The cover article of the NY Post’s November 3rd issue drew my attention and a bit of hostility as well.  I wrote the following letter to the Editor.  Whether they publish it or not remains to be seen.

Dear Editor,

I couldn’t help but notice a front page article on the Post’s November 3^rd issue.  I was confused by the title and subheading, proclaiming that the “other 99%” (as though there could be two 99% portions of a 100% whole, but basic mathematics aside…) is fed up with the OWS presence in Zuccotti Park and how the movement has been “hijacked by criminals.”  I should start by reminding readers that if being hijacked by criminals was reasonable enough cause to shut down well-intentioned political movements then the doors on Capitol Hill should’ve been closed decades ago.  However, somehow, of the three journalists who cooperated to assemble this piece, not one is complaining about that stench.

Another thing that reeks is the language used to describe the OWS occupants and their camp.  Words like “chaos,” “filth,” “thuggish,” “motley,” and “mob” all litter this article; words with negative connotations used explicitly to paint a bias and unfair portrait of the occupants and – in turn – their cause.

While the movement, I’m sure, apologizes to small businesses in the area surrounding Zuccotti Park and all camps worldwide, there are a few things that should be understood to give a little depth to the situation; not the least of which is that the OWS occupants have been thus far unable to build a positive rapport with local officials largely because of repeated attacks and incidences of police brutality against them.  This problem is hindering their ability to acquire the things they need and curtail the problems mentioned in the article.  Things as simple as portable toilets and generators to those as dynamic as police cooperation to help them rid themselves of bad elements within the group would help support the encampment and make the situation more livable for all, both inside and out.

Moreover, had any of the collaborating writers of this piece done any research into the countless examples of similar movements in American history or even into the psychology of a setting such as the OWS camp, they would have discovered that there is nothing unusual about the problems OWS faces at this early stage of their occupancy.  All movements, especially those that have brought such large numbers of people into such close quarters, have had problems like this at the outset.  It takes time for activist leaders and the group population to develop the courage, understanding, and systems required to forge safer environments and better community relations.  This type of work is coming into focus for the movement, but it is unfortunately stalled by the time and resources occupancies all over the country are expending on resisting the countless attempts to remove them and deny them their first amendment rights, which in most cities means withstanding unnecessary brutality from the police – a group that should be working with them to defend their rights and ensure their safety.  Instead the camps are forced to face these problems alone and while fighting an uphill battle.

If anyone can be blamed for the “filth, stench,” and safety issues surrounding these camps, it is the city officials who have failed these occupants.  Rather than call for dramatic action to evict this camp, which I can guarantee you will not only create violence but fail in its mission to discourage or relocate the movement, I would implore the city to cooperate with OWS to increase a sense of security for residents, tourists, and occupants alike, and to reduce problems like filth and crime around the camp.  After all, reduced tavern traffic and offensive odors aside, the people of OWS are just as entitled to their presence, sanitation, and security as everyone existing outside of the barricades.

Jill-Arcangela M. Kopp

Author of “Letters to the Occupants” (blog @ WordPress.com)

Jenkintown, PA