Comments on: What Really Happened with Occupy Atlanta & Rep John Lewis

By: TonyV

TonyV — Fri, 14 Oct 2011 22:47:54 +0000

What’s lost in this clip is the context in which the speaker was speaking up. First of all, this was a General Assembly with the purpose of setting some ground rules and an agenda. As I understand it, it was an important show of support, but was not intended to be the occupation itself. There was a designated time for people who wanted to speak their minds after some administrative stuff was taken care of, and unfortunately, Representative Lewis was not able to stick around until then.

Also, I watched the whole meeting from the beginning, not just the clip in the referenced video. Immediately before this clip kicks in, the group had reached a consensus on the order of the agenda. People should keep in mind that this was an very important step in making sure that Occupy Atlanta wasn’t just an anarchist bunch of people who no purpose whatsoever, everyone following their own rules and doing their own thing. Had the moderator at that time simply tossed aside the rules that the group had literally JUST agreed on, it would have completely undermined the ability of anyone to coordinate anything.

Had they allowed Representative Lewis to speak right then, undoubtedly there would be videos circulating about how wishy-washy the moderator was, having just reached a consensus on something and then tossing it right out the window.

]]>

By: @SethP23

@SethP23 — Thu, 13 Oct 2011 20:49:18 +0000

What’s good about the occupy movement is that it is bringing these issues to the mainstream media. The incident in this video was not democracy. You can see from the 1st question that the majority wanted Lewis to speak yet the majority did not rule, not democracy. Too bad really, having one of the MLK inner circle at you meeting is a good thing. If the agenda cannot stop for that then what is the point? I know this group is young and inexperienced but I wish the best for them. I think it would make more sense to have a series of events over a long period of time rather than an occupation that will lead to conflict and degrade the message. ]]>

By: Alison Ross

Alison Ross — Wed, 12 Oct 2011 17:08:19 +0000

I am not buying it. This was not a manifestation of the democratic process but rather of a 1% vs. 99% – in this case ONE person’s voice domineering over the others. The irony is, he didn’t want JL to speak because it might convey the message that one person is more important than everyone else – and yet, he was showing that his voice is more important by dissenting from the majority. He has a right to dissent, but the fact that the majority caved to him is disgraceful and just laaaaaaaaaaame. JL has put in tireless hours supporting civil rights causes and put his life on the line, and just wanted a few minutes to address the crowd of likeminded souls. Instead his voice got squashed by some moron in the name of “fairness.” Sorry, that’s not fair, that’s just LAME. ]]>