The Other White House

Outside the White House, there is a smaller, lesser known residence on Pennsylvania Avenue.  A small white tent serves as the temporary home of peaceful protestors.  A middle-aged, Rastafarian-looking man with extremely long braids sits outside his meager abode, surrounded by two yellow signs with slogans such as “Ban All Nuclear Weapons or Have a Nice Doomsday.”  

He’s arguing with young, conservatively dressed college grad about whether the Jews have the right to claim Israel as their homeland.  The college grad earnestly defends the state of Israel.  His face puckers in frustration, and his voice is curt and aggressive.  He clearly thinks the protestor has no knowledge on this issue, so, rather than hitting him, he attacks the man with well-researched questions.  The protestor does not stutter, but parries his retorts with semi-adequate responses.  I don’t really understand the religious origins of the issue between the Palestinians and the Jews, but I can tell the college grad is winning this near-hostile debate. 

As tourists snap photos of the President’s home, I linger around the tent when a man with curly blond hair approaches me.  He’s wearing a black shirt that reads SEX? across his chest.  Despite the immaturity of his fashion, he seems well informed about the protest.  He begins telling me that this spot has been inhabited for over thirty years.  William Thomas began the White House Peace Vigil in 1981 to protest nuclear arms. After his death in 2009, Concepcion Piccioitto, a woman of Spanish birth, became the main resident of the Occupy Peace House, which is now home to activists from all over the world.  The man with the sex shirt tells me that the activists are grandfathered into an old law.  Now if you are to establish a camp outside the White House, the man tells me, you would be ordered to move.  If you didn’t, you’d be fined and arrested.  Even during Hurricane Sandy, the protestors battled fierce winds and rains just to make a point about retaining the freedom of speech.

The man claimed the government is taking away our constitutional rights and striking shady deals with big corporations like Wal-Mart by using the public’s tax money.  I don’t know how he discovered this information if it is secretive, but I suppose that is the purpose of these protestors.  They spread awareness of issues that are largely hidden.  The average citizen goes about his day, unbeknownst to the regular travesties committed by his own government that he supports with portions of his paycheck.  There are many ways to view protestors like the SEX? man and the pro-Palestine Rastafarian. 

Many dismiss them as unhinged wackos.  Passersby glimpse their placards and quickly walk away, muttering to themselves and their cohorts about the crazies camping outside the White House. 

Some view them as nuisances making a lot of unnecessary noise like the neighbor’s dog who yaps non-stop.  I imagine if I were the President of the United States, I would be annoyed to see protestors outside my window every day.  The sight of them would remind me of my failures.  I would rather contemplate a more relaxing view while I drink my morning coffee. 

Others, like the SEX? man, are motivated by the activists and wish to play a larger role.  They are persuaded by the protestors, and now they wish to convert the uninformed.  Viewed in this light, the protestors have their own type of religion.  They all share similar beliefs.  They claim to have evidence that the rest of us lack.

Personally, I found the protestors’ company to be quite pleasant.  The SEX? man rattled on about the flaws of the American tax system, and I listened politely, despite having insufficient knowledge to ask intelligent questions.  The man was not forceful with his beliefs.  Instead, he reiterated well-researched tidbits to stake his claim.  He spoke with confidence and a noticeable tinge of disdain for the government, but he never seemed angry.  He was only passionate.  I let him finish his lecture, and waited for a lull in the conversation to take my leave.  During a heavy pause in his speech, I shook his hand and thanked him for appeasing my curiosity.

I have a great respect for the protestors because of their steadfast desire for peace and their ceaseless dedication.  I could not imagine expending so much energy for a single cause.  Should we devote so much of our lives to play a minor role in a grand scheme?  At best, we can hope to be footnotes in history books as the pages accumulate and the planet ages.  It is much easier to say you don’t care and simply walk away.  I prefer to disregard what has no direct effect on my life.  I have to pay my taxes anyway, and there’s little I myself can do to change the government.  I’d rather spend my only lifetime engaged in less stressful activities, but we can’t all be so disengaged from the struggles of others.  Some of us feel the urge to take action and herald the wrong-doings of the world, while others choose to be neutral, inactive, and sometimes apathetic.

Why do we speak up and protest, rather than letting certain actions take their course?  Why don’t we all just leave each other alone and let them fight their own battles?  I could live out my days, taking up menial work, and spend my leisure time reading novels on my back porch.  My actions would have very little effect on others.  My tread on this Earth could be insignificant.  I could elect to cause no uproar and not bother my neighbors in the slightest.  If I never turned on the news, the affairs of the world would not weigh on my mind.  I would not feel the tugging of a moral obligation to help those in need under tyrannical rule.  I would not feel guilty for luxuriating in comfort and safety while refugees wander helplessly after being stranded from their homes. 

What if the world consisted of scattered islands with no bridges, no boats, no airplanes, no radar, and no Facebook?  No connection whatsoever.  Tribes would only know their own struggles.  They would not worry about the lives of others beyond the sea.  But we don’t live in a world like that.  We can traverse the seas easily and connect with friends and foes across vast distances.  In small-town America, the folks who watch the news can know of the recent crises in Ukraine.  People who would otherwise never cross paths are united by a single conflict.  Outsiders from safe lands offer assistance because it is the humane thing to do.  We help because if we were in a similar situation we would want to be helped.  Charity is an insurance policy to safeguard our species and our dignity.     

Perhaps the most staggering plea for help was during the Third Reich as European Jews sought to escape the ghettos and concentration camps.  Many countries, including the United States, would not initially budge on their immigration quotas.  The MS St. Louis sailed across the Atlantic Ocean with 937 German Jews who were denied entry into Cuba and the United States.  Not only did the U.S. deny the refugees a safe haven, the Coast Guard stood watch on the Florida beaches to ensure that nobody tried to swim to shore.  Canada, too, refused to intervene, and so the ship had nowhere else to turn but back to port in Europe.  A political leader from Australia said that his country didn’t have a racial problem, and didn’t wish to inherit one by accepting Jewish refugees.  Ultimately, the United Kingdom, Belgium, France, and the Netherlands accepted the refugees after the rest of the world refused.  Certain countries wished to be neutral, while the Nazis committed genocide. 

With an extreme example such as unjustified, mass killings, it is easy to know where one should stand on the matter of action versus inaction.  But this dilemma becomes more complex during more innocent scenarios.  For example, when Hitler began segregating the population into Aryans and Jews, Jews were not allowed to use public swimming pools.  If a young German girl goes for a swim, is she an enabler?  Should she feel guilty?  Can she even detach her actions from the injustice?  If you strip the scenario of its social context, you would see a young human-being swimming in a body of water.  When I watch nature documentaries, I do not think lesser of the otters who splash in the rivers, so why would I judge this girl for taking a dip in the pool and enjoying the pleasures of youth?  However, once you overlay the scene with the unfavorable political issues, her actions become charged with meaning.  The person who can detach himself from this meaning is viewed with derision and contempt.  There is no escape from judgment while others are suffering.  Even though one may never fire a gun, culpability extends to those aren’t pulling the trigger.      

After World War II, Franklin Roosevelt said America can no longer stand by while foreign nations fight for true democracy.  We could be the one who ignores the cry for help.  We could shut our doors, drown out the pleas, and go about our business.  But both guilt and compassion motivates us to put our armed forces in harm’s way to fight for universal freedom.  If we do not intervene during times of crisis, we are ashamed of ourselves, and others may think less of us.  When I learned of America’s refusal to accept those Jewish refugees, I viewed my country with contempt for not offering assistance.  Not many of us wish to be called an asshole, and I would wager that most of us on Earth wish to live a good life with as little turbulence as possible.  But when turbulence arises, there are decisions to be made about one’s conduct.  

It is easy to be the person who pays his taxes and questions nothing and lives largely detached from external conflicts.  But someone’s got to be stubborn enough or passionate enough to sit outside the White House in the pouring rain and the hurricane winds to make a statement the rest of us don’t care to make.