This movement defies easy definition

By Sarah Mabel Hough

It started slowly, with small groups marching peacefully to City Hall. For a time, the police strangely outnumbered the "Occupiers."

By 9:30 a.m., though, a large crowd had gathered. The energy was calm, the makeup as diverse as the city. They held handmade signs and talked. Some reflected on Afghanistan, others on joblessness. One quiet, middle-aged man held a thermos in one hand and a sign in the other reading "Bail out the people."

Journalists whipped out microphones and cameras, asking, in one way or another, What is this about?

There are many answers. On Occupy Philadelphia's Facebook page, one post read, "We are not Democrats, we are not Republicans. ... This is not a left-wing movement, it is a populist movement. We are united as the 99%!" - that is, the vast majority of the population, as opposed to the super rich 1 percent.

I asked a few people what it meant to them. The answers varied but came down to a feeling that everything is "just so wrong," as one jobless college graduate put it.

Earlier, the organizers had repeatedly urged participants to be respectful of the homeless, commuters, police, and others. Throughout the first day, the crowd changed organically. Some stayed; some went home or to work; still others strolled past, reading the signs as if in an art gallery. Reports on the "protest" proliferated.

I still hesitate to call it a protest, fearing it will be repackaged as something it isn't for easy definition. From my perspective, Occupy Philadelphia isn't a single statement against a single entity. It's something that has been stirring within us for a long time. It's a peaceful, inclusive outlet for expressing concerns and being heard. It's a growth spurt in the evolution of humanity.

Crumbling schools, excessive violence, and our transformation into an unemployed nation that's "made in China" are some of my reasons for occupying Philadelphia. What are yours?