Egyptian revolutionaries marching for Occupy Oakland
Occupy Oakland has many problems, but the name “Occupy” is not one of them.
Last night, about 300 people attended the Occupy Oakland GA to discuss, for three hours, whether we should change our name to “Decolonize Oakland.” 198 voted to change the name while 91 voted to keep it, reaching 68.5 percent which is just shy of the number required to allow ammendments and a revote. That is, the proposal failed. Afterward, the “decolonizers” began chanting “Decolonize Oakland,” which many “Occupiers” responded to in kind. Yeah, it was messy and feelings were hurt on both sides. It’s a movement. People take it seriously and fight for what they believe in. That doesn’t mean we can’t work together again. We probably will, so let’s keep the ultimatums to a minimum.
On the face of it, the proposal was meant to build solidarity with the struggles of Indigenous people and distance us from imperialism, colonialism and genocide. The problem, of course, is that many people in Occupy Oakland do not want to distance ourselves from the word “Occupy.” It may have negative connotations in some contexts, but plenty of words do. Nobody except a hard-core group of ideologues believes that “Occupy” is an inherently racist term, even if it has been used in racist and colonial contexts. The other problem is that many of us feel like we are already sufficiently distant from imperialism, having spent years and decades opposing US imperialism in all its forms. Some “Occupiers” have even lived under colonial occupations. We desire opportunities to raise these issues but we do not need to be lectured about our supposed blindness to genocide and racism.
Many of the arguments raised are absurd. For example, while Occupy Oakland may have been fighting for two months, “we Decolonizers” have been fighting for 500 years. Of course, there are Indigenous people invovled in Occupy Oakland, not to mention many African-Americans, Arab-Americans, Latinos and others, but they don’t count in this equation. If you don’t use the term “decolonize” then you do not really represent the oppressed. I’m not sure when the Central Committee of Oppressed People met and decided this for everybody, but there it is. And no, it doesn’t matter if the person making the argument is middle-class and white while the person receiving the argument is a Palestinian who has lived, you know, under an Apartheid-style colonial occupation.
So in the end, it wasn’t about building solidarity but about guilt-tripping and point scoring. The arguments rarely discuss the name at all and just talk about supporting the oppressed, as though Occupy Oakland does not want to do that as well. To anybody who asks, “Why are you so obsessed with terminology?” I simply respond, “Why are you?”
Let there be no mistake–and I assure you, there will be plenty of purposefully dishonest “misunderstandings” about what Occupy Oakland represents–the vast majority of us are anti-imperialist, anti-colonialist, anti-racist and have spent years working on those issues. I only say “vast majority” because I have not literally asked everybody, but Occupy Oakland has already organized against racial injustice–including an action for Troy Davis and against the criminal justice system, as well as voting in support of a march for Oscar Grant on January 1. Oh yeah, and there’s that whole “colonization” of the Plaza with the name “Oscar Grant.” People even felt bad and made posters declaring solidary with Frank Ogawa as well, so as not to look like we were dismissing the struggles of Asian-Americans. And, of course, the labor march we organized a few weeks ago included Indigenous people and Running Wolf held a tree sit-in declaring the Plaza “Ohlone Land.” So it’s not like we’re a bunch of economic determinists who don’t give a shit about anything other than downwardly mobile white yuppies.
We just want to keep the name “Occupy.” Why? Well, as one teacher said at the labor march, “Occupy Oakland has built the largest march for education in Oakland’s history.” We don’t want to run away from that legacy. If the “Decolonizers,” on the other hand, want to build an action that is even more successful than this one–or the General Strike, for that matter, which saw African-Americans in West Oakland standing on their front lawns and cheering us as we marched to the Port–proving in practice the power of their terminology, they are more than welcome. Certainly, that would be the most powerful argument for changing the name.
This might happen, but I am skeptical. We’ll also see how many “Decolonizers” turn out at tonight’s GA, but I suspect that it will be the same hundred-ish group of people that have been hanging on for the last week or two. I made an announcement at the end of last night’s GA that, “If you want to Occupy the Port, Decolonize the Port or Shut Down the Port, you should come to our Port Shut Down meeting,” which was just beginning as the GA ended. I cannot tell that many of those newer folks stuck around for it. On the other hand, a white woman who spoke before me announced that there would be a white privilege workshop Monday at 6:30pm (during our GA) a few blocks from the Plaza. That is, she was actively organizing people to leave Occupy Oakland and have a different discussion somewhere else. We’ll see if sitting around and talking about white privilege is as powerful as the West Coast Port Shut Down. Personally, I doubt it.
Do we have problems? Of course we do. The real problem is not that “everybody hates Occupy Oakland”–December 12 will definitively prove that wrong–but that we have lost our sense of purpose. Specifically, we were kicked out of the Plaza twice by the Oakland Police and now that our camp is gone nobody is quite certain what to do next. Everybody wants to occupy a foreclosed building but nobody really knows how to do it. In the meantime, the GA has nothing to do with the Port action and nobody really knows what our goals are anymore. Maybe we will have a resurgence next week but we don’t know at this point.
What we need is not a name change but a unifying sense of purpose, either a new camp or something else that gives us a reason to exist from week to week. The horrors of capitalism, unfortunately, are not enough. We need to all be working toward a common practical goal and we need to figure out that goal soon. “Decolonizers” are welcome to join us in figuring out that goal. Just because we could not reach consensus on the name change does not mean we cannot find it elsewhere.
Losing a vote doesn’t mean you need to walk away. Some of the “Occupiers” chanting against the “Decolonizers” were among the most vocal critics of the facilitation committee, having claimed that people of color felt iced-out of the process. But they’re still “Occupiers.” Some of them lost some very ugly votes and yet they’re still with Occupy Oakland. Why? Because they’re principled.
THIS is what democracy looks like for principled activists. Walking away is something else entirely.
this article is terribly written. is this supposed to be editorial or was it 100% editorial by accident?
is this a blog, or a publication i can trust for updates about the movement in oakland? I am totally appalled that anyone tried to change the name. It shows that people have agendas they are trying to push, ones that will detract from an already detracted situation. What crap. What utter crap. This is why people dont know what to do. Because every time we think we are getting back on our feet, theres some group with an unrelated agenda derailing a meeting like this. The feds could not do it better. but yeah, im confused about the article -
This article is beautifully written, imho. It discusses the problem Occupy Oakland faces– we sit around for hours discussing things like name-changes instead of uniting around a central principle or goal. We need to get past our differences on semantics and hold onto something real, tangible, get our numbers up, plan something that will hold some weight in our community.
“Nobody except a hard-core group of ideologues” .. you mean the 1/3 of the attendees who voted for the name change?!
Er, 2/3!
Three hours on a name change. This is not a workable system of self-organization.
If you keep telling people they are unprincipled and splitters, do you think they’ll want to come back?
I can’t come to most GAs. I can’t stay 24/7 at camp. I think that’s true for most people. Am I part of OO? I feel like here in this blog I’ve heard a couple times that I’m not. How many GAs do I have to come to to get a membership card?
If you want the likes of me out of your movement ,that’s fine. Start a small, radical, membership-based organization. I’m not even being snarky. ACT-UP and the Black Panthers are a couple examples of how effective small, radical, membership-based organizations can be.
But if you want an open organization that welcomes everyone in the community (the idea central to the 99% meme), then why not be more welcoming and friendly to others? Why not listen with more open ears to folks who are trying to make the movement feel more open to them? Why not assume that someone who makes the effort to show up is doing the best they can with the time and resources and energy they have? Bay Area activists who have dedicated their adult lives to social change, but aren’t able (or perhaps, aren’t inclined to) come to every single night of OO should be able to contribute and to have their ideas held as equally valid.
@Oaklove:
You will find nowhere on this blog the idea that people who are not able to camp (we don’t even have a camp!) or cannot come to every GA are unwelcome. I do, however, think that people who come for the first time might ask few questions before raising demands and ultimatums. That is certainly not how I approached Occupy Oakland when I first came around.
The people who I have criticized are precisely the ones who have “unwelcomed” Occupy Oakland from its own organization and tactics. I do assume that people who come are serious and devoted, although when they make silly arguments that make no sense and refuse to listen to others, well, I readjust my thinking.
Scott,
What I’ve seen in two posts here is the idea that there are outsiders or newcomers who somehow don’t represent the true values of OO which, it seems, means your values. I believe that your intent is not to drive people away, but the framing of these posts implies you have to put in some specific amount of time attending meetings or having been in the permanent camp or attending the vigil or whatnot to deserve a full say. If that is, in part, where you’re coming from, I can understand that sentiment. It sucks to work really hard on something and then have a bunch of people who do less work come in and complain about things. That kind of behavior screws up a lot of great community organizations and I think there should be some way to address it. (Spokes council is one method although I’m agnostic as to whether that is the best method.) But I still think part of what attracted masses to the General Strike for example was the idea that this is a movement for everyone and of everyone, at whatever level people can participate. I am really invested in keeping that thread of this movement, that sense that anyone can walk in and be immediately part of it and get a full “vote”.
What I sense here is an idea of an in group and and out group. You talk about people refusing to listen. If this was balanced in some way by an acknowledgement that refusing to listen, heckling and disrespect in various forms comes also from those who argue in favor of your positions (or that calling people’s arguments “silly” could potentially be problematic as well) I’d be grateful because I’d feel the analysis was in the spirit of a critical reflection aimed at making this movement better for everyone. But when I hear (here and elsewhere) that these first time visitors (and I know that many of those who supported this agenda item were not first time visitors) are disrespectful or lack principle or whatnot without that balanced self-reflection, it comes across as more about attacking people who don’t share your personal belief system vs. improving and strengthening process at OO.
Your blog is in the odd position of seeming, because of it’s title I guess, to “represent” OO. I don’t even honestly know the relationship between this blog, the twitter feed of the same name, and the print publication. But I presume that you’re the same person asking OO to support the print pub. So it’s especially problematic for me to see here in this blog these posts that assume certain people are first time participants or outsiders or splitters or not the cool kids or whatever it is people are being accused of instead of reflecting the larger community of OO which, to my thinking, includes a majority who supported yesterday’s agenda item.
I’m not saying you have to agree with it, but I’m troubled and I guess sad if you think that those who are on a different side in some semantic debate aren’t equals in this movement.
Felix
Congratulations, you are a racist. You are actively supporting exactly what you are being told is racism, and calling a majority of the GA a few ideologues who don’t count. You’re calling people who are actively working against the racism in OO divisive and unprincipled. You’re resorting to old stereotypes in insisting that the argument of POC don’t make sense, while not refuting them at all. This entire piece is massively racist.
“The Occupied Oakland Tribune is an unofficial blog about Occupy Oakland and local politics and activism. This blog does not speak for Occupy Oakland as there are no official spokespeople for the movement.”
THEN HOW DID YOU JUST GET $300 FOR UNOFFICIALLY REPRESENTING THE MOVEMENT WITH YOUR UNBALANCED, BIASED OPINIONS?
“We’ll also see how many “Decolonizers” turn out at tonight’s GA, but I suspect that it will be the same hundred-ish group of people that have been hanging on for the last week or two. ”
I am a woman of color who has been participating in the occupation since day 4, and this post and the attitudes it represents are why I am done with Occupy Oakland. To suggest that people who walk away do so because they are some how not as “principled” as the people who have decided to stay is infuriating.
Let me be clear– I was– an still am– very ambivalent about the name change, and I am not particularly in favor of the word “Decolonize”. What I cannot stand is the patronization, the centering of privilege, and the incredible amount of smug self assured ignorance that has been on display in this conversation from so-called progressives who insist that “we are the 99%” but treat poc and their allies with such incredible disrespect and not even veiled contempt. Given the massive ignorance about the history and contemporary reality of the huge ndn community in bay area that has also been shown, it’s laughable.
I keep hearing all this about “we” are the 99%, “we” this, “we” that. If its only white men (and Boots Riley) who get to decide who “we” are and what “we” think is important? It’s not we. It’s *you*. Which is fine. Just be honest about it.
Like Rebeccista said in her open letter, that other “we” will go do our own thing. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_s3X0uW9Ec) Good luck with yours.
Pingback: The Campaign to “Decolonize” Oakland: Native Americans Say “Occupy” Terminology Is Offensive « Earth First! Newswire
Pingback: The Campaign to “Decolonize” Oakland: Native Americans Say “Occupy” Terminology Is Offensive | We are brothers
Pingback: The Campaign to “Decolonize” Oakland | Unsettling America
Frivolously relabeling a successful movement could seriously weaken the movement. I’m part native and am not offended in the least by Occupy. I think the leaders ot these people that are trying to relabel the movement are being paid by the 1% to destroy the Occupy Movement.
Fantastic topic. I also look at composing with regards to piano bench. Could you look at for you to visit my own web site?