Showing posts with label social responsibility. Show all posts
The following is Part 1 of a multi-part
series called the American Existential Crisis.
For the past several months the Occupy
movement has had numerous roller coaster moments across the United
States. What began in New York City spread across the nation and then
across the globe, eventually taking place in 951 cities in 82
countries. I wrote about my experience in Oakland, CA for Gridlock
Magazine last month (shameless plug). The most surprising fact that
arose from the Occupy protests was the speed in which it became a
national demonstration of police versus protester, authoritarian
versus egalitarian, and following the law versus free speech.
Protester: speech, assembly,
petition
The first amendment to the Constitution
guarantees freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly and the
ability to petition the government. The ideas were oft spoken during
the enlightenment, however, America's founders took major inspiration
from the English Bill of Rights which guaranteed similar freedoms in
1689. Why would colonist need to have a revolution in order to
basically copy down the same rights? Partly because colonists didn't
enjoy those freedoms the same way British citizen living in England
did. The English Bill of Rights, specifically the right of
petitioning the government, refers to the actual government of
Britain, which is not the monarchy but the House of Parliament.
Colonists wanted British laws to reflect their needs but had no one
to petition because they had no representatives in Parliament. When
they instead petitioned the King, that became treason. Remember, the
first calls of the colonist were not for revolution but
representation.
I went on that tangent because A. I
need to keep my history muscle flexing if I want to get a job and B.
to say that you have the right to petition the government.
After the American and French
revolutions these freedoms of speech, religion, assembly and press
would work into numerous other documents and constitutions throughout
history. Including, the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights
and the
1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which,
as their name might suggest, refer to not just countries but people.
Not citizens of a nation, but people. Are you a human? If the answer
is yes you have got these rights. If the answer is no then you are a
very bright chimpanzee, dolphin or whale and I applaud your
intelligence and ability to read, but, alas, you do not have rights.
Sorry.
There is also overwhelming support for
the freedom of the press, religion, speech and assembly. Not many
Americans call for a removal of these freedoms. Mainly because we are
stubborn by nature and don't like to change, and, more importantly,
without the freedom to trash people 90% of internet comments would be
considered illegal.
Obviously, the Occupy movement is just
a continuation of the long-standing American tradition of sticking it
to the man. Right?
Police: a nation of laws
The fact that some people bothered to
write down a constitution with amendments, and loopholes, and
compromises and those freedoms we all know and love demonstrates that
we are a nation of laws. Anarchy has never been in our nature. It
ruled for awhile in the wild west before the law man rolled into town
and started beating women, outlawing six-shooters and building
railroads. (Sorry, my old west history is made up entirely of half-remembered
Westerns).
America has always been a nation of
laws, contracts and agreements. Even in colonial times contracts were
clearly written to describe what was expected of each colony. These
charters provided a blueprint for colonists to work from. After the
revolution a constitution was the next logical step, because that was
what everyone had been doing before. The founders were not the
inventors of writing down what an organization could or could not do,
they merely applied a business model onto a country.
Presently, Americans still value
following the law and have respect for authority figures. We
fundamentally believe in the social contract promised to us by our
forefathers. Most likely our respect for authority is derived from those freedoms we so thoroughly enjoy.
Violence versus Nonviolence
With the clashes between protestors and
police, at least part of the American identity is being torn in two.
On one hand, we value our freedoms, especially those of speech and
assembly. On the other hand, we respect authority and enjoy the
predictability/stability that comes with it. What's an American to
do?
Neither side has made a compelling case
for why they are "right". Mainly this is do to the fact
that each party has used tactics of violence. The below chart
references political protests and their success rates.
For all of you out there planning on
starting a protest, if you want your goals to fail- plan for
violence. Sadly, both police and protesters have acted violently during
the past few months.
At UC Davis, a group of campus police
officers were surrounded by student protestors and could not leave.
There were no reports of violent action against any officers. The
official report says that officers wanted to leave the circle, asked
students to move, ordered them to move and, when students did not comply, an officer sprayed them with pepper spray.
That's not actions of an officer of the
law, that's the reasoning of a thug. "They were in my way, I was
stronger than them, I made them move." It is exactly those types
of actions, and there have been more than one, that make it difficult
to side with authority.
Yet, protests have not been peaceful,
hippie drum circles where everyone gives hugs and sings kumbaya.
Fighting has broken out inside several occupy camps, there have been
stabbings and shootings, and, especially in Oakland, there have been
attacks against property and police officers.
It would seem that neither side can
claim the moral high ground, and neither is truly attempting to. Both
sides believe that, by right, the other should back down. Protesters because they are normal people expressing themselves as protected by
the constitution, police because they are charged with protecting and
have been given the mantle of authority to do so.
We know from history that brute force
often wins, but that average people romanticize moral icons. Gandhi
and Martin Luther King hold equal footing with Alexander the Great
and Genghis Khan. It remains to be seen which side will win this
fight, or if both camps will dissolve back into their former place in
society.
What can be said for certain is that
the fight between protestor and police is merely one piece of the
American existential crisis.
"Stop referring to yourselves as consumers. Consumers are different than citizens. Consumers do not have obligations, responsibilities & duties to their fellow human beings." -James Howard Kunstler
The United States has mastered the avoidance of social responsibility. In a move of stunning hypocrisy we are a nation of religious men and women who donate more money to charity than any other nation on earth, yet there is very little regard for our own neighbors. We have expanded so fast and so vast that our sense of humanity has become skewed in the process.
You can see this in our architecture.
In place of town squares and community centers we have cookie cutter
houses and mega-Walmarts that take up entire city blocks. Locations
have become defined not by what we do there, but by what we get there. I get gas at the gas station, I get food at the grocery
store, I get a movie at a Best Buy and then I return to my home
that is three-sizes too big where I can separate myself from the rest of
humanity.
This changes how we think, how we act
and the way we interact with other people. Humans stop becoming
unique and start becoming automatons that provide you with services.
Things don't happen to you but to "them." You are not at
fault, "they" are. You are not responsible. It disengages
us from humanity.
 |
| The workers all live in the houses behind this store. |
I had a professor at University that
repeatedly said many problems would be solved if people understood
the history of Pledge of Allegiance and the Oath of Allegiance. He
believed that instead of reciting the Pledge at schools or government
meetings, everyone should be taught and recite the Oath of
Allegiance.
Americans are familiar with the Pledge:
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
Many countries have similar pledges as
well. Something short, concise and repeatable. The history behind the
pledge is that it was written in 1892 and advertised by a
marketer in hopes of selling more American flags. It's a gimmick. A
slogan. It's the same as "Got Milk" or "Just do it."
An argument can be made that it has evolved to be more than that. I
suppose. But let's look at the simple truth: It doesn't mean
anything. It is a collection of words that neither make any promises
or require anything of the speaker. It is meaningless.
Immigrants are familiar with the Oath
of Allegiance, sometimes referred to as the Oath of Citizenship.
Every immigrant who wishes to become a naturalized citizen must
recite this Oath:
I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.
The Oath is almost the exact opposite
of the Pledge. Long, wordy and filled with things the speaker must
do. In fact, there are five things that can not change in the Oath of
Allegiance. (Wording can be adjusted, but these things must stay the
same).
1. Swear allegiance to the United States Constitution2. Renounce allegiance to any foreign country to which the immigrant has had previous allegiances3. Defend the Constitution against enemies "foreign and domestic"4. Promise to serve in the United States Armed Forces when required by law (either combat or non-combat)5. Promise to perform civilian duties of "national importance" when required by law
 |
| Internal debate: How tall is guy in second row? |
This responsibility is key.
There are too few today who feel responsible for their own, or others', actions. Perhaps, this is a repercussion of society extending beyond
it's biological abilities. As cultures developed they did so in
tribes. Rarely more than 100 people, every person had
responsibilities and accountability. Even when tribes formed into
communities, it was closer to a collection of tribes rather than a
different entity entirely. Individuals were still responsible to
their tribe first and then allegiance was given to larger and larger
groups.
Today, we live in a country of 300
million, in cities of tens or hundreds of thousands. Our neighbors
come and go, especially the closer to a metropolis you live. This is
the one, and perhaps only, area where small farming communities in
the West and Mid-West are more advanced than people along the coasts.
They still rely on the individuals around them to survive. Around
that necessity develops strong communities and close friendships.
They act more like a tribe with a common goal rather than individuals only linked by proximity.
The unfortunate truth is that whether
because of technological advances or exponential population growth,
all of us have begun to disengage from humanity. Author John Green
said,
"I would submit that all human lives are usually lived in a state of functional nihilism. Very few of us believe that life is devoid of all meaning and that all we should do is satisfy our base urges and fulfill our basic desires and try to distract ourselves from pain, or fear, or unpleasantness. But almost all of us act as if we believe that." -John Green
Each and every one of us has tremendous
ability to effect our surroundings positively. We can grow a garden,
clean up a park, visit our neighbors, or help the poor, sick, and
needy. There are opportunities every day to change our outlook on
life. We can become more socially responsible one step at a time.
Engage with humanity, take responsibility and live life as if it has
meaning.
Because it does.
DFTBA
DFTBA