This Saturday

[Miss Absynthe]

Wallowing in one's priveledge is such an attractive quality.

[Jonathan]

Or we can determine the best use of a parcel of land to the community with an eye to respecting both property rights and the general public (balancing private ownership with communal eminent domain). Perhaps determined democratically?

Miss Absynthe, you are not good at trolling.

[Saya]

Yeah, we can all vote what we're going to do with colonized land and tell the natives that since they're outnumbered, their concerns don't matter. Democracy!

[Jonathan]

Would it be more fair to restrict the voting by racial heritage? Or maybe economic standing?

PS: how many ancestors do I have to have in the ground before I'm native enough for you?

[Saya]

I hate the idea that white people have that natives just want land that people hundreds of years ago had and they can't get over it. I know people alive today who had land taken away from them, pushed to another place, had their children taken away from them, forced to go to schools where they were rraped, beaten, murdered. All in the name of trying to make natives like white people.

[Miss Absynthe]

It isn't just about land rights and history, it is about the systemic oppression of people and the obliteration of their culture as a means to control and silence.

[x-deviant-x]

is anyone familiar with more recent archaeology that suggests the Clovis culture was not necessarily the first inhabitants of the Americas?

Or does that not count because it doesn't fit the overall accepted theories of who was here first?

How much time is required to pass before a certain group of people are considered "natives"?

when did bending truth to fit a theory become the truth?

I'm sure this is beyond the scope of this discussion.

[Jonathan]

"THE UNITED STATES IS ALREADY BEING OCCUPIED. THIS IS INDIGENOUS LAND."

This is literally how the first paragraph of http://www.scribd.com/doc/68834988/W...AND-DIFFERENCE ends.

The second one begins:
"I also need to mention that New York City is Haudenosaunee territory and home to many other FirstNations."

The quoted letter in the article begins with "I hope you would make mention of the fact that the very land upon which you are protesting does not belong to you – that you are guests upon that stolen indigenous land."

But yeah, it's not like it's a recurring theme or anything.

[Despanan]

That is not a helpful message. (The article)

While I sympathize with the plight of the Native American, saying stuff like "The united states is already occupied" does nothing but cloud the issue and split the movement (While making leftists look loony I might add).

Yes. It was terrible what we did to the Native Americans. Yes our culture still in many ways marginalizes them. We came, we saw, we conquered, we took their land, made their culture illegal, and all but made them extinct as a people.

However, (And I can't stress this enough) that was hundreds of years ago. I'm not going to say that their treatment today is not a problem (because it is) and certainly, YES people should speak up about it and work for justice in the matter (as much can be had at this point) but right now, the pressing struggle is one of capitalist/corporate domination of our government and industry. We have picked a fight with the strongest, most entrenched, and most far-reaching power-structure in the world. There are a million causes that need attention however, and I'm less inclined to repaying past wrongs than I am to dealing with this monster of capitalism and bringing about a cultural revolution. To do this, we need solidarity. I'm less concerned with addressing the wrongs done to the Native Americans during the founding of our country, the slavery, the genocide, the systematic theft of their land and destruction of their culture, than I am with the fact that right now, the majority of chocolate is produced using slave labor and most first worlders don't know and/or don't care. More than this I'm interested in attacking the heart of the problem: which is the widely accepted notion that some people are just better than others, and deserve more than others while some deserve to be without, and the free market is the best way of deciding who this entitled upper-class is.

As long as most of America believes that greed is good and the 1% in America deserve to be where they are, these other causes and wrongs will not be addressed. For now, let's focus on winning the battle of the century, and then we can talk about the best way to ameliorate past wrongs.

[Saya]

[quote=Despanan;683236]That is not a helpful message. (The article)

While I sympathize with the plight of the Native American, saying stuff like "The united states is already occupied" does nothing but cloud the issue and split the movement (While making leftists look loony I might add).
[quote]

You know, a huge huge problem the left movement has had is that it never learns from what came before, we're constantly forgetting and reinventing ourselves. Ignoring difference and the concerns of minorities splits the movement, not being inclusive. When movements decides what is a universal problem, usually that universal problem is what the white people (and usually white men at that) are concerned with. Because of this, it alienates others.

Capitalism has deeply affected Native Americans. Their land was stolen, it is now being poisoned. Canadian example, since they bring up the Tar Sands: Albertan land was stolen. Quite recently in history too, not just hundreds of years ago. We stole their children and abused them. Now companies in the Tar Sands say they have an awesome record hiring aboriginals and they have this "ethical oil" campaign where they try to convince foreigners, namely Americans, that Canadian oil is more ethical than Saudi oil since we don't abuse anyone. Meanwhile, aboriginals who work on the rigs are labeled "prairie nigggers" and while there's a hiring quota, its a revolving door, there's no limit on how many you can fire. And the Tar Sands poison the water that flows north, all the way up to the North West Territories where natives who have some land, can't drink their own water. At Rebelles I spoke with a girl who belongs to the tribe that the government won't give any recognition, they say they're extinct, so they have absolutely no course of action against the Tar Sands. Its not just about occupation, its about environmental theft. Taking land might not mean much to you, but poisoning someone's environment in the name of enterprise is one of the worst things you can do to a population.

But to go back to land claims, it is still important. The article talks about the myth of an idea of a unified "America". Its not just one nation under God, why not think of it as Pan-American? They don't get to define what America is, they don't get to choose to make Columbus Day a holiday or celebrate the beginnings of a horrible relationship with Thanksgiving. They didn't get to choose to build a huge city on their territory. Having land is a step towards autonomy and being allowed to reclaim their culture rather than be expected to blend into white culture. And yeah, they'll probably tell you that its unfeasible to evacuate Manhattan and give it back, but there's nothing wrong in acknowledging you're in First Nations territory and thanking them for having you. We did this at Rebelles, we spent half a day on a Aboriginal women's panel that was probably the most unifying event we held in which nobody was at each other's throats. What DID piss everyone off was when later at an anti-racist, anti-colonialist group, white Quebecors ignored white privilege and spoke over women of colour and wouldn't allow them a word in. Many women left after that and didn't come back the next day.

And I highly doubt everyone at OWS are anarchists or communists. I bet a lot just want regulation, not a total revolution. Are anarchist groups told that they're crazy and splitting the movement because they want a radical change?

However, (And I can't stress this enough) that was hundreds of years ago.

Dude, again, it was within the last hundred years we were sending them to residential schools (I think they were just called Native boarding schools in the states), where we intentionally made the kids sick with TB play with the healthy kids in the hopes that they'd all get sick and die. That only ended in the seventies. Its not something our great great great great great grandfathers did, this is something our fathers and grandfathers did.

I'm not going to say that their treatment today is not a problem (because it is) and certainly, YES people should speak up about it and work for justice in the matter (as much can be had at this point) but right now, the pressing struggle is one of capitalist/corporate domination of our government and industry.

And you don't see how Native peoples are far more affected negatively by capitalism than the average white middle class young person is?

We have picked a fight with the strongest, most entrenched, and most far-reaching power-structure in the world. There are a million causes that need attention however, and I'm less inclined to repaying past wrongs than I am to dealing with this monster of capitalism and bringing about a cultural revolution. To do this, we need solidarity. I'm less concerned with addressing the wrongs done to the Native Americans during the founding of our country, the slavery, the genocide, the systematic theft of their land and destruction of their culture, than I am with the fact that right now, the majority of chocolate is produced using slave labor and most first worlders don't know and/or don't care. More than this I'm interested in attacking the heart of the problem: which is the widely accepted notion that some people are just better than others, and deserve more than others while some deserve to be without, and the free market is the best way of deciding who this entitled upper-class is.

I think Alan was alluding to this in another thread, that the problem with anarchists at least is that they have a very shallow way of looking at things, which is why you see women in the kitchen and men on the panels at anarchist gatherings. Capitalism is a feminist issue, its a class issue, its a race issue, its a colonialist issue. We are all oppressed in very different ways. We don't have to pretend we're all affect in the exact same way to fight to end oppression. We don't have to erase racial, gender or class identity to have solidarity.

Audre Lorde wrote a lot about intersectionality and how she was infuriated when during the second wave of feminism, racial issues were set aside (by white middle class women) to support the idea of a universal sisterhood, to promote solidarity. This is regarded as probably the biggest failure of second wave feminism, that on the mainstream level at least, they tried to ignore race, sexual orientation, class and transnationalism to appear more united. Again, this is what fractured the movement, not trying to embrace intersectionality.

Anyway, she wrote two articles that you should read, The Master's Tools Will Never Dismantle the Master's House:

As women, we have been taught either to ignore our differences, or to view them as causes for separation and suspicion rather than as forces for change. Without community there is no liberation, only the most vulnerable and temporary armistice between an individual and her oppression. But community must not mean a shedding of our differences, nor the pathetic pretense that these differences do not exist.

Those of us who stand outside the circle of this society's definition of acceptable women; those of us who have been forged in the crucibles of difference-those of us who are poor, who are lesbians, who are Black, who are older-know that survival is not an academic skill. It is learning how to stand alone, unpopular and sometimes reviled, and how to make common cause with those others identified as outside the structures in order to define and seek a world in which we can all flourish. It is learning how to take our differences and make them strengths. For the master's tools will never dismantle the master's house. They may allow us temporarily to beat him at his own game, but they will never enable use to bring about genuine change. And this fact is only threatening to those women who still define the master's house as their only source of support.

The whole thing is amazing and really made a light bulb go off in my head about intersectionality. Her article Age, Race, Class and Sex: Women Redefining Difference can be read here: http://goose.ycp.edu/~dweiss/phl380_...ex%20class.pdf, which is again a very amazing article about how white privilege works. The part that really stood out for me was:

Some problems we share as women, some we do not. You fear your children will grow up to join the patriarchy and testify against you, we fear our children will be dragged from a car and shot down in the street, and you will turn your backs upon the reasons they are dying.

Privilege affords us to be able to ignore the plight in third world countries, of native rights, we have to seek this information out and even then there is no guarantee we'll care or won't turn a blind eye. But that is a privilege that not everyone has.

As long as most of America believes that greed is good and the 1% in America deserve to be where they are, these other causes and wrongs will not be addressed. For now, let's focus on winning the battle of the century, and then we can talk about the best way to ameliorate past wrongs.

Honestly, I wouldn't put my feminist issues aside and trust men will get to looking at them once the revolution is over, and maybe perhaps grant me some rights when the time is right for them. How we win the battle and what we create in capitalism's place, I do not want defined by any less than all of us, with true consensus.

[Despanan]

Originally Posted by Saya

You know, a huge huge problem the left movement has had is that it never learns from what came before, we're constantly forgetting and reinventing ourselves. Ignoring difference and the concerns of minorities splits the movement, not being inclusive. When movements decides what is a universal problem, usually that universal problem is what the white people (and usually white men at that) are concerned with. Because of this, it alienates others.

I completely understand this and agree. I'm not ignoring the problem, I'm saying there are bigger fish to fry right now. Splitting our focus to a million different issues splits our power and makes it less likely we'll get anything done at all.

I'm not saying "forget about this issue" or even stop talking about it, I'm saying "Focus on similarities and find a consensus". As Naomi Klein said in her recent speech:

Originally Posted by Naomi Klein

We have picked a fight with the most powerful economic and political forces on the planet. That’s frightening. And as this movement grows from strength to strength, it will get more frightening. Always be aware that there will be a temptation to shift to smaller targets—like, say, the person sitting next to you at this meeting. After all, that is a battle that’s easier to win.

Don’t give in to the temptation. I’m not saying don’t call each other on shit. But this time, let’s treat each other as if we plan to work side by side in struggle for many, many years to come. Because the task before will demand nothing less.

Capitalism has deeply affected Native Americans.

Capitalism has deeply effected us all. Native Americans and other minorities far moreso than myself. These are problems that need to be solved, of course but there is currently not enough education among the people and the current cultural attitudes play against solving them.

They will be solved, but if we focus on one specialized battle that effects only one tiny minority (Granted the minority is tiny BECAUSE of what we've done to them, but once again, I can't do anything about that) we will lose this war.

But to go back to land claims, it is still important. The article talks about the myth of an idea of a unified "America". Its not just one nation under God, why not think of it as Pan-American? They don't get to define what America is, they don't get to choose to make Columbus Day a holiday or celebrate the beginnings of a horrible relationship with Thanksgiving. They didn't get to choose to build a huge city on their territory. Having land is a step towards autonomy and being allowed to reclaim their culture rather than be expected to blend into white culture. And yeah, they'll probably tell you that its unfeasible to evacuate Manhattan and give it back, but there's nothing wrong in acknowledging you're in First Nations territory and thanking them for having you. We did this at Rebelles, we spent half a day on a Aboriginal women's panel that was probably the most unifying event we held in which nobody was at each other's throats. What DID piss everyone off was when later at an anti-racist, anti-colonialist group, white Quebecors ignored white privilege and spoke over women of colour and wouldn't allow them a word in. Many women left after that and didn't come back the next day.

Sounds great. I don't have a problem with acknowledging this, or letting Native Americans, or women, or any other minority speak and address the wrongs that have been committed upon them by this monstrous system.

And I highly doubt everyone at OWS are anarchists or communists. I bet a lot just want regulation, not a total revolution. Are anarchist groups told that they're crazy and splitting the movement because they want a radical change?

Certainly not, but most anarchists and socialists are on-message complaining directly about capitalism, they just prescribe a more extreme solution that the moderates. I don't mean to be callous but the argument of that article seems to be a tertiary issue at best. I'm not saying the article shouldn't be circulated, but there is a level of danger inherent in clouding the issue and allowing OWS to become a catch-all stage for everyone's social complaints. Particularly when you level aggression at the movement itself.

Dude, again, it was within the last hundred years we were sending them to residential schools (I think they were just called Native boarding schools in the states), where we intentionally made the kids sick with TB play with the healthy kids in the hopes that they'd all get sick and die. That only ended in the seventies. Its not something our great great great great great grandfathers did, this is something our fathers and grandfathers did.

This is beyond horrible and I was unaware of it. Where did it happen and who did it?

And you don't see how Native peoples are far more affected negatively by capitalism than the average white middle class young person is?

Of course I do. I just said that.

I think Alan was alluding to this in another thread, that the problem with anarchists at least is that they have a very shallow way of looking at things, which is why you see women in the kitchen and men on the panels at anarchist gatherings. Capitalism is a feminist issue, its a class issue, its a race issue, its a colonialist issue. We are all oppressed in very different ways. We don't have to pretend we're all affect in the exact same way to fight to end oppression. We don't have to erase racial, gender or class identity to have solidarity.

No one is saying we should. I'm just saying "bigger picture". Solidarity, focus and consensus is what's going to win this.

Audre Lorde wrote a lot about intersectionality and how she was infuriated when during the second wave of feminism, racial issues were set aside (by white middle class women) to support the idea of a universal sisterhood, to promote solidarity. This is regarded as probably the biggest failure of second wave feminism, that on the mainstream level at least, they tried to ignore race, sexual orientation, class and transnationalism to appear more united. Again, this is what fractured the movement, not trying to embrace intersectionality.

There is a definite danger in ignoring or marginalizing groups within the movement, I'll give you that.

Privilege affords us to be able to ignore the plight in third world countries, of native rights, we have to seek this information out and even then there is no guarantee we'll care or won't turn a blind eye. But that is a privilege that not everyone has.


Honestly, I wouldn't put my feminist issues aside and trust men will get to looking at them once the revolution is over, and maybe perhaps grant me some rights when the time is right for them. How we win the battle and what we create in capitalism's place, I do not want defined by any less than all of us, with true consensus.

I don't think you should. Nor do I think Native Americans should put their issues aside. They have a reason for legitimate outrage and a place in the OWS movement. However, consider what we're up against, and who we have to convince:

The conservatives have a MASSIVELY strong narrative and stamp out dissent in their ranks in seconds. They have control over the greatest propaganda machine since the Third Reich, they have the majority of the police, the military, and the money, and they stay on message. The only thing we have is popular support.

The only way to beat them is to have a stronger and more consistent message. We have to craft a story of systematic abuse and exploitation down through the generations which affects us all and galvanizes the support of the vast majority of moderates. We have to keep our message simple, direct, and easily understandable to people who like myself, are largely ignorant of recent atrocities.

People will respond emotionally to the accusation that they're living on stolen land (which they had no part in stealing mind you) and they will run to the conservatives, because the conservatives narrative casts them as the deserving heroes, not the villains.

I'm not saying don't point out that what they have is a result of exploitation, I'm saying be mindful of how you say it, and what you say, because this can have a significant effect on whether or not folks choose to listen to you.

[Saya]

Originally Posted by Despanan

I completely understand this and agree. I'm not ignoring the problem, I'm saying there are bigger fish to fry right now. Splitting our focus to a million different issues splits our power and makes it less likely we'll get anything done at all.

I'm not saying "forget about this issue" or even stop talking about it, I'm saying "Focus on similarities and find a consensus". As Naomi Klein said in her recent speech:




Capitalism has deeply effected us all. Native Americans and other minorities far moreso than myself. These are problems that need to be solved, of course but there is currently not enough education among the people and the current cultural attitudes play against solving them.

They will be solved, but if we focus on one specialized battle that effects only one tiny minority (Granted the minority is tiny BECAUSE of what we've done to them, but once again, I can't do anything about that) we will lose this war.

I don't think its just about a minority. If we embrace the idea that you can't steal our money to bail out the rich, what's so different from embracing the idea that you can't steal land to give to the rich?

Sounds great. I don't have a problem with acknowledging this, or letting Native Americans, or women, or any other minority speak and address the wrongs that have been committed upon them by this monstrous system.

Certainly not, but most anarchists and socialists are on-message complaining directly about capitalism, they just prescribe a more extreme solution that the moderates. I don't mean to be callous but the argument of that article seems to be a tertiary issue at best. I'm not saying the article shouldn't be circulated, but there is a level of danger inherent in clouding the issue and allowing OWS to become a catch-all stage for everyone's social complaints. Particularly when you level aggression at the movement itself.

I'd say they're pretty damn on message and puts the crime of colonialism at capitalism's doorstep and warns us not to use the master's tools. What's on message is being defined through white men's eyes, is the problem.

This is beyond horrible and I was unaware of it. Where did it happen and who did it?

I'm not really familiar with American Native boarding schools, everytime we learned about it it was added "and the Americans did this too". But it was everywhere in Canada, was legislated by the government, the children were rounded up by the police, and sent far away from their homes. Often the residential schools were run by different churches on native land given to them by the government to build these schools, but sometimes they were also sent to schools with white children, I was talking to our provincial NDP leader last week, and she came in on the tail end of a talk we were having with the aboriginal resource centre. She mentioned how in the seventies she was a principal of a school here in St.John's as a nun, and they sent three little girls down from Labrador. They were there three months in a Catholic anglophone school before she realized they could not speak a word of English. Teachers didn't care, the police didn't care, the government didn't care, because by being native, it didn't matter that they learn anything, by being native they were already failures, what mattered was the marginalization of the aboriginal peoples. In residential schools, it was policy to beat children for speaking their native tongue, so after ten years when they were sent home, they had no means to communicate with their parents.

No one is saying we should. I'm just saying "bigger picture". Solidarity, focus and consensus is what's going to win this.

How are you going to get true consensus if only the issues of the mythical norm matter in "the big picture"?

There is a definite danger in ignoring or marginalizing groups within the movement, I'll give you that.

Its already happening. Did you hear about the "hot women of OWS" blog that popped up? That's the way to win feminist allies!

I don't think you should. Nor do I think Native Americans should put their issues aside. They have a reason for legitimate outrage and a place in the OWS movement. However, consider what we're up against, and who we have to convince:

1) The conservatives have a MASSIVELY strong narrative and stamp out dissent in their ranks in seconds. They have control over the greatest propaganda machine since the Third Reich, they have the majority of the police, the military, and the money, and they stay on message.

Not having one solid message isn't OWS weakness, it is its strength. Feminism was co-opted by capitalism many many times, and the leftist movement too (you've heard of the Rebel Sell, right?) Already MTV is setting up a reality show to capitalize on OWS.

In Manufacturing Consent Noam Chomsky talks about how in today's media, you have to get your message out in a little soundbite, that's all you can afford. Its the reason he says why no one likes talking to him on the news, because what he has to say is complicated and takes time. I don't think Chomsky should get a catchphrase to get a little bit on CNN. What needs to happen is that we must no longer define the public sphere by how capitalism defines it.

The only way to beat them is to have a stronger and more consistent message. We have to craft a story of systematic abuse and exploitation down through the generations which affects us all and galvanizes the support of the vast majority of moderates. We have to keep our message simple, direct, and easily understandable to people who like myself, are largely ignorant of recent atrocities.

People will respond emotionally to the accusation that they're living on stolen land (which they had no part in stealing mind you) and they will run to the conservatives, because the conservatives narrative casts them as the deserving heroes, not the villains.

People will respond emotionally to the accusation that property is theft. What's different is that "property is theft" isn't very specific in and of itself and needs explaining, so you can assure the average person that its not about them. The accusation of stolen land directly speaks to how long this has been going on, and how we built a country on colonialism, racism and bloodshed. It directly points to white privilege as master's tools.

As a feminist I'm not interested in dumbing down the message, and I'm sure other minorities aren't interested in pussy footing around so they don't hurt any white men's feelings. Again, this is directly about believing patriarchy is your sole support. What about the rest of us, who are oppressed in much different ways than the average white middle class male? We, who outnumber you? We, who have been fighting all our lives? Why are we not suitable allies but the apathetic moderate is?

[Despanan]

Originally Posted by Saya

I don't think its just about a minority. If we embrace the idea that you can't steal our money to bail out the rich, what's so different from embracing the idea that you can't steal land to give to the rich?

Nothing. But read the article. It doesn't read like an honest critique on the OWS movement, it doesn't read like: "Hey Comrade, don't forget about us, we've been being exploited by Capitalism WAY worse than you" it reads like Republican propaganda aimed at demoralizing and disrupting an honest movement for political and social change by driving multiple racial and cultural wedges between the wonderfully inclusive idea of the 99%.

Look at the language it employs: referring to minorities who are just as much of a part of the movement as anyone else as folks helping for a "political trickle-down", saying stuff right at the beginning like "I don't want to destroy capitalism" "no leaders means leaders move covertly"

This article reads as a direct assault on OWS, not an honest nudge, but a straight-up attempt to remove legitimacy on the movement by attacking it's liberal street cred. It is important that minority voices be heard, and be a driving force in the movement, but what is cobbled together here is an assault on the few people who are actively trying to make a difference.

I'd say they're pretty damn on message and puts the crime of colonialism at capitalism's doorstep and warns us not to use the master's tools. What's on message is being defined through white men's eyes, is the problem...How are you going to get true consensus if only the issues of the mythical norm matter in "the big picture"?

What's more important, to more people Saya: Discrediting the idea that some people are just "better" than others and the free market is how it is decided, or addressing a grievance done to people none of us know, by people none of us know?

I mean the boarding school stuff is straight-up criminal behavior, yes, by all means deal with that and bring those responsible to justice. Theft of land in the 1700s and 1800s? It's a distraction.

Its already happening. Did you hear about the "hot women of OWS" blog that popped up? That's the way to win feminist allies!

I saw topless body-painting there as well. It's juvenile and weird, and there deserves to be some level of criticism, but no more than having a free black-flag concert put on. It certainly doesn't discredit the entire movement.

Not having one solid message isn't OWS weakness, it is its strength. Feminism was co-opted by capitalism many many times, and the leftist movement too (you've heard of the Rebel Sell, right?) Already MTV is setting up a reality show to capitalize on OWS.

Not having one solid message is one thing, pulling the message completely off-topic is quite another. There are THOUSANDS if not millions of wrongs which need to be corrected. Can we correct the big one now, and focus on an overall cultural revolution?

In Manufacturing Consent Noam Chomsky talks about how in today's media, you have to get your message out in a little soundbite, that's all you can afford. Its the reason he says why no one likes talking to him on the news, because what he has to say is complicated and takes time. I don't think Chomsky should get a catchphrase to get a little bit on CNN. What needs to happen is that we must no longer define the public sphere by how capitalism defines it.

I think we need to move beyond soundbites, but fact of the matter is, the attention span has shrunk MASSIVELY. I'm not interested in operating in a different world, I'm interested in active working for a better world in this one and I will use every tool at my disposal to do so. You might as well criticize protestors for using iphones and facebook to organize anti-corporate demonstrations, and tell me that if I want to be a "real anarchist" I should demand and work towards the abolition of the state tomorrow.

People will respond emotionally to the accusation that property is theft. What's different is that "property is theft" isn't very specific in and of itself and needs explaining, so you can assure the average person that its not about them. The accusation of stolen land directly speaks to how long this has been going on, and how we built a country on colonialism, racism and bloodshed. It directly points to white privilege as master's tools.

that's why I say "Private ownership of Industry is theft".

The idea of privilege is important to stamp out. The fact that capitalism is built on exploitation of minorities and the third world is important to point out. Stolen land muddies the waters. If you make the primary issue "Stolen land" as the article suggests, it becomes a native American movement and isolates it. If you incorporate that as a smaller part of your overall narrative it keeps it inclusive.

As a feminist I'm not interested in dumbing down the message, and I'm sure other minorities aren't interested in pussy footing around so they don't hurt any white men's feelings. Again, this is directly about believing patriarchy is your sole support. What about the rest of us, who are oppressed in much different ways than the average white middle class male? We, who outnumber you? We, who have been fighting all our lives? Why are we not suitable allies but the apathetic moderate is?

Of course you're suitable allies, but this isn't just about you. Just as this isn't just about me. This is not about your private fight or your pet issues. They are important issues and they have a place, just as my personal issues do, but when issues like the theft of native land or feminists being offended by some kids using sex to sell the message take center stage it makes the conflict SMALLER.

It's tempting to shift focus to one or two smaller issues and try to slove those instead, but when you do you weaken the movement and purposefully exclude a huge number of people who haven't even THOUGHT about these issues. You bring personal prejudice into the argument and you undermine your own side and strengthen the opposition by displaying the ultimate liberal weakeness: Our tendency to criticize and second-guess our own before the ones who are actually responsible for the perpetuation of this intolerable situation. You break us up into tribes and nations and camps and fires, and you make it easier for the giant, unified block of dumbasses to run us over yet again because you're too busy quibbling over the details.

By all means, keep fighting for what you're passionate about. Keep calling the rest of us out on our shit and keeping us honest. Steer this movement in the right direction, but for the love of god, do it in a direction of solidarity. Do it in a manner which works FOR the movement, not against it, and most of all, do it in a manner that recognizes that most everyone is your comrade, because I'll tell you what, those folks on the right? Those folks in the 1%? They don't give two shits about stolen land or your own struggle for equality and would send you back to the kitchen to pop out babies in chains if they could, and they'd feel good about themselves for doing it.

You need mainstream appeal for something like this to work, and you need a consistent easily understood message, and you need to attack the root of the problem and leave the pruning for later.

[Jonathan]

The fracturing into endless pet issues is why the left is a political juggernaut in modern American society.

[Saya]

Originally Posted by Despanan

Nothing. But read the article. It doesn't read like an honest critique on the OWS movement, it doesn't read like: "Hey Comrade, don't forget about us, we've been being exploited by Capitalism WAY worse than you" it reads like Republican propaganda aimed at demoralizing and disrupting an honest movement for political and social change by driving multiple racial and cultural wedges between the wonderfully inclusive idea of the 99%.

Its not inclusive if dick heads are calling native rights issues "pet issues." We embrace the "I have lots of student loans" narrative even if 99% does not have it. We embrace the "My taxes went to bail out banks" narrative, even though many working poor don't have to pay taxes. But when another minority says "Our land was stolen, we were enslaved, and now our daughters are ***** and murdered", we say its divisive.

There is no one experience that would represent 99% of the country. Not one. The thing about 99% is that we are not the super rich, that's it. And we won't get very far if that's the only thing we can talk about.

Look at the language it employs: referring to minorities who are just as much of a part of the movement as anyone else as folks helping for a "political trickle-down", saying stuff right at the beginning like "I don't want to destroy capitalism" "no leaders means leaders move covertly"

You mean the part "I’m not against ending capitalism and I’m not against people organizing to hold big corporations accountable for the extreme damagethey are causing."? and "How can we truly end capitalism without ending colonialism?" Where does it say "I don't want to destroy capitalism"?

As for "No Leaders", its a good point, and again this is a failure of many anarchist organizations. Having no official leaders does not mean patriarchy goes away. It doesn't mean that racism ends. Its a serious issue in collectives that there might be a few people who dominate the conversation and there has to be a lot of care to identify how they do that and prevent them from doing so. It just becomes more subtle, unofficial. Its a good warning to have.

This article reads as a direct assault on OWS, not an honest nudge, but a straight-up attempt to remove legitimacy on the movement by attacking it's liberal street cred. It is important that minority voices be heard, and be a driving force in the movement, but what is cobbled together here is an assault on the few people who are actively trying to make a difference.

Its only an assault if you really don't like being called out on being ignorant, like you admitted to be, or deliberately being ignored. Its only an assault if you don't want minorities to point out how you can be more inclusive.

What's more important, to more people Saya: Discrediting the idea that some people are just "better" than others and the free market is how it is decided, or addressing a grievance done to people none of us know, by people none of us know?

How are you going to do that when people like Jonathan think they're better than Natives and their concerns don't matter? Its not just others, as activists you need to better yourselves before you can think of educating others.

I mean the boarding school stuff is straight-up criminal behavior, yes, by all means deal with that and bring those responsible to justice. Theft of land in the 1700s and 1800s? It's a distraction.

That's how far back it goes, and the theft of that land has left Native people at the mercy of marginalization and genocide since, and are still being viciously colonialized to this day. If a black group said "hey, lets not forget that time our bodies and lives were commodified and how we still suffer the effects of slavery," will you tell them to just get over it and they're being a distraction? If you're only going to concern yourself with how things have been since 2009, you're not going to get the 99% you want.

I saw topless body-painting there as well. It's juvenile and weird, and there deserves to be some level of criticism, but no more than having a free black-flag concert put on. It certainly doesn't discredit the entire movement.

It hurts how potential allies view you. I'm really weirded out about how Occupy Newfoundland is just all white men. True most women probably wouldn't feel safe camping downtown, but considering women have far more to be angry about, its weird and having no women there probably prevents women from joining.

Not having one solid message is one thing, pulling the message completely off-topic is quite another. There are THOUSANDS if not millions of wrongs which need to be corrected. Can we correct the big one now, and focus on an overall cultural revolution?

What cultural revolution, if most people involved only want regulation? Since when is "revolution" what people there are demanding? Why wouldn't anti-racist, anti-colonial issues NOT be part of the revolution against capitalism?

I think we need to move beyond soundbites, but fact of the matter is, the attention span has shrunk MASSIVELY. I'm not interested in operating in a different world, I'm interested in active working for a better world in this one and I will use every tool at my disposal to do so. You might as well criticize protestors for using iphones and facebook to organize anti-corporate demonstrations, and tell me that if I want to be a "real anarchist" I should demand and work towards the abolition of the state tomorrow.

If you use racist tools, you will scare away potential allies. If you use sexist tools, you'll scare away the feminists. If you use colonial tools, you'll scare away the Natives. If you use privilege to silence those who have less privilege in order to bring attention to what YOU consider through your limited world view to be "universal", you're not being much better than capitalists, and you're setting the movement up for failure.

You're also selling people short. Right now people are waking up from apathy. Telling us we should be more apathetic about our issues is concerning to say the least, and saying that other Americans are just too ignorant to get it or won't even bother learning is the same kind of reasoning behind tyranny. They're not smart enough to think for themselves so let's do it for them?

that's why I say "Private ownership of Industry is theft".

That's still a fuckload to say in America.

The idea of privilege is important to stamp out. The fact that capitalism is built on exploitation of minorities and the third world is important to point out. Stolen land muddies the waters. If you make the primary issue "Stolen land" as the article suggests, it becomes a native American movement and isolates it. If you incorporate that as a smaller part of your overall narrative it keeps it inclusive.

The article suggests you respect native land and make sure that they are included. Again, we did it with Rebelles, and everyone agreed it was one of the things we got right. Being essentialist is what made people leave and we did not get consensus in the end.

Of course you're suitable allies, but this isn't just about you. Just as this isn't just about me. This is not about your private fight or your pet issues. They are important issues and they have a place, just as my personal issues do, but when issues like the theft of native land or feminists being offended by some kids using sex to sell the message take center stage it makes the conflict SMALLER.

[Saya]

Absolutely fucking not. Women are 51% of the population, have 87% of the consumerist power in America, and yet make up 16% in the house and senate. Capitalism thrives on the insecurity of women and use media and marketing to silence women and keep them from gaining democratic representation. That's pretty fucking insidious and if more women became aware of that, the movement would be huge and it would be far angrier. If you dont' get specifics, if you only focus on cisgender middle class white men and their student loans, fuck all will happen. Maybe things will get better for you through reform and regulation, but fuck no there won't be a revolution, and everyone else will view OWS as not for them.

It's tempting to shift focus to one or two smaller issues and try to slove those instead, but when you do you weaken the movement and purposefully exclude a huge number of people who haven't even THOUGHT about these issues. You bring personal prejudice into the argument and you undermine your own side and strengthen the opposition by displaying the ultimate liberal weakeness: Our tendency to criticize and second-guess our own before the ones who are actually responsible for the perpetuation of this intolerable situation. You break us up into tribes and nations and camps and fires, and you make it easier for the giant, unified block of dumbasses to run us over yet again because you're too busy quibbling over the details.

I don't think "hey, lets talk about how capitalism instigates racism and sexism as well as class" accuses everyone at OWS of being racist. It means you have privilege and you don't think about it. You should think about it, and here's some things for you to think about. It means you shouldn't have that privilege and if you want to truly change things, you're going to have to sacrifice that privilege. If not, its once again angry white men telling everyone else how things should be. History repeats itself, and OWS is no means of liberation for the rest of us.

By all means, keep fighting for what you're passionate about. Keep calling the rest of us out on our shit and keeping us honest. Steer this movement in the right direction, but for the love of god, do it in a direction of solidarity. Do it in a manner which works FOR the movement, not against it, and most of all, do it in a manner that recognizes that most everyone is your comrade, because I'll tell you what, those folks on the right? Those folks in the 1%? They don't give two shits about stolen land or your own struggle for equality and would send you back to the kitchen to pop out babies in chains if they could, and they'd feel good about themselves for doing it.

According to Jonathan, the 99% doesn't give two shits either. Why should I help a movement that derides what I'm passionate about and accuses ME of being divisive when they say what I care about its merely a pet issue?

You need mainstream appeal for something like this to work, and you need a consistent easily understood message, and you need to attack the root of the problem and leave the pruning for later.

Again, not everyone even agrees CAPITALISM in and of itself is the problem. Many people would say REGULATION, specifically lack thereof, is the problem. There is no consensus right now on what the root problem is. The thing I liked about OWS is that it did seem unbrandable, free from definition, that we could all bring our difference to and use it as a force of change. If you're saying that's not what it is, that we have to play by the master's rules, then I don't want to support it.

[AshleyO]

Originally Posted by Saya

Again, not everyone even agrees CAPITALISM in and of itself is the problem. Many people would say REGULATION, specifically lack thereof, is the problem. There is no consensus right now on what the root problem is. The thing I liked about OWS is that it did seem unbrandable, free from definition, that we could all bring our difference to and use it as a force of change. If you're saying that's not what it is, that we have to play by the master's rules, then I don't want to support it.

Then by all means, Saya. Don't support it. Go ahead and do what you do. You stick to your guns and I'll just agree with you that OWS is lost.

*shrugs*

[Despanan]

Originally Posted by Saya

Its not inclusive if dick heads are calling native rights issues "pet issues." We embrace the "I have lots of student loans" narrative even if 99% does not have it. We embrace the "My taxes went to bail out banks" narrative, even though many working poor don't have to pay taxes. But when another minority says "Our land was stolen, we were enslaved, and now our daughters are ***** and murdered", we say its divisive.

NO. When another minority says "Our land was stolen, we were enslaved, and now our daughters are ***** and murdered, and then implies OWS protestors are to blame, as if they had something to do with it and need to apologize and/or make restitution before going forward with their protest then it's divisive.

I probably shouldn't have said "pet issues" as that's patronizing and minimizes their importance, so I apologize for that, but the fact of the matter is there are bigger things at stake, and bigger issues than what you're arguing about here. Having a proper perspective on this is important.

There is no one experience that would represent 99% of the country. Not one. The thing about 99% is that we are not the super rich, that's it. And we won't get very far if that's the only thing we can talk about.

Uhhh...yeah, duh. When did I say we can't talk about minority issues. I think I said it's important that we DO talk about minority issues, as they're just as important as everyone else's issues, they should just be talked about in such a way as to serve the narrative.

You mean the part "I’m not against ending capitalism and I’m not against people organizing to hold big corporations accountable for the extreme damagethey are causing."? and "How can we truly end capitalism without ending colonialism?" Where does it say "I don't want to destroy capitalism"?

My bad. I misread it.

As for "No Leaders", its a good point, and again this is a failure of many anarchist organizations. Having no official leaders does not mean patriarchy goes away. It doesn't mean that racism ends. Its a serious issue in collectives that there might be a few people who dominate the conversation and there has to be a lot of care to identify how they do that and prevent them from doing so. It just becomes more subtle, unofficial. Its a good warning to have.

To a certain extent, yes. However the way it's phrased and the position of prominence it's given is troubling for reasons I've already explained.

Its only an assault if you really don't like being called out on being ignorant, like you admitted to be, or deliberately being ignored. Its only an assault if you don't want minorities to point out how you can be more inclusive.

It's an assault when it calls into question the legitimacy of the movement in an exclusive manner. There are better ways to say this is what I'm saying, and currently it's being said so poorly I would almost expect it to be coming from a foxnews contributor.

How are you going to do that when people like Jonathan think they're better than Natives and their concerns don't matter? Its not just others, as activists you need to better yourselves before you can think of educating others.

Where did Johnathan say or imply he was better than the natives?

That's how far back it goes, and the theft of that land has left Native people at the mercy of marginalization and genocide since, and are still being viciously colonialized to this day. If a black group said "hey, lets not forget that time our bodies and lives were commodified and how we still suffer the effects of slavery," will you tell them to just get over it and they're being a distraction? If you're only going to concern yourself with how things have been since 2009, you're not going to get the 99% you want.

Actually, this happened at the protest. I said "fuck yeah brother" and the two of us Bro-pounded. The difference was his story adds to the whole of the epic. If he'd said: "Hey, you, white-boy, you can't talk about equality until you apologize for slavery!" it would have been divisive and I would've probably gotten into an argument with him.

It hurts how potential allies view you. I'm really weirded out about how Occupy Newfoundland is just all white men. True most women probably wouldn't feel safe camping downtown, but considering women have far more to be angry about, its weird and having no women there probably prevents women from joining.

So go join. Encourage others to join.

What cultural revolution, if most people involved only want regulation? Since when is "revolution" what people there are demanding? Why wouldn't anti-racist, anti-colonial issues NOT be part of the revolution against capitalism?

It is. I've said that over and over again.

If you use racist tools, you will scare away potential allies. If you use sexist tools, you'll scare away the feminists. If you use colonial tools, you'll scare away the Natives. If you use privilege to silence those who have less privilege in order to bring attention to what YOU consider through your limited world view to be "universal", you're not being much better than capitalists, and you're setting the movement up for failure.

I'm sorry. What Racist tools am I using? What sexist tools am I using? What colonial tools am I using?

You're also selling people short. Right now people are waking up from apathy. Telling us we should be more apathetic about our issues is concerning to say the least, and saying that other Americans are just too ignorant to get it or won't even bother learning is the same kind of reasoning behind tyranny. They're not smart enough to think for themselves so let's do it for them?

I have said nothing of the sort.

The article suggests you respect native land and make sure that they are included. Again, we did it with Rebelles, and everyone agreed it was one of the things we got right. Being essentialist is what made people leave and we did not get consensus in the end.

I'm all for including them. I'm against making a major focus of this "native land" because I don't think it's a broad enough issue.

[Despanan]

Originally Posted by Saya

Absolutely fucking not. Women are 51% of the population, have 87% of the consumerist power in America, and yet make up 16% in the house and senate. Capitalism thrives on the insecurity of women and use media and marketing to silence women and keep them from gaining democratic representation. That's pretty fucking insidious and if more women became aware of that, the movement would be huge and it would be far angrier. If you dont' get specifics, if you only focus on cisgender middle class white men and their student loans, fuck all will happen. Maybe things will get better for you through reform and regulation, but fuck no there won't be a revolution, and everyone else will view OWS as not for them.

I don't think you really understand what's going on here at OWS. Women are not marginalized. They run work-groups and we have a number of female leaders and have had major female leftist speakers like Naomi Klein. And yeah, a few women have taken off their tops and done naked body painting. It's not like the entire movement is doing that.

I don't think "hey, lets talk about how capitalism instigates racism and sexism as well as class" accuses everyone at OWS of being racist. It means you have privilege and you don't think about it. You should think about it, and here's some things for you to think about. It means you shouldn't have that privilege and if you want to truly change things, you're going to have to sacrifice that privilege. If not, its once again angry white men telling everyone else how things should be. History repeats itself, and OWS is no means of liberation for the rest of us.

Yeaaaahhhh...I'm going to go with "You've read a ridiculously insane amount into my posts" and "You have very little idea what's actually going on down here". Because seriously, there's plenty of what you want going on. It just doesn't take a hectoring tone which is critical of other protestors and instead focuses on the real enemy.

According to Jonathan, the 99% doesn't give two shits either. Why should I help a movement that derides what I'm passionate about and accuses ME of being divisive when they say what I care about its merely a pet issue?

You really should actually get involved. I don't think anyone there (myself included) would deride what you're talking about. The energy is really good at OWS and there's certainly a place for what you're saying.

Again, not everyone even agrees CAPITALISM in and of itself is the problem. Many people would say REGULATION, specifically lack thereof, is the problem. There is no consensus right now on what the root problem is. The thing I liked about OWS is that it did seem unbrandable, free from definition, that we could all bring our difference to and use it as a force of change. If you're saying that's not what it is, that we have to play by the master's rules, then I don't want to support it.

No one has to play by any "Master Rules" I, myself, am saying it's best to keep your contributions constructive ie: Make your objections in a way that promotes solidarity and contributes to the overall narrative. Telling people they can't speak until they acknowledge this or that isn't constructive. Why not instead make yourself a sign that acknowledges this or that and go down to occupy Newfoundland and talk about feminism? Why not invite more women and first nations people there as well?

BTW: You seem to think OWS is just a bunch of middle class white people. I can assure you that whatever you've heard on the media about that is false. I've been down there for 5 days now, it's diverse even by New York standards.

[Saya]

Originally Posted by Despanan

NO. When another minority says "Our land was stolen, we were enslaved, and now our daughters are ***** and murdered, and then implies OWS protestors are to blame, as if they had something to do with it and need to apologize and/or make restitution before going forward with their protest then it's divisive.

Where did it say that? When it said that OWS hasn't acknowledge the occupied land? That it hasn't included a decolonization narrative? Where does it say that it should be the only narrative? Where they call on you to basically acknowledge native rights? That "hey, there should be a Pan-American narrative to help dismantle racism and colonialism and to be more inclusive" is a personal indigment against you? How will that do anything but take an afternoon of your time to brush up on your history?

Dude, I think you're reading white guilt into this. Natives ask for acknowledgement of their struggles, what "occupation" means to them, and ask that we also value their struggles. You take that as "its all your fault, OWS."?

Even when it says

Neither approach needs to be treated by whites as a threat. How groups ad-dress this can further be educational, and the Occupy movement needs tobe sensitive to the past. Even if none of us are responsible for things that transpired generations ago, privilege and power are passed down and we are obligated to ensure the present isn’t one where past truths are denied or unreconciled.

You're really sheltered if you think that's divisive. Its positive criticism that provides ways in which the movement can be better aware and be vigilant about racism within in the movement.

Go read the SCUM Manifesto if you really want to see some hyperbolic activism. This is the nicest way they probably could have put it.

I probably shouldn't have said "pet issues" as that's patronizing and minimizes their importance, so I apologize for that, but the fact of the matter is there are bigger things at stake, and bigger issues than what you're arguing about here. Having a proper perspective on this is important.

We live in a racist patriarchal capitalist society, and those characteristics prop each other up. Patriarchy is a huge, big issue, probably a bigger issue than your student loan debt. Same with racism!

It's an assault when it calls into question the legitimacy of the movement in an exclusive manner. There are better ways to say this is what I'm saying, and currently it's being said so poorly I would almost expect it to be coming from a foxnews contributor.

"Hey, we should remember the colonialist nature of this country and that we don't embrace the idea of "American!!!" since it was and remains unaccessable to us. May we have a part in this movement?"

FOX NEWS PEOPLE.

Where did Johnathan say or imply he was better than the natives?

Constantly dismissing native issues is a pretty good sign that you're racist.

Actually, this happened at the protest. I said "fuck yeah brother" and the two of us Bro-pounded. The difference was his story adds to the whole of the epic. If he'd said: "Hey, you, white-boy, you can't talk about equality until you apologize for slavery!" it would have been divisive and I would've probably gotten into an argument with him.

Again, where the fuck are you getting this? My god, has it really never occurred to you until now that Natives might have suffered under racist colonialist rule? Does it really hurt your ego to know that they think you're a little bit ignorant about their issues?

I'm sorry. What Racist tools am I using? What sexist tools am I using? What colonial tools am I using?

Dismissing us as pet issues? Dramatically over reacting when Natives argue why they should be part of the narrative and accuse them with no evidence that they are saying they want to take over the movement?

I'm all for including them. I'm against making a major focus of this "native land" because I don't think it's a broad enough issue.

Again, its just as broad as student loans and taxes.

[Saya]

Originally Posted by Despanan

I don't think you really understand what's going on here at OWS. Women are not marginalized. They run work-groups and we have a number of female leaders and have had major female leftist speakers like Naomi Klein. And yeah, a few women have taken off their tops and done naked body painting. It's not like the entire movement is doing that.

Again, its virtually all men at Occupy Newfoundland. And the blog really really really really doesn't help. Have you gotten Native groups to speak? Black rights activists groups to speak? Feminist groups to speak? Its not enough to just be there, they need to have their voices heard, not just trotted around as a "hey, we're inclusive!" token.

Yeaaaahhhh...I'm going to go with "You've read a ridiculously insane amount into my posts" and "You have very little idea what's actually going on down here". Because seriously, there's plenty of what you want going on. It just doesn't take a hectoring tone which is critical of other protestors and instead focuses on the real enemy.

Again, you're the only really really really reading a ridiculously insane amount into the article. If that's how you react to constructive criticism, I think this is a lost cause.

You really should actually get involved. I don't think anyone there (myself included) would deride what you're talking about. The energy is really good at OWS and there's certainly a place for what you're saying.

Not if by being constructive I'm dismissed as divisive and attacking the movement. Its silencing.

BTW: You seem to think OWS is just a bunch of middle class white people. I can assure you that whatever you've heard on the media about that is false. I've been down there for 5 days now, it's diverse even by New York standards.

And yet funny enough the issues like student loans and taxes are the only ones making the news, and people wonder why most news channels portray you guys as whiners.

[wolf moon]

Originally Posted by Saya

And yet funny enough the issues like student loans and taxes are the only ones making the news, and people wonder why most news channels portray you guys as whiners.

Are you implying that cultural and sexual **** are worse than student loans? Geez, stop being such a bummer. Everyone knows you have to take out loans for school, but you only get ***** if you wear short skirts and drink at parties.

[AshleyO]

Originally Posted by Saya

And yet funny enough the issues like student loans and taxes are the only ones making the news, and people wonder why most news channels portray you guys as whiners.

HA! Really? Do you expect the media to portray this honestly?

Did you know that Despanan actually got interviewed by Fox News? Did you know that you'll never see it? Did you know that he was talking about the relevance of Anarcho Syndicalism and how it's more about it being a goal to approach? Oh you didn't? I wonder the fuck why?

Maybe it's because there is a vested interest in media to slander the movement?

Sure, it'd be easy if that's all it was about. But it's not. I was actually there, Saya. No one was bitching about student loan debt. They were bitching about capitalism being a broken system.

But sure... trust the news sources. Because I'm the one who has more invested in lying to you, not them.

But if the media's right? Sure, let's roll in the riot police right now, gas the fuck out of these whiners, and get back to business as fucking usual. You cool with that, sis?

[Despanan]

Actually, I explained "property is theft" but yeah, you'll never see it on TV because they wanted me to say that drug companies were criminals and declare my allegiance to Che Guevara.

Anyway, Saya, I'll get to this tomorrow. I have writing to do. I will say this now: you REALLY have the wrong idea about this movement, the people involved and the things we want.

[Jonathan]

Jesus Fuck, I have to go to work.

Natives are fine people. Sorry they got screwed over. Lots of people did. Things suck, we want to make them suck less.

Lacking a DeLorean with a fluxx capacitor, there is fuck all I can do about shit that happened hundreds of years ago. Sorry I am not outraged enough on your behalf. Got shit going on in the here and now.

This is a huge derail though. Wall Street. Fuck them.