Day(s) of Rage

The Occupy Wall Street protests that began this past Saturday can provide a lesson in the potential drawbacks of historical analogy.

The protests, which are intended to highlight perceived injustice in the financial system, are still going. Although things got off to a slow start, with participants dispersing at the threat of arrest for not staying within the designated protest area, the event seems to be picking up steam. Participants have been sleeping out in the staging area, and several arrests yesterday have not ended their enthusiasm.

Some degree of anti-Wall-Street sentiment is not a surprise given the economy, but the organizers of the protest have used history to take their cause to another level. They’re framing the event as a US Day of Rage, an allusion to the 1969 Chicago Days of Rage, which were organized by the radical Weatherman faction of Students for a Democratic Society. That protest was against the war in Vietnam, and featured widespread vandalism and violence.

Comparing this week’s rage to the rage of the late ‘60s poses a few risks for the organizers. For one thing, drawing a Weatherman parallel means associating themselves with a group popularly synonymous with radicalism. It seems to me that a less radical protest with the same anti-banker gist could be widely popular—although who knows whether the organizers want that.

Another risk is that the comparisons with the Vietnam War, something that has come down through popular culture as a subject worthy of protest, can make today’s activists seem petty in comparison. That view is prevalent in the comment sections of articles about the protest, like this one, and it just makes the cause seem irrelevant. (Which isn't necessarily true: saying that you shouldn’t protest something because you should have better things to do, or because there are other problems in the world, is the same as arguing that we can’t fix problems at home and abroad at the same time or that the president should focus on one issue at the exclusion of everything else—the no-multitasking line it’s a frustrating falsehood that’s sadly prevalent in anti-activism thought these days).

On the other hand, if protests against Wall Street end up making a difference, the comparison could be a win. As the fourth day of activism begins, we’ll have to stay tuned.

What do you think? Is this a stupid move or is harkening back to a time in which protests were taken more seriously just seriously smart?