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.
It is unfortunate to see such a strongly worded op-ed that not only “misses the point” but does so to the detriment of contributing to readers’ understanding of the proposal. For the record, several different Native/Indigenous people and those participating in POC meetings have been discussing this proposal and others like it for months now. Discussions that happened much as they did in Albuquerque and in Portland, where OWS protestors elected to change their names — to DeOccupy Albuquerque and Unsettle Portland, respectively, and in respect of Native/Indigenous concerns about the implications of their “occupation.” No one in either of these places has been accused or misunderstood as breaking themselves away from the OWS movement. Instead, the change has been guided and discussed as part of a larger effort to change the political consciousness within the OWS movement — to situate the current economic situation we all confront within a broader history and understanding of how capitalism works. That history did not begin in 2008 with the collapse of the housing market, predatory lending, foreclosures, and mass layoffs. It began long ago with laws that privileged corporate interests and expansion over the lands and bodies of Native/Indigenous people. A privilege that continues today. A privilege that made this crisis possible. Understanding the links between how neighborhoods in Oakland were targeted by banks for gentrification and fraudulent mortgages and how Native/Indigenous lands and bodies continue to be defrauded and exploited in Oakland informed the Memorandum of Solidarity with Indigenous Peoples, which passed the OO General Assembly, and the first of what we hope will be further teach-ins on Native/Indigenous issues within the context of OWS. I encourage everyone to read, learn, and be open to these discussions and ideas. You cannot build an alternative to the current system without accounting for how that system was built on the lands and bodies of Native/Indigenous people and many other “radicalized others.” (To read more, see the blog Tequila Sovereign.)
it’s absurd to claim that Runninghorse “decolonized” the tree at 14th and Broadway, since it was not colonized. Tree sitting has been a sometimes effective tactic to save trees but in this case has little to do with Occupy-Decolonize Oakland. In my opinion, Runninghorse has hurt the tree and blighted a natural space that many other people might want to stand under, view, or otherwise enjoy. Runninghorse ran for mayor in Berkeley, now will he change his address and run for mayor of Oakland?
The original article by “Scott” is on the mark. Occupy Wall Street uses the term Occupy in the same way students occupying campus offices have used it and factory workers in Argentina have used it. To change the name would be a mistake, as “Scott” correctly points out.
Scott most likely is a white male. I am making an assumption here based on the other like minded white males who take Scott’s position or a similar one. There are plenty of white women as well who agree, i am rather certain. Jumping into this is not an idle effort on my part. As one who has been a long time ally of traditional Indigenous people of the amerikkkas, i am familiar with this old time reasoning that seldom, if ever, allows full voice to Indigenous peoples. Don’t for one second believe that if Oakland, the so called flagship of the “Occupy” movement, changed it’s name to Decolonize War $treet, or some other appropriate variation, that it’s reasonings would not rise to the top with much acclaim. Try it. Give full voice to the Indigenous for the first time since invasion. Just see what happens and then read the Hopi Prophecy…..
I can understand the name recognition dilemma. So why not add decolonize/liberate.
Occupy Oakland
Decolonize/Liberate
As a Living Growing Learning and Changing Movement, so should the name.
I also understand in order for us to continue forward we have to go all the way back to the beginning. Let’s clean it up.
We can start by Respecting the People of this land. This name addition isn’t a request. It is an opportunity. Are we listening?
This IS an invaluable discussion, education ..real life education..& rEVOLution*tnx**
Black Light>>This is the best description I have heard or read for the meaning of Decolonization.
A commitment to decolonization does NOT mean that (white/non-native) folks will be asked to leave their homes, neighborhoods, community, land, etc.
It DOES ask us to consider the history of the land we live on. It asks us to respect the land and to acknowledge the original inhabitants of this land, including American Indians (in the US and other native folks elsewhere), trees, animals, water, air, etc. Decolonization is about our relationships to each other and also to the Earth (also known as Mother Earth, Madre Tierra, PachaMama…)
Decolonization does ask us (non-Native folks) to CHANGE—to give up our sense of entitlement in order to make way for gratitude and humility in all areas.
For the occupy movement to become a decolonial movement, we must commit to changing the way we interact with one another. As decolonizing peoples, we would endeavor to come together in the spirit of reconciliation. We would come to political spaces to learn at least as much as we come to teach, to listen, rather than just to speak. Decolonization asks us to be rigorous in our questioning of white male (and all other) supremacies to open the way for previously marginalized voices (of all colors, genders, bodies, etc.) to be heard—not just because that is the right thing to do——but because this will build a movement that is stronger and more radical in its critique.
Decolonization is a call for radical equality inside the movement as well as our demand for a more just and equal society.
Decolonization recognizes that economic inequality in the US is profoundly rooted in the history of racial and gender injustice—a history that includes genocide, forced labor, mass incarceration, mass deportation, war, etc.
Decolonization recognizes that for many in the 99%, the crisis did not start a few years ago with the Great Recession, it started with colonization, slavery, and the founding of the US.
Decolonization calls for the complete and utter reconstitution of the United States and perhaps even its dismantlement in favor of other, more humane, modes of organizing social life. Decolonization does not have a blueprint for the future, but it opens the doors to a radically different way of living. By Luz Calvo<<
[in response to a few twitter posts that worry that changing the name of “occupy oakland” to “decolonize oakland” would mean that white people will have to leave their apartments and homes here]YES!!!
Reblogged this on All Things Ace and commented:
Everyone in their own way.
This article is full of inaccuracies. Running Wolf never submitted the Decolonize Oakland Proposal. To read it in its entirety including the names of us that signed onto it please do so here:
http://occupiedoaktrib.org/2011/12/01/why-december-4-is-a-good-day-to-decolonize-oakland/#comment-180
Also you still reference him as Running Horse in the second paragraph. “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 Horse and the issues that he raises. However, while the issues and the proposer deserve our respect, the proposal itself is misguided.
“
Thanks Morning Star Gali re: Running Wolf. That has been corrected.
Words have always been used as a powerful tool to ‘colonize’ subjugated peoples. As someone born in an occupied territory of the US (Cuba, a US colony until 1959) I know how well words and books were used to make us believe that we were ‘free,’ (although the US basically controlled our economy, our banking system, and our education, because the ‘books’ told lies) when we were not. Words are used against the 99% and have always been a powerful weapon. I lived and went to high school and college in Puerto RIco, which has NEVER been free. They had to exchange the Spanish master for the US American master… For a time they were forbidden from speaking their own language; English was ‘the language” dictated by their master.
This is much more than changing the ‘name’ of a movement; it is a wonderful opportunity to make this movement truly responsive to the 99%, which is composed by many oppressed peoples, and by the First Peoples throughout the planet. I have been trying for many years now to get activists in the US not to use the word “American” when they mean US American; it diminishes all of us from the rest of the Américas (continents, not a country!)
If “Occupy” is never used for land-based occupation, colonization is no longer involved. “Occupy Oakland” reeks of colonialism but “Occupy Wall Street” does not have the colonialism context. What do you think?