McPherson square has been the home of many of DC's homeless - but during the Occupy DC movement, it became a miniature city. If the police hadn't come to tear down the first house, the movement would have turned into a new block; fully equipped with kitchens, nurses-wards, art centers, discussion tables, radio sets and toilet facilities. All that remained was a blacksmith shop and a city hall. I have a feeling that that first initiative to construct a building in place of the tents would have been titled "The White House" had it not been immediately torn down. No need for a fountain or garden in front. The occupation's planners chose locations according to the pre-existing foundation. Freedom Plaza has a fountain and a statue, Mc Pherson Square a statue and garden.
So as the movement is being rejected by the city of Washington, the question remaining in my mind is whether this movement was effective in its harmless approach to peaceful, but very fowl, protesting? And did the relatively calm element lead to any transition or change? Could it have been more successful if there had been less stench and the "unpleasant" appearance of a homeless subburb? Perhaps - though given the cold winter, one has to give due respect for the fearless protesters, who supplied the homeless with reasonable aid. Their methods were blatantly benevolent: by giving food to the homeless, creating a rather well-organized movement, and not protesting in an obtrusive or offensive manner, the message was calm and clear: human rights, human dignity. Corruption and financial ruin are evident in our country, if not throughout most of the world.
Revolutions around the world were inevitable given the global economic crash. Let's take a look at other countries' protests; appropriate, given the recent anniversary of Egypt's revolution. Bloody, violent, movements that altered nations and societies. The Egyptian revolution also began as one dealing with a financial crises. After all, the first loud cries against the former government claimed that people were upset over the financial degradation and the level of poverty - of lack of timely pay.
Russia's protests during the Parliamentary Elections also partially implied a financial tone, though not outright. Such overtones came through blaming the Capitalistic West and scapegoating the United States as having bribed Russians to protest against election fraud for pay. The point was that financially corrupt government was being opposed. The US Occupy Wall Street movement protested against corruption, financial ruin, and basically, a continued pattern of money feeding money, which is an unending cycle; arguably unavoidable.
Did the peacenicks in the United State really change anything, though? For that matter, did the revolutions abroad? Egypt is facing a new authoritarian regime, Russian protesters continue to vote for Putin and his party, and the United States cleared out most of the Occupy movements without clearly acknoledging the demands of the protesters.
What did the movmenets achieve? Did they help anyone to reevaluate our values? Did they make us think twice as we walked through, alongside or in avoidance of the banners, public art, flags, slogans, first aid stations, discussions, round-tables and roll calls, feeding stations and thousand of different agendas and messages - in all honesty, can we hate a movement that promoted good will or at least some form of re-evaluation of our financial freedoms?
If "successful," then how would the "new" financial market look? There is no Tabula Rasa for our government and economy. Perhaps the Occupy Wall Street movement was too ambitious in attempting to revolutionize the economic structure as a whole. Perhaps its lack of a "clear agenda" confused people or created a farce; a silly Revolution of Actors and Artists. Just two more months and the Guillotine would have reappeared . . . but would it have? Or is it the guillotine - and the history of the French Revolution - that makes us avoid and denounce economic liberals? Walk in our own freedom to ignore? Fear of a French inquisition from the extreme liberal "artists" ...
Perhaps this question of the Occupy Wall Street movement's success should be put to the test by asking those who truly deserve to be asked, those vacated from their "homes" by the occupation: DC's homeless. Do they agree - is there a problem with money, food, corruption or job availability? Do we have a system that feeds the rich and forgets to teach those too incapable of learning how to learn? Do our salaries . . . granted we have them . . . grow on their own, based on charisma, skill, etiquette, language or simply aptitude?
