[nggallery id=13]
Corrections: As pointed out by Amy in the comments, G does not speak for the entire group. This post previously said that G spoke for the entire group when saying, “There’s a power structure that’s been here a long time and that needs to be changed.”
*
Upon arrival to the Occupy Kansas City campsite, one might notice the intense smell of smoke, the large community in one huddled group or the many signs that surround the site. “We are the 99%,” reads one.
A community of tents, clotheslines, painted cars and a bonfire sits next to the Federal Reserve building. From close by, shouts and conversation can be heard.
Who are these so-called ‘occupiers’ that can be heard from on the news? They’re upset individuals. Some homeless, some with jobs. Some 18 years old, and others 60. Mentally disabled, and not. They are the 99%, and their protests are meant to show people that financial equality is necessary.
“The goal behind it right now is to increase visibility of the fact that there is an inequality in the country and throughout the world,” Christopher Rink, 29, said. Rink works part-time and has been visiting the site on a daily basis.
He, like the many others at the Occupy KC campsite, chose to join this movement that has feverishly spread across the nation to show everyone that there is injustice.
“[I chose to join the movement] basically because of inequality. It’s everywhere, and it’s being vocalized and shown,” Rink said.
Rink wants the word to get out to the Kansas City area and beyond to expose the “1%” (the people in this nation with the most money).
“Obviously the 1% have an idea of what’s going on and the 99% of the population is being affected, but very few of those individuals have actually woken up, if you will, and seen the change that’s happening,” Rink said.
Others, who aren’t able to camp, try to make as many stops as they can to the camp.
“I go to work, I go to school and I come by when I can,” Brianna Siegmund, 40, said.
Another camp member, Pablo G, 39, has a more specific reason to join the protesting cause. He’s been at the camp since the beginning of the protests for someone close to him.
“The reason I occupy is that I don’t believe that my 17-month old daughter deserves to inherit trillions and trillions and trillions of dollars in debt,” G said.
He worried that the future of the country would affect the way she’s able to live.
“I want her to have a good education and I want her to have health care. It’s not going to be easy. She’s going to have to work really really hard,” G said.
His reason to join was out of concern for her, and the other youth of the country.
“[I want her] to not have to pay exorbitant amounts of money in student loan interest. That was intended for poor people to go to school and make better lives for themselves. Well, that got bastardized over the years by the people in charge – the elected officials ‘we elected,’” G said.
Personal experiences have led him to doubt the credibility of the nation.
“I did nine years in prison for beating up an asshole that came into my house and started a fight with me. The only reason why I did anytime at all was because I couldn’t afford a lawyer,” G said.
“Unless you have lots of money to pay for an attorney, you’re stuck,” G said. “There’s a reason why we call them [public defenders] public pretenders. There’s really no incentive for them to win cases.”
The group certainly has a clear message behind their months of camping and vocalizing.
“There’s a power structure that’s been here a long time and that needs to be changed,” G said.
This article solely shows the views expressed by the occupiers.
Words and photos: Andy Gottschalk, Dylan Crow, Sandra Kincaid
Amy • Dec 11, 2011 at 5:46 pm
It’s a decent article. It isn’t all that well researched, but the point was clearly to provide a brief, simple portrayal of some members of Occupy KC, and it accomplished that.
IAmDisappoint failed to show what he/she even meant by “both sides of the argument.” This article isn’t about the argument; it’s about the reasons given by certain occupiers for why they occupy.
There is one big problem, though. This: “The group certainly has a clear message behind their months of camping and vocalizing. G spoke for the group. ‘There’s a power structure that’s been here a long time and that needs to be changed.'”
I know what you meant, but choose your words carefully. This group, like this movement, has no spokesperson. The issues being addressed are very complex, and oversimplification is something the mainstream media has been very guilty of.
Here’s another article in a high school paper, very well done: http://smeharbinger.net/news/occupy-kc
Andy Gottschalk • Dec 11, 2011 at 10:18 pm
Very good point. I’ll edit that. I did write this with a certain viewpoint for a reason, but it’s not okay to believe that one person can speak for the entire group. Thank you.
IAmDisappoint • Dec 9, 2011 at 7:18 pm
Really? If you guys are going to post an article on a public school website about current political affairs, you could at least TRY to make it unbiased. This should focus on explaining to students what exactly is happening and showing reasons for BOTH SIDES of the argument, not just the heartbreaking story of one. Let’s have a little respect for both sides–the journalist’s opinion shouldn’t be so obvious and most definitely not here. You’re representing the high school, not yourself or your party.
Andy Gottschalk • Dec 9, 2011 at 7:31 pm
Our perspective was from the occupiers. Everything they said was either in quotes or paraphrased, which was what the article basically was. Our sources speak in this one.
IAmDisappoint • Dec 9, 2011 at 9:35 pm
That may be what you were going for, but it came out a bit differently. Sorry to have lost my temper like that, but it is a little misleading, you know? 😉