Skip to main content

View Diary: [UPDATE - MORE PHOTOS] 200,000 Rise Up in Brazil - "The People Have Awakened" (333 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  We had large uprising here in the US (7+ / 0-)

    We had large uprisings right here in the US.  Citizens in the thousands marched and protested, and even camped out in the streets.  This happened in cities across the country, large and small.  The protesters called for economic equality, environmental stewardship, and an end to government by and for the wealthy.

    And this went on for weeks.

    Eventually, the police moved in and "order" was restored.

    Perhaps not suprisingly, no one in the local, state, or federal government expressed any interest in sitting at a negotiating table and offered to make concessions.  The only outcome has been business as usual.

    While it is gratifying to me to see that others share my dislike of government of, by, and for the wealthy interests, I think much more has to be done to establish a government of, by, and for the people.  It will take marching in the streets and action in town halls, school boards, and state and national legislatures.

    Marching in the streets is a step, but it is only a step.  

    "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

    by Hugh Jim Bissell on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 07:08:07 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Not with Brazil numbers. (6+ / 0-)
      We had large uprisings right here in the US.  Citizens in the thousands marched and protested, and even camped out in the streets.  This happened in cities across the country, large and small.  The protesters called for economic equality, environmental stewardship, and an end to government by and for the wealthy.
      I honestly doubt that the total number of Occupiers nationwide came anywhere near 200,000 (or 300,000, which would be the proportional percentage of the US population); if you have any evidence to the contrary, please present it.

      And the Occupy protests were spread out, as opposed to the Brazil protests where the 200,000 are almost all in the 2-3 largest cities.

      If Occupy could have gotten 100,000 people each to march in New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago, I think the powers that be would have responded somewhat differently.

      "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

      by JamesGG on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 08:25:02 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The US is much more dangerous for protestors (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        AoT, Damnit Janet, Involuntary Exile

        Our government has seen fit to spend billions of our tax dollars to purchase the latest equipment for violent control of protestors.  

        Actually, Occupy had a lot of support, very large numbers.  Yes, it still rankles the Obama supporters, but it happened.  It will probably happen again, though many more people will be killed, injured and jailed.

        A horrible thing our party will have to live down for the next 50 years.  Worse than LBJ and Vietnam, much worse.

        "If you can't take their money, eat their food, drink their booze and then vote against them, you have no business being in DC."

        by Betty Pinson on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 08:39:51 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Agreed (4+ / 0-)

          We lead the world in crowd control measures and techniques.

          And of course, we now know the government has new improved and legal ways to use computers and the internet to find out who supports the protesters (dangerous terrorists!) and who lacks loyalty to the government.

          I agree that the occupy movement had a great deal of public support.

          I kept wondering in 2011 when Pres. Obama would publicly talk about the concerns of the Occupy movement.  It seemed to me a moment tailor-made for the president to take advantage.  He never did at that time, but while campaigning in 2012 did talk then about economic inequality.  And since then, nothing.

          Sadly, the take-home message is that the democratic party is not interested in the national problems of economic inequality, ending banking fraud, or a sustainable economy.

          "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

          by Hugh Jim Bissell on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 09:11:23 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Occupy scared the heck out of Obama (6+ / 0-)

            it scared the corporate conservatives in both parties as well as their sponsors.   Obama never supported Occupy, had no intention of discussing any of the pertinent issues they raised.  The prospect of regulating Wall Street, holding those criminals accountable and pushing an agenda for job creation and economic recovery was repulsive to him.  

            The fact that Obama won re-election hasn't changed any of that.  The massive amounts of corporate money both parties "hoovered" up has made them more committed than ever to follow the corporate agenda and stifle public dissent.

            A lot of protestors have probably been harmed in ways they'll never fully realize - red flag on their files that prevents them from getting jobs, mortgages, etc.  The revelations of the last couple of weeks validated it.

            "If you can't take their money, eat their food, drink their booze and then vote against them, you have no business being in DC."

            by Betty Pinson on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 09:22:58 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  it's not Obama (0+ / 0-)

              Obama has never been the problem.  The problem has always been that we simply do not have a liberal progressive party.  Anywhere. The Dems are just Republican-Lites. They are not on our side, and have no interest in being on our side.

              And there things stand.  (shrug)

              •  I disagree (5+ / 0-)

                Yes, Dems have always had a pro-corporate conservative wing in the party, but there's never been a Dem POTUS who has worked so thoroughly and maintained such laser-like focus on transforming the Democratic Party into a corporate financed tool for conservative policy.

                Obama and friends have taken the tired old Reganomics policies embraced by groups like DLC/Third Way etc. polished them and elevated them to the highest level in Dem Party history.

                Fortunately, these policies are still as shitty as they ever were and either fail immediately or eventually to capture public support.  But Obama has done real damage to the Dem Party (and to the country as well) by pursuing bad public policy.  

                It was pervasive the damage will be long lasting, but we'll eventually get it cleaned up.  To be fair, I wish he would relinquish his stranglehold on the national party now and let us begin rebuilding it.

                "If you can't take their money, eat their food, drink their booze and then vote against them, you have no business being in DC."

                by Betty Pinson on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 09:35:58 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  I disagree about this. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            virginislandsguy, Aquarius40
            I agree that the occupy movement had a great deal of public support.
            So why didn't that "great deal of public support" translate to "a large number of people participating in Occupy"? That is a major question that Occupy needs to be asking itself—and, given that people who are under much more repressive regimes have mobilized much larger mass protest movements, it's not enough to just blame police brutality.
            Sadly, the take-home message is that the democratic party is not interested in the national problems of economic inequality, ending banking fraud, or a sustainable economy.
            No, I think the take-home message is that American political life continues to operate much as it always has—where those who are capable of producing the greatest amount of political pressure are the ones who see their agenda put forward.

            I think the take-home message is that whether we like it or not, the fact that we're not seeing much talk about income inequality, putting Wall Street in jail, and creating a sustainable economy, is that those who are pushing for such things are not as effective in putting pressure on political figures as those who are pushing for other priorities.

            The question, then, is not "why won't the leaders pay attention to us?"—because that puts the onus on them, rather than on us.

            The true question here is "what can we do in order to put more pressure on American political figures to put forward our interests?"

            "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

            by JamesGG on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 09:28:32 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  See all those protesters wanting more bank fraud? (2+ / 0-)
              "No, I think the take-home message is that American political life continues to operate much as it always has—where those who are capable of producing the greatest amount of political pressure are the ones who see their agenda put forward. "
              Yes - but notice the distinct lack of public protests/demonstrations for more bank fraud, or all those people marching for more deregulation of the petroleum industry, or the huge number of people saying they want tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans.

              These days political pressure is measured not by public support, but by the number of dollars you can give to a political party or candidates for office.  

              The agenda of the wealthy and corporate interests is served by our legislators because those wealthy and corporate interests are able to buy the legislators and the laws they want, not because they have massive public support.  Some weathy interests like the Kock Bros. tried to generate public support by creating the Tea Parties - but that public support has largely died.

              What we the people can do is obvious: become richer.  Of course, many Americans would like to do just that, except the laws these days make it difficult if you are currently not wealthy.

              But whether you have the wealthy enough to apply political pressure or not, the fact remains that our political system was originally founded on the idea of government of, by, and for the people.  Government of, by, and for the wealthy is antithetical to such a philosophy.

              "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

              by Hugh Jim Bissell on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 10:08:33 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  That's not an immovable object. (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Ray Pensador, Aquarius40
                These days political pressure is measured not by public support, but by the number of dollars you can give to a political party or candidates for office.
                That is how political pressure is measured "these days," because those who lack dollars to donate to a party, candidate, or super PAC have not effectively used the power they do have in an effort to make it otherwise.

                There are numerous examples just in the last five years of countries whose people had significantly less political power and were under significantly more oppressive regimes were able to make their voices heard and demand change—either by building a new power structure, or by scaring those in power to make government more responsive.

                So "money to donate" is obviously not a timeless or unchangeable measure of political pressure, but a condition that can and should be changed... and thus, the question shifts to how the people can change that condition.

                Or, in other words, as I asked above: "What can we do in order to put more pressure on American political figures to put forward our interests?"

                "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

                by JamesGG on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 12:36:02 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Guns laws? Climate change? (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Ray Pensador

                  The topics of gun laws and climate change come immediately to mind.

                  Both topics have massive popular support, yet despite that, the government does little to change either (my applause tho' to Pres. Obama for at least advocating for greater regulation of gun sales and use).

                  Despite that very popular support and a great deal of direct activism, the policies in place oppose the popular wishes.  Money wins out over popular support and activism.

                  So go ahead and tell us what we can do without money to move our government.  Yes, change has happened in other countries, typically only with violence (Iran, Libya, Egypt, ?Syria).  Is that what you are advocating?

                  Of course we could try to get richer, because the government only responds to the political pressure of money, but that would only be pouring gasoline on our burning "democracy".

                  "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

                  by Hugh Jim Bissell on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 01:50:37 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Direct activism? Hardly. (0+ / 0-)
                    Despite that very popular support and a great deal of direct activism, the policies in place oppose the popular wishes.  Money wins out over popular support and activism.
                    There's been a lot of popular support, but really not a lot of direct activism—at least, not on the scale that we're seeing in Brazil.

                    Sure, there have been a lot of people signing online petitions, forwarding emails, and liking Facebook pages, and a few rallies and protests, but we haven't seen cities shut down because the people demand climate change legislation or better gun safety laws.

                    We haven't seen oil refineries where the trucks can't get in or out due to the mass of humanity blocking the way. The NRA met just last month at a convention center in Houston with very little difficulty; members could get in and out easily, without being blocked outside by 100,000 protesters standing against their opposition to gun safety laws.

                    So go ahead and tell us what we can do without money to move our government.
                    200,000 Brazilians are telling you pretty clearly what we can do without money to move our government.

                    "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

                    by JamesGG on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 04:04:03 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

        •  These claims need evidence. (6+ / 0-)
          The US is much more dangerous for protestors
          Than where? It's hard to argue that the US is more dangerous for protesters than Turkey, where police have killed at least five protesters. And in Brazil, we've seen the same complaints about police brutality that we saw in the US. In what way is the US more dangerous for protesters than Brazil?
          Actually, Occupy had a lot of support, very large numbers.
          What does that mean in relation to the Brazil protests? Do you have evidence that 200,000-300,000 people were participating in the Occupy protests on the street at any given time? If so, please provide it.

          Alternatively, are you suggesting that there was a large "silent majority" of sorts, who "supported" Occupy without actually going to a protest? If so, then why wouldn't this also be presumed to be the case in Brazil, where the 200,000 on the streets are presumed to be speaking for millions more who aren't there?

          "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

          by JamesGG on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 09:14:35 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Not talking about Brazil (0+ / 0-)

            Please stop trying to change the subject.  

            Instead, why don't you explain to us why Obama doesn't support peaceful protest in the US?  Why does Obama want to allow peaceful protest here?

            "If you can't take their money, eat their food, drink their booze and then vote against them, you have no business being in DC."

            by Betty Pinson on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 09:25:08 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  My initial comment—which you replied to— (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Quicklund, Aquarius40, purplehaze, emelyn

              was about Brazil, as the commenter to whom I was replying was comparing the Occupy protests to the Brazil protests in suggesting that the Brazilian government was more responsive to these protests than the US government has been to Occupy. I was explicitly saying that the Occupy protests were nowhere near as large as the Brazil protests, and thus far I have yet to be presented with any evidence to the contrary.

              If the comment to which I was initially replying was about Brazil, and my comment was about Brazil, and the overall blog post we're all commenting on is about Brazil, then wouldn't the person who explicitly doesn't want to talk about Brazil be the one who is "trying to change the subject"?

              Finally, if you really want to make this another boring "Obama rox/Obama sux" argument, you'll have to find someone else to have it with... because I'm not going to play that stupid game anymore.

              "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

              by JamesGG on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 09:35:29 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Just explain why Obama squelches protest in the US (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                SouthernLiberalinMD

                Just explain why US citizens don't have the same freedom to exercise their first and fourth amendment rights as people in other countries do.

                See if you can do it without the "terrorism" red herring.

                "If you can't take their money, eat their food, drink their booze and then vote against them, you have no business being in DC."

                by Betty Pinson on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 09:37:59 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Again, I'm not playing. (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Quicklund, Aquarius40, emelyn

                  You seem to be quite eager to make this into an "Obama rox/Obama sux" piefight, rather than discussing the subject at hand in this thread, which is comparing the Brazil protests and the Occupy protests.

                  I will ignore any further replies from you that continue along the "rox/sux" theme, rather than addressing what I actually wrote.

                  "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

                  by JamesGG on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 09:44:31 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Well--I don't know Obama's position on this (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Ray Pensador

                    but the DoD has decided to use PRISM to particularly track environmental activists, whom it designates as "domestic extremists" and sometimes as "eco-terrorists."

                    If Obama isn't in favor of this, it seems to be an extreme enough policy that he needs to come out firmly against it, yes? And put a stop to it. He is the C-i-C, after all.

                    It seems to me that Betty is quite correct in that our 1st and 4th amendment rights are essentially in the trash can. I don't know what it's going to take for people to consider this important. Is it going to take Kossacks being thrown into indefinite detention for being environmental activists?
                    How bad does it have to get before people admit something's happening?

                    Ou sont les neigedens d'antan?

                    by SouthernLiberalinMD on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 02:33:44 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                •  He's not playing, Betty, because there is no good (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Jim Domenico

                  answer as to why Obama was mute on Occupy.  You know it, I know it, and Obama knows it.

                  If the plutocrats begin the program, we will end it. -- Eugene Debs.

                  by livjack on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 11:38:21 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  your deflection, evasion and concern are noted (0+ / 0-)

                Nothing for you to see here; move along...

                The "extreme wing" of the Democratic Party is the wing that is hell-bent on protecting the banks and credit card companies. ~ Kos

                by ozsea1 on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 12:20:25 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  Oh fiddlesticks. (5+ / 0-)

          This very story indicates the Brazilian police fired rubber bullets during these protests. I can't count how many protests / political events I was at over the past two years and I've never nothing but professionalism from the police.

          It is delusional to suggest the USA is a dangerous place for protesters.

          Actually, Occupy had a lot of support, very large numbers.  Yes, it still rankles the Obama supporters, but it happened.  It will probably happen again, though many more people will be killed, injured and jailed.
          No one was killed at Occupy events. And OWS had nothing to do with liking Mr Obama or not. that was hardly the point of OWS.
          A horrible thing our party will have to live down for the next 50 years.  Worse than LBJ and Vietnam, much worse.
          What the dickens are you talking about that is worse than Vietnam?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site