|
In the past two months, the OWS (Occupy Wall Street) movement has spread across the United States. It has a rather simple general theme: that 1% of the population is denying the other 99% social justice. Although OWS was largely ignored by the corporate media for several weeks, some violent attacks by members of police forces brought it to the public's attention. Since then, almost everyone has an opinion – is the timing correct? What exactly do they want? Should there be identified leaders? Should an effort be made to register the participants as voters?
In my last essay, I noted that when some of the leaders from the Six Nations Iroquois Confederacy met with some of our Founding Fathers, one of the most important concepts that they stressed was that leadership depends upon the consent of “the people.” Hence, while ideas such as the balance between the 13 colonies/states and the federal government – which reflects the same balance as between the six individual nations and the confederacy – was essential, there is more. On that federal level, with its balance of powers involving the three branches, every leader needed to be fully aware that they were in their position specifically to represent the people.
Indeed, when we look at that part of the US Constitution known as the Bill of Rights, it focuses on individual rights. And the first among these is Amendment 1, which recognizes that every individual in the United States has the right to religious freedom (and freedom from religion; freedom of speech; freedom of the press; and the right to assemble to express grievances to the government for redress.
The fact that this important part of the US Constitution provides for peaceful assemblies such as OWS deserves our closest attention. There are a number of closely-related issues that we need to consider, including but not limited to the idea that those engaging in violence are in effect attempting to deny others their Constitutional rights (and I include some police, all agents of disruption, and even those members of the 99% who misbehave for various reasons). But before considering this, I will suggest that there are a couple related factors worthy of our attention.
Why are rallies and marches important? Is it simply to voice grievances to, and with, the government? If so, does the media attention a rally or march get determine its value? My answer is, “No!” We live in an unnatural, plastic environment, in which the 1% has saturated the culture with an “every man for himself” ideology. That 1% has skillfully used and abused the government and the corporate media to inject massive quanties of the poisons of hatred and fear into our social environment. These rallies and marches allow you and I the opportunity to meet with like-minded individuals, in a setting that allows us the opportunity to listen, to learn, and to trust.
Now, that doesn't mean that we totally let our guard down. There are both agents of dissent, and some who are seeking “power” as defined by our sick society. Yet they are the minority in what is the beginnings of real community.
There are still temptations to think of people as belonging to “groups.” For example, there are registered voters, and unregistered potential voters. There are socialists, Greens, independents, and Democrats. There are progressive, liberal, moderate, and conservative Democrats. There are even some republicans and tea party members, who are becoming aware of the fact that they have much more in common with OWS than the 1% they have sought to identify with. There are young and old; well-educated and formally uneducated; middle class, poor, and poorer; employed, underemployed, and unemployed. And on and on.
As human beings, we are prone to thinking that we are “right,” and to view those who think differently, and who act differently than we do, as either “wrong,” or not so far along the path as we are. And sometimes this is the case. But other times, it is instead a matter of a valid difference of opinion, based upon the perspective that our individual life experiences have taught us. The opportunity to be part of a real community, based upon good will and human values – rather than hate and fear and mistrust – is an experience that our current corporate government denies citizens.
The experience of marches and rallies such as OWS provides people the chance to gain respect for others, and equally important, to have others come to respect us. Again, this is the opposite of the current corporate government environment, where contempt for others – including those in this country and around the earth – is a key to “success”; where violence is used to solve problems; where one can only loathe both associates and competitors, knowing their being is as hollow as your own.
The benefits are real, and the potential is there. This does not mean that it will be easy. Far from it. We see the tendency for division and hostility even here, on this internet discussion site, daily. Still, on those ocassions when we join together to work towards a common goal that benefits the common good, we have witnessed the strength that comes with unity (though not uniformity).
Do movements have value unless the media and “important” people support them? Yes. The anti-war movement that opposed the Vietnam war was important before Senators Eugene McCarthy and Robert F. Kennedy sought its support in the 1968 democratic presidential primaries. It was this pair's joining the movement to stop the war that raised their significance as political leaders, not the other way around.
Do rallies and marches do any good, in and of themselves? Yes. I would submit that one of the greatest values of the “Pentagon Papers” were in documenting how closely various forces in Washington, DC, were watching the anti-war protests. (See: Vol. IV, pages 197, 217, 479, 492, and 564 for examples.) Both elected and unelected officials were aware that these public protests were turning the general population against the war, thus limiting the increases in troop levels the generals were demanding.
Should marches and rallies be tied to voter registration efforts? Again, yes, there should be a connection. Obviously, this was one of the goals of the Civil Rights movement. But it should never be mistaken for the only purpose, or even generally the primary purpose. Not should marches and rallies be viewed in restrictive terms as promoting either of the two major parties –- though certainly when specific individuals actually are working for the same goals (as opposed to the much more common lip service they “lend” for contributions and votes), then one hand can wash the other.
This is, of course, just my limited understanding of these issues. I'm hoping that other forum members – including those with different experiences and/or differing views – will take the time to post their thoughts here. Thanks.
Peace,
H2O Man
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
