rageful, cleaner.
Different vibes
Unlike the Occupy camps in San Francisco, Oakland and Berkeley, homeless people and clashes with police have not dominated the imagery.
"A tent city in a place like this would alienate too many people," psychologist Jane Vinson, 77, said at the Thursday demonstration in Walnut Creek, which drew about 300 people and was purposefully situated near a Bank of America branch.
"Our culture does include Neiman Marcus as well as the Apple store, and a tent city would just attract angry people who would muddy our message."
In other words, anarchists who like to toss rocks and the chronically homeless are welcome only if they want to pitch in without mess or conflict.
That stands in contrast to what has happened in the bigger cities.
Hostility
Before it was cleared by police last week, the Occupy Oakland camp in front of City Hall had become dominated by street people, anarchists and rough travelers. And most advocated hostile resistance to any move by authorities.
Twice over the past month, anarchists sparked near-riot situations after throwing bottles and rocks at Oakland police, whose tear-gassing response has been criticized by some as excessive.
UC Berkeley's Occupy movement, dominated by students, is more intellectual. But its nonviolent adherents were attacked this month by baton-wielding police when they joined arms to prevent police from removing a tent city. A second encampment was cleared calmly last week, but several protesters have pledged to re-establish it in defiance of university dictates.
There is little such thumbing of the nose in the suburbs.
Within the system
In places such as San Ramon, Novato and Fairfield, organizers have staged regular noisy, visible demonstrations that feature the same cries of wealth inequity and governmental indifference to the middle class. But when these protesters hoist their banners, there are few with multiple face piercings or blond dreadlocks over Rainbow Nation-style tatters.
Eddie Bauer khakis are about as edgy as these folks get, with the exception of the occasional costume.
"It's a different fit here in the burbs," said Ellis Goldberg, a marketer who spent part of Thursday at a major Dublin intersection with 50 other Occupiers. He wore a pig costume with big-bank names emblazoned on it. "In San Francisco, it's easy to find places to set up a camp and to protest, but out here, we are more spread out.
"We have to find shopping places and traffic centers to get our message out, and it helps to have some humor to get attention."
Like many of his colleagues, he said he has great sympathy for homeless people, whom he sees as even harder-hit victims of economic turmoil. But the suburbs don't have homeless residents in city-style numbers, and most agree that if a tent camp were to spring up, it would attract the few that are there. The fear is that, as in the cities, a long-term homeless camp in the heart of any bedroom community would draw official ire and fuzz up the central point of what the movement is trying to communicate.
To some extent, that has happened in Santa Rosa.
Like most Occupy camps, the North Bay city's started in mid-October. Initially, it consisted of hundreds of working- or middle-class protesters in tents outside City Hall.
Soon, however, the longtime homeless people who'd primarily been bedding down along Santa Rosa Creek saw an opportunity. They were welcomed at first, but two months later, the goodwill is kaput.
About 100 Occupy campers have been sleeping on the west side of City Hall, and 100 or so homeless people have been sleeping on the east side. They usually talk only when donated food shows up.
"We don't even know those guys," said Dan Murray, 55, an unemployed construction worker who slept in the streets before moving to City Hall. "They don't give a damn about us.
"We call our side 'East L.A.,' and their side 'Hollywood.' I like a little of what they're saying, but I really just want a place to sleep."
Homeless
Santa Rosa's Occupiers say they feel badly for the homeless, but they have to keep on message. And there is no stomach to wrangle nastily with anyone.
They chat with police, even when officers were handing out eviction notices last week. The city worked amiably with protesters until this month when they started to require two-week camping permits. Most Occupiers declined, saying they didn't want to be controlled by governmental red tape.
But even now, the two sides still talk. "We want to work with the city when we can, not against it, because the real culprits are the banks," said Natalie Corwin, 22. By Saturday, the tents had dwindled to a handful, and more were being pulled down voluntarily - except on the east side, where homeless people drew about 40 tent permits and intended to stay.
"For me, it's never been about camping," said 31-year-old landscaper Lev Woolf, who took his tent down but still stays much of each night at the camp. "That's just a tactic. I'm more about the message. If we don't keep it in the public eye with tents, we'll do it another way.
"You don't have to fight to get your point across."
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...

64 Comments so far
Show All"Where's the translation to revolution?" I don't know, I don't even know what revolution looks like. I know that people across this country and across social/economic/racial/ethnic lines are furious. Most can't articulate what they 'know' because they do not have the information or much, if any, historical perspective. Despite all the information on the internet, data indicates at least 70% get their news from the MSM.
I've been expecting the bankruptcy of the USA since 1970 when I realized the only plausible explanation for our VietNam disaster was that very wealthy, very powerful and greedy people were running the show. It was obvious then that they wanted to bleed us dry. I've watched the process ever since, and knew by 1981 that the purpose of the Drug War was to militarize the police and destroy the 4th Amendment. So I guess I've learned to be patient with people who "don't get it".. Now, it's obvious to many what has happened and we're in the first stages of an awakening.
Let it play out.
"Before it was cleared by police last week, the Occupy Oakland camp in front of City Hall had become dominated by street people, anarchists and rough travelers. And most advocated hostile resistance to any move by authorities."
Is there any documentation to this as fact? Or is this just being repeated from a previous police statement? I find it strange with all the video out there I've yet to see documentation of hostile resistance by any camp. I have heard media and police make these claims, but I'd like some factual documentation of it.
This description is frankly too similar to how migrant camps were seen during the depression to make me feel comfortable.
By "rough travelers" are you referring to Romany?
Smells of the same sort of mindset that didn't want "colored" using the same toilets they did.
Bingo.
The article has an interesting theme: suburban protest. There is something to be said for examining this tactic. Many of the 99% live in the suburbs so they have homes and roofs available. They enjoy shelter from the cold and wet (even in Walnut Creek.) Take a homeless protester home. The peoples' revolutionary forces the world over have their homes, maybe not like Walnut Creek homes. The revolutionary forces melt into these homes, into the villages where they live. The suppressing forces have difficulty locating the "enemy" because they melt away into the human landscape. Perhaps we can adopt this traditional guerrilla style of resistance, thus avoiding head on confrontation with fascist brown shirt forces who are willing to beat us and later to kill us.
Gentrification of the Occupy movement is a much more serious threat than honest and open opposition, including police brutality, could ever be.
We are being told that the "better people" should be leading the movement. The author and the people he is praising are not "allies" by any stretch of the imagination. They are enemies. Not because I don't like them - I am seeing posts claiming that there is some sort of bias or prejudice against the "better people," and that we should build bridges.
You do not "build bridges" with those who are trying to destroy you.
I say they are enemies because they hate us, and they will hurt us. The article just oozes with hatred toward the people on the front lines in this battle. People will try to turn that upside down - as always happens - and claim that those who are resisting being dominated and harmed are the ones who are at fault, who are causing the violence.
The "better people" will try to get out in front of the parade, try to divide and conquer the movement so as to steer and control it. "Don't get me wrong, I support the movement BUT..." followed by all of the lies and smears against us - dirty, violent, mentally ill, unsophisticated, ignorant, etc. etc. etc. - the same lies that are always used as a prelude to more violence and suppression.
There is nothing "mellow" about this. Behind the facade of politeness and "mellowness" is murderous hatred. The "better people" are showing the "right" way to do all of this, don't you know, and telling us what the real issues are. The "real issues" in their minds are the need for a little reform here and there to reign in the worse excesses of the big banks. All the rest of us are meanwhile being de-humanized, smeared and maligned as dirty and violent and deranged, and being blamed for the violent response form the authorities.
This is all a dangerous set up. If we refuse to "clean up our act" and weaken and narrow our focus - "what are your demands?" and "you are not being practical" are attempts at limiting and constricting and weakening the movement, they represent a noose they are trying to fit around our necks - then brutal police repression will follow.
The most dangerous enemies say "I am on your side, BUT..."
Isn't Occupy supposed to be an inclusive, peaceful, direct democracy movement? Inclusive means that it has room for suburbanites, too...Not all of them are bad, you know. Maybe city life wasn't for them... Maybe that is where they could find work, maybe they had a kid or two and wanted them to grow up knowing some trees and birds, maybe their family has always lived in the burbs, maybe they don't like the intensity of living in a city. I visited my friend's parents who live out in the suburbs yesterday. They had put a "We are the 99%" sign on their front lawn. I'm thinking, this is so cool!
And haven't you noticed how Occupy continues to show tremendous resilience in the face of obstacles, as well as a solid adherence to the principles of peaceful direct democratic action? So, why would you doubt that Occupy will be able to detect and reject false offers of assistance (such as a donation with strings attached, or "tips" on how to "lead" by Democrats who want to maintain the status quo)? Occupy is smarter than that!
Did you not read my post?
Clearly - clearly!! - the article is calling for excluding NON-suburbanites.
You turn that inside out and claim that those objecting to the pitch in this article are the ones who are not being "inclusive."
No one is questioning or attacking suburbanites here. The attacks are on those in Oakland, from those insisting on a gentrified approach.
This is not about "tips" or "assistance."
The neighborhood in which I live is considered "suburban," but I live in a low-rent apartment complex that I can barely afford (and it is the lowest rent I could find). I'm one step away from being homeless myself. It might be the outskirts of the suburbs, but it's still suburban. Not everyone who lives here is borgeouis. If we're really the 99%, I have to agree with esabi, cassandara and RV. I'm glad ALL of you are out there spreading the message.
seems an awful lot like persuasion to keep our protests polite, intellectual and ineffectual.
Well, I'm not saying I disagree. The article is clearly biased, and the media is pushing for ways to undermine the movement. But still, give the suburbanites a chance. There were different methods of protesting Viet Nam, too (although I get the impression many were pretty radical in their own way). My cousin actually grew up on a commune. He tells me there were significant differences between "hippies" and "flower children" (for one, flower children did not do drugs, they were "high on life") and I believe him. Just because their methods were different did not mean they were any less supportive of the movement. They need to be more radical, I agree, but give them time. At least some of them might actually agree with you.