I know, I know. I started this, and then I realized that I didn't have as much to say as I thought I did, so, well, I stopped. But Occupy Wall Street has inspired me, so here I go again. And, well, it's Occupy Wall Street, or OWS, that I want to talk about.
First and foremost, I want to be clear: I support OWS. At the end of the day, while the movement has its flaws, its message is good, and one I fundamentally support. I don't think that they're sure how to fix the problems they've identified, and, like any annoying know-it-all, I have some suggestions on that front, which I might discuss in a later post, but in general I support an opposition to the corporate structure that is causing serious problems in America. With that said, there are some criticisms that have been made. Some of them, like the "No, you have opportunity, really, there's one lucky person that worked hard and made it and I'm going to tell you their story so that I can keep up the illusion of equal opportunity, why don't you just work harder or smarter?" criticism are rather specious and have already been rebutted to death see Lemony Snicket's list, or one of the fifteen million blog entries dealing with annoying self-righteous facebook picture person for those. I don't intend to deal with them here. But there is one criticism that deserve to be taken seriously and addressed. And that's the one I'm going to deal with.
Unfortunately, this criticism is unpopular, because while it is harmful to OWS, it hits home to those who they are protesting just as hard, if not harder, so it's hard for them to use it as a defense against OWS. It was brought up by my brother, and it is, by far, the most cogent criticism of OWS that I've seen thus far. It asks a simple question. While we may be the 99 percent in the United States, worldwide we're still pretty darn well off in the grand scheme of things, globally. And historically, there's no question. Hell, historically nearly all Americans living in the 21st century are probably in the one percent. So, does that mean we should count our blessings and shut up?
This deserves thinking about. As bad as some people in this country have it, mostly it's a psychological thing. It's the knowledge of crippling debt, not the reality of starvation that confronts us. Are we a bunch of spoiled brats, whining because we didn't get the right color car for our birthday? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JvtlB_NzI8) Didn't Jesus have a parable about not complaining when you get a fair shake if some people are getting better? (Matthew 20:1-16) So, is that it? Should OWS shut up and let things go?
I think the answer to that is both a yes and a no. I'm willing to admit up front that the people of OWS, and passive supporters like me aren't the perfect messengers. We have our own flaws, hang-ups, and injustices. We take up too much of the world's resources. We are, in many ways, hypocritical, the very undeserving rich that we're railing against. But, the messenger and the message are two different things, and the message, the problem of corporate control of American government, is one that is correct, and needs to be addressed, and if we can't address it through the motley crew that we have, then who? Are the starving people of the world going to be able to afford to march on Wall Street? Or address Washington? Organize a genuine political movement? No. They have other, more personal things to deal with.
The reality is that it's always fallen on those with a certain amount of privilege to tear privilege down. It wasn't Southern slaves that killed slavery. It was privileged free men that saw the injustice and did something about it. Without the votes of the men who had the franchise, it never would have been extended to women. The same thing is true with OWS. Are they, in fact, privileged beyond most of the world? Yes. Does that mean their cause to bring down the power of privilege is wrong or fundamentally hypocritical? I don't think so. Unfortunately, I'm not sure how self-aware that they are of this dilemma, and they definitely need to be more so, but the fact that it exists isn't a problem for the fundamentals of the message itself. The standard they are raising, the issue of corporate control of the United States has implications that impact those with far less say than those who claim to be part of the 99 percent. And this cause will help those people, too, at least as far as I can see. I wish the banner was raised in their name, and the movement needs improving in that regard, but that's not a reason to kill it. It's a reason to change it, sure. To work on it, definitely. But is it a reason to just shut up and go away? No. To the contrary, it's a reason to raise our voices louder, to speak for those suffering so greatly they don't even have a voice.
For too long, the so-called 99 percent have been speaking only for themselves. It's time for that to stop. We need to speak not only for ourselves, but for those even less fortunate than us. The one percent may be mildly inconveniencing me, but they're killing factory workers in China. The 99 percent needs to speak for the Chinese factory worker, the Taiwanese widow, the African orphan. Only then can we really claim to be fighting for justice. OWS has the makings of a positive movement, but it doesn't go nearly far enough. Yet.
I am Josh Hitch. And I am the 99 percent. But that's not important. More importantly, I am Josh Hitch, and as a human being and a citizen of the world, and as part of the 99 percent I stand for those who aren't even on the list to be counted. God bless America, and through us, the world.
