The Two Occupy DCs

Most people following the Occupy movement understand that there were two Washington, D.C. Occupy protests. One was located in McPherson Square and the other in Freedom Plaza. Both camps shared some of the same visual tactics in signage and tents. These two “occupy” protests differed in origin, relationship with permits, tactics, and other fundamental ways. D.C. Mayor Vincent C. Gray asked the National Parks Service to force their combination in mid-January, but both camps opposed this move. They both were evicted from camping in their locations over the February 4, 2012 weekend.

The Freedom Plaza protest originated as the October 2011/Stop the Machine Movement which had the slogan, “End the Wars, Bring the Troops Home.” Originating in national peace and social justice organizations, they asked people to join them in Freedom Plaza beginning October 6th. The event had been planned months ahead of the Occupy Wall Street protests and was intended to be a long-term protest that corresponded with the 10th anniversary of the invasion of Afghanistan. However, October 6 came after OWS began, and signage and rhetoric began to overlap with calls to challenge corporate influence and class inequality. This protest obtained a long-term permit from the National Parks Service. Some people I spoke with while in D.C. in late January have suggested this camp is “more peaceful” and less radical. When police came to enforce “no camping” restrictions and largely set out to end the occupation, protestors were relatively peaceful.

The McPherson Square protest originated largely with D.C. residents (or others currently living there) who wanted to join in solidarity with the Occupy Wall Street protests. Tents went up over the first day of October 2011. This protest focused squarely on economic inequality and political disenfranchisement and lacked the overt anti-war focus (though, like in New York the wars were seen as part of the economic problem). This protest eschewed permits in order to intentionally use occupy as a civil disobedience tactic, but their location was within National Parks jurisdiction as well. McPherson Square is a park with grass while Freedom Plaza largely has concrete. A few people I spoke with in early January referred to this as the “locals” occupy camp and said the other camp was full of “outsiders.” Police enforcement at the end of this camp involved twelve arrests and a brick thrown at the police.

In some ways the distinctions are about goals and tactics. However, the most forceful difference I heard was from those at McPherson Square who claimed to be the REAL Occupy DC. They claimed to be coming out of the same spirit of the New York protests and claimed to represent the people of D.C., rather than broader America. Have others heard about similar divisions in New York or other Occupy Protests? What do these divisions tell us about Occupy or the left at this moment?


Filed under Daily Disruption

2 responses to “The Two Occupy DCs

  1. Jeff A. Larson

    I don’t think I’ve ever heard of a public official forcing the combination of two protests or campaigns, but what a great illustration of how interactions between protesters and their audiences shape the frames of social movements. As outsiders lump the two camps together, insiders recognize important distinctions between them. Yet, the insiders have had to concede ground to the outsiders when the logic of OWS (economic inequality, radical democracy, etc.) became the flavor of the month as both camps claimed allegiance to the same Occupy Movement.

    I’m interested in knowing what pulls some groups into the OWS orbit and not others. There has been much talk of the rapid diffusion of OWS rhetoric (Occupy the Courts, the Food System, the Fed, Congress), but less about why so many groups are not drawn in? If movement building involves mobilizing skilled activists and like-minded organizations, then we ought to carefully consider how social movements influence one another.


  2. This is a movement. Not a political party. That’s a huge difference. Republicans largely will define their GOP in roughly the same manner. Occupies are a movement and our made up of individuals. Different strokes for different folks. Occupy Easton Pa is going to be much less radical then Occupy Oakland Ca. Why? Culture; among many other reasons. The only main issues binding occupiers around the country is getting money out of politics/economic justice. That’s it. Everything else is up for debate. How do I know? I was the catalyst for Occupy Allentown. We had Liberals, Conservatives, Progressives, Commies, Socialists, and everyone in between all united under a simple banner and very few shared goals. This is about people from all different schools of thought uniting as one in order to achieve their few common goals. Why aren’t more “outside groups” flying the Occupy banner? Simple. The “powers that be” hate the idea that a large collective of people is waking up, taking notice, and getting pissed off. We are rocking the boat. They attack us for not having leaders only in hopes so that we give in and pick a leader(s). Why? They can tear him or her apart. You know? That’s what politicians are good at. Don’t like a Republican idea? Attack the republican who drafted it and make him out to be a fool. It’s a game. If Occupy is to change the system, we must do it from the outside in, not from inside out. Taking money out of politics will not happen via appointing politicians. We have a clear list of demands. We have goals. We are achieving them. Tune in. There is a plethora of excitement happening!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s