Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
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 AllLets see, Blame the Victims, those non-violents and homeless brutally attacked by state security forces. Here at Occupy Santa Fe we were wise and compassionate enough to breach the Bourgeois (Middle Class), Homeless Divide and are many times stronger than the timid California Bourgeois afraid to embrace their compadres or "Fuzz up" (?) the status quo. Here the Homeless are much more savy than many of the tedious Bourgeois. Here at Occupy Santa Fe the campers regularly eject vicious elements who prowl the camp late at night.All Power to All the People!
No kidding. I stopped reading this POS article when it stated no bottles were thrown at police.
This piece should come with an Elite propanda warning.
I got a little past that, but I too stopped shortly after at the part where camping was too good for them. If there was a ranking system for comments, yours would have a +1
I am thinking +3.
Right on, joecool!
+ 1 These are the people who want to turn an "occupy" (with no actual occuapation) into a homeless and leftist hating Dim party Moveon/tea party, no deal! If I want some classcism with my cappuccino I can go to Starbucks and vote for Dims.
Sigh!
Yes, the article is biased toward the more conventional, and less gritty messages of OWS. It is about the best that can be expected out of the Chron. I expect there will be more attempts at differentiation between various streams of activities, a subtle way to defuse, and destabilize the building of a mass movement. Let's be mindful, if we are the 99.99%, everyone has a voice and a contribution. Inclusiveness is part of the power of the message. How are we going to build on that without diluting our insistence on change? No one owns OWS movement, that is one of the reasons it is powerful, a long with its emotional resonance, additionally this is one of the things that scares the bejesus out of the elite, because they can't take out the leaders.
I think much of America would like to be sitting a Monet painting where people are passing time with each other and sharing food, drink, and pleasant conversation. The truth about America is being revealed in the occupations, this article is also a revelation but as an unintended consequence. Something most people know is true but never act on directly.
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150380926697599&set=p.10150380926697599&type=1&theater
Humm, I couldn't get that link to work??? so I missed it.
I know that area pretty well, I use to live there so I can appreciate the author's perspective. Also, use to walk though Oakland to get to summer classes in Berkeley. Just a different perspective I guess. I don''t see the urban crowd as playing, just a different message about different circumstances. The homeless don't have a message with an equality of purpose, they are the poster for inequality in my mind. I tell them that too, there are enough resources in this country for everyone, disparity is the enemy.
The division between urban radicals and suburban demonstrators goes back decades. A broad based revolution requires both. To be honest, I'm hearing most of the criticism this time coming from those who claim to agree with the urban radicals, not the other way. I tend to side with the suburbanites simply because they seem to be more tolerant in this particular discussion. They're not the ones insisting that only one single legitimate path exists to revolution ...
"Half of these 20 are Homeless street kids who are mainly into smoking joints in their spare time"
OMG! They smoke joints!?
You're a funny little person.
If you have been homeless for a significant length time chances are that is a part of being homeless, also illness (mental health and physical health), and a few other things. If you don't have a support system in this society you will find it pretty hard live. Still, they are a part of the revolution maybe the best part.
many of these homeless are such because of the banks.
how is distancing oneself from these unfortunates "on message"?
divide and conquer...
+ 1, Chris Hedges was early on this bourgiosfication meme BTW. Only seeing the usual aging "campus radical" (with ipod and apartment) clique as being important is a recipe for failure, no actual working person or homeless person wants to be bossed around by thee clueless p.c. tools.
The homeless here do not want a battle they cannot win, they want to retain their community as does the Occupy Santa Fe GA which democratically agreed that the "Encampment is ESSENTIAL to the Occupy Santa Fe Movement". The encampment is not entirely Homeless there are some Bourgeois and other groupings. Most Homeless here are shoulder to shoulder with the Bourgeois in their political actions. Not having an encampment delegates the protests to the same dynamics as all the other preceding similiar ineffectual protests. The symbol of recaptured commons is extremely powerful, after all this movement is about recapturing the commons for the 99% not just the Bourgeios. Talk is cheap actually Occupation is meaningful and an actual accomplishment, ask the heroic Eygptians in Tahir Square today.
Great post, FAR better than the article.
"Not having an encampment delegates the protests to the same dynamics as all the other preceding similiar ineffectual protests."
Sorry, but I have to disagree with that. If Santa Fe votes as you have, I respect that. I once lived in Santa Fe for 3 years. But numerous other Occupies have demonstrated effectively without camps. I challenge your assertion that they are "ineffectual". You're promoting rigid, centralized dogma, not flexible local control ...
RV, the point of derision is in the article and possible not in your heart. It is the badmouthing of the Homeless. The Homeless are part of the 99%, as are the security forces, as are ranting evangelicos. To deride Homeless is the Epitome of Bourgeois decadence. What threatens evil power is brutally attacked. Only powerful leaders are assassinated. If the most you are able to do is chat up your neighbors and decide things are in bad shape and then vote for OILYBomber, I guess thats where you are at; if you are accomplishing more than petitions and petitioning (which have been useless) please inform me of what exactly you are accomplishing. I have no wish to attempt to dictate tactics or stategies but I will not condone the derogratory comments against Homeless nor accept timid Bourgeois chest thumping without evidence the Bourgeios are actually accomplishing something other than business as usual. But riddle me this "If the Occupy movement does not Occupy anything how does that differentiate it from any ether aspect of our Corporate imposed Orwellian double/new speak Society"?
The homeless are among the very first victims of the 1%, beginning with cutbacks at state hospitals back in the 1970's. The patients they dumped became the 1st wave in the homeless camps of the 1980's, and they were joined by the victims of other economic squeezes over the years since then. The homeless are certainly legitimate members of the 99%, and their problems are a legitimate issue, which the above article seems to ignore or denigrate, no argument about that.
The issue in the suburbs and elsewhere is one of tactics to advance effective solutions for all the 99% by winning the hearts and minds of the local populations. Those hearts and minds are what we seek to occupy. Don't assume they're necessarily equivalent to a piece of real estate held by tents. If a tent city moves your Occupy group forward then by all means do it, but every group has to read its own situation and decide locally. If you insist on calling them "timid" because they don't adopt your preferred tactics, you're violating that local group's rights, and it becomes an egotistical position, assuming you know what will succeed where they don't.
In many cases now, one of the chief functions of the tent cities has actually been to expose local government overreaction in evicting them. Whatever they are, they aren't a permanent solution for the 99%, including the homeless. They're a temporary tactic that worked well in Tahir Square and other places, but may not attract the same support everywhere else. If they don't attract support locally, what would you do, insist on setting them up anyway? Why? How long do you think you'll hold them then? We need victories, not symbols that soon vanish.
And why would you assume these local groups are pro-Obama? Some may be (MoveOn), but a lot of them aren't, yet they're working together. You're jumping to conclusions. I've commonly heard the same contempt for both parties that I hear on CD's comments ...
Excellent observations. Occupying physical space is a tactic. And as such, it is deployed when and where it can be effective in winning the "war" you are engaged in. Like in any struggle, tactics must serve the struggle, not the tactic itself. Just like in a battle, tactics have to fit the terrain you find yourself in. Continual assessment of the strengths and weakness of the opposition is essential in real time.
This struggle is fluid, evolving and ever changing. We are currently at the beginning of the beginning. Our only weapon is the gathering of the 99% into a peaceful force so large and massive that no one can be denied their human and civil rights in the future. Different strokes for different folks. Whatever tactic works to grow the movement peacefully and non violently is worth a shot. I respect every individual that has chosen to put their shoulder to the wheel of this movement in whatever way they can. It may be joining a demonstration, talking to their neighbors, petitioning, or setting up tents.
This is a global struggle. It is going to be a very long slog to get where we are going. Together, in solidarity, for peace and dignity. For everyone.
Go back to your Government authorized 'Free Speech (tm)' pens, bourgeois sheeple. Your yuppie ways are just a hinderance.
If you're not willing to get dirty, how will you ever clean up the System(tm)?
The suburban Occupy movements represent a big milestone. Having the upscale crowd start to wake up has been one of the main goals of progressive movements for decades.
Some of these suburbs are ahead of some of these "progressives" ...
We are a part of actions throughout America working for a change in values: away from greed and unfairness; toward empathy, responsibility and courage. A change from the corporate controlled political machines to real democracy.
Empathy is the capacity to recognize and, to some extent, share feelings that are being experienced by another.
Responsibility not just for one’s self but for others, some not born yet, other species and ultimately the planet.
Courage is the ability to confront fear, pain, danger, uncertainty, or intimidation.
99% of us share those values - maybe more.
So what in the city it's called OWS (Occupy Wall Street) and in the burbs it's called MOM (Mellower Occupy Movement)....what are there demands... New Hummers to go to Walmart in.....somedays I have Hope, most others I just need spare Change
How is it the middle class in America see themselves as victims? They were willing participants in buying way beyond there incomes. Quit trying to be wanna be millionaires and realise that aint ever gonna happen!! You got suckered into a shell game run by the banks you idiots. I dont really want to hear middle class BS anymore, you were fine to go to Starbucks everymorning for years on end and do online trading on your precious Macs until you all got shafted. Now you cry like babies. Figure it out man....come on...are you that stupid? I thought you all had University degrees...
I see your point. But don't worry, it won't be long before the middle class is nothing but a fuzzy memory. Then who's side will they be on?
Sorry to tell you in the 'Burbs this isn't a trend it's for "Real". Ready to open up your doors and share yet? That's what this is about...what are you so scared of? You have all been convinced you can make it alone, how egotistical is that? In your quest to make to make it alone you brutalize yourself and those around you with endless stress, in a formula that goes in an endless cycle, and only goes one way... up to the top 1%.
I recall, from somewhere in the dim and distant past, a satirical advertisement (in MAD Magazine, or the National Lampoon, or the equivalent) for a Mantovani-style record album of "lite classical" or "easy-listening" music.
The tag line was "Classical music with the boring parts left out!" That's what the "mellower occupy movement" feels like to me: achieving profound social change, aka revolution, with the tedious and arduous parts left out.
I think it comes down to one's subjective judgement, but I don't buy this argument that's emerging in both articles and comments that derides the confrontational and disruptive aspects of the Occupy movement, and condemns or dismisses naked but peaceful resistance as self-defeating self-indulgence espoused by pugnacious personalities-- people who just like to rumble.
It's the either-or aspect I find telling. It would be one thing if the "mellow" contingent were simply advocating additional strategies to extend and reinforce the existing Occupy structure and purpose.
But there's a distinctly supercilious, sanctimonious, and snobbish tone taken by most members of the "mellow" camp (or anti-camp, to be precise). Methinks they doth protest too readily that the various "messy" aspects of the conflict-- inclusion and empowerment of the homeless, troubled, and most cruelly dispossessed members of society, tolerance of some degree of militancy, insistence on maintaining a physical presence of mass solidarity in the face of official reprisals-- are manifestly counter-productive and unnecessary to boot.
It smacks of a progressive liberal-lite sensibility founded in fatuous bromides about catching more flies with honey than with vinegar. It's worth remembering that what are now pious common-sense clichés like the importance of "staying on message" are recycled from the dark pseudo-science of the public relations industry. To fight cliché with cliché, thinking exclusively in such terms is the epitome of "thinking inside the box"; the Occupy movement is the antithesis of "inside the box".
I'm frankly creeped out by the psychologist who tendentiously rationalizes intolerance and antipathy towards those "angry" people who would just "muddy" the message.
Like Catherine Porter in another article published here today, who thinks the Occupy Toronto members should forsake a "fight" to literally hold their ground and instead seek ways to "continue the conversation" by other means, these "sensible", "civilized" activists seem at least as self-righteous and self-indulgent in urging a more sanitized, gentrified approach to protest than the Occupy hard-liners.
Yes, it is a fact of life that conventional, "normal" communities and residents will be intimidated, frightened, and repelled by straightforward "raw" protest and dissent. And if the "mellow" contingent prefers to raise consciousness and win allies or converts by charming them with gentle crooning and stroking, why not?
But the heart, soul, and virtue of the Occupy Movement is its radicalness. If it indeed moderates as the "mellow" advocates recommend (it won't), it will share the moderate progressive-liberal fate of crawling up its genteel asshole and persisting in a state of living death.
This comment is so well written, I only dare to offer the following contribution that occurred to me as I read it. Around 1993 or so, a Catholic priest in Colorado that carried out his vocation working with the homeless was murdered. A fellow priest that was assigned to the same rectory, said something to the effect that it served the victim right, he was always hanging out with the wrong people. I just remember being thoroughly disgusted with the commenting priest, thinking that Christ will probably know him not. I am at least superficially more like the suburbanites than the homeless, currently, but I hope we will bear in mind the burden of conscience when future generations ask us, "What were you doing when?" to push us to uncomfortable actions of integrity.
Well said, netminnow.
"That's what the "mellower occupy movement" feels like to me: achieving profound social change, aka revolution, with the tedious and arduous parts left out."
If you're criticizing the reporting, fine. If you're criticizing the movements from your lofty, "pure" perch, you're way off base! I'm active in more than one of these very groups, and they're doing a *great* job of reaching people where they live in an effective manner, and furthering the OWS goals. When you're part of a real group, doing as well, let me know!
Um, of course I'm reacting to the "reporting". Isn't that the default assumption in a comments thread attached to an article?
And though I couldn't be more impressed and humbled by the fact that you're in there gettin' 'er done and showing us the way, I wouldn't dream of burdening you with progress reports to "let you know" if and when I meet your approval.
It grieves me to admit it, but I'd never be able to live up to your high standard of non-purity.
"It grieves me to admit it, but I'd never be able to live up to your high standard of non-purity."
Seems to me, there's a revolution going on. Don't judge another person's battleground standards so quickly. They probably debated the points you think they missed ...
Wow, this article kind of reeked of division and noses stuck in the air!
Apparently 99% does not mean 99%.
Apparently, this reporter wanted to get the scoop on camping as an angle in covering the OWS protests. My advice? Quit your day job, dude.
There seems to be a lot of disdain for the more well-to-do suburban crowd that is protesting the existing plutocratic-oligarchy. My knee-jerk reaction is to agree. On reflection, however, I am grateful that those that many of us scorn as the "yuppie class" are spending their energy protesting the wrongs of the greedy-rich. Their actions indicate that the Movement's message is spreading beyond the radical fringe.
During the early 20th century the Socialist agenda, that included free primary and secondary public education, a five-day, 40-hour work week, Social Security and Medicare, were considered radical. These are now mainstream. Similarly, when Occupy"s message becomes mainstream, change in the existing paradigm that favors the ruling elite will take place.
"I am grateful that those that many of us scorn as the "yuppie class" are spending their energy protesting the wrongs of the greedy-rich."
And it isn't just the yuppies. Many of these Bay Area suburbs are working class neighborhoods that serve the refineries and other industries with union labor. The labor unions are a big part of these demonstrations ...
Amen to that because the line between the homeless and the suburban grows thinner each day.
"street people, anarchists and rough travelers."
Lions and tigers and bears, oh my!
This is without a doubt the goofiest article I have yet read on OWS. While it is of course commendable that yuppies support the movement, they would do well to consider that they may themselves become "street people" and "rough travelers". As for "anarchists", well, that's the whole premise -- horizontalism.
The actual protesters share representatives between groups, including between the inner city and suburban groups. I've seen surprisingly little dissension as to the different tactics used by each group. Local control is working where a centralized, one size fits all dogma might not. This is why I suspect a lot of the critics of suburban movements on this thread aren't really participating from anywhere but the sidelines ...
Thanks for your participation, RV...
Responses by people are usually limited by their experiences. The 99% is everyone and, as such, includes suburbanites of low and high income with very linmited experience dealing with people who are even marginally different from themselves.
Just the fact that some suburbanites are publicly standing up to banks is a good sign. I've done my share of sneering at suburbanites but there is never only one way to achieve goals. Since OWS does not want to define specific "goals", just having people stand up and say something is a positive. Let things run their course and build solidarity rather than division and "politically correct" norms.
Being 50 years old and unwilling to camp out doesn't seem like a deal breaker to me. Just thinking about it may cause this person to start thinking about what he'd do if he lost his house and create some empathy within himself for others less fortunate. And maybe not, So what.
Building bridges instead of walls benefits us all.
Agreed. The message is spreading. And people in the suburbs are finding a way to be involved. And so this means that more suburbanites (seeing people who look act and feel like them) will learn about the movement in a direct way.
Be grateful, this is is a good thing.
Exactly build bridges, not divides as in the article. No one on this thread condems anyone for not camping they condem those who badmouth the less fortunate and are not exprienced enough to see the unique value and dynamics of the encampments. If there were only yuppies marching around banks would it hit the National News , no of course not. Perhaps the Bourgeois are reaching a lot of people with information, perhaps even raising conscienousness, but where's the translation to revolution? Also if the Bourgeios cannot even relate humanely with the poor how in the world will they foment revolution or lead to a new day?
Glenn, this thing just started in the US about two months ago. Many, if not most, of the people have been asleep for a very long time. For whatever reason. The elites have been actively involved in their sedation and will fight tooth and nail to keep them in their slumber. These "bourgeios", as you call them, are still groggy from their American Dream. It is going to take them a while to see and except the reality of what has happened to their world while they were sleeping. They have a lot of brainwashing to clear from their foggy brains. Give 'em a hand up as they get their bearings. Give them little gold stars for having gotten this far. Don't let them fall back into a dream state because the reality is too hard to comprehend if they have a light glaring in their faces. Give 'em a little time to gather their thoughts and their courage.
My thoughts, exactly.