Here is the video. The video is for reference, but the analysis should be over the Occupy the Oval event.
Question: List some observations you picked up from the event, like we did in class. How did these rhetorical strategies that you observed work (Small group activity from class)? What is the effect of "we are the 99%" as opposed to "occupy"? What specific details did you observe and what was the rhetorical effects that came from it? What were the strategies and did it affect the message?
To me it seemed as though the Occupy the Oval event was more of a learning experience than anything else. It was a protest, but it wasn't the kind of protest I expected. It was evident that the students who put this event together wanted everyone to participate and speak their voice. They wanted to support the "leaderless" revolution that all started on Wall Street. To give one example of how everyone had a voice was peoples microphone. Peoples microphone is when one person speaks in segments of five words, more of less, and the crowd repeats those words to make sure that everyone present could hear what that one person had to say. I believe that this acted as a form of rhetoric because everyone repeated the words and ideas of someone else. By doing this it's as if we are a part of their opinion, we share the same belief, whether we actually believe in what they are saying or not. It's a way to get everyone involved and give everyone a fair chance to speak their mind. Through observations at the event on Monday, it seemed that the expression "we are the 99%" had more impact on people than the "occupy" expression. I feel that the "we are the 99%" has an emotional appeal(pathos) that attracts the protestors. I think that the expression is effective because it is saying that almost all of us are a part of this problem and we need to do something to see a change. I think it definitely draws in more people to participate.
ReplyDeleteI was originally hesitant about attending the Occupy the Oval and I thought that, like Alex, it was going to be different from what it really was. I was not expecting people to be so calm and welcoming to speak with us. I enjoyed having the opportunity to listen to people talk firsthand about their grievances and hopes for improvement. Through the numerous people that came together for this, the use of the People’s Microphone, and (intentional) lack of a single message/proposed outcome, a movement results that allows for an all-inclusive group. Evident by this show of inclusion is the fact that there is no individual leader or representative for the movement. A single figurehead or controlling group is one of the main concerns in this issue. People want to have a voice that they themselves represent. Gatherings such as this allow for open forum of sorts in which everyone is free to do and say as they wish.
ReplyDeleteSomething interesting that I and a few follow students found on Monday was when we were listening to a man talk about not allowing political ads on TV. This man spoke about when cigarette commercials were no longer allowed, the number of people buying cigarettes went down and this would have the same effect on politicians influencing you if they took political ads off TV. However, when were about to walk away, he encouraged us to donate money and strongly suggested we buy life insurance from him. I saw this as a two part form or rhetoric. It was an attempt to persuade us into buying/donating something; however, it also strengthened the meaning behind the event. Don’t let others make your choices for you. This is in direction contradiction to the movement. People no longer want to be told what to do when it comes at a high monetary price; they want to have more say and options.
“We are the 99%” is a representation of the majority and their rights. In connection with Alex’s statement is the fact that a large majority “of us are a part of this problem and we need to do something” about it “to see a change”. By using this slogan under the umbrella of the “occupy” movement, it provides, in a sense, the encompassing theme for the entire movement. We are unhappy, and we are willing to work for change. In total, the Occupy Movement has the possibility for success, however, its seeming strengths of not having a central leader or specific outcome could also be its weaknesses. No matter what results from this, actions such as these are important because they show people that we still have a voice and need to take a stance for what we want.
The Occupy the Oval event was a very interesting protest. It was not the stereotypical protest where everyone is chanting which often leads to violent acts. People were having conversations and simply getting to know one another. At the protest, people could write down their grievances or make their own poster to hold. Eventually, everyone gathered on the lawn and they used the people’s microphone. The use of the people’s microphone made it possible for everyone to hear and it also made everyone think more about what was being said. This strategy also allowed everyone to have a “shared identity” and make the 99 percent feel as if they are all one. Everyone was there for a different reason but everyone had something to contribute to the movement. This made the movement leaderless because everyone had the same role in the protest and no one person had more power over the other. In this movement, I think that they want the most people involved as possible because that is the only way that a change can be made. If they accept everyone’s grievances and if there is not just one goal of the movement, then more people will typically join the movement. This is a very smart approach and it makes the movement more likely to be successful. Also, the oval is at the heart of the University and typically almost all students walk through the oval often. This was a perfect location for the protest because it was easily seen. They could have chose a place on High Street that is much more populated by people and cars. But, by choosing a place that means a lot to students at the University, it made it more appealing to join. They want to deal with issues at the University like the privatization of the parking lots. This location also showed that we are all one at The Ohio State University and emphasized the “we are the 99%” motto. Like Alex Biddle said, this adds to an emotional appeal (pathos). Almost everyone has something to add to this protest and something that they want to see changed at the University and in this country. This Occupy the Oval protest took a very different approach than a stereotypically protest in saying that everyone has a say and something to add to the movement.
ReplyDeleteLike Leanne, I hesitated to join the oval occupy event at first. It was because I thought it was going to be violent and there would be police involvement. When I was in Korea, I have seen some violent protest events on the street such as people fighting with polices and blocking the traffics. This occurrence that I saw before made me more afraid to go to this event. However, I thought the oval occupy event was very interesting. I never realized it was going be calm and peaceful protest event. I observed many things throughout this event. First thing that I observed was people holding up signs and using microphone to share their voices. These were rhetorical strategies that they used to draw more people to participate. The signs and microphone made people feel they are part of this movement. Moreover, it helped people to think more about what protesters have said through microphone and signs. Another thing that I observed was this event had small group discussions rather than bunch of people surrounding each other and shouting their opinions. This helped people to take this event more seriously and share their own opinions, which they would not have done if they had to speak in front of a large group. It also helped people to be themselves and feel more comfortable around surrounding people in the event. Finally, the other interesting thing that I observed was that they used oval as their place. This is another rhetorical strategy that they used to attract more people around campus. The oval is quieter place than the high street to share their thoughts. If it was in the high street, the noisy traffics would have distracted people and it could have been harder for protesters to get students involved in this event. In addition to this, the expression “we are 99%” they used is what gave most people’s attention. Like Alex said, this expression has “emotional appeal,” and it makes all those people who are sharing common problems feel they are not alone. Furthermore, it helps people to think they are all in this together to solve this problem.
ReplyDeleteOccupy the oval was a very eye opening experience. Having never been to an actual protest, it was interesting to see a different technique in raising awareness of various issues and concerns. For example, the people really wanted to find out our grievances as well as their own. Some issues they targeted included cowboy sweatshops, wetland pipelines, and student debt. Many people, including myself, were not aware about the sweatshop and wetland pipeline problems occurring. These concerns were written on several posters and signs people were holding. The choice of the signs was a rhetorical strategy to get students to come ask about the issues written on the signs. Many people didn't understand what somethings were about, so the posters gave attention to these issues. It gave people reason to talk to the protesters and learn about the movement. Also, having a blank poster where students could voice their own grievances was another rhetorical strategy to give the audience their own voice instead of focusing on just one problem. This technique drew people in so they felt part of the whole movement. Like what Alex Biddle and Meghan Rewick said, this protest was very unique by getting everyone involved rather than a stereotypical protest. Talking to individuals and asking about how they think the university has wronged them was a clever way to get their message heard. On the other hand, I was a little skeptical on what they were trying to do with the movement. Although, they wanted to address different problems happening, it seemed as though they did not plan on taking any action to change what is occurring. When we asked a few people what their platform was, they said they didn't have one so then everyone felt part of the movement. They had no intention of acting upon their thoughts. Overall, Occupy the Oval was an interesting movement to have experienced and learned more about.
ReplyDeleteThe Occupy the Oval event turned out to be a lot different then I expected. In agreement with Meagan, this was not a stereotypical protest. I think of protests normally as rallies with lots of shouting and anger. During the Occupy the Oval event all of the participants were very calm and simply wanted to educate others about their viewpoints. There was a point during the event when the “People’s Microphone” was used, however, this was nothing close to a traditional violent protest. I thought the event would be a little larger and have more participants but I think they were able to get their point across. To expand on the questions proposed by Group 5, some of the observations I noted seemed a little scrambled. By scrambled I think that Occupy the Oval did not have an evident central theme. Their main phrase is “We are the 99%,” however just like lfs93 stated, they need a signature theme or a central leader in order to be really successful. After talking to several participants, I discovered that they want college tuitions to be lowered, no political advertisements, and student debt to be addressed. The movement seems to be asking for a lot of different things at once. I think in order for them to be successful they need to come up with more centralized themes for their movement. “We are the 99%” creates a sense of unity among all participants. Occupy the Oval really used ethos to their advantage. They tried hard to combine the culture of America as one to protest for a better life for the 99%. However, I think their ethos has the potential to backfire. The movement does not do a good job of explaining the other side of the movement. There are reasons why the 1% is doing so well off. Some of it is simply family heritage, however, many people deserve to be where they are. Take Bill Gates and Steve Jobs for example. Both of these iconic members of society are in the 1%. Everybody loved Steve Jobs and he was in the 1%. Bill Gates gives most of his money away to various charities and is very generous. There are reasons that they have such big tax breaks. The point I am trying to get across is the 1% is made out to look like a bunch of villains. Of course there might need to be some reform with some of the issues, but the 1% are people just like us. It was good to experience the Occupy the Oval event on campus. It was a unique type of protest that used ethos to its advantage. The movement defiantly creates a sense of collectiveness and unity. However, I think that in order to be successful they need more centralized claims.
ReplyDeleteLike some people, I went to this protest not knowing a lot about the occupy movement. Overall, I found the experience to be rewarding in that I got to hear a variety of people's opinions about the situation, as well as learn a lot about it. I think that overall, the occupy movement is going on the right path. Like Meghan said, the location of the protest was crucial to the success of the event. The oval is the center of campus, so several people will pass through and see the event. Location is very important if you want to get your protest across to the public. I also disagree with what Meghan says when she says, "If they accept everyone’s grievances and if there is not just one goal of the movement, then more people will typically join the movement." While it is important to listen to everyone's opinions on the matter, it is more important to decide on a general statement that summarizes all of the wants of the people. It is impossible to change anything if they try to change dozens of different issues. I think that the protest should have agreed upon one major goal to achieve by the end of the protest. Something else i noticed at the event was the wide range in age. These issues affect everyone, not just a single age group. It is very interesting to see a variety of people of different ages gather around in small groups and agree upon different issues. Corruption affects everyone, no matter what age. It was neat to see this clearly visible, and see how people responded.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteTo me the event that took place in the oval had little to do with the Occupy protests going on around America. While at first skeptic of the overal occupy movement I now agree with the it. It grew out of a general grievance of not being able to find jobs or paying to many taxes to a legitimate opportunity to change the way the system is run because big business owns our political system. However I the movement at the oval was more about college tuition than politics. While I agree that college is overpriced just complaining about it won't do anything, The system is what need to be changed. I did not move close to the "protest" because I did not want to be associated with the image they were presenting. In response to the many comments on this page I don't know where the relations of protests becoming violent. A majority of pickets go unnoticed and typically the only time protests become violent is when the police attempt to take away the protesters right of assembly. In response to Ryan Littles comment I agree that the movement seems to be demonizing all of this countries rich. Many spread the wealth in a variety of ways. The real problem is with corporations and wall street traders accepting bonuses paid for on government loans. Also I agree with him and his statement of the need of a centralized claim. While the Oval movement used the peoples mic and small group discussion they did not discuss the same types of issues that the national movement is working to change. Personally I think the idea of the peoples mic and the way they vote are a bit cliche however the group discussions and the way that the general assembly votes are great ideas that spread the fire because they help people to become educated on the movements motives
ReplyDeleteon a side note if u have time i think this is a pretty interesting video and while it takes this movement to a bit on an extreme by comparing it to the arab spring the abuses of the police here is rather shocking http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=RGRXCgMdz9A
One observation I made while attending the event, was the lack of organization. While I understand that it is a college protest, they could have done a better job. By poorly organized, I am referring to lack of a common voice. When people at the rally would began a chant, very few people joined in on it. Also, the signs that people were holding up seemed very thrown together and unprofessional. If the protesters want people to notice them and take them seriously, they need to become more unified and prepared. When they did there chanting, one thing that did help in unifying them was the way the used the human microphone. This helped to unite people under a common voice. Meghan had a good point in saying that it helps people to remember the facts better. By using the phrase "we are the 99%", people feel more unified as a solid body since they think they are the majority. Alex Biddle made the observational that "we are the 99%" had more of an emotional appeal to the crowd.
ReplyDeleteThe Occupy the Oval protest was not what I expected. The protest was surprising to me because it was very low-key in terms of noise that I expected from a protest. I expected there to be a lot of chanting and other qualities of a stereotypical protest. By using the slogan "We are the 99%", the group is trying to unify a large percentage of people with the goal to bring about change in our country. With the term "occupy", I feel like there is a more rebellious connotation, but the "We are the 99%" slogan has a more unified connotation that claims to represent the majority and seems to work more toward making progress on the issues that the Occupy movement has with the government and corporations. In addition, I agree with Tommy and Meghan on the point that the location of the event was well chosen because it was around the time when the highest amount of traffic went through the middle of The Oval. Also, there were people of all ages, races, and genders. The diversity of the Occupy group shows that everyone can contribute to the movement. By having the protest in the middle of the Oval, people walking by automatically wanted to know what was going on, so they stopped by to figure it out. It was interesting to see all of the different perspectives and grievances involved with the movement. I think that if the movement determines some more specific things that they would like to change about the government, they will be able to make large steps toward their goals.
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with what sam.wanstrath had to say, I too thought that the protest was poorly organized. When I was there, most of what I saw was people standing around, smoking cigarettes, and generally just kind of generally wasting time. Maybe it was because we got there it was just too early for us to expect for anything to be going on. Unfortunately I could not stay for much longer than our actual class time, and I did not get to see much besides a few weak chants and the "people's microphone". I think the most effective part of the protest that I saw was the "people's microphone". It was a very effective way to get some of the group's messages across. I thought that if there were more people there who felt passionately about the issues they were protesting, the people could have been more unified in the chants and there would have been a lot better vibes coming from the protest.
ReplyDeleteThe Occupy the Oval event seemed to be one of the most cooperative types of protest I have ever heard about based off of the video I watched and the information I read on the website. There's no march or display of irrational acts that could lead to violence. Everyone sits and works in unison, which I think is a fairly effective way of getting things done. When a "protest" is formatted as a discussion rather than some random chaos, a can more easily work towards actually accomplishing something by having their voice heard. When protests are violent, people are working hard to stop them and often times a lot of respect is lost for the cause. By sitting and voicing just exactly what they want to get done, the Occupy Movement allows for others to hear the wants and needs of society clearly without angering or offending anyone. Location in this case is also key since the protest is not causing a major seen with a march or anything. Meghan made a very good point that our University chose a good spot to hold this type of protest because it was in an area where most students walk through on a daily basis. "...the oval is at the heart of the University and typically almost all students walk through the oval often." Holding the movement in such a large and popular space raised the chances of the ideas being heard without the need for chaos. Also, from what other classmates have said about the event, I've gathered that it could have been more productive. On paper the event makes great sense and sounds like it would be an efficient way to voice numerous opinions. The video makes it look like such a powerful type of protest, but without the enthusiasm of the people it will go nowhere. It would be interesting to know the number of people in attendance at other Universities and if the numbers made a difference in how effective the event was.
ReplyDeleteI love when Meghan said, "Eventually, everyone gathered on the lawn and they used the people’s microphone. The use of the people’s microphone made it possible for everyone to hear and it also made everyone think more about what was being said. This strategy also allowed everyone to have a “shared identity” and make the 99 percent feel as if they are all one. Everyone was there for a different reason but everyone had something to contribute to the movement." Throughout this protest, the protesters came together to create one big force rather than lots of little individual groups even though there are many individual problems or "grievances". I believe that this was made possible throughout the use of language (i.e. "we are the 99%"...this is the "leaderless revolution" etc.). Language can be a very convincing thing. Even though I believe that there should be more organization and a strong leader or influence present in this protest, I can still easily see the how being equal appeals to so many, myself included.
ReplyDeleteAlong with some of my other classmates, I too was surprised by the atmosphere of the protest. Upon walking into the protest I was surprised by how calm and peaceful it was. I found the movement to be very interesting and I enjoyed talking to people and hearing their positions and grievances. Going to the protest made me realize that there are a lot of things that I were unaware of that were going on at OSU- such as the privatization of parking lots, the proposed wetland pipelines, and the alleged deal going on with the merchandise dealing for the cowboys and OSU. I found that talking to the different protesters and asking them what their signs meant was very interesting and educational. In agreement with what Lianna said, I believe that the movements method of allowing everyone to voice their grievances is both a strength and a weakness. Allowing everyone to voice their issues and problems with society is good in the sense that it allows everyone to feel involved and doesn't exclude anyone from the movement. However, the occupy movement seems to express issues with topics that everyone has issues with (raising tuition for example). Yes, everyone agrees that paying more money for parking and tuition is unfortunate, but there is seemingly no call of action to change anything. Out of curiosity I asked a group of protesters to explain what they planned to do to fix the issues that they had, most of them initially gave me blank stares, seemingly caught off guard that I was asking them was they planned on doing to fix these issues. While the occupy movement is very innovative and welcoming to everyone, nothing will ever be accomplished if they don't actually form a plan of action and a legitimate platform.
ReplyDeleteThe Occupy the Oval was mush different than I expected. I thought the group was going to be much larger and more organized. I saw that there were many complaints from people from a larger age difference. There were people there against the privatization of the parking lots to people against political tv ads, but one thing was common in each of the complaints and that was that they a passionate for there cause. When the occupy broke up into smaller groups, the smaller groups gave each person more of a voice. They did not have to compete against others trying to voice there opinion. From observing the small groups, it appeared that the people felt more important since they could easily express there stories. The "we are 99%" gives more meaning compared to the "occupy." "We are 99%" , in my opinion, shows that they want the majority voice to be heard,and the "occupy" is more of a protest without a solid cause. The strategies were let everyone voice there opinion. By letting everyone do this it gives the protest less meaning because hardly anyone wants to hear a thousand different complaints and have to fix them all. If the protest would stick to a few causes there voice would more likely to be taken serous.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Kevin Linnevers when he says, "the protest was poorly organized...i did not get to see much but a few weak chants." As opposed to the video we saw in class, the event at the oval did not seem to have an organized motive. Some people would start chants, and 2 or 3 others would join, nothing like the Wall Street event. I know they may not be comparable, but the people that did go to the oval to support did not seem as enthusiastic. I agree that the "we are 99%" helped unify the people, in making them feel like a majority that could do something. It was great to see the different grievances being voiced and the human microphone. However, it was very disappointing to see that when asked questions, some of the protesters were not able to respond, or explain the basis for their grievances.
ReplyDeleteWhile at the Occupy the Oval event I noticed that the people who expressed their views and opinions in very calm and noninflammatory ways were the ones I found myself talking to the longest. This approach was more effective because they were expressing their views, not throwing them at us. I stayed long enough to get to participate in some of the small group discussion. The rhetoric used in these discussions revealed a lot about the students feelings towards different issues. When our group talked about how much different members of the OSU faculty made every year the conversation turned more enthusiastic and I could tell this was an issue many in the group felt strongly about. I agree with jailynsq about being disappointed when some of the protesters could not come up with solutions to the problems they were talking about.
ReplyDelete