Lately in the news we are seeing groups of people gathering & camping out to make a statement on their disgust with our government and with Wall Street. It started in NYC and has spread to other major (and now some minor) cities. The protestors seem to have a varied agenda and therefore it seems to be confusing to us watching it on TV. Best I can tell it's mostly a bunch of disgruntled citizens thinking this is a way to get some media exposure. I'm hearing that they are OCCUPY-ers. They are in the parks and streets to occupy that space to make a statement.
It's a flashback to the 60's for those who remember that far back. But, then it was a "sit in". College students took over outdoor space, or doorways into administration buildings and the such, and sat down to protest the Vietnam war. They sat - for a specific cause. It was also called a "peace rally."
I'm wondering why the media decided to use the word "occupy" this time. Why not "campers" or "park protesters" or "street citizens"? Am I the only one who immediately thought about WW II and the German occupation? I know they are occupying space - in the park, on the street. I get that. But, it seems to me a reactionary word and something better should be used.
I applaud those who feel strongly about their issue, whatever it may be, to go camp out for days. I could NEVER do it. (I didn't like camping as a child. I prefer hotels as a grown-up! Sleeping out in the elements in a tent? Noooo, thank you!)
But, I wonder how long the people will "occupy" the space? How long til they get tired? How long will it be in the news? The media will get bored with the story soon and move on - unless something bad or different happens in the park or street... and I hope people don't resort to that kind of action to stay in the news.
Free speech and the right to peacefully assemble is a freedom here. So, more power to them! Whoever they are ! Whatever makes them upset!
I'm wondering.... can we call them "disgruntled campers" or something else tho?
What do you think?