OCCUPY WALL STREET

[Corkey]

Originally Posted by AtLastHome

One of the key factors all along the way of internal revenue reform in the US is just how big and active the tax attorney and certified public accountant lobbys are! This is big business in the US. From H & R Block to online tax prep services. This industry has made a lot of money on how complex just filing income tax can be for even people that are by no means wealthy, and want to reduce their tax liability by utilizing breaks that they are entitled too. Things like deductions for educators or mortgage interest, having a home office, etc.

These folks do not want a simplified tax code- don't want "just folks" to be able to file a simple return with their check if they owe. This is a billion dollar business in the US. Mention a flat tax toan accountant and hear them stutter!!

I've always done my own taxes, except for one year when the company I worked for moved and took us with it and I had to sell my home and the bonus money for moving, and the estate monies from my parents living trust. It was a mess and I am certainly not qualified to figure all that out. I never use H&R and never will.

[atomiczombie]

Originally Posted by The_Lady_Snow

Latinos and Blacks Missing in Occupy Wall Street


José Fernando López

Editor in Chief, PODER Magazine


Days before the arrest of 700 people in the Brooklyn Bridge in New York, I read in the El Pais newspaper, from Spain, an article about the Occupy Wall Street movement. Until the arrest, except for acknowledging certain fleeting appearances on record, such as the one from Michael Moore or Susan Sarandon, newspapers in this country had not given much importance to the protests taking place in the heart of Manhattan. El Pais, however, has followed the issue with interest from the beginning (mid-September), for its resemblance to the movement of the Indignados (Indignants) that shook Spain a few months ago.

In the El Pais article, my attention was caught by a quote from Gonzalo Venegas, a musician from the Bronx, who was going for the first time to the Zuccotti Park, the center of the protest given the police barrier of Wall Street. "Here," said Venegas, "Latinos and blacks are missing." Maybe, I said to myself while reading such a blunt assertion, it's because the movement has nothing to do with them. But looking more closely at the reasons for the protest, it became clear that it did.

The United States is experiencing the worst economic crisis of the last eighty years, due largely in part to the greed of banks and the lack of regulation of the financial system. And that crisis has not only swept away millions of jobs, but threatens to reduce social benefits -- in addition to those that lost their homes after the bursting of the housing bubble.

The responsibility for the financial system has been pointed out by tens of experts. But none have highlighted that responsibility as the government itself, which after handing out millions of dollars belonging to the taxpayers to the banks -- to avoid a debacle -- decided to sue 17 of them for having "cheated," according to them, state agencies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac by selling toxic mortgages to them.

According to an article in The Wall Street Journal, the Federal Housing Finance Agency, which was the official agency that brought the lawsuit, "said the mortgage-backed securities were sold to Fannie and Freddie based on documents that 'contained misstatements and omissions of material facts concerning the quality of the underlying mortgage loans, the creditworthiness of the Borrowers, and the practices used to originate such loan'."

It is no secret that the toxic mortgages -- and the practices followed to originate the loans -- are a great part of the origin of the crisis, and it is against these practices, among others, that the organizers of Occupy Wall Street protest. Well, according to a recent study by the Pew Research Center, Hispanics and blacks are among the groups most affected by the mortgage crisis.

According to the study, "in percentage terms, the bursting of the housing market bubble in 2006 and the recession that followed from late 2007 to mid-2009 took a far greater toll on the wealth of minorities than on whites. From 2005 to 2009, inflation-adjusted median wealth fell by 66% among Hispanic households and 53% among black households, compared with just 16% among white households". And "about a third of black (35%) and Hispanic (31%) households had zero or negative net worth in 2009, compared with 15% of white households".
I'm not sure that a protest movement like Occupy Wall Street is the best way to prevent this sort of thing from happening again. But after analyzing the causes for the protest and the impact the crisis has had on minorities, I understood Venegas' phrase better. For Hispanics living in the United States, and for those seeking to capture their vote in the upcoming elections, there are few issues that should be as important than the issue of migration.

What do you think accounts for the low black and latino turnout at these rallies?

[CherylNYC]

Originally Posted by The_Lady_Snow

Latinos and Blacks Missing in Occupy Wall Street


José Fernando López

Editor in Chief, PODER Magazine


Days before the arrest of 700 people in the Brooklyn Bridge in New York, I read in the El Pais newspaper, from Spain, an article about the Occupy Wall Street movement. Until the arrest, except for acknowledging certain fleeting appearances on record, such as the one from Michael Moore or Susan Sarandon, newspapers in this country had not given much importance to the protests taking place in the heart of Manhattan. El Pais, however, has followed the issue with interest from the beginning (mid-September), for its resemblance to the movement of the Indignados (Indignants) that shook Spain a few months ago.

In the El Pais article, my attention was caught by a quote from Gonzalo Venegas, a musician from the Bronx, who was going for the first time to the Zuccotti Park, the center of the protest given the police barrier of Wall Street. "Here," said Venegas, "Latinos and blacks are missing." Maybe, I said to myself while reading such a blunt assertion, it's because the movement has nothing to do with them. But looking more closely at the reasons for the protest, it became clear that it did.

The United States is experiencing the worst economic crisis of the last eighty years, due largely in part to the greed of banks and the lack of regulation of the financial system. And that crisis has not only swept away millions of jobs, but threatens to reduce social benefits -- in addition to those that lost their homes after the bursting of the housing bubble.

The responsibility for the financial system has been pointed out by tens of experts. But none have highlighted that responsibility as the government itself, which after handing out millions of dollars belonging to the taxpayers to the banks -- to avoid a debacle -- decided to sue 17 of them for having "cheated," according to them, state agencies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac by selling toxic mortgages to them.

According to an article in The Wall Street Journal, the Federal Housing Finance Agency, which was the official agency that brought the lawsuit, "said the mortgage-backed securities were sold to Fannie and Freddie based on documents that 'contained misstatements and omissions of material facts concerning the quality of the underlying mortgage loans, the creditworthiness of the Borrowers, and the practices used to originate such loan'."

It is no secret that the toxic mortgages -- and the practices followed to originate the loans -- are a great part of the origin of the crisis, and it is against these practices, among others, that the organizers of Occupy Wall Street protest. Well, according to a recent study by the Pew Research Center, Hispanics and blacks are among the groups most affected by the mortgage crisis.

According to the study, "in percentage terms, the bursting of the housing market bubble in 2006 and the recession that followed from late 2007 to mid-2009 took a far greater toll on the wealth of minorities than on whites. From 2005 to 2009, inflation-adjusted median wealth fell by 66% among Hispanic households and 53% among black households, compared with just 16% among white households". And "about a third of black (35%) and Hispanic (31%) households had zero or negative net worth in 2009, compared with 15% of white households".
I'm not sure that a protest movement like Occupy Wall Street is the best way to prevent this sort of thing from happening again. But after analyzing the causes for the protest and the impact the crisis has had on minorities, I understood Venegas' phrase better. For Hispanics living in the United States, and for those seeking to capture their vote in the upcoming elections, there are few issues that should be as important than the issue of migration.

I can only speak from personal experience about the protest I attended yesterday, (Wednesday),evening. The organizers were a groupcalled United, and the majority of them were people of colour. They were very recognisable in their red t-shirts, and they did an excellent job keeping the crowd safe. Perhaps the news media chooses to focus on the white protestors, (I wouldn't know because I don't have a TV), but the mix of demonstrators that I saw seemed to be a good reflection of the diversity of our NYC population.

[JAGG]

Originally Posted by SoNotHer

I don't disagree with the end of unfair tax breaks, Jagg, or lopsided tax structures that allow for a greater cut of Warren Buffet's secretary's salary to be taken out than his own.

But how you intend to solve the myriad of other issues at stake and at play here? What about the folks who have underwater mortgages? What about those who lost home and property to a medical bankruptcy? What about those who got sold a bill of goods by Enron and the like and invested in a garbage 401K? What about the folks who lost their small stores and businesses when Walmart and company came to town? What about the steel towns like the ones I live and have lived in that watched a thriving main street become a ghost town?

How exactly does an entity like a corporation, that is not only set up to serve itself first and foremost but is actually mandated by law to be responsible first to its owners/stockholders, ever get to decide what's best for all? And now that corporations do in fact run our democracy, how do we effectively reverse that?

You really want my opinion on fixing all those things? I don't have answers for all these things, but I can give you my opinion. That would take me a week, hahahah I'll tell you what I think about some and adress other ones later.
I don't know what you mean by an underwater mortgage. Do you mean people who took out a loan with a bank for an adjustible interest rate instead of a fixed rate ? Or someone who took out a loan they knew they couldn't afford but because the bank agreed to give them the loan they took it, and now can't make the payments? Tell me what you mean by underwater mortgages and then I can give you my opinion. As far as medical bancruptcy, it of course could happen to anyone. Just like any disaster in life, you don't expect it, or want it but you still need to take precautions. There are many many insurance companies you can buy policies from for a very small monthly fee ,some as low as 20 dolars a month, to protect you in case you become ill and unable too work . It pays your mortgage medical bills and even pays to retrain you in a new field if your injuries or illness prevent you from returning to your job. Some will pay up to a million dollars of medical bills etc, depends on your policy. So knowing it could happen to anyone at anytime, I think it's important you take measures to insure you're prepared. It's like not having renters insurance. It's less than 10 dollars a month but if you don't have it and a tornado wipes everything out, you'll have nothing. Do you think someone who wasn't willing to protect themselves should now be taken care of by tax payers? I don't. I'm not saying I don't feel sorry for them , or that it's not an awful situation to be in, I'm saying you can protect yourself if you don't want that to happen. If you don't protect yourself, then I guess you'll have to make do best you can. That is the responsiblity of the individual.
Enron is a messed up deal. All the people and companies that lost everything, the elderly, who can't work anymore, it's sad. Again could happen to anyone, those people had no idea their investments were shams some even did a lot research on the company before they invested, and it all seemed valid , how do we compensate victims of a crime? I supppose all that can be done is sell the assets and distribute them to the victims. Hold the people accountable for their crimes including the Gov. agencies who's job was to insure these things don't happen, like SEC. Then impliment rules and safeguards so that it doesn't happen again. It's all you can do. It's not a perfect plan , and those people will never get all their money back or even a fraction, by no fault of their own. It's sad it sucks, it's not fair. No easy fix for that one.
Now the mom and pop crisis. I'm sure many will hang me by my eyelashes for my opinion on this but, it's the truth as I see it. My opinion.
If you go into a store and they want 65 dollars for a blanket, you can get somewhere else for 18 dollars, which one do you choose. If you can't change and grow and be flexible, and offer the public something different, something better and your prices are too high you're are going to go out of business. That is a fact. That's bad business practices. Mom and pop shops didn't want to lower prices didn't want to offer a different service didn't want to do anything different, so they failed to compete. Blame it on walmart? There are plenty of mom and pop shops still open. Mcdonalds , Burgerking, Wendy's , Steak and Shake, they haven't put any small mom and pop burger places out of business. People will pay extra for a better product, they will also pay more for a unique service or product, but they won't pay more for the same product or a like product. If a company is not offering something better or different than their rivals , except higher prices, that's bad business practices, no company can be profitable conducting business like that, why should poor busniess practices and an unwillingness to change anything make a mom and pop store anymore special than say, Builders Square, or Ultimate electronics . That's business, that's how it works and how it doesn't work. Blame it on walmart, blame it on the internet, target, kmart, but the fact is had they offered something better,something more, something different, something unique, they would still be in business. Ok That's it for tonight.

[Glenn]

I don't disagree with the fact that everyone needs to be held accountable for their own choices in life, even if we were all bombarded through corporate media with easy credit, real estate, cars, plasma Tv's, Bush encouraging us to spend more after 911, etc. What goes up comes down, and all of a sudden none of it was our fault? If my Mom and Pop store fails, I will take full blame. I won't blame the government. If I lived beyond my means, I've got whats coming to me. I still believe in Capitalism. It's flawed but can be fixed. But when the hammer drops, the poor feel it worse. The middle and working class have learned also by losing their homes and jobs. I agree with Obama to tax the billionairs. It was the ones at the top that shifted the blame outside of themselves, and refused to take responsibility. Maybe if there were more prison sentences and less fines for them it would've been different. Everyone, rich, poor, middle class needs to be held accountable for their choices. And speaking of Religion, most world religions do not condon usury. And speaking of morals, what is moral about charging someone $400 for 30 lifesaving pills, when I could look up the active ingredient and order a fifty gallon drum of it for ten dollars. This is how the billionairs are raping the poor and middle-class. We have been slaves to the billionairs of the world, and the best slaves, are the ones who don't know they are slaves.

[The_Lady_Snow]

Originally Posted by atomiczombie

What do you think accounts for the low black and latino turnout at these rallies?

This is "my" personal opinion as to why, if large groups of Latinos and Black gathered in large numbers to "protest" I feel it would be seen differently.. I also believe that this information is not being passed to people who do not have access like we do and don't know that these kinds of gatherings are going on, add economic status and you can count a lot of peoples voices. My hopes this spreads so all towns not just big citties and all peoples are being educated on the chance to use their voices too.

[MsMerrick]

Here's photos from last Sunday ( October 2 ) down at Occupy Wall Street

My Facebook Public Photos
I was there at the March ( and I love the aerial view..! ) but my back hurt too much , so I didn't do the whole march. There was an incredible range of diversity there, and many Unions! All of which was very inspiring....

Here's a much smaller album of shots from the beginning of the March on Wednesday evening.
more of my FB albums

[JAGG]

Originally Posted by Miss Tick

You know when i read this crap about unemployment being the fault of the unemployed and I hear about people clapping and cheering at the possible death of an uninsured person or booing a gay soldier in Iraq I start to think it isn't just Wall Street we need to occupy. We need to occupy a moral high ground. Our nation's moral compass has lost the ability to find true north. We need a national conscience. We need to take back our humanity.

Do you really think these people don't know what true north is ? Do you really think they don't know what is right and wrong. Of course they do. Of course they know you shouldn't do something to someone, you wouldn't want done to you. People with character and standards, and morals and ethics don't need a compass, they will do the right thing because that's who they are. They choose to do the right thing , not because of fear tactics or consequences, they do it because it's right. People who lack character, have no morals, no conscience,just don't care. They know what the right thing to do is, but unless it serves them in some way to do the right thing ,or it's easier than doing the wrong thing,they will choose to do what benefits them. They know it's wrong before they even do it, they don't care. No moral compass can fix that. They are thoughtless, selfish, self-centered, and self-serving, they have no conscience. You can't give a conscience to the morally bancrupt. And no moral compass will help them choose to do the right thing. They don't care who they hurt, who they effect who they damage or what havoc they wreak.They are usually the first ones to point a finger and blame someone else or something else, they will never hold themselves accountable. If they held themselves accountable they wouldn't have done the wrong thing to begin with. All we can do is hold them accountable, and try to prevent them from being in a position to hurt alot of people, like voting them into office.

[Cin]

Originally Posted by JAGG

Do you really think these people don't know what true north is ? Do you really think they don't know what is right and wrong. Of course they do. Of course they know you shouldn't do something to someone, you wouldn't want done to you. People with character and standards, and morals and ethics don't need a compass, they will do the right thing because that's who they are. They choose to do the right thing , not because of fear tactics or consequences, they do it because it's right. People who lack character, have no morals, no conscience,just don't care. They know what the right thing to do is, but unless it serves them in some way to do the right thing ,or it's easier than doing the wrong thing,they will choose to do what benefits them. They know it's wrong before they even do it, they don't care. No moral compass can fix that. They are thoughtless, selfish, self-centered, and self-serving, they have no conscience. You can't give a conscience to the morally bancrupt. And no moral compass will help them choose to do the right thing. They don't care who they hurt, who they effect who they damage or what havoc they wreak.They are usually the first ones to point a finger and blame someone else or something else, they will never hold themselves accountable. If they held themselves accountable they wouldn't have done the wrong thing to begin with. All we can do is hold them accountable, and try to prevent them from being in a position to hurt alot of people, like voting them into office.

Well you certainly might be right. I really have no idea what makes people do things like that. But I wasn’t talking about those people when I said we need to occupy the moral high ground. Or when I said that our country needed to adjust its moral compass. I meant religious right wing conservatives always lay claim to morality like it just rightfully belongs to them, like it is just naturally assumed they are morally superior to the left. They certainly infer as much often enough. However, I think if we look at their actions, the right has shown this country an example of a very bizarre kind of morality. They do not act in ways that reflect any ideas of morality I’ve ever imagined. If the religious right is made up of people who act in good and moral ways then the definition of good and moral they are using is not same definition I am using. It does not reflect any belief I hold about goodness and morality.

They are not the keepers of the morality for this country, as a matter of fact by their actions they have shown themselves to actually be the antithesis of what is morally right.

[atomiczombie]

This is a comprehensive list of links to locations in the United States and Canada with Occupy Wall Street solidarity events:


http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/1...es?detail=hide

[JAGG]

Originally Posted by Miss Tick

Well you certainly might be right. I really have no idea what makes people do things like that. But I wasn’t talking about those people when I said we need to occupy the moral high ground. Or when I said that our country needed to adjust its moral compass. I meant religious right wing conservatives always lay claim to morality like it just rightfully belongs to them, like it is just naturally assumed they are morally superior to the left. They certainly infer as much often enough. However, I think if we look at their actions, the right has shown this country an example of a very bizarre kind of morality. They do not act in ways that reflect any ideas of morality I’ve ever imagined. If the religious right is made up of people who act in good and moral ways then the definition of good and moral they are using is not same definition I am using. It does not reflect any belief I hold about goodness and morality.

They are not the keepers of the morality for this country, as a matter of fact by their actions they have shown themselves to actually be the antithesis of what is morally right.

I agree to that for sure. Hypocrites. Organized religon is man's way to control man. I'm leary of anyone too far right or too far left. They usually are very angry and have a hidden agenda. That agenda usually has nothing to do with the best interests of anyone but them. That has been my experience.

[SoNotHer]

[QUOTE=JAGG;432922] I don't know what you mean by an underwater mortgage. Do you mean people who took out a loan with a bank for an adjustible interest rate instead of a fixed rate ?"

From Wisegeek.com "An underwater mortgage leaves the owner with more debt on the property than the current market value."

You owe more on your home than it's worth, conscripted as you are to "mortgage" (as in the French word "mort," or death, or only after death are free).

You can find a similar definition or find in news stories daily. The last figure I read suggested that folks lost 30% and more of their home's value in the post "boom boom" days that took a sharp right off the cliff just prior to Bush's exit. Inasmuch as a home is most folks' greatest financial asset, this was somewhat painful for working family types but perhaps better news for predatory types.


"As far as medical bancruptcy, it of course could happen to anyone."

The Vegas odds are better for the un or under-insured.

"I think it's important you take measures to insure you're prepared."

So how does that work for folks who were directed to invest in an Enron 401K, or who were counseled to buy a home beyond their means, or whose children were sent multiple credit card offers while still in college or who had the great misfortune of getting inconveniently sick working a Walmart or any job that ensures that you work just up to the point where you are not entitled to health insurance?

"I'm saying you can protect yourself if you don't want that to happen. If you don't protect yourself, then I guess you'll have to make do best you can. That is the responsiblity of the individual."

So really whatever happens, happens and let the free market rule? It's all good, right?

It's funny. We hold children to much different standards than this. If we see a child hitting another child, we intervene. If we see a child take another child's cookie, we stop it and make the child give it back. If we hear a child bullying another child or talking to other children about picking on and setting up another child, we address it and ensure that no child feels singled out or bullied or inferior. We want our children to understand, embody and act out of a sense of goodness and fairness and equality.

And then we become adults and that changes. So what exactly does that say about us, and what does that model for our children?


" Now the mom and pop crisis. I'm sure many will hang me by my eyelashes for my opinion on this but, it's the truth as I see it. My opinion.
If you go into a store and they want 65 dollars for a blanket, you can get somewhere else for 18 dollars, which one do you choose."

And that would be the only measure of cost and value? The comparative retail prices? Beyond the price you see and make a determination on, there are many other costs and prices to consider. And the statistics clearly and consistently show that the Mom & Pop stores not only give back more to their communities in terms of charity, real jobs and taxes, they also happen to take less from their community than a Walmart does in, for instance, in emergency services response and patrol (lotta stuff to watch and prosecute for the shoplifting of) or water contamination and clean up in the river that sits just, unfortunately enough, behind a Super Walmart.

And then of course there's what Walmart allows the community and taxpayer to do, namely take on those medical costs and bankruptcies. Over two thirds of the WM's employees don't participate in the company's healthcare plan. Wonder why. I'm sure it's because they're so abundantly covered somewhere else.

So it's interesting that while you call for more exports and fewer imports, a better trade balance and a stronger American-made economy, you find the justification to shop a store known for selling "Cheap Chinese Crap" because it appears to cost less.

And sadly, that's what everyone's done, which is why the dollar stagnates, China buys our debt (and ours and Canada's prime agriculture, by the way), and the middle class does an amazing disappearing act. "If we're looking for someone to blame, we only have to look into the mirror."

So here we are, many of us, listening to euphemisms like "downsizing" or "food insecurity" or "eliminating redundancies" thrown around, terrified of communism, ignorant of socialism, and falling into the ever widening jaws of carnivorous capitalism and wondering exactly when we hit some kind of economic and social oblivion from which there is no turning back.

[AtLast]

Originally Posted by atomiczombie

What do you think accounts for the low black and latino turnout at these rallies?

This ineresting as I have read a couple of blubs to the contrary. In SF, those that have gathered have been represented by POC quite clearly. Maybe because CA is a border state to Mexico? Or, is it just a SF thing?

The article Snow posted certainly points to how the mortgage lending practices and ensuing foreclosure rates hit POC in much higher numbers than whites.

It also can be atributed to the fact that historically, social movements tend to begin among white, middle class people. In the past this has been due to a very simple factor- they could have more "leisure" time. Although, since the recession has crossed economic and racial lines and is continuing to do so, my guess is that this social movement will keep climbing in numbers of POC and run across class status in ways we may have never seen before.

I wonder if one of the main reasons there are less Latinos involved in public demomstrations is also in play. Fear of harrassment about legal status. I was thinking earlier today after looking at the site that has the schedule of these demonstrations all over the US about cities in AZ and other states that have passed legislation about police being able to just demand documents from people. How the hell will Latinos, many of whom have had foreclosures, feel about participating?

It may very well be that since more and more white, middle-class people are feeling the effects of long term unemployment in much higher numbers and also would be among higher percentages of people that have bank accounts and credit cards as well as mortgages, etc. People that suffer with chronic unemployment and have been dealing with the poverty level in their lives don't use banks (usually can't even get an account due to poor credit scores) or have credit cards. If they do, they are of the type that the person fills themselves and is really not an extension of credit (the pre-paid cards).

My hope is that this will be a movement in which all that are angry with how people are being taken advantaged of by big banks and public corporations can join together and not get diverted by "how many of what color is out here today." That's another thing, this is a revolving movement in which people demonstrate on dats they can and not on others. Demonstartors are revolving in and out as they can with their own obligations. So, there are different people every day of the demonstrations.

I'm just throwing out some possibilities here- and I am going to go look for the links of articles that state that there is a good turn-out in various areas of POC.

[Martina]

Originally Posted by AtLastHome

It also can be atributed to the fact that historically, social movements tend to begin among white, middle class people.

That is simply not true. The Civil Rights Movement was not started by white middle class people. The Labor Movement was not. The LGBT rights movement was not. The Disability Rights movement was not. Anti-Apartheid was not. Indiginous Peoples Movements were not. And on and on.

[Corkey]

On the news, ABC and MSNBC when they were showing the protesters I saw a mix of races, many many young and many many women. Sorry not into tallying the numbers. I know our city has a protest to be staged, no one has intimated it's only for white people. So far it is mostly academics doing the talking however. Not many poor people have access to computers outside of work or school, so when it is staged the poor may just well join.

[AtLast]

Originally Posted by Martina

That is simply not true. The Civil Rights Movement was not started by white middle class people. The Labor Movement was not. The LGBT rights movement was not. The Disability Rights movement was not. Anti-Apartheid was not. Indiginous Peoples Movements were not. And on and on.

And you are very misinformed and ignorant of the facts! I have taught social problems and movements for many years. Look up middle-class leisure time variables and social movements in the united states and most certainly the Second Wave of feminism. You are very much out of your league here.

Poor and working poor people are usually struggling to keep food on the table, work more than one job and don't have the all of the "free" time that the middle class has had.

[EnderD_503]

Originally Posted by AtLastHome

And you are very misinformed and ignorant of the facts! I have taught social problems and movements for many years. Look up middle-class leisure time variables and social movements in the united states and most certainly the Second Wave of feminism. You are very much out of your league here.

Poor and working poor people are usually struggling to keep food on the table, work more than one job and don't have the all of the "free" time that the middle class has had.

Eh. It depends on the movement. I agree that a great deal of rights movements were given breath by middle class people, but it wasn't the case in every movement of the early modern/modern era. Martina does have a point about certain movements she's mentioned: the birth of the Gay Rights movement, if we trace it from Stone Wall, stemmed from some of the most marginalized people of contemporary society (trans sex workers, drag queens, working or impoverished gay men) becoming fed up with police raids and mistreatment. Of course, the academics that gave a louder voice to the movement (though did not initiate it), were certainly indispensable.

Anti-Apartheid was a mixed bag, and without black South Africans and white South Africans coming together there would not have been as great a success. Same can be said for the Civil Rights movement in the US.

There are quite a few rights movements and revolutions out there that had little to do with white middle class people. At the same time, many rights movements also required the involvement of white middle class academics in particular (the feminist movement as you mentioned. Without middle class white women in particular, there would be no feminist movement, either first or second wave), in order to gain widespread success.

The poor not having leisure time to think of acting on their own oppression is not as true in the 20th century as it was in the 19th and 18th centuries (and before, of course). Especially in groups that were frequently the targets of regular state violence and brutality.

I'm not sure it's a generalisation that can be applied to all movements, is what I'm trying to say.

[dykeumentary]

Originally Posted by AtLastHome

And you are very misinformed and ignorant of the facts! I have taught social problems and movements for many years. Look up middle-class leisure time variables and social movements in the united states and most certainly the Second Wave of feminism. You are very much out of your league here.

Poor and working poor people are usually struggling to keep food on the table, work more than one job and don't have the all of the "free" time that the middle class has had.

Whoa.
"Very misinformed," "ignorant," and "out of your league"?
Is this CNN or a social website?

An example that comes to mind right off the bat is the struggle of Indigenous Peoples in North America. I'm a working person, so probably someone who teaches knows more than I do, but I'm pretty sure that First Nation people have been fighting for their continued existence since they first had contact with European people. I'm guessing that makes them the longest-fighting resistance here, even without the help of the white middle class. This thread does have the word "Occupy" in it's title.

Seems like if the white middle class is writing the script, they might be giving themselves a starrng role, and set the definitions? My view of history leads me to think the white middle class is best at looking after it's own interests. Most of the time that's involved complacency. I think disenfranchised people have shown a lot of energy and inventiveness working on their own behalf. I think that's one of the reasons the NYPD has to use terrorism to discourage resistance.

[AtLast]

Originally Posted by dykeumentary

Whoa.
"Very misinformed," "ignorant," and "out of your league"?
Is this CNN or a social website?

An example that comes to mind right off the bat is the struggle of Indigenous Peoples in North America. I'm a working person, so probably someone who teaches knows more than I do, but I'm pretty sure that First Nation people have been fighting for their continued existence since they first had contact with European people. I'm guessing that makes them the longest-fighting resistance here, even without the help of the white middle class. This thread does have the word "Occupy" in it's title.

Seems like if the white middle class is writing the script, they might be giving themselves a starrng role, and set the definitions? My view of history leads me to think the white middle class is best at looking after it's own interests. Most of the time that's involved complacency. I think disenfranchised people have shown a lot of energy and inventiveness working on their own behalf. I think that's one of the reasons the NYPD has to use terrorism to discourage resistance.

Go and research social movement beginnings in the US other than early union movements. This is about the fact that so many social movements having to deal with the absence of POC and working-class and the poor being represented. I am actually talking about the fact that middle-class people have historically been able to "take the time" to get organized because of what the poor and working class deal with in terms of survival.

Later, this fact was most certainly brought to the forefront as so many of the variable, let's say for the Women's Movements did not address issues of WOC or poor women. Of course, POC and working poor began to say- "Hey, this does not comsider what is important to me." Then, made their issues known. There are many, many early and later strong social movement leaders from other classes and races. Many splits were made due to these kinds of issues and the lack of knowledge of white, middle class activists in terms of POC.

I am coming from a sociological perspective of the demographics of social movements as they are documented. It is about the mechanics of social movements.

In the 60's it was college students, mainly white that were faced with the draft during the Vietnam War that were at the center of that movement to stop that war. At that time, there were far, far, far fewer POC in college at all as well as in good paying jobs with good benefits and the means to get out there.

And again, as a sociological paradigm, it is very difficult for people that cannot just up and run out with a poster at their leisure to a demonstration, Consequently, those that could, did.

I brought this up in response to posts about the lack of POC at many of the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations- which isn't entirely true. However, given the severity of unemployment today, especially with POC, things like transportation, child care, and just lack of funds would have a big impact and it is higher among POC. For example, in Richmond, a city near me, the rate of unemployment for Latinos and African Americans is more than double than for whites. Most have been unemployed long term which really causes a decline in resources as simple as having money to take a bus, let alone have a car.

This is not about middle-class whites are the activists and POC have not taken their rightful place in social movement organization and effectiveness. That is absolutely not what I was saying at all.

[Dominique]

Originally Posted by Corkey

Not many poor people have access to computers outside of work or school, so when it is staged the poor may just well join.

Computers and the internet are free at all libraries, career link provides the same free services. Most YMCA's and YWCA's have compter labs and the use is free. Dress for Success, (a woman's back to work program) has a no charge computer lab.....computer access, to folks who can not afford it, is readily available, if one wants it. just saying.