If You Stand for Nothing

In a time when anyone with access to a social media site can post their opinion on Mayor Ford's newest flub, their thoughts on the weather, or where the best Pho can be found in the city, it is incredibly simple to have a voice and stand for something

With a simple click, followers and friends alike can "like" or re-tweet whatever it is you might be sharing- aligning themselves with you and your thoughts. It's a great feeling to know that others agree with you, share your opinion, and even take the time to comment on what you have to say.

Though what I notice most of all is not the original thoughts, but the shared ones; the appropriated images, pictures, and famous quotes that I even catch myself posting in order to share a sentiment or idea I want to communicate or support.

The question then arises- does all this sharing and re-tweeting make us a culture of copy-cats, or are these simply ways we capitulate our own thoughts? As the saying goes, "If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything".

So, are we actually standing for something, or are we falling for anything if we like all the posts on our feed?

Simply raising awareness through your shared interest or "like" will be the role you play. 

You should stand for something, in any way you can. Build your voice and strengthen your stance.  If you're stand for nothing, you're not standing at all. This save you from ever falling, as it also silences you from adding the contributions that the unique and special YOU have to offer!

Occupy Toronto: Colonize Much?!

First Wall Street, then St. James Park in Toronto, what's next?! The Occupy Toronto protest has been peaceful and unobtrusive for the most part. The occasional street closure probably annoys commuters in cars and trucks, but really... why are you driving in the city?! ... I kid.

What is really discouraging about this rally is the terminology. Some say terminology doesn't make or break a movement like this, but shouldn't it? Using dated terms like "occupy" have a very military and even colonizing meaning and history behind them.

I was recently at Ryerson University for a talk about Reflecting on Indigenous Resistance. The very conversation about Occupy Toronto's (and Occupy Wall Street) terminology was discussed.

Ultimately, in a social movement- especially one that is attesting to speak for the 99% of the population that is not enjoying vast riches- the organizers should have a better grasp of history, and the power of words.

Perhaps the rally be re-named "Re-Occupy" Toronto. The city is already occupied. The land is already occupied by not only the 1%, but recognition should be paid to the Indigenous people who have lived on the land Toronto now sits on, before the metropolis was ever imagined.

Conversely, flashy and sensational wording is key for grabbing attention, so maybe we should give the organizers the benefit of the doubt and assume they knew how poorly imagined their slogan was. Or maybe we don't and we simply view their cause as something ill prepared, ill conceived.

It will be interesting to see if the participants succeed at occupying Toronto, or Wall street for that matter. Won't that make them the colonizers?