Re-occupying Frank Ogawa/Oscar Grant Plaza on Tue 11/29

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

Contact: Phil Horne, Esq., Occupy Oakland Vigil Committee
415-874-9800; occupylaw@riseup.net

http://www.occupyoakland.org

OCCUPY OAKLAND—RE-OCCUPYING OSCAR GRANT a.k.a. FRANK OGAWA PLAZA

On Tuesday, November 29, 2011 at noon, Occupy Oakland activists will retake Frank Ogawa a.k.a. Oscar Grant Plaza in downtown Oakland with a 24-hour, 7 day-a-week vigil. Occupiers hope to create a model for a new wave of “Occupation” protest throughout the United States.

With the vigil, Occupiers will continue asserting rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution to assemble, speak, and petition government for redress of grievances. The vigil is not the product of a bargain with Mayor Quan, nor is it negotiated with law enforcement–permission from the city is not required to exercise these constitutionally guaranteed rights.

The structures in the plaza will be symbolic and part of the vigil protest. A teepee will remind the public of the former Occupy camp and historic struggles of the Sioux Indians on the Plains of the U.S.; homeless workers in Hoovervilles during the Great Depression; the “Bonus March” to Washington D.C. by unpaid and unemployed veterans in 1932; Resurrection City following the assassination of Martin Luther King; the AIDS vigil of 1980s San Francisco; and the redwood occupations of Judi Bari and Running Wolf.

Occupy Oakland continues its occupation because residents of Oakland and across the US are still fighting for food, shelter, medical care, school, childcare, and other necessities. The 1% enjoy 40% of U.S. wealth and 50% ownership of Wall Street stocks and bonds. The bottom 80% split 7% of the former and just 5% of the latter. The average 35-year-old in the 99% has a net worth less than $3,000.00. Occupiers ask the public to consider, “How long does it take an unemployed member of the 99% to go through $3,000.00 and become homeless.” In Oakland, the unemployment rate is nearly double that of the national average. These are issues of crucial relevance to our city.

Occupy Oakland’s vigil declares, “If the 1% won’t share voluntarily through a sense of morality and concern for the well-being of all, then through protest and direct action, we will force change! Occupy the Plaza! De-colonize the 99%!”

Occupy Oakland will have sign-up sheets starting Tuesday at 11 am. at the Plaza, but sign up is not a prerequisite for participation in the vigil. Supporters are encouraged to come out day or night to participate. The Plaza is fully accessible to the differently-abled.

Decolonize the Americas–but Occupy Oakland

UPDATE: It appears that Running Wolf is not behind this proposal. Also, one instance of his name in this article was previously incorrect.

Zachary Running Wolf decolonizing the tree along 14th Street.

Occupy Oakland may be a leaderless movement but few individuals receive as much respect as Native American activist Zachary Running Wolf. His occupation/decolonization of the tree on 14th Street, declaring the space “Ohlone Land” just as Oscar Grant Plaza was on the verge of a police raid,  drew enormous support from all of us both for his creativity and resilience.

In an attempt to further raise awareness around the struggle of indigenous people, Running Wolf has submitted a proposal to change the name of Occupy Oakland to “Decolonize and Liberate Oakland.”* Many people will be drawn to support this proposal out of respect for Running Wolf and the issues that he raises. However, while the issues and the proposer deserve our respect, the proposal itself is misguided.

The essential argument, presumably, is that occupations historically have been a tool of imperialists, most notably the European occupation of the Americas as well as other colonial occupations of the Third World. The problem with this argument, as my friend Jaime Omar Yassin has stated, is that the word “occupation” has also been used for years by students “occupying” their schools and workers “occupying” their workplaces. It should also be noted that Bush claimed to “liberate” Iraq and there should be little doubt that colonial occupiers could claim to “decolonize” a piece of land from its indigenous population in order to make way for a colonial occupation. So there is nothing inherently imperialistic or oppressive about the word “occupy”–or superior in the alternatives–and our use of that term does not put us in line with colonial occupations. It also raises the question of whether it is worthwhile to raise the significance of one group of oppressed people–those suffering under colonial occupations–above that of other oppressed groups–African-Americans, women, gays and many others.

But the most serious problem with this proposal is that a substantial amount of work has gone into building the name “Occupy Oakland.” People all over the world are aware of Occupy Oakland and Occupy Wall Street. They know who we are and stand proudly in support of our work. This is not because we chose in advance the name “Occupy Oakland” or the tactic of building an encampment in front of City Hall–on the contrary, those were largely chosen for us by the success of Occupy Wall Street. However, having used this name and tactic, we have created a name for ourselves and rallied millions to our side. Changing our name now would simply confuse our supporters who have never heard of “Decolonize Oakland.”

Some people, inexplicably, are simply running from the name “Occupy” itself. Presumably, goes their argument, everybody in Oakland has been alienated by our actions and wants nothing to do with us. This is the least convincing argument that could be put forward and needs to be rejected. Every march I have been on in the last few weeks has seen tons of support, from people stuck in traffic honking their horns to teachers and postal workers attending our recent labor rally. Running from the name “Occupy” is not only wrong-headed but points to a misunderstanding of the state of our movement and the level of support we continue to have. Changing our name for these reasons would be a huge retreat and needs to be opposed, including by those most concerned about raising the issues of indigenous people.

Finally, there are also bad reasons for opposing the name change. Some would argue that “decolonize” will scare off too many supporters, as though Oakland is filled with little old white ladies clutching their purses every time a person of color walks by and who are terrified at the thought of white people being driven out of their homes by these “decolonizers.” Such simple-minded racists may exist, in some form or another, but they are hardly our base of support and certainly want nothing to do with us anyway. Appealing to these ridiculous attitudes will do nothing to further our movement any more than begging the Chamber of Commerce to raise their own taxes.

Does this mean we should have nothing to do with the struggles of indigenous people? Of course not. We should seek to support the struggles of all oppressed people. But the name change does not help us do that, rather it restricts our ability to support any struggle because it puts aside so much of what we have fought for already.

A better option to changing the name of our movement would be passing a statement opposed to colonial occupations around the world and actively fighting in solidarity with them. We have taken steps to provide solidarity to other struggles, including building support for the Egyptian revolution and participating in Ohlone solidarity actions. There is no reason why these solidarity actions should not continue and expand under Occupy Oakland.

* The specifics of this proposal, the new name, the proposer(s) and the precise motivation remain unclear at this time. However, this article intends to discuss the general views that the proposal seems to advocate and, hopefully, will remain relevant to the argument as the specifics are made clear at the GA.

The Occupy Movement and Global Slum Solidarity

The following is a guest post from Marina K., an activist from Occupy Oakland.

It was just another night in the war zone. The helicopters woke me up at 4:00AM, so I knew that the police were probably about to raid the nearby slum. Except the nearby slum was Occupy Oakland, an ongoing citizen demonstration three blocks from my apartment.

The Occupy movement is not a one-time demonstration or a series of marches. It’s an ongoing “occupation” to deal with an ongoing crisis. To support an ongoing protest, Occupy camps across the country have had to create support and services for their new communities from the ground up. You can call it instant society.

When I first took a walk down to Occupy Oakland on Oct. 20th (only 10 days after it had formed), I found a fully-functional new urban settlement. When I entered the newly-renamed Oscar Grant Plaza, the ground was covered with clean straw and the first thing I saw was an information tent and a man pedaling a stationary bicycle (it makes energy). This central area included a variety of services and community hubs – kitchen, schedules, first-aid, garden, supply stores, etc. Paths made of plywood and pallets left the center like the spokes of a wheel and even had charming names like “end -ism road.” If you followed a path, you found yourself in a residential area of tents and tarp homes. Neighborhoods, such as a womens’ only area, had already formed. On the outskirts was the amphitheater for holding general assembly (a handy feature of the existing Frank Ogawa Plaza landscape) and additional services (bathrooms, child care, etc.). I’m not very good at estimating numbers, but it looked to me like approximately 150 tents were set up. Music was playing from speakers in the amphitheater with people dancing in the stage area. The seats were filled with occupiers watching and clapping politely at the end of every song.

5 days later, in a midnight raid, the whole thing was torn down by the police and the occupiers were evicted. That same night, police in riot gear evicted residents of the Kyangombe slum in Nairobi, Kenya ahead of slum demolition. Residents had gotten eviction notices ahead of time, but didn’t believe that they would be carried out. Residents were unable to salvage their homes or belongings and were given no alternate housing options.

Coverage of the Occupy movement initially focused on the movement’s concerns with economic issues – income inequality, unemployment, money in politics, and corporate power. As the novelty has worn off (for the media at least), newer narratives focus on “populist uprising,” “police crackdown,” and of course “filth.” Narratives of disease, filth, and blight are fixtures in popular treatments of Occupy protests. Filth, disease, and blight become “good reasons” for police action. The inherent violence of police forcibly removing people in the middle of the night allows media to settle into the well-worn grooves of the “violent, rioting protester” narrative, which creates further justification for ever more militarized and violent police responses and camp removal.

While protest history is filled with similar story arcs, coverage of the Occupy movement is starting to employ the language and logic of slum demolition. The most important element of the logic of slum demolition is the idea that the people in the slum and the informal society that they have created are an affront to the larger, formal society. It’s both obvious and not obvious, but the goal of slum eviction and demolition is not to improve lives for residents but to cleanse a location that popular narratives describe as spawning filth, disease, and violence (with the ever-present risk of these “sicknesses” spreading to the rest of “official” society).

From a 2002 UN Habitat report:

The main arguments for the clearance of slums have been linked to their potential as breeding grounds of political dissent, disease, crime and prostitution. Many slum removal initiatives have in fact had the removal of a perceived eyesore as their primary objective. Unfortunately for such initiatives (but not surprisingly), poor people tend to remain poor even when their houses have been demolished.

And I didn’t have much trouble finding similar language regarding Occupy protests:

On Thursday, Oct. 27, the [San Francisco] Chronicle ran an editorial titled, “Occupy Oakland exits the high ground.” While acknowledging that “[t]he sweeps were rough and far from perfect,” it defended Oakland’s decision to remove the tent city, saying it had become a “health hazard and a public nuisance.” “Health inspectors are equally concerned about San Francisco’s campground at the foot of Market Street.” The editorial warned that public support for the movement would likely wane if it didn’t comport itself in a more respectable way. “It’s doubtful the country wants permanent tent villages on its public doorstep,” the editorial concluded. “It’s more than just manners and hygiene that are discrediting this movement. The protesters’ messages, mixed and muddled from the start, are getting eclipsed by the unruliness that is afflicting people and businesses on Main Street.” (Salon)

The language is similar, but is the similar narrative framing and attendant policy response warranted? With their dense living conditions, lack of advanced infrastructure, improvised societies, and scorn from “formal” society’s power structure, the forms look similar – at least on the outside. Yet Occupy protesters are part of a political movement and live in Occupy camps voluntarily – millions of slum residents have no choice but to live in any housing available.

And yet isn’t it possible to make connections between the goals of the Occupy movement and the goals of squatters’ rights advocates and slum activists? Economic injustice, lack of jobs, concentrated wealth and power, militarized police and police brutality, disenfranchisement of the impoverished and unemployed, lack of access to quality housing (and exploitation in housing), and public disinvestment are relevant issues for both movements.

Is there a way to see the form of the Occupy camp as living and attempting to make an improvised society in the face of a power structure that is indifferent (or in many instances actively hostile) to the needs of its citizens – in other words, what slum dwellers have been doing for decades? Sanitation, health problems, and all of the attendant ills are not caused by individual delinquency but are always the challenges of concentrated living. In the criticisms of “slum-like” conditions at Occupy camps, my internal response is always the same: “When the power structure fails to provide housing, jobs, and adequate sanitation and public health – what else can we expect? This is why we have public society. When concentrated economic power loots and breaks public society, this is what it creates: slums. We are working together to create the democratic society that no longer exists at the national level and these are the challenges that we are trying our best to overcome – we’re sorry if we haven’t yet done so in the month or so that we have existed.”
With last night’s second eviction of Occupy Oakland, we can see within the space of a few paragraphs the attempt to change the meaning of Occupy from its stated purpose (as a political movement fighting economic injustice and inequality) to the standard definition of a slum.

Oakland Mayor Jean Quan’s statement on last night’s second Occupy eviction:

We’re here this morning because Occupy Oakland has taken on a different direction from the national movement. It was no longer about the abuses of the financial institutions, foreclosures and to the unemployed.

At the encampment we’ve had repeated violence, we’ve had a murder. I don’t want any more people to die before this comes to an end.

The encampment has been a tremendous drain on our city. During one of the recent demonstrations, we had 179  public safety calls for service that went unanswered because of the demonstrations downtown.

We’ve had increased drug dealing, sexual assaults, all of this was occurring in a one-square block encampment. This is not what Occupy Wall Street is about.

In addition to the violence at Frank Ogawa Plaza, the city cannot afford for our small businesses and vibrant downtown to lose hundreds of jobs and nearly half of their patrons.

Once Occupy is separated from its stated political goals, denied the label of “legitimate protest,” and relabeled as a slum, what kinds of connections can we make between the Occupy movement and the movement for global slum dweller dignity? I didn’t have much trouble finding English-language news of slum raids and evictions in Rio, Kenya (1, 2, 3), and India (1, 2, 3) – all in the last few weeks. And of course, Occupy evictions continue across the US. What can Occupiers learn from the struggles of slum dwellers to create functioning communities? And most importantly, how can we work together, recognizing our differences but in solidarity, to provide dignity and opportunity for all slum dwellers, futureless youth, marginalized homeless, and even downwardly mobile westerners?

The “disaster” at 19th and Telegraph

The taking of the lot at 19th and Telegraph

Yesterday’s labor march was an overwhelming success. As several thousand people stood between the Grand Lake Theater and Lakeview Elementary to protest school closures, a speaker from the “rally truck” announced that this was the largest march in support of schools in the history of Oakland. Moments like these are what make us all proud to be participants in Occupy Oakland, and that includes the teachers and postal workers who marched with us yesterday.

As we marched back downtown and approached 19th and Telegraph, however, it was entirely unclear what would happen next. I kept thinking there was some secret plan to redirect the march back to 14th and Broadway up until the moment that the fences were literally being torn down. In spite of all the nervous chatter around this issue and the disruption to the lives of the surrounding residents, the moment felt like a huge success. It would be hyperbolic to compare it to the fall of the Berlin Wall, so I am not going to make that comparison, but it certainly felt like liberation to us.

However messy and ill-considered the plan to take the lot at 19th and Telegraph might have been, it gave everybody the sense that Occupy Oakland is here to stay. Everybody I saw was exuberant. The only dour faces were those of the cops, who were made painfully aware of their own impotence once again. The moment gave thousands of people a sense of hope and power. For years we sat by and watched wars break out in spite of our bests efforts, innocent Black men get executed and Wall Street destroy the world economy only to get bailed out and defended by the President that many people in our movement put into office. That all breeds a sense of powerlessness. The taking of 19th and Telegraph was one of those moments that helped change all that and is a precursor to mass, militant struggles against inequality and war.

We now know that we’ve got the power and we’re figuring out what to do with it. Anybody who sits aside and scoffs at these developments is going to be made irrelevant by history. Pick a side, even if you don’t always agree with the tactics.

Critics gleefully predicting the end of Occupy Oakland yesterday will be sorely disappointed to see the news this morning, that the camp was cleared out with no arrests and now we’re looking for somewhere else to go. Like I said before, hardly anybody really wanted to be there long-term as far as I could tell. Concerned neighbors can chill the fuck out and go back to their PTA meetings. We got our occupation and you got your empty lot back and you only had to deal with a single night of revelry. I appreciate that the whole thing was probably loud and annoying but I am not sure what else you expected when you moved in next door to the Fox Theater.

The Occu-porsche

The whole thing ended with a fizzle with no arrests and no PR disaster. It will be entirely forgotten before Thanksgiving. By this morning people were joking around with the cops and taunting them with a delivery of donuts. “Whose donuts? Our donuts! Whose sweets? Our sweets?” A Batmobile-like Porsche with police lights even arrived carrying a trailer of coffee, like some bizarre scene out of Back to the Future. Yeah, it was that kind of morning. Not exactly the disaster our detractors were hoping for.

All the nonsense  I have heard about how the occupation at 19th and Telegraph was going to be the end of the movement, or was the last straw that convinced people to leave Occupy Oakland, is now exposed for what it is. Sure the plan had its problems but let’s not blow things out of proportion. We are trying to figure this out day-by-day. Every time I think this movement is down and out it comes roaring back. That–and not the expected PR fiasco–is what occurred over the last 24 hours.

To the detractors who threw up their hands after–and before–the GA on Friday night, I prefer you remained in the movement but you can always hide out in Obama’s campaign headquarters down on 17th and Telegraph if you must. They’re waiting to welcome you with open arms. Let us know how that works out. And don’t blame me for creating this dichotomy–I am just noting it, not creating it. History has already created it for you.

In the meantime, we’re not going anywhere. We are the 99%.

Use your inside voice

Max Lewin rudely interrupting the Occupy Oakland press conference at 19th and Telegraph. Photo: Paul Chinn / The Chronicle

Many people arrived at the Occupy Oakland General Assembly last night fully prepared to support the proposal to rescind the decision to camp at 19th and Telegraph. I was one of them and, based on emails and other informal conversations, it was clear that many others agreed. Once it became clear that the vacant lot across the street from the Fox Theater was also next to the Oakland School for the Arts (OSA) and its playground, the potential public relations nightmare hit us. This would no longer be a discussion about hurting small businesses but a discussion about children, and few people wanted to go there. So let’s just unwind this thing gracefully, have a great march on Saturday, and regroup after Thanksgiving.

But a funny thing happened on the way to the proposal–the OSA people showed up.

They walked into our assembly with all the self-righteous indignation that you would expect from yuppies who have taken over the Uptown district. Is that who they were? Who knows. But that’s how they acted and while many of us were willing to give them an inch–the benefit of the doubt–they chose to take a mile instead.

They hooted and hollered throughout the first part of the GA, absolutely furious over the fact that their concerns were not front and center. This is after the fact that the facilitation committee chose to put their proposal first on the agenda without a vote of the GA and placing the open forum at the end of the meeting.

As our process went through its typical slog, they yelled at every vote, every vote about voting, and pretty much any other attempt to move things along. Then they basically blamed us instead of the police for the ongoing violence in downtown Oakland and talked about keeping their children out of the crossfire without ever mentioning the OPD.

By the time we actually voted, many of us were so turned off by their attitude that we actually wanted to take the lot on 19th and Telegraph because, as one longtime activist told me, these “sanctimonious assholes” changed our minds.

Ultimately, I still voted for their proposal only to get the 70% threshold so that we could go to amendments and potentially declare Oscar Grant Plaza the new camp location. Unfortunately, we did not hit the threshold so my vote was wasted–the proposal failed just failed altogether and we moved on. So did they, going back home after we talked about their issue never to return, so it seems.

Let this be a lesson–most of us at Occupy Oakland are reasonable people who want a good relationship with the community and are totally willing to hear outside voices, excluding those who send the police to brutally assault us. But when you are invited into somebody’s house, don’t shit on their carpet.

You need to respect us and our process. We sit through these cold, damp meetings night after night because we believe in democracy. It’s messy and it’s beautiful. You are welcome to participate or not participate at any time.

But if you can’t be patient with us then we will likely have little patience for you. Perhaps next time you could take some of those lessons that you give to your children and students every day and apply them to your own behavior.

In the meantime, the plan to take 19th and Telegraph stands. I doubt that anybody wants to stay there too long, but when we leave it will be on our own terms.

National Day of Action against State Repression of the Occupy Movement

This is an official statement passed by the General Assembly of Occupy Oakland. Since this declaration was passed, the need to respond to state repression has become even more serious. All out for November 19!

Protester beaten by the NYPD at the Occupy Wall Street march on November 17.

The last week has seen a coordinated attack against numerous major occupations in the US– Portland, Phoenix, Salt Lake City, Seattle, Denver, Oakland, San Francisco, New York and other cities across the country.  Several news reports have indicated that these simultaneous attacks were directed by the Department of Homeland Security, in consultation with local mayors and police departments. It should be clear to us that this is happening not because we are weak, but because we have become a real threat to the status quo, and the US government fears the new, more forceful direction the Occupy movement has taken in recent weeks. If our adversaries in the government can coordinate a national offensive against the Occupy movement, then we too can coordinate a response that draws upon the considerable depth, breadth and diversity of our occupations. Occupy Wall Street’s national call for a two month birthday celebration on November 17 is an important step in this direction.

To continue this national momentum, we call on all other occupations to join our day of action against state repression on November 19.

84-year-old Dorli Rainey, pepper-sprayed by the Seattle police at an Occupy Seatlle protest

Oakland has already decided that, after our second eviction from Oscar Grant Plaza early Monday morning, this is the day for us to expand and re-establish our occupation. However, we encourage other occupations to participate whether they have been attacked recently or not. Each occupation is encouraged to interpret this call and respond to it as it sees fit. Through a day of coordinated actions we can demonstrate and build upon the potential that the occupy movement holds in fighting the ruling authorities.

Why I got arrested at Oscar Grant Plaza

Over 30 people were arrested when Occupy Oakland was raided on Monday morning. One of them was Cami G.,  a graduate student and a member of the media committee of OO. This is her account of the experience.

On February 1, 1960, four students from the all-black Agricultural and Technical College of North Carolina—Joseph McNeil, Franklin McCain, Ezell Blair, Jr., and David Richmond—strolled into the Woolworth store in downtown Greensboro, North Carolina, sat down at the lunch counter, and ordered coffee. Because of the counter’s “whites only” policy, they were refused. Several employees and a manager asked them to leave, but they remained until the store closed, when they peacefully dispersed.

The next day, the teenagers came back, this time joined by fifteen others. Again, they were refused service, and, again, they stayed until closing time. The next day, there were more than sixty demonstrators, and by the fourth day, over 300 people were participating in sit-ins at lunch counters across the city. By the following week, the movement had spread not only throughout the state but across the entire South. The sit-ins lasted for almost six months, and on July 25, due to boycotts, diminishing profits, and outside pressure prompted by the publicity of the sit-ins, Woolworth desegregated all of its stores, allowing blacks to sit at lunch counters and receive the same service as whites.

There were, of course, difficulties before this victory was achieved. On the very first day, one black employee accused the young men, now called the Greensboro Four, of hurting rather than helping race relations. The demonstrators were heckled and threatened by mobs, with some protests turning violent. Many years later in February of 2008, Franklin McCain discussed the danger of blacks demonstrating in the 1960s South: “I had pre-concluded if I were lucky, I would go to prison for a long, long time. If I were not so lucky, I would come back to my university campus in a pine box.” The four also lamented the difficulty of getting people to commit to sitting in the stores from open to close, to returning day after grueling day. Considering all this, one might ask why the right to be served lunch next to white people was important enough to risk their lives devoting five months to idle loitering. One might ask what sitting passively at a lunch counter was expected to accomplish when the enormity of race problems in the South was so overwhelming.

I would argue that small acts like these are the essential building blocks of successful dissent, but we can’t always see at first how they will factor in the account of history. In retrospect, we understand the impact of the Greensboro sit-ins; we know that four black students sitting at a Woolworth five-and-dime was the first domino in a chain that spread to parks, libraries, museums, beaches, and other facilities across the South. We know that it was the catalyst that led to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which desegregated all public spaces. But on February 1, 1960, the Greensboro Four didn’t know that. They only knew that they were tired of talking, tired of waiting for somebody else to do something, and they were going to walk into the store and stand up for themselves by sitting down.

Very early on the morning of November 14, I stood on the edge of the Occupy Oakland encampment in Oscar Grant Plaza and listened to reports that hundreds of riot police were approaching. Admittedly, I was nervous, and I had plans to disappear the moment I faced the possibility of being arrested.

Yet, a few moments later as I watched the police close in, I began to think about what their presence meant, and I began to imagine the disappearance of the camp where I had spent so much of my time and made so many friends in the past weeks. It had all but emptied out as hundreds took to the intersection of 14th and Broadway, drumming and chanting, and the quiet that fell over the vacated tents was eerie. A group of people had silently linked arms at the Interfaith tent, surrounded by candles. Here and there, people sat, meandered aimlessly, packed their belongings, and even slept, but it wasn’t the bustling tent city I had begun to think of as a second home, where I could start a conversation with almost anyone, exchange ideas, hear peoples’ life stories or tell my own, be fed, pick through free books, meditate, learn yoga, listen to people sing and play instruments, and watch children play.

We all knew that there was nothing that we could do to stop what was coming—that we couldn’t defend the camp, and that the police would destroy it no matter what, and they would arrest as many of us as they needed to in the process. We had no choice but to acknowledge that the military arm of the local government was too powerful, and, judging by their billy clubs and tear gas guns, they weren’t afraid to commit violence as they had done before. Many in the camp had already gone to jail and couldn’t risk it again, and still others had jobs, school, and families which they couldn’t abandon to spend a day or more being detained for silly misdemeanors.

All of this led me to a feeling of profound despair. Our reluctant resignation and the imminent dismantling of the camp suddenly represented something more to me. It represented the forced invisibility of millions of people, the overwhelming majority of the planet’s seven billion people, in fact. And it represented the dehumanization of those near and dear to me, too. I thought primarily of my mother, who raised two children in abject poverty, often working more than one job, often tolerating the abuses of an alcoholic husband, often welcoming neighborhood kids into her home when their own homes became too volatile or unstable. This latter detail about my mother is what emerged most prominent in my mind—the fact that despite the obstacles in her way, the stresses of raising children and working constantly, and the paucity of her home and the environment in which we lived, she never closed her arms to anyone who needed her help, no matter their past, their problems, or their ideologies. Maybe it’s melodramatic, but my mother symbolizes for me a vision of Liberty, saying, “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free!” Because of her, it is clear to me that Liberty is not a blue-blooded woman doling out charity from a safe distance but a fierce, penniless yet empowered, broken-but-not-beaten mother defending her children against the injustices of a system that functions without conscience or accountability.

I realized that what I had come to appreciate about the people at Occupy Oakland was that many of them shared this same attitude of unabashed goodwill and inclusivity. They were full of optimism and zeal. They often came to the camp with little but freely offered whatever they did have—bread, soup, energy bars, books, clothing, blankets, electronics, artwork, kind words, ideas, laughter, music, and prayers—so many commodified things (because yes, even prayer is a commodity, these days) were given purely out of the kindness of peoples’ hearts. We had begun to build a community, a real community!

Was it muddy and stinky? Sure. Were there disagreements and arguments? Of course. Was there even some drug use and unspeakable violence (which I will still argue was not prompted by the presence of the encampment)? Yes. But these are human problems, not problems exclusive to Occupy Oakland. In fact, the fetishization of these problems by the mainstream media, the government, and detractors is representative of the way in which the problems of the marginalized have always been used by those in power to further alienate and disenfranchise those deemed “undesirable”—as though these same problems don’t exist across socioeconomic boundaries and aren’t often a direct product of a long history of cultural and social denigration. I’ve heard many on the outside call us degenerates, but what I saw at the camp was the extraordinary capacity for human kindness. An incredible passion for justice. Each person made me proud. Each person in some way or another embodied the principles of Liberty that my mother, by her actions, taught me to value.

So when I imagined the cops tearing down those tents, I imagined them tearing down a home like the one my mother had made. Those in power didn’t want the camp gone because it was dangerous or a threat to public health; they wanted it gone because the people there lived their successes and their failures too publicly, right in front of City Hall where they could no longer be ignored. Those in power didn’t want to have to look at, to be forced to deal with the problems of homelessness, joblessness, poverty, and violence endemic to our society, just as they didn’t want to give us the opportunity to congregate and work together to build a new one. Those in power have their own agenda, and the possibility of our uniting against them to address the real, every day issues we face was too great. They’d rather see us disappear and suffer alone in silence and shame.

At that thought, I decided that I couldn’t abandon the camp. I may be one small person, but the very least I could do was try to be like Greensboro Four who decided that a minor act of passive resistance was better than nothing at all. Sitting for two-and-a-half-hours surrounded by riot police isn’t much. Spending ten hours in police custody napping and singing show tunes with a group of cheerful women, many of them clergy members, isn’t much. It isn’t much compared to what those who participated in the Civil Rights Movement faced fifty years ago, nor is it much compared to what protestors in Tunis, Cairo, and across the Middle East and North Africa face today. It isn’t the self-immolation of Mohamed Bouazizi. And it doesn’t seem to do much. It doesn’t do much to actively help the silent peoples from Oakland to Brazil to rural China who daily face the horrors of poverty, exploitation, sickness, and violence, or the middle class citizens who are finding themselves suddenly jobless and homeless. But it’s what I could do in the moment to show how much that camp meant to me, and how tearing it down was another act of aggression by the powers-that-be that was only going to strengthen my resolve. It was my way of extending solidarity to Occupy camps across the globe, which I think of as extended sit-ins. I couldn’t disappear. I refused to be ignored.

We won’t disappear. We must refuse to be ignored.

As Franklin McCain said forty years after he first sat down at the lunch counter at Woolworth in Greensboro, North Carolina: “This is my country… I fought for the chance to make it right. No one’s going to deny me the opportunity. I am going to be a full participant in every aspect of this community.” I think this is the goal of Occupy Oakland, no matter how they try and stop us.