his·tor·ic/hiˈstôrik/
| Adjective: |
- Famous or important in history, or potentially so.
|
|
When thinking of historic movements I feel as if I am confined to thinking to imagery limited by black and white, yet here we are with a movement that has a potential to impact the national in a truly deep and meaningful way. Historic. A movement that really relates to my last post on the roles of ownership and the issues between whether the public should be allowed a clear means to take ownership of a culturally or historically important property. In that sense, OWS is about taking power back from those who own our futures.
When thinking of historic movements bigotry, discrimination, and violence are the general themes that come to mind for me. It is all too rare for us to focus on that other form of discrimination, wealth, and I'm not just talking about the opportunity to work for a fair wage. In 2008, as part of one of many interviews, John McCain boldly declared that he does not use computers. Later, in another interview, he would admit to not understand the internet let alone the idea of net neutrality and it would not be long after that he would state, as part of his campaign for President, that he backed the idea that corporations should be allowed to have full control over what information does, or doesn't, flow across their pipelines. He would also later be found to have a sizable campaign contribution from Verizon and At&t. This sums up the power of money, the ability to influence those who we look to for leadership, those whose vision may become reality. We have so many laws concerning what a person can or cannot do in our country, and yet so few regarding what a person can or cannot do with their money to influence or change the course of history. OWS has a different meaning for everyone, and is perhaps their greatest weakness, for me it is about taking our futures back. A movement to send a clear message that money is not a game and that those who try to game the system should be held accountable.
It is about owning our futures, I really cannot emphasize it enough. The power balance between those with money and those without is often immensely one-sided. But how to achieve it? OWS has fell short of its lofty goals in that sense, but has done remarkably well in others. It hasn't achieved an ounce of disruption to the very thing it sought to disrupt, however it has ascertained a great deal of visibility and momentum. While ridiculed for small local movements, such as the two students that rallied here in Pullman, OWS has a global reach like few movements before it. They have also truly challenged the notions of ownership and law enforcement, the first by setting up small villages in parks, the later by raising eyebrows as those who have sworn to protect the populace harm and batter the supposed protected.Moving forward, I hope to see more diverse tactics, and hopefully ones that truly disrupt and not just annoy local businesses from the movement. It has the potential to be historic.
When thinking of historic movements bigotry, discrimination, and violence are the general themes that come to mind for me. It is all too rare for us to focus on that other form of discrimination, wealth, and I'm not just talking about the opportunity to work for a fair wage. In 2008, as part of one of many interviews, John McCain boldly declared that he does not use computers. Later, in another interview, he would admit to not understand the internet let alone the idea of net neutrality and it would not be long after that he would state, as part of his campaign for President, that he backed the idea that corporations should be allowed to have full control over what information does, or doesn't, flow across their pipelines. He would also later be found to have a sizable campaign contribution from Verizon and At&t. This sums up the power of money, the ability to influence those who we look to for leadership, those whose vision may become reality. We have so many laws concerning what a person can or cannot do in our country, and yet so few regarding what a person can or cannot do with their money to influence or change the course of history. OWS has a different meaning for everyone, and is perhaps their greatest weakness, for me it is about taking our futures back. A movement to send a clear message that money is not a game and that those who try to game the system should be held accountable.
It is about owning our futures, I really cannot emphasize it enough. The power balance between those with money and those without is often immensely one-sided. But how to achieve it? OWS has fell short of its lofty goals in that sense, but has done remarkably well in others. It hasn't achieved an ounce of disruption to the very thing it sought to disrupt, however it has ascertained a great deal of visibility and momentum. While ridiculed for small local movements, such as the two students that rallied here in Pullman, OWS has a global reach like few movements before it. They have also truly challenged the notions of ownership and law enforcement, the first by setting up small villages in parks, the later by raising eyebrows as those who have sworn to protect the populace harm and batter the supposed protected.
No comments:
Post a Comment