|
> the American Civil Rights Movement had relatively clear goals and a pretty singular focus I think that describes a mature movement which, which the benefit of hindsight, is given a narrative in history books. In addition, the histories and our memories must necessarily omit most of the detail - we see the forest, not the trees and underbrush, the bogs and ravines. Reality is much messier. It's like comparing a mature company or even industry to one in its early days, when there is chaos, shifting goals day to day, and massive uncertainty. Just off the top of my head, the civil rights movement had many conflicting groups and goals; there were the hippies, communists who tried to co-opt the movement, black nationalists who had other goals, violent left-wing radicals, labor, and many more each with their own perspective and agenda. I don't know that the Occupy movement started less organized than successful movements; my impression is that the question is whether the movement does get organized later. There was a great amateur video clip from the last election cycle where Hillary Clinton was talking to some Black Lives Matter people; they were talking past each other, which was too bad, but Clinton was trying to advise them - a real expert and veteran of political movements providing some personal advice. She was saying that if they want to achieve their goals, they will need organize, develop certain strategies, etc. (They didn't trust her, so I don't think they were interested in advice. But now I want to find the clip and see what she said.) Also, let's not talk about the civil rights movement in past tense, or only in context of rights for black Americans; it was and still is about rights for women, Native Americans and for everyone else too. |
Sort of. The civil rights movement had a pretty clear goal from the start: Ending segregation. Brown v. Board of Education is often seen as the official "start" of the civil rights movement.
I get your point that reality is often much messier than history would dictate, but "end segregation" is a fairly clear and relatively realistic goal compared to "end wealth inequality."
> Just off the top of my head, the civil rights movement had many conflicting groups and goals; there were the hippies, communists who tried to co-opt the movement, black nationalists who had other goals, violent left-wing radicals, labor, and many more each with their own perspective and agenda.
While that's true, by the time those groups rolled around in the early 60s the civil rights movement had been in full swing for several years (and in fact the black power movement really started because of criticism of the civil rights movement).
Also, if anything this just speaks to the unity and focus of the civil rights movement: Despite these distractions, they had a clear goal that detractors couldn't derail. OWS doesn't seem to have that same focus.
> I don't know that the Occupy movement started less organized than successful movements; my impression is that the question is whether the movement does get organized later
I sincerely disagree. You're greatly downplaying the organization of, well, organizations like the NAACP during the 50s and 60s. The Montgomery bus boycott happened very early on (in 1955) and:
1) Had a clear goal (end desegregation on buses)
2) Had an appreciable negative effect on the oppressors (lost bus revenue)
3) Was extremely well-participated in
4) Lasted quite awhile (> 1 year), reflecting the perseverance of the protestors
The Zuccotti park encampments had, in comparison, none of those things (no clear goal, no negative effects, low participation, and lasted two months).
> let's not talk about the civil rights movement in past tense
You're arguing semantics, in America the "Civil Rights Movement" is pretty well understood to refer to the movement that took place in the 50s and 60s:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African-American_Civil_Rights_...