Pre-Occupied London PT 3: Rome wasn’t built in a day

I receive thoughtful responses to my posts at times, and I’m thankful for them, and a recent one forms the backbone of this post along with a few more of my own impressions.

The sender of the email below may not be surprised. He knows about my busy workshop, that I don’t throw anything out before I turn it over in my hand a few times, because - you just never know - it could be turned into something useful.

CL writes (in response to Pre-Occupied London PT 2):

Honestly, I'm conflicted by the Occupy movement, Gord. On the one hand, Occupy isn't presenting a coherent message and this hurts their cause. There are too many voices speaking about too many issues and it's tough to latch onto anything other than a feeling that people are pissed off for a hundred different reasons. That doesn't invalidate any of their issues, but the reality is that the rest of us need some focus. In short, they need a single voice (a single spokesperson?) and a concise viewpoint.


(GH interjects; the above is almost identical to many of my own thoughts. E.g., the lack of “coherent message” afflicts the cause, for certain. There are alos, however, a few eloquent spokesperson's for the movement).


The Labour movement (come on down Sid Ryan) seems to sense this and is attempting to insinuate themselves into the discussion. (I won't lump Glen Pearson in there because he's simply trying help Occupy gather and present their thoughts). My knee-jerk reaction to Big Labour here is that it's more of the same - the same old face, the same old strident voices, and the same old gripes. I don't think they speak for Occupy, but are using the opportunity to further their own agenda, which may or may not intersect with the Occupy message (it's hard to be sure sometimes). 

I don't where I'm going with all this other than to say I'm confused by it all. I'm willing to listen - but what is it I'm supposed to hear? Nov. 20, 2011

Raise your hand if you agree, for the most part, with the tone and direction of CL’s response. As I thought, along with my hand, I see several others. (If you’re wondering how I see your raised hands, all I can say is, it’s a gift).

I wrote back:

CL, you're not alone when feeling conflicted, skeptical (e.g., of Big Labour's intentions) and confused. The majority of observers, including me, can't easily pin down the Occupy movement. (The 'nail, Jell-o and wall' scenario springs to mind.) "Too many voices", as you say, is a big problem when looking for a concise overview (from Occupy London).



I'm glad G. Pearson volunteered to set up a panel of community-minded people and I look forward to the panel's first discussion in December. Come on along.




["Is there a '60s feel to the Occupy movement?": photo GH]

As per my first column re Occupy London, I can understand the intentions of some occupiers. My next one shares info re the upcoming panel. Though it's all a bit messy right now, what with Labour's involvement (full intentions unknown) and a myriad of voices, I feel there's some good being done and that will be done in the future.

(Honestly,) I'm reminded of some of the turbulence of the '60s, and apart from Dylan's squeaky voice, it wasn't all bad. GH

Today, allow me add a couple of other general thoughts about the Occupy movement.

One. Rome wasn’t built in a day.

Two. You just never know, the movement could turn into something useful.

Please link to a recent related post by Glen Pearson.

As well, please link to recent related post by James Shelley, co-ordinator of City Symposium (incl. community-based panel’s first public discussion re themes connected to Occupy movement).

***

Please click here to read Pre-Occupied London PT 2

.