The image that accompanied Adbusters' "Tactical Briefing #25" shows police clashing with protesters at the 1968 Democratic Convention.
Originally posted at Gapers Block’s Mechanics blog.
By Joe Macaré
Adbusters jumped onboard the NATO/G8 protest bandwagon last week, and in the process pushed Occupy Chicago further into the national (and international) spotlight.
Unfortunately, they did this without contacting Occupy Chicago beforehand, and in a manner that invoked the police violence of the 1968 Democratic Convention protests.
That Adbusters were acting unilaterally is evident from reading their January 25 announcement with even a vague working knowledge of Occupy Chicago and the existing plans for protest around the NATO/G8 summits — the kind of knowledge you could get easily from the mainstream media. Aside from the incendiary rhetoric and imagery, and the fact that it doesn’t once mention the existing Occupy movement in Chicago or link to their site, “Tactical Briefing #25″ also includes a list of demands that were neither drafted nor endorsed by any Occupy movement.
There’s no doubt that the Adbusters announcement got a lot of people excited: Mostly those from outside of Chicago who relished the chance to grab a tent and head on down for May 1 (a date that itself is problematic, given how far ahead of the summits it is and the fact that Chicago activism’s own May Day traditions tend to focus on labor and immigration). On local Twitter accounts and the OccupyChi.org forums, however, the excitement was tempered with confusion that rapidly turned into annoyance and even anger as it became clear that AdBusters had done this on their own.
Prior to a non-voting General Assembly that took place on Thursday, Jan. 26 to discuss this issue specifically, Occupy Chicago’s only official comment stated:
We are publicizing this call as part of our #ChicagoSpring campaign, which includes a kickoff on April 7, a People’s Summit on May 12 and protesting NATO and the G8 … We are still in the planning stages for all of our spring actions. But we welcome all who want to speak out against the famine and war forced on the world by the G8 and NATO to join us in the streets of Chicago.
In other words: We welcome the assistance and the attention, but let’s not forget who was Occupying Chicago first. Occupy Chicago members recognize the PR boost they’ve been given, the fruitful possibility of collaboration with Adbusters and the resources potentially on offer, and the fact that the genie cannot be put back into the proverbial bottle at this point.
But individual participants have been willing to express their concerns. These include Serena Himmelfarb, who was quoted in a piece that ran on In These Times‘ Uprising blog entitled “Adbusters’ Call for Chicago Occupation Rankles Some in Movement” (the title and focus of this piece no doubt also rankled some in the movement).
“Speaking only for myself: I am excited that Adbusters continues to support OWS, but they acted irresponsibly,” Himmelfarb told me.
They acted alone, without regard to what’s already being planned here for the summer. We would have been so excited to collaborate with them in promoting the movement. Just as important is the tone of their call. They chose a violent image to accompany their call to flood our city with activists. In my opinion, there’s NO WAY our GA would have approved Adbusters’ message and image. We don’t want to continue the tradition of ’68, we’re making our own.
The protests of ’68 are an incredible charged and thorny issue for Chicago activists and progressives. Debate still rages as to whether what took place was a brutal crushing of peaceful dissent by a thuggish Democrat mayor, or an ill-advised, aggressive sideshow by radical leftists that provoked a conservative backlash that swept Richard Nixon to power.
Either way, many Chicagoans feel that the event and its iconography are not to be breezily invoked from Vancouver. An Egyptian-American anthropologist and law student who participates in Occupy Chicago and goes by the Twitter handle @ThatEgyGuy summarized objections to Adbusters’ imagery on his blog: “You may as well be asking upfront for it … If you want to pick a fight with CPD, you should consult those whose name you are using.”
It’s worth noting that the image Adbusters used does show a cop hitting a protester, and that’s what happened across the country to Occupy movements too. The violence isn’t started by the protesters. But as the weekend’s events in Oakland showed, that doesn’t stop mainstream media and liberal pundits alike from condemning the people on the receiving end.
You could argue that Occupy Chicago’s dilemma boils down to which risk of distortion is greater: Making this a story about a split within a movement, or making this a story about activists inciting a “showdown” with the police. The mainstream media loves to do both when it comes to protests, after all.
Hopefully there isn’t a split here, more a new alliance forming after getting off to a rocky start. “Communication is key,” says Himmelfarb. “We all just want to be on the same page, and have been working towards that really successfully. Bottom line is, [Adbusters] made a mistake. Hopefully communication from here on in will be better.”
But despite the fact that Adbusters and Occupy Chicago members have now been in communication, on Jan. 27 the Adbusters blog once again made reference to “[setting] the stage for #Occupy Chicago,” as if Occupy Chicago was an event in May rather than a movement that is ongoing.
The extent to which Adbusters were responsible for the initial occupation of Wall Street is itself disputed. Journalist Jesse Myerson, who wrote the piece for In These Times, was involved with Occupy Wall Street from its early planning stages, and is writing a book about 2011 as a year of protest. He says about Adbusters’ role:
Adbusters was good publicity [for OWS], as it will be for Chicago, but it did not generate the idea for what is really a global phenomenon. Cities in dozens of countries have been shut down by citizens fed up with being victimized by the institutions who claim to act on their behalf. The American component was inevitable.
The publicity — and more importantly, the numbers it will generate — is a key factor, and it’s the most obvious reason why Occupy Chicago might refrain from rebuking Adbusters too harshly. I’ve been at numerous #OChi actions that, however creative and committed and effective, would have benefited from greater numbers. Most significantly, it had been hoped that enough supporters would show up at the second attempt to camp out at “the Horse” in Grant Park on October 22 in order to make arrests and a shutdown of the camp impossible — which obviously didn’t happen.
But Occupy Chicago had already begun plans for a mass action that would enable them to establish a new camp site: It’s called Chicago Spring, the date set is April 7, and its timing a month before NATO/G8 was a deliberate attempt to have something in place on which to build before the summits.
At a press conference on Friday, Occupy Chicago emphasized their plan for spring and summer: One that involves not just protest actions, but connecting communities and neighborhoods in what is all too often a divided city.
These plans, and the April 7 event, could use publicity and numbers: It’s hard to imagine that the NATO/G8 summits, on the other hand, need Adbusters’ help to pull in more protesters. Rahm Emanuel and Gerry McCarthy certainly don’t seem to think so.
Note: Adbusters did not respond to a request for comment before this post was published.
Joe, thanks for your thoughtful and accurate assessment of the situation. As a fifth generation Chicagoan, I don’t want to see any Chicago activists’ efforts, or the Occupy Chicago movement, co-opted. Chicago has a long tradition of activism that continues today. I’m glad that Occupy Chicago has spent the winter tapping into different neighborhood orgs and uniting people. Keep up the good work!
you are co-opting adbusters. where did you even get the name occupy chicago. how can a group that invented your and sent out a call for you to do what your doing be accused of co-opting?
50,000 people is the average amount of protesters either one of these events would get alone in any other country. The people are going to come regardless of what occupy Chicago does.
Did other groups such as CANG8 or the united nurses ask your permission when they applied for the permits to protest?
Talking to other groups who share your goals before doing something dramatic with major impact is not “asking permission” it’s taking responsibility and thinking instead of just assuming you know what’s best for everyone.
“asking permission” is misleading strawman used to avoid pressing issues of working together, which means communication, organization and respect.
Groups such as CanG8, the United Nurses and Occupy do talk to each other and co-ordinate their efforts to avoid logistical conflicts and pool resources. They aren’t asking permission, but sharing knowledge and information. It creates an atmosphere of mutual respect and solidarity which is needed for actions to have real effects.
Being a populist means considering how your actions impact other people. Even when you are being intentionally provocative, understanding the big picture is what separates making a difference from seeking attention for yourself. It’s kind of the whole idea behind the 99% thing.
also, i do not understand the problem, if there is no nato/g8 summit on May 1st, but you have other events in the city planned, what do you think is going to end up happening, 50,000 people are going to wait in an empty parking lot while occupy Chicago does it’s thing?
your articles, adbuster and the locals fails to mention the only reason the locals are occupying is because of adbusters.
Occupy is not a brand, and Occupy Chicago is not a copyrighted set of slogans, nor the intellectual property of the small group of individuals who have used their time and energy to overwinter a collective action agenda in Chicago, and who now see themselves as exclusively empowered to set the agenda for upcoming events, even though they only represent a minute fraction of the thousands of Chicagoans who participated in the events that put Occupy Chicago in the media. Occupy Chicago is the amorphous groups of individuals who participate in direct actions identified with the broader national agenda of resisting economic injustice in various forms. The fact that the writer of this article plainly sees himself as party to some exclusive club of “we, individuals who control Occupy Chicago,” from whom others, such as adbusters, must get permission before trying to organize direct action in Chicago, makes a mockery of the writer’s commitment to a people-powered and leaderless movement. The writer wants all parties trying to organize actions bearing the name “occupy chicago” to basically ask permission from the small group of individuals the writer presumably identifies as its proprietors. Rather than welcoming fellow activists, and seeking to coordinate where appropriate in a spirit of common cause, the writer seeks to suck us into a narrow squabble about who can or cannot organize actions in chicago or use the banner “occupy chicago,” since it has, in the writer’s mind, become the exclusive possession of a small group of individuals who have sole control over who gets to use it or how. To the writer, I would say: Chicago is not a space that you or anybody else own; and others, based inside Chicago or not, do not need to ask anybody’s permission in order to plan, organize, and execute direct actions here, including actions or events that label themselves “occupy”.
If the response to criticism and internal disagreement is to dismiss it as something which only hurts the movement, that’s not populism.
The discussion here is about rational, positive organizing methods. Which means coordinating with other people, especially locals who have more knowledge and face more consequences.
One of the big ideas of Occupy and 99% is respecting those most impacted by a decision and fighting those who impose decisions from a detached, privileged position based on abstract rationale.
Occupy’s “leaderless” recognizes every decision has real consequences for real people – and every decision is made by real people, so those people get a say in what happens. It’s not meant as a way for decision makers to avoid accountability by pretending those choices are made by an abstract mass.
Even in a leaderless movement groups of individuals still make decisions. People accept responsibility for various things. Some peoople and groups have more power and resources than others. The “leaderless” concept is meant to keep people honest, not absolve them of responsibility for their power and actions.
Adbusters, for all their positives, is still a tiny privileged group with more media clout than others, operating far away from Chicago. If the movement is going to be about corporate accountability and responsibility, that includes those with power within the movement.
Also, a big PR obstacle for all summit protests is the risk of making locals feel like helpless extras and a disposable backdrop for a grand adventure for political tourists. The G8/NATO is already doing this, bringing an expensive circus to town that no one who lives here wanted except the 1%.
It’s the responsibility of Occupy, then, to do thing differently. Even if the stereotype of the threatening protester seems stupid and unfair, it exists and is making the 99% afraid. So taking steps to respect those concerns is what you are supposed to be doing.
As the owner of Occupy Wall Street–the first site to actually start pushing online organizing following Adbusters call in July 2011–I would say go cry me a river occupy chicago…
Occupy does not belong to some general assembly anymore than it involves an individual with a gripe for the current system. As much as I commend Occupy Chicago for all their efforts, come May time, it will be the collection of autonomous groups working together that will win the day!
As far as messaging goes…I find the Adbusters image for the MayDay event to be really poignant. “In the tradition of the Chicago 8″. Although we all want to make our own movement, lets not forget what those of the past have already done…no point in reinventing wheels!
Hey Zach, nice 1% attitude: acting like because you OWN a website you get to dismiss the concerns of people directly affected by proclamations from on high.
I thought Occupy was supposed to be about grassroots and consensus building and respecting the 99% and community. Not about a bunch of protest tourists making decisions without consulting the people who actually live there and will have to deal with the consequences after they are gone.
How is Adbusters behaving any different from the NATO/G8? The summits were imposed on Chicago without asking the residents and without any analysis of the impact, let alone an actual plan how to deal with it. Adbusters offered their provocation without contacting the locals and invited fifty thousand people with no plan of what should happen next.
Adbusters also first wrote “In The Tradition of the Chicago 7″ because they didn’t know enough about history to understand how the exclusion of Bobby Seale is considered racist by Chicago activists. Which means they, in fact, have not bothered to research the full meaning and results of the images and rhetoric they are using – just like the advertising they criticize.
Adbusters presents itself as an organization which is supposed to be about corporate accountability and pointing out the abuses and consequences of advertising. Except when it comes to their own advertising – then they can’t be bothered to talk to the peons about their decisions.
And you, Zach who is proud of owning a website for a diverse social justice movement, responds to valid concerns of people who have been doing real work on keeping the protests positive with “cry me a river”. How is that any different than when some Goldman Sachs mouthpiece says it?