Arab Spring & Occupy Wallstreet

             With the recent rise of social network systems, people now even use SNS as ways to change the world. Arab Spring and Occupy Wall Street movements are great examples of influential acts done by people gathered online. They were first organized through Facebook, and now they are everywhere, affecting uncountable numbers of people. Started in a similar way, Arab Spring and Occupy Wall Street have both a similarity and a difference.

Both Arab Spring and Occupy Wall Street are refusals against the current systems that have lasted for a long time. Arab Spring was first started by factors such as dictatorship, absolute monarchy, human rights violations, government corruption, extreme poverty, etc. In a big picture, it was to stand against the status quo of the dictatorship in government that led to innumerable social problems. Occupy Wall Street was said to be largely influenced by Arab Spring; it was caused by social and economic inequality, greed, corruption and the perceived undue influence of corporations on government. It was basically against the whole system of Capitalism and New Liberalism.

Arab Spring was successfully done in many countries such as Tunisia and Egypt. The rebel forces frequently used violence to achieve their goal of justice. In Tunisia, the prime minister resigned; so did the one in Egypt. In Egypt, even the whole government was overthrown and the fourth president Hosni Mubarak was sentenced to life in prison for ordering the killing of protesters. Very similar things also happened in Yemen and Lybia. Although in some other countries, the dictators are still ruling the country and the protests are ongoing, the overall atmosphere of the movement is quite successful.

On the other hand, Occupy Wall Street seems like it is not as effective as its “original version” Arab Spring. Many political columnists point out that the theme of “nonviolence” is not as efficient when it comes to radically changing the system. If the ultimate equality between all people and corporations is what they want, they would probably have to forcefully take the money that was forcefully taken from the “99%”, since the riches won’t give it up voluntarily. This process is not likely to be done without any violence. Thus, their goal and their method were not coherent enough to work effectively.  

Each of them was meaningful in its own way. Arab Spring was quite successfully done among several countries, and was influential enough to spread literally everywhere in the world. Occupy Wall Street is not yet complete, but still is meaningful in a way that people actually “started” acting, against a larger frame of the problem. As a refusal of the corruption in Capitalism, people occupied the Wall Street, the symbol of the market itself. Started small, but small changes are now getting huge.

The Most Beautiful Woman in Town

In the novella “The Most Beautiful Woman in Town,” Bukowski deals with the concept of materialism and how it can affect people in real life. However, what he really admits through the voice of the narrator is that he was also one of the mere slaves of materialism. The narrator uses foreshadowing to imply that he would eventually be the factor that kills Cass, “the most beautiful woman in town.”

In order to understand how the narrator killed Cass, knowing the background of Cass is important. She was basically a victim of the materialistic society. Cass was physically attractive, very much. She was grown up in an environment where her dad was an alcoholic and her sisters were always jealous of her beauty. With her relatively long experience with men, she was hurt because of those who considered her as an object, a sex machine, and nothing more than that. For them, who she really was did not matter; all they cared was how sex-appealing she was. As a denial of the objectification by the men around her, she preferred ugly men. She thought ugly people had more personality than physically attractive men. The narrator was “chosen” for this reason. While Cass was going out with the narrator, she frequently tried to destroy her beauty, as a test to confirm whether he still liked her without the beauty. She relied on the man for him seeming to be different, at least in her thought.

However, the narrator, as he implicitly confesses from the beginning, was attracted to Cass for her body. The first impression he stated after being “chosen” by Cass was that he felt some “pride” and that “she was not only the most beautiful woman in town but also one of the most beautiful” he had ever seen. He kept praising her beauty while he said beauty was “not the only factor” that affected him. When he saw Cass injuring herself, he “felt disgust and horror,” not sympathy. He did not want her to hurt herself because it was ruining her body, not because it was destroying herself. Although he tried to act as if he were a different man than others since he “thought” he could see the personal side of Cass, he never truly devoted himself to understand Cass and her denial of the society. He kept stopping her from “acting out,” but neglected curing the fundamental problems. His actions and statements showing his compatibility with other men implicitly foreshadow the consequences happening later in the story.

As the story continues, the narrator more explicitly confesses that he could be the one killing Cass. The line where it says “Perhaps some man, something, would ruin her forever. I hope that it wouldn’t be me,” reveals that he already knew that Cass was fragile enough to be ruined by men. Even though he knew that he was the only one whom Cass was relying on, the narrator disregarded her implied request for protection. When she pierced two pins under her eyes and scarred her neck with a bottle, all he did was to tell her to stop destroying her “beauty.” Most essentially, he did not have enough will to save her forever; he “drove her to the bar, bought her a drink, and walked out,” when she said she did not want to stay in his shack. Then he “found a job as a parker in a factory the next day and the rest of the week went to working.” Though he knew she could definitely be ruined without his protection, he neglected her need and left. The author foreshadows that these actions were direct causes to Cass’ suicide.

Despite his attempt to refuse “materialism” and to look at Cass, “the most beautiful woman in town”, with both outer and inner beauty, the narrator failed to do so, and therefore remained the same as “other men.” By foreshadowing in numerous lines, from descriptions to statements, Bukowski confesses through the character of narrator that he was the one who eventually killed Cass.

[Mr. Menard] Do Androids dream of Electric Sheep?

             Selfishness is where all human history begins: wars, technological advancements, inequalities, etc. Though there are some people, “some”, who would be willing to give up their “selves” for other people, most of us and our ancestors have worked for the sake of our own goods. With its conditions based upon dystopian societies, the novella “Do Androids Dream of Electric” by Philip K. Dick describes the fundamental human desire of selfishness. The main theme of the story may be considered as how humans eventually feel empathy and understand the Androids. However, I accuse that as a mere affectation to justify human beings.

Humans, if they truly want to brag about their “sympathy,” should first admit that they are the ones who have started "it" "all". In the novella, people first made the world desperate with the drawbacks of the development. Then they created the concept of Androids, the made up human beings who at primitive stage did not have emotions. After the Androids started to develop other skills that humans did not plan, humans killed most of them. At the end, the novella finishes with the theme of accentuating humans’ generosity to “at least try” to sympathize with the “inferior” Androids. This whole cycle of humans’ abusing power shows what is exactly happening in the real world.

             Throughout history, humans have been committing the same kind of deception against other humans. They start something in order to gain more, raise some controversies, whether ethical, economical, or whatever, and eventually act as if they are the heroes to solve the problems. It works as a good stratagem to keep their power firm and to strengthen the unification of their group. They cover up their mischief by setting up a precondition that the things they act against are complete evil which should be removed anyway. This precondition is so strong that many of the opponents are even manipulated by it. Thus, when the opponents try to stand against the injustice, it is hard for them to argue from the equal, primary stage.

Even by tracing back a few years, there have been tons of trickery done by humans. About 10 years ago, 9.11 “terror” put the world into fear. Even as a seven year old Korean girl, I learned how “cruel and barbarian” those muslins were at school. At that time, I was drawn back in fear, looking at all the brutal pictures of the terror itself. I was also “told to be fascinated” by the mercy Americans, well actually Bush, provided for Osama Bin Laden and his family. Bush was the judge and Al Quieda was the defendant. People allowed Bush, without any doubt, to do whatever he wanted to execute the “inhumane, immoral, corrupted terrorist”. The voice that spoke for the cause that America had for Al Quieda to act that way (if Al Quieda was really the one who did it :D) was completely ignored. But really, who created all the situations in the first place?

The novella “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep” shows the real human instinct of desire for more power. Humans, frankly most of them, have been acting against what is generally called “morality.” It has been lasting for so long, that the possibility of the true “enlightenment” is doubtful. Perhaps, we are also afraid to disclaim the injustice of the selfish people because we, ourselves, are pretty much like them. But I believe that the process of at least considering this human nature is necessary for most of people right now.

Comments
Nuri: Hi Jane. I liked how you discussed about a topic other than sympathy- which is the main theme of the novella. I agree with your idea that people take advantage of given facts for the sake of their won good. We can see such examples in history as well; while one person is accused of being a terrorist in one country, he or she is a hero in another. I think what you're trying to write about is interesting, but you could write it in a less angry way with less questions.
Hyunseok Lee: Good to see the connection between the theme of novella, your opinion and current social issues. To comment on your idea, if selfishness, the condition that motivates people to behave, has caused lots of failures or undesirable effects, should we find other things that can motivate humans? or can we just say that human follows the good in their own nature Does the following the motivation many intrude morality? I liked your essay since you facilitated readers to ponder about profound inner part of human. Nice job.