The Story of the Littlest Occupier, or, "What's That Baby Doing Here at the Port?"
- Details
- By Greggory Moore Follow @greggory_moore
- | Thursday, 15 December 2011 05:44
Samantha Schrepel and her son, Kenny. Photo courtesy of Greggory Moore.
11:00am | Not every Occupier marches and chants. Not every one of them knows exactly what he or she is doing there. Not all of them have much of a choice or a voice.
To whatever degree this description applies to some adults within the so-called 99%, it is the youngest Occupiers who find themselves the greatest slaves to socioeconomic circumstance.
Meet five-month-old Kenny, who showed up dark and early to Monday morning's "Occupy the Port" happening in a gray skullcap proclaiming, "YOU CAN'T ARREST AN IDEA."
Kenny was not alone, of course; his presence in Long Beach — and the world — dictated by his mother, 27-year-old Samantha Schrepel, whose story she feels could be different in a national political and fiscal reality other than the one occupying us.
"We're homeless, just like a good percentage of the Occupy L.A. people," said Samantha, who at 4:15am boarded a chartered bus to be here, babe in arms. "We represent the women and children that are homeless […] fighting for equal opportunity and rights for everyone — jobs, healthcare education, capitalism…equal opportunity all across the board. I don't think that's too much to ask for, you know? Fairness for everybody — that's what we want."
Homeless off and on since 2009, Samantha has followed the Occupy movement since its inception, camping with Occupy Los Angeles for a short while in a case of philosophical belief dovetailing with life circumstance.
"The economy's just really hard," Samantha told me at Pier J-268 as she breast-fed Kenny beneath while a police helicopter circled overhead in the storm-cloud-filled sky. "Once you start getting your foot in there and climbing those ladders back up to a normal existence again, something else happens [to derail you] because this economy is so fragile. You can get a part-time or even a full-time job and it's a) not enough [money] even if you can keep the job; and b) frequently [after] the holiday you'll get cut, because they don't have any more seasonal work. So a lot of people who became homeless but managed to get themselves out — like myself — find themselves homeless again because of other situations. Mine in particular was a domestic-violence situation […] but everybody has different reasons for why they're homeless."
Samantha described her and Kenny's participation in this particular Occupy demonstration as taking personal responsibility for contributing to raising national consciousness of the terrible financial inequities most of the world's population suffers due to corporate greed.
"I don't know if [Monday's demonstration] is necessarily going to do anything," she said. "I mean, I see trucks — obviously they've gotten in another way — and I see people who unload the trucks arriving to work. So I know we're not making a huge dent. But I hope that with our collaboration with our brothers and sisters in other Occupations up and down the West Coast, maybe collectively we did something. And maybe we made enough news today to remind people that Occupy is not going away just because you get rid of our tents."
And contrary to how some might feel about a mother bringing her infant child to such an event, Samantha says including Kenny is something she's doing for him, not to him.
"He represents the baby discrimination in our world," she said, smiling at her son lovingly. "He really doesn't have a voice."
She has no job, no home and a baby dependent and her solution, or rather course of action, on a cold rainy day is to expose her baby to the elements and try to prevent other people from earning a living. Unless the writer took some liberties with grammar and word usage she sound's somewhat intelligent but she seems to not make intelligent decisions or actions.
Thank you for putting a face on the Occupy movement, it reinforces my disdain for the movement and most of its people.
Oh, and here's a novel concept for you, Samantha. Babies don't have "voices" because minors are by law, the legal responsibility of their parent(s). You might want to try that parenting think sometime.
They want to creat a government that is designed to guarantee equal outcomes, regardless of individual ability or effort, rgardless of individual achievement or lack thereof.
Many of these sorts of people look about them, see that others have more then they do, and experience envy and entitlement, rather than sincere admiration and an enhanced motivation to strive and succeed in their own right.
I think that is pretty sad.
While Samantha may believe it his her "personal responsibility" to contribute to "raising national consciousness" about the many injustices she perceives, I would respectfully suggest that her priorities might be just a little skewed.
I am retired now, but I can tell you that the last time I lost a job, I didn't do much of anything but eat, sleep, and search until I found another one...because I had children and other family members who were relying on me to put food on the table and keep a roof over our heads. I had *critically* important responsibilities that precluded my spending even one single moment doing anything other than everything I COULD do find another job so I could earn the money to meet them.
Samanthat would no doubt disagree, but I don't think participating in public protests when one has a child and is homeless and unemployed, is a very constructive use of one's time and energy. Unless she was paid to be there or promised a job if she attended (not entirely impossible) then I think she and her child would be much better served if she, er, re-focused, her attantions and efforts.
The time Samantha spent protesting the perceived injustices of the world, might have been much better spent looking for work. If it was too early in the day for that, she might at least have had her baby somewhere indoors where it was warmer, quieter, and far less hazardous for the child.
People make choices, DD. When confronted with unemployment and homelessness, Samantha apparently chooses to spend her time participating in protests.
This fact may be at least one small indicator of the *true* origins of at least some of Samantha's current and persistent problems.
Samantha was very accurate about a couple of things, however: The port protests did not make a huge dent in the perceived injustices of the world (in point of fact, it barely made even the slightest dimple) and her child doesn't have a voice (yet).
If he did, he would probably be saying something similar to: "Um, mom, I really think we should be focusing more on finding you a job and us a home right now....oh yeah, and my diaper needs changing."
Times are hard right now companies would rather higher seasonal labor so that they can get out of paying benefits to their employees. The problem is not the woman in the story, the problem is the system (government and and business).
The fact that she has a young child presents huge difficulties for single women, particularly if they don't know anyone they can trust to care for the child while they are looking for work or actually working.
There are plenty of charitable organizations, faith-based, and not, that help women in Samantha's current predicament all the time, but Samantha would have to make an effort to seek them out and accept their help.
She can't really do that while she's following the Occupy movement around in efforts at "raising the national consciousness" concerning "corporate greed."
I think she should work more on getting her own priorities straight and less on raising the national consciousness.
Wouldn't it be more productive (and honest) to possibly establish an ALTERNATIVE to the "system" that is apparently holding them down?
Whining about the status quo isn't "alternative". It's whining.
Even now 3 years after the bailout, they are prosecuting Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac instead of the bankers who started the mess.
Fair outcomes is not letting the richest 1% write the laws and then exempt them out of the laws. That congresspersons are immune to insider training laws that put Martha Stewart in jail.
Fair outcomes is what the Occupy movement wants.
But no matter. It is corporate greed that caused Samantha to choose a bad mate. Corporate greed impregnated her while she was "off and on" homeless.
She should be locked up for child endangerment, and the kid should be put into foster care. That way they both have a guaranteed roof over their heads.
Boom, problem solved.