Pre-Occupied

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. – George Santayana

I know I don’t usually start with a quote. Classy, huh? It seemed appropriate in this case though, because I am writing specifically about how my study of the past has affected my understanding of the present. Specifically, I am writing on how reading about the Civil Rights movement has affected my understanding of the current protests.

Actually, the full quote is: “Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

Progress then depends at least in part on remembering what has come before—not just as a way to measure, but also as a foundation to build upon. Failures of the past can be repeated by forgetting, but success from the past is unlikely to be replicated if it is forgotten.

Looking at the Civil Rights Movement, and specifically those programs undertaken by the Drs. King and Abernathy, there were a few factors that were always important to success: there needed to be clear goals, and there needed to be economic pressure exerted to motivate those who could accomplish those goals.

With the Montgomery Bus Boycott, they wanted to change the rules of segregation on the buses, and so they boycotted the bus company. To integrate the lunch counters, you hold sit-ins to disrupt business, yes, but also the stores were boycotted. That was the pattern over and over again. You deprive those in power of funds, because ultimately the business needs the consumer more than the consumer needs the business, and because you have clear goals you know when you are done.

The sit-ins and the marches had another purpose, in terms of image and publicity, and this was important. It garnered some financial support, as others from outside the key areas contributed funds for legal expenses and other things, like replacing shoes for the citizens of Montgomery who had to do so much extra walking during the boycott, and that was important.

Also, these efforts had an important effect upon the hearts and minds of others. It showed strength and gave outsiders a look into a world that they could not imagine. It wasn’t a multiracial paradise outside of the South, but I have talked to people who could not believe what they saw—they never suspected that things were like that. So I don’t want to take anything away from the protest side, but without clear goals and economic pressure, it would not have been enough.

With that being said, let’s turn our attention to Occupy Portland. Inasmuch as they have an ideal of more financially equitable society, I am in agreement. The growing gap between rich and poor is a big concern for me. I just don’t think they are doing any good.

Do they have clear goals? Not really. Are they applying economic pressure to a key area, in line with their goals? Even if they had a clear goal, the answer to that would generally be negative. There was a recent dock shutdown, which caused several laborers who would be part of the 99 to lose a day’s wages, but no corporations were harmed. Are their protests winning financial support, and the hearts and minds of those around them? They had been getting some financial backing, but for the most part no.

Occupy Wall Street might be accomplishing a little bit more, because maybe they are disrupting the lives of some of the people who led to the current financial issues through their greed and lack of integrity. I have doubts, but it’s possible. Occupy Portland? Not so much.

In other posts I have hinted at how it was important for the Civil Rights Movement in the South to go with non-violence, but haven’t really talked about why, because it is too ugly, and I don’t want to talk about it, but it may be instructive here. For years there was this idea of the Negro as an ignorant brute who needed to be kept in line (and down) or he would kill all the white men and rape all the white women, be bloody savages.

As the protesters stepped out of line, they were none of these things. They were well spoken, and well dressed, polite but firm. They suffered horrible indignities and violence and they did not return them. They were strong and intelligent and orderly. People could still try and cling to the old beliefs, but the facts were against them. (Yes, today ignoring facts is a national pastime, but more on that later.)

If the 1 percent thinks of the 99 as rabble, ignorant and uncouth, disorganized and incapable of making good decisions on how things should be, what has the current movement done to dispute that? Many participants can speak intelligently when given the opportunity, but there is no unifying message and their actions are often destructive. It’s nice that Portland has been able to avoid the violence of Oakland, but I’m not sure it’s sustainable under the current model.

The Civil Rights marchers could take police clubs and fire hoses and thrown items because they had workshops where they practiced being yelled at and intimidated and threatened. The only thing they were not prepared for were the police dogs, which even then did not lead to violence, but it did disrupt things for that day. Maybe our police force is more tolerant than Oakland’s (I’m sure the mayor is), but it’s playing with fire. And I don’t mind taking risks and causing or putting up with discomfort if it will do something good, and right, but that brings us back to no clear goal, and therefore no good plan.

I do have some sympathy for this, because I can see how it would be really hard to come up with a plan. With everything that has gone wrong since September 2008, with the financial crisis, or take it back farther if you want, where do you start? It is hard to pick a place. Much of what would be needed is legislative, and to get that done when corporate interests are so entrenched with government is hard, and there will be a little more on that in the next few posts.

However, if you can’t tackle the big problems, tackle a small one. One of the newer protests is a woman being foreclosed on. Okay, how about holding a fundraiser to keep her in her house? Or working to pair up people who are in danger of losing their homes so they can share expenses? Or starting a co-operative business to start some income going?

Not all of the Occupy problems are their fault. Their camp getting inundated with homeless people is a result of us not fixing the homeless problem, which is strongly related to us ignoring the mental health problem. So maybe get some mental health workers donating time, or get lawyers and financiers to help people with their economic problems.

One thing I’ve learned from junior high health class, and observation has borne out, is that letting anger out doesn’t get it out. It actually increases the anger. (This is why road rage is self-perpetuating.) Working anger out, however—resolving issues and taking action—does work. If you are concerned about social justice, be productive instead of destructive.

I know it could be discouraging, but here is an encouraging little piece:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/05/opinion/sunday/kristof-after-recess-change-the-world.html