It really bugs me when White folks simplify the African American Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s and evoke that history for every other movement.

For instance, in the video presented above, sociologist Lisa Wade mentions that one example of how organized the Montgomery Bus Boycott was is that during this more that one year boycott [Black people] set up car pools, and people volunteered their time and their gas money to use their private cars to transport  Black people who were too old or disabled to walk. At around 5:26 Lisa  continues building up her analogy of the Montgomery Bus Boycott to Occupy movement Wall by saying that "for 384 days they boycotted the buses. For 384 days they lost sleep, drove shifts, they sacrificed time with their families, they sacrificed their energy , they drove shifts. And sure driving shifts on the bus route is probably fun for a couple of days but not for the next 382"...

I understand that Lisa's point was that the Occupy movement may be fun now for some folks but that it won't always be fun, and more will be demanded of those activitists.However, I doubt that "fun" was ever part of the equation for Black car poolers or any other Black person during that time. Instead, by supporting that boycot, Black people in Montgomery faced the real threat of the loss of their jobs,  their homes, their church buildings, and their jobs.

From http://www.watson.org/~lisa/blackhistory/civilrights-55-65/montbus.html :

There was also a wave of bombings. The homes of two black leaders, four Baptists churches, the People's Service Station and Cab Stand, and the home of another black were all bombed. In addition, an unexploded bomb was found on King's front porch. Seven white men were arrested for the bombings, and five were indicted. The first two defendants, Raymond D. York and Sonny Kyle Livingston, were found not guilty, even though they had signed confessions. The remainder of the bombers were set free under a compromise that also canceled the cases of blacks arrested under the anti-boycott laws, although King still had to pay his $500 fine.

The KKK also tried to scare the blacks...

-snip-

I appreciate that Lisa is well meaning, but this isn't the first time that she has simplified African American history by making a simplistic comment. I encourage those readers on this site who would like to learn more about the Montgomery Bus Boycott to visit that site whose link I shared.

It would be nice to know what the OWS movement actually wants before endorsing it. The goals of the civil rights movement was extremely straightforward - they wanted more or less the same social, political, and economic rights already held by whites in the population. What exactly do the OWS protestors want? The only clear goal is more redistribution, but that doesn't require an end to capitalism nor a major social reorganization - it just requires electing a bunch of Democrats. What does it meant to be against capitalism? There are certainly plausible critiques of capitalism, but you have to actually articulate them and then argue for a replacement and demonstrate why your replacement would be better.  They have failed to articulate any coherent vision of what their preferred non-capitalist society would look like - let alone how they would implement it. While I agree there are numerous problems with capitalism as currently practiced, it's hard to deny it has brought massive wealth. While some may find the inequalities from capitalism as currently practiced unjust, but what about those nations that lack the basic elements of capitalism? All widespread, extreme poverty is a result of nations not adopting a capitalist model. Furthermore, all other models have failed dramatically. This is prima facie evidence that there is something to capitalism and shouldn't be dismissed without serious consideration, even if we witness injustices. Some socialist, like G.A. Cohen, like to argue against property rights as unjust. I agree that the current system of property rights is unjust (though I can certainty imagine ways that property rights could come about justly) - but Cohen has never articulated an plausible alternative that would not lead to poverty and chaos. Without property rights you can experience the wonderful levels of economic justice found in paradises such as North Korea, Somalia, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. My point is not so much about property rights specifically, but more so that just because an institution appears to be unjust doesn't mean you should get rid of it. You better have a plausible alternative. The OWS do not have a plausible alternative to "capitalism", or at least they have yet to articulate it. I'll begin to take them seriously when they have articulated a plausible vision with solid intellectual backing. Until then, no one should endorse them. 

Also, while I know economic history is outside your area of study, you should be aware no respected economist actually believes the Great Depression was a failure of capitalism - either on the left or the right of the political spectrum. The Great Depression was caused by government. The initial downturn was engineered by the Federal Reserve due to incompetence and Hoover exacerbated it, then FDR came along and help initially with expansionary monetary policy, but then prolonged the crisis with his absurd "New Deal" programs that economist, liberal or otherwise, would never seriously endorse (it's not a coincidence that not a single respected left-wing economist has advocated FDR's policies of creating cartels and monopolies as a solution to the crisis - in fact, according to FDR, a banking cartel should be stabilizing!). The Great Depression was a failure of government. None of this has to do with certain problems inherent with capitalism, but when you try to argue that "capitalism" led to the Great Depression you just make yourself look ignorant.

Explain this reasoning for me, please... The success of protestors at finding a job is not determined by individual actions, such as working hard or making sacrifices. However, the success of the Occupy movement *is* dependent on individual actions like "commitment", "rising to the occasion", and "sacrifices."

Now, political movements and the job market *are* two different areas... but it *sounds* like you're changing your philosophical stance in the middle of the paragraph.

http://radicalhub.wordpress.com/2011/10/22/feminist-call-to-action-occupy-dudeville/

So I guess Lisa thinks that the rapes and other assaults at the Occupy protests have been fun so far.

And now there have been two fatal shootings at Occupy protests, one of them appears to be a clear case of murder.  I wonder if they will handle those internally too?