The following is a guest post from Michael Siegel, a National Lawyers Guild member, Occupy Oakland supporter, born-and-raised Oaklander, and would-be decolonizer. He’s twittering @OaktownMike.
This coming Sunday, at 2:00 p.m., the Occupy Oakland (OO) General Assembly will consider a name change, proposed by an OO caucus representing people of color and queer people of color. The suggestion is that we rename our movement “Decolonize Oakland.”
The proposal reflects an attempt to bridge the gap between the Occupy Oakland movement and various deeply rooted Oakland communities. This gap has been reflected in the use of the term “Occupy” itself, which carries heavy echoes of the legacies of imperialism and colonialism. The gap has also been reflected in the makeup of OO, which often skews towards a vocal white, male constituency. Unfortunately, some individuals have been unable to recognize the critical contradiction in their approach, in which they are claiming to be agents of social change but are failing to account for the heritage of white supremacy, patriarchy, and genocide in this country.
Critics of the “Decolonize” proposal have questioned the need for this conversation. Others have stated that the proposal is a distraction, and might be better deferred to a later time.
In response, I would say: what conversation is more important than building trust and camaraderie between people of color and white folks, in furtherance of the collective movement for economic justice?
And what better day to begin this conversation than December 4, 2011, forty-two years after Fred Hampton was assassinated by the FBI and Chicago police?
Fred Hampton was a shining star in one of the most important revolutionary social justice movements in this country’s history. Many of the activists in Occupy Oakland hope that they, too, are part of a revolutionary movement for social change.
We can’t hope to build a broad, powerful movement, however, unless we are able to engage and unite with the diverse communities that are impacted by the capitalist system here in the United States.
In making the “Decolonize Oakland” proposal, our brothers and sisters in struggle have created an opportunity for understanding, respect, and mutual support and aid. This is a tremendous moment, one that could facilitate a powerful and enduring movement for social change.
I look forward to the conversation we will have on Sunday, and to working together to decolonize and liberate Oakland and beyond.
Hey folks, just to give a little more context to the “Decolonize” proposal, please see this letter from longtime organizers Corrina Gould, Morning Star Gali, Krea Gomez, and Anita DeAsis:
Decolonize Oakland: Creating a More Radical Movement
Oakland is home to many communities. To better reflect the multiracial dimensions of our city, the Queer People of Color/People of Color Caucus propose that the name be changed from ‘Occupy Oakland’ to ‘Decolonize Oakland.’
Oakland is the ancestral homeland of the Chochenyo Ohlone, an indigenous community that has no collective territory of their own and no recognized legal status or rights. As detailed in The Memorandum of Solidarity with Indigenous Peoples, which the General Assembly passed with 97% support on 28 October 2011, the Chochenyo Ohlone have survived a brutal colonial history and ongoing occupation, which makes them strong members, allies, leaders, and guides to the movement of the 99%. In passing that memorandum of solidarity, we “declared that ‘Occupy Oakland’ aspires to ‘Decolonize Oakland’ – to ‘Decolonize Wall Street’ – with the guidance and participation of indigenous peoples.” Let us honor that memorandum and work in meaningful solidarity to “initiate a new era of peace and cooperation that will work for everyone, including the Earth and the original inhabitants of thisland.” Let us heed the encouragement of our native sisters and brothers, elders and youth, to choose a name that reflects the society and culture we plan to build: Decolonize Oakland.
As members of the 99%, we want to spread our message, swell our ranks, and use political language that is inclusive of our many communities. We want to open our movement to even greater participation. For many of us, including our local native communities, the terms ‘occupy’ and ‘occupation’ echo our experiences under colonial domination and normalizes the military occupations that the U.S. is supporting in places such as Iraq, Palestine, and Afghanistan. Colonization, occupation, segregation are still active forms of violence in our communities. Our neighborhoods exist under a police occupation. Gentrification, which is pricing poor families out of their homes, is colonization under a new name. Segregation continues in education, as wealthier families send their children to private schools while our public schools suffer and shrink.
This name change is not about words but about deeds. At the now dismantled Ogawa/Grant encampment, we created a home for all, providing food for the hungry, medical treatment for the sick and injured, and counseling for those of us suffering from depression, addiction, and fear. We offered workshops on preventing foreclosures, resisting police violence, and organizing against corporate capitalism. We hosted healing circles and talking circles. All of our efforts were geared at actualizing gender, economic, and racial justice. We will continue this work whether or not we rebuild the encampment. In both words and deeds, we have been practicing decolonization at Ogawa/Grant Plaza.
Decolonization means connecting to the land and each other by growing and sharing food. It means connecting to the traditions of our ancestors and creating new forms of authentic human connection. Decolonization is a practice of healing from violence in forms such as slavery, occupation, and poverty. It is about raising our children to find beauty and meaning in their cultural identities. Decolonization means telling stories that emancipate our minds and dreams. It is education as a practice of freedom, not a lucrative career path.
While we know that “Occupy” is the terminology used around the country to explain and unify this movement, it does not address the real issues of colonization that happened in this country and particularly to Oakland and the Chochenyo Ohlone residents of this city. For years the Bay Area and Oakland have been the birthplace of revolutionary movements and innovations in movement work.
Changing the name to “DeColonize” is an innovation that would also speak to the brilliance and community of OO to address the current issues of gentrification in Oakland and the social problems that gentrification have perpetuated as well as pay homage to our revolutionary ancestors who fought for a better, more inclusive and respectful Oakland.
We want to deepen our efforts at political transformation by using language that heals, unites, and educates our communities. This name change signals our deep and lasting commitment to liberation and meaningful political education against corporate and capitalist violence, which are rooted in colonial relations.
The divisions that exist between the 99% and the 1% are built on colonial relations. It is our lands, our labor, our bodies, and our voices that have been stolen; at the encampment at Ogawa/Grant Plaza and in our local neighborhoods, we have come together to decolonize our minds, restructure our relationships to oneanother, and build political institutions that meet the needs of all people. What we are doing is decolonizing Oakland. Let us choose a name that reflects our actions and beliefs. Decolonize Oakland! Liberate our communities! Practice freedom!
Corrina Gould, Morning Star Gali, Krea Gomez, and Anita DeAsis
I have tons of respect for people fighting against colonialism and genocide and for justice for Native Americans and I fully believe that our movement should take up these issues. However, I don’t support this proposal.
The primary problem, to me, is that the “Occupy” movement has been the most successful and visible movement in decades and I hate to change our name at the risk of confusing our supporters in Oakland and around the world. It would be better for the Occupy movement to fight around the issues raised than change our name. In fact, under the name “Occupy” I believe that we can continue to build mass support not only against foreclosures and Wall Street but around other issues that affect people of color as well. My first attendance at Occupy Oakland was for a vigil for Troy Davis, an innocent African-American man executed in Georgia. There is nothing about the name “Occupy” that precluded this event, it just took a couple of people to decide to organize it.
Also, students have “occupied” schools and worker have “occupied” their workplaces for decades. We are standing firmly with that radical tradition–certainly NOT in the tradition of colonialists and imperialists. Keeping the name “Occupy” should in no way be taken as support for genocide.
Furthermore, there are problems with some of the arguments for the name change. For example:
“Unfortunately, some individuals have been unable to recognize the critical contradiction in their approach, in which they are claiming to be agents of social change but are failing to account for the heritage of white supremacy, patriarchy, and genocide in this country. Critics of the “Decolonize” proposal have questioned the need for this conversation. Others have stated that the proposal is a distraction, and might be better deferred to a later time.”
I don’t know of anybody who disagrees with this proposal–and yes, there are people of color who disagree with this proposal–who is “failing to account for the heritage of white supremacy, patriarchy, and genocide in this country.” All opposition I have heard has come from the belief that it is not necessary to change our name to take up these important issues, but it almost sounds like from the article if you like the name “Occupy” then you are a racist. I would be thrilled to be convinced that I am misinterpreting the argument, but let’s see how the discussion plays out at the GA.
I agree. We ALL are bearing various cultural/historical burdens, but ought not fracture/factionalize due to semantical insistences now.
We already ALL have some of the most important, pressing common ground and issues underway. Perseverance furthers, in larger unity with clarity, certainty and resolve.
SJ, the intention is not factionalize, but to unite. How can we maintain common ground on the issue of economic injustice without dealing with historical racist economic oppression in this country? By not dealing with this issue, we are privileging those folks who are unaffected by this legacy.
Scott, I appreciate the response. I would not distill the argument to the extent of, “if you like the name ‘Occupy’ then you are a racist.” I think the main point is that the term is offensive to key allies/participants in the movement, and we are stronger if we can figure out a way to come together.
There also needs to be a conversation about class here. I find working class, poor people of color don’t care about this conversation, don;t know its going on and don’t care.
I think I must be desensitized to the etymology of race. Where I grew up the racism is easy to spot. People use the well known slurs to make it clear that they hate someone. I don’t think there is any “colonial” hate going on at GA. I am sure there are some ruffled feathers from time to time but I havent seen or heard anyone get called a slur.
Isn’t “DeColonize” basically a communist buzzword?
Thank you Michael Siegal for your support!
Jaime Omar Yassin you claimed that Occupy The Hood reps stated they didn’t care about our language but that’s actually a misleading claim. To say that “working class, poor people of color don’t care about this conversation, don;t know its going on and don’t care.” discounts the very fact that the proposal was submitted by working class poor Indigenous/Women of Color. We very much understand colonization we understand capitalism and consumerism, we struggle against it in our every day efforts to keep our children fed and sheltered. You don’t speak for all of us so please stop with the general statements that attempt to.
Thank you Michael Siegel for your support!
Jaime Omar Yassin you claimed that Occupy The Hood reps stated they didn’t care about our language but that’s actually a misleading claim. To say that “working class, poor people of color don’t care about this conversation, don;t know its going on and don’t care.” discounts the very fact that the proposal was submitted by working class poor Indigenous/Women of Color. We very much understand colonization we understand capitalism and consumerism, we struggle against it in our every day efforts to keep our children fed and sheltered. You don’t speak for all of us so please stop with the general statements that attempt to.
Colonialism and the Occupy Wall Street Movements
http://cdb-tonatierra.blogspot.com/2011/10/colonialism-and-occupy-wall-street.html
Thank you Indigenous Sisters, Corrina, Morning Star, Krea and Anita for your commitment and vision for healing our ailing world. As a EuroAmerican woman, I feel the word “occupy” suggests not only the colonization and genocide of indigenous peoples that has been continuous for over 500 years, but also respresents the destruction of our common and fragile ecosystems upon which all life depends. Occupation of land was a means to gain control of resources such as gold, silver, timber, and now petroleum, tar sands, rare minerals. We are all fortunate that our indigenous sisters and brothers have survived and are willing to guide us as we all work towards sharing and caring for our planet and one another and building a more inclusive, healthy and evolutionary movement. I believe changing the name from “Occupy” to “Decolonize” or something positive for all is a necessary and important step.
My reasons for not supporting the Occupy Movement center around a few things: 1. I truly believe that if concessions were offered to the people fighting the 1%, like a salaried job with benefits then the white people in the movement would basically disappear. Historically, a large majority have not leveraged their white privilege in the interest of oppressed black and brown people and are only mad because their comfort has finally been challenged. 2. the lack of concrete demands, clear leadership and passive disorganization with the logic that “they can’t dismantle what is not organized” is a cheap cop-out. Looking at previous successful political movements, fortitude, longevity, accountability and credibility hinge on clear distribution of roles and responsibility along with a clear and obvious set of demands.
I am interested to see how OO handles their first true opportunity to rectify and make amends, by recognizing the implicit perpetuation of an imperialist mindset in advancing with a name like “Occupy” and working to address the needs of ALL recipients of capitalistic exploitation in a defined and organized fashion.
I firmly believe our movement has to directly challenge racism in all its forms if it has any hope of succeeding. That said, I also oppose this proposal for a name change.
The term “strike” also means different things to different people. For many, it conjures beautiful images of 1000s of us taking over the Port of Oakland on November 2nd, or other struggles of working people to shutdown the machine of exploitation and oppression we all face.
For others, it might invoke nightmares of domestic violence (“Don’t ever strike me again!”). For others, maybe it’s the terrorism of U.S. imperialism’s bombs raining down in an air strike. Does that mean we were wrong to call November 2nd a “strike”? Does that mean we can’t (re)claim that word and use it in the sense of liberation and resistance we most support?
Similarly, “occupy” has meant many things to many people. Certainly it can conjure up horrific images of the Zionist occupation of Palestine, the genocidal occupation of entire continents by European colonialism, and police occupation of communities of color around the world (from Oakland to the favelas of Brazil) to name a few. But, it’s also what the inmates at Attica Prison did in 1971 — they occupied the prison and shined a spotlight on guard brutality and murder, inhumane conditions, and more. In the 1930s, thousands of workers occupied their workplaces to fight for and win such demands as a hiring hall (which was a major victory for many reasons, including that it allowed Black workers to get good jobs on the West Coast ports since the ILWU could decide who was going to work each shift, not the racist managers of the shipping companies). As a student, I was proud to have occupied UW-Madison’s administration building (multiple times) to get the school to stop using sweatshop labor for athletic jerseys, to get them to stop attacking homeless people who slept on campus, and more. And speaking of Madison, I don’t think today’s Occupy movement would be what it is if it weren’t for the historic occupation of the Madison capitol building early this year (inspired by the occupation of Tahrir square and the revolution in Egypt) to defend public sector workers, public education, etc.
Finally, as Scott pointed out above, “Occupy” is a term that’s now deeply associated with the most vibrant and successful social movement this country has seen in my lifetime (even with its many limitations and flaws). I’d hate for Oakland to distance itself from the rest of that movement. We’re one of the leading centers of the Occupy movement, people around the world look to us for inspiration, and we should be proud of that fact.
Giving up the term “occupy” and handing it back to the colonizers, Zionists, cops, and gentrifiers would rob us of our own history of successful occupation movements for social change and liberation. Let’s not dishonor the brothers of Attica or the founders of the ILWU by rejecting all the positive things that “occupy” can mean.
In solidarity,
-Derek
p.s. I just remembered an even more fitting example of an occupation for this debate. The American Indian Movement (AIM) occupied Alcatraz Island from November 20, 1969, to June 11, 1971. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_Alcatraz if you’re unfamiliar with the history.
And while I’m thinking of more occupations, let’s remember the lunch counter sit-ins of Black youth at Woolworth’s in Greensboro, NC on February 1, 1960. In many ways, those occupations launched the 1960s Civil Rights movement.
There is no danger of confusing people with a name change. Everyone in the country knows that Oakland is part of this movement, in which it has played a prominent part in keeping with the city’s activist legacy. This is not a time to worry about branding! This name change signals a direction of moving forward, a commitment to inclusion and responsiveness toward the most marginalized communities and social groups. The proposal by Corrina Gould, Morning Star Gali, Krea Gomez, and Anita DeAsis does not stand alone but has been stated in other places and venues, by Indigenous people and by others too. Many of my friends and I feel the same way. Oakland has been in many ways an occupied city, from gentrification to the hollowing out of predominantly African-American neighborhoods which get less services than other parts of town. Our movement is not only based on occupying spaces, but also on building awareness and coalitions, on dialogues between communities and social groups, on creating a consensus that will allow us to be more effective. It is a process that is unfolding and will continue to go through many changes. Not only change that we want to leverage from the oligarchic 1% but changes in culture and in ourselves that will make this a better world. It may well be that the next step in this movement will be actions like Eviction Defense, which are already spreading, to defend poor families, elders, single moms who are about to be kicked out of their homes. Such actions have the potential to build the movement even more by engaging people’s compassion and feelings of solidarity.