I walked down to the Post Office this morning. It's about half a mile round trip from my house or a couple thousand steps on the ol' step-tracker. As I crossed the street behind my home and approached the main drag in my little section of North Portland, I noticed that the guy who regularly sleeps on the sidewalk was there, but just in front of him, another guy was bedded down. Usually they just lay on or in sleeping bags, but this morning they had built a couple of little shelters from large cardboard boxes. In fact between them they had about 4 little cardboard rooms.
There is a motorcycle dealership that specializes in Vespa scooters across the street. They often receive their new vehicles in large cardboard boxes and then put them on the curb for recycling. I've no doubt that's where the "cardboard bedrooms" came from.
I stepped deftly around the sidewalk sleepers and went on my way, but a thought struck me. My first reaction was that it's a real shame that people in what so many call the "greatest country in the world" have to sleep on the sidewalk. Of course it's more complicated than most would admit, but nevertheless, in this land of the free and home of the brave, thousands are without the basics of living. These makeshift structures reminded me of the many "Hoovervilles" that existed during the Great Depression." Named for President Herbert Hoover, they popped up all over the country. People living in piano crates, cardboard boxes, and all manner of temporary shelters. History rhymes, doesn't it?
A few more blocks of walking later, and I began to think of the history of homelessness. I recall a college professor of mine lecturing on the concept of Social Darwinism. In an attempt to explain the poverty, and squalor of the early 20th century, this philosophy developed in an attempt to explain and subsequently deal with these issues. To explain the human condition by means of Darwin's "survival of the fittest" concept still resonates with some parts of the political spectrum today. Things are the way they should naturally be. Only the fittest will survive and thus improve the condition of mankind. It's a good excuse not to feel empathy or not to do something to alleviate the struggling conditions many have to endure.
"But it's a false equivalency," my professor said. "Because not just the fittest survive. Those that are merely fit, also survive. They may not be very fit, but they survive, any way they can."
Makes sense to me. Those that are not the fittest, don't just evaporate, they survive, sometimes barely. It's human nature to meet your needs. Walk around on this planet and you find things. Things to eat, places to sleep. Sure it's dangerous, and not very fun, but it happens every day in the USA.
I'd love to see this discussion make its way into the current political climate. In fact, perhaps a question on Social Darwinism in one of the debates would shed some light on how much empathy those who would lead actually have. Sure they'd say all kinds of things to appear sensitive to the needs of "all Americans," but I'll bet some would get all twisted up in their rough rhetoric about ridding the nation of vermin.
The weather in my hometown is changing day by day. The rain is about to begin and the last days of warm weather are definitely over. Pretty soon, even that deluxe cardboard won't be enough to ward off the dank, wet, weather. But those two guys I saw this morning will be somewhere. If not on their present spot, perhaps another that is closer to a heating vent, or a fire pit. But one thing is for certain, they will survive.
Comments