On day 12 of Occupy Wall Street (OWS), I helped moderate a meeting of the "open source" OWS working group by keeping a list of speakers and co-chairing. I am not sure what the open source group is supposed to do exactly, but I decided to attend this meeting after watching a middle-aged man call in the General Assembly for developing demands and goals on the OWS live feed and people in the crowd telling him the open source working group was tasked with this.
After the daily 1 p.m. General Assembly meeting ended, OWS divided into its working groups, including media, labor, outreach, and a number of others. I walked over and sat down next to the point person (or “ leader”) of the working group, a young white guy in his twenties who looked like a 60s throwback with his long, straight hippy-style hair, rainbow tights, fatigue shirt, and Ziploc bag of rolling papers. Of course, you can never judge a book by its cover — he is also a student of behavioral economics and mentioned that academic studies have shown that the OWS’s decentralized, highly participatory, and lengthy process of dialogue is the best way to organize.
The open source meeting swelled very quickly to 20 or 30 people, an indication that a lot of people want to figure out what OWS’s demands should be. The group moderator remarked that the group was so big it was practically a “second General Assembly.” His brief introduction to the process whereby OWS would define its vision (he repeatedly used the phrase “visioning”) was interrupted as many hands went up, asking to be called on; at least 10 people wanted to speak and each was allowed a minute and a half.
What emerged from the discussion was that there is no consensus that demands are even necessary. Quite a few protesters argued along the lines that this is movement or process of dialogue is the demand/goal and that therefore demands are not necessary; one said our demand to the world should that they “join us.” Two older people, one in his sixties, the other in his thirties, spoke out for having clear, specific demands as being a very necessary step to creating a sustainable protest, much less a movement.
I argued that a few concrete, achievable demands were important, citing the “Day of Wrath” protest on January 25, 2011 that began the revolution in Egypt that demanded raising the minimum wage, an end to the dictatorship’s “emergency laws,” the firing of the interior minister, and a two term presidency. I explained that Mubarak’s ouster was not one of their original demands, but it became a demand once millions of people became involved in the movement, and therefore demands can and should change depending on circumstances. My suggested demand was to raise taxes on the 1%, something the New York state legislature and the city council could vote to do immediately.
One woman argued against having demands on the grounds that the media wanted us to do exactly that, that it would be a way for them to put us in a nice neat little confining box the better to ignore us; instead, she proposed we copy the model used to write grant proposals and draw up a mission statement, goals, and objectives. The moderator took to this and we dispersed into six groups of five or so to discuss what motivated us to protest and what our “visions” (or goals, long and short term) were; after the break out, we would reconvene to sum up and share what each of our groups had come up with in the hopes of finding some type of consensus that would inform some sort of statement to the world.
The OWS political process is very participatory, cumbersome, and time-consuming. One strength of their process is that it avoids the top-down control that Wisconsin’s union leaders exercised to scuttle the protests and developing strike wave that shook the state in favor of harmless (and ultimately fruitless) recall efforts.
To participate and help shape OWS politically requires dedicating many, many waking hours every day to ongoing, continuous debates and discussions. This is not necessarily a bad thing but in practice ends up favoring the participation of those who can afford to skip work and/or school for a week or more. With unemployment over 9% (a figure even higher for the 18-25 age group), it should be no surprise that these are the people taking the fight to the enemy’s lair.
It may be that OWS never develops a clear set of demands. OWS seems to be headed toward issuing a general statement akin to the Port Huron Statement by Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) in 1962, although it will probably be less wordy and much darker. Port Huron spoke moralistically of the highly privileged lives led by America’s post-World War Two college students that stood in stark contrast to the conditions facing black and brown people in the Jim Crow south, America’s urban ghettos, and the Third World. Today, students face the prospect of lifelong debt, serial dead-end jobs, and holding two or even three part-time jobs just to keep up with the bills and rent, just like the non-college educated working class.
Whatever OWS decides with regards to demands, they deserve credit for putting their finger on the real enemy and being brave enough to defy the police and break the law to make the voices of their generation heard.
Everyone who can should go and help occupy Wall Street.
Pham Binh’s articles have been published by Asia Times Online, Znet, Counterpunch, and International Socialist Review. His other writings can be found at www.planetanarchy.net
Comments
This article is right on target.
I was at last night's General Assembly. It was extremely democratic, mature, considerate, and militant.
The GA adopted a declaration (see latest entries at http://nycga.cc/) which is VERY pro-labor.
No, there are not yet specific pro-labor demands. But the list of grievances in the declaration show the overwhelming majority -- being young, many unemployed, workers -- know precisely what ails labor.
And with union involvement coming thick and fast, and with those unions having very precise demands of their own, patient discussion at OWS and similar sites will enable us to go from the specific unions' demands regarding their jobs, benefits, etc., to classwide demands.
Patience, patience and involvement!
With all due respect, the G.A. process is not democratic. Consensus is unanimous agreement, not majority rule. The process became very contentious yesterday when a young black woman at the G.A. pointed out the fact that people can introduce proposals, reject all friendly amendments, and the G.A. can't modify the proposal and has to either agree or "block" (veto) it (only takes 1 vote to block something).
The not-so-democratic nature of the G.A. process became evident yesterday night when a group of South Asians objected to the wording of a draft statement and caught hell for speaking up. The following was written by South Asian filmmaker Hena Ashraf (taken from henaashraf.com):
Once again, it is Thursday night, and once again, I am writing this
because I think it needs to be documented and shared. And once again,
this is about mass actions taking place in NYC. Once again, please
feel free to share this.
The following is from my perspective:
Tonight was my 4th time down at Occupy Wall Street. I felt drawn to
the protests, like I needed to be there, and I guess I was meant to
be, as well as the people I ended up with.
At the general assembly a document was introduced called "The
Declaration of the Occupation of New York City". To my understanding,
this document has been worked on for many days, by many people, in a
working group. It was announced that this document would be
disseminated to the media, to the Internet, to everyone who planned to
occupy other cities in the country. Basically - this document is
REALLY IMPORTANT, and the audience is meant to be everyone, we were
told.
The general assembly read the document together, line by line. The GA
has grown a lot in the past few days and has noticeably (finally?)
gotten slightly more diverse. For me, reading the document together
was a very powerful and moving moment, and I've never seen anything
like it. Immediately after this I turned around and joined my friends
Thanu and Sonny, who were with Manissa and Natasha. They had all just
come back from the first local meeting for South Asians for Justice.
Without knowing we had spontaneously formed a bloc of South Asians
present at the General Assembly. While it continued, we began to
discuss the document amongst ourselves, specifically the second
paragraph, and our issues with it. We weren't the only ones who had
concerns; numerous people spoke up and requested changes to the
document. The facilitators kept wanting to go back to agenda items,
but I personally felt, if people wanted to discuss this document,
right here, right now, let's do it, instead of pushing something else.
To be heard, a person would shout "mic check!", said a few words at a
time, the crowd repeated their words, and so this process continued
until the person's message was finished.
I, Thanu, Sonny, Manissa, and Natasha felt that some language needed
to be urgently changed. Please keep in mind that this document is a
living, working document, and is unpublished, and is being changed as
I type with the (as they are called) "friendly amendments" that were
proposed. The line was: "As one people, formerly divided by the color
of our skin, gender, sexual orientation, religion, or lack thereof,
political party and cultural background, we acknowledge the reality:
that there is only one race, the human race, and our survival requires
the cooperation of its members..."
The first major concern amongst us was that the phrase "formerly
divided by" was unrealistic, and erased histories of oppression that
marginalized communities have suffered. The second concern was that
the "human race" language also felt very out of touch.
We debated amongst ourselves whether to speak up about this. As I
mentioned, individual people were airing their concerns about the
document, even though the facilitators had requested to email any
changes to them, or to speak to them later. I felt though, that our
thoughts needed to be shared with the general assembly, and not just
to a few over email. I was urged by our impromptu bloc to be the one
to speak up. So I did.
I started shouting "mic check!", got the crowd's attention, and said
that we did not agree with the phrase "formerly divided by" and
instead felt it could perhaps be "despite", and said that the original
phrasing erased histories of oppression. Unfortunately, even though
about 4 or 5 presumably white people had spoken up before me about
changes to the document, I was told that this was a time for
questions, not changes to the document - by a facilitator who was a
man of colour. Talk about feeling shut down.
The main facilitator, a white man, said that the document and the
paragraph was meant to reflect the future that we wanted, and that
"formerly divided by" should stay. I again shouted "mic check!" and
our spontaneous Brown Power crew again shouted my words after me - I
reiterated again that the phrasing erased much history, and that it
was idealistic and unrealistic. I think at this point I looked around
and realized everyone was staring at me; it hit me what we were doing,
that we had the floor, that we were demanding a change.
The protestors at Occupy Wall Street have been saying that there will
be efforts to reach out to people of colour, to have communities of
colour engage and be a part of the protests, to help create real
change - because, let's face it, the protests have been very white and
people of colour need to be present, and need to speak up. Well,
that's exactly what we were doing, and I realized that we were helping
to make that change happen.
The facilitators asked if our issue was an ethical concern - if it
was, then it would have to be addressed. I said, yes it was, meaning,
we were blocking the document in order for this ethical concern to be
addressed. Manissa then read out what we felt the change should be to
the phrase, after thanking the crowd and facilitators for working with
us. The change was instead of "formerly divided by" to have it be
"despite" or "despite the divisions of...etc".
The change was accepted by the general assembly. Our impromptu
crew/bloc turned to each other to discuss what just happened, and
people listened in and expressed their agreement with what we did. We
still felt however that the paragraph as a whole needed to be changed,
and Sonny pointed out that the language left invisible or attempted to
erase the dynamics of power. An Iranian man who had been at Occupy
Wall Street for a number of days remarked that as a group we were
conspicuous. Sonny noted that as a group of 5 brown people, with a
hijabi and one wearing a turban, of course we grabbed attention in
this still-mostly white crowd, and "how real can you get?"
The GA finished and we immediately proceeded to the impromptu meeting
being held to address the document. Note, our proposed changes about
the language to the sentence I mentioned above had already been
accepted, but we still felt the document did not address or ignored
issues of power. This is extremely important because a document being
shared by Occupy Wall Street to the so-called 99% should not be
ignoring or erasing issues of power. We found the guy who had been the
main facilitator (and who also had been visibly frustrated with us)
and started to discuss the paragraph.
Unfortunately though, there were many who tried to cut us off, and as
we sat down on the ground, with Thanu bringing out her laptop, these
people gathered nearby, pointed fingers at us, and made me feel very
uncomfortable, as if we weren't welcome. They clearly didn't like what
we were doing, but what we were doing was participating and engaging
with Occupy Wall Street, and making ourselves heard - after all, isn't
that what the organizers want? The facilitator who had earlier
attempted to shut us down, came and said we should come back the next
day to finish our discussion. We said no, let's do this right here and
now, and hammer it out in 10 minutes, which we did. A white woman came
up to me and asked, why didn't we leave the main facilitator alone? I
told her he wanted to listen to us and chose to sit down here with us,
we didn't force him. These were the unfortunate distractions and
disruptions we had to deal with. I realized that change on the ground
is hard, messy, and painful, and we could feel all of this.
This discussion was around the wording of the 2nd paragraph, which I
won't quote here, because like I said, this document is being changed
and is unpublished as of right now. We didn't like the language of how
we are all one human race. The facilitator said that that is
scientific fact, that we are all one race. We agreed, but had to
explain that socially, there is inequality. It was highly problematic
that we had to break down systems of oppression to this man who seemed
to have the final say on this document, this document that will be
shared with the world, that is supposed to represent Occupy Wall
Street, as well as supposedly the 99%. Manissa had to explain that he
as a white man had more power and privilege than her as a woman of
colour. That racism isn't about feelings, as he thought, but about
power and oppression, as Sonny and Thanu explained. It boggled our
minds that we were discussing power and privilege while at the same
time we could feel this man's power and privilege over us, and that he
is a facilitator/organizer for Occupy Wall Street! Clearly there needs
to be a lot of self-education workshops at Liberty Plaza.
Long story short, we got the paragraph changed to adequately address
our concerns that it reflect issues around dynamics of power and
privilege that marginalized people feel every single day. This was a
very hard discussion to have, and it felt so real, it hurt. It hurt
that it had to happen, it hurt that we had to explain what is really
behind racism to this man, and the people around him, it hurt that so
many tried to disrupt us. But at the same time, we were meant to be
there, meant to be heard, to make this happen, to make these changes
occur. And there were a lot of people sitting there and listening in
and contributing constructively. We walked away realizing what we had
just done - spontaneously come together, demand change, and create it,
in a movement that we are in solidarity with, but also feel a need for
constructive criticism.
This document, "The Declaration of the Occupation of New York City"
will be shared with the world soon, and the five or so of us were able
to come together, indeed we had to come together, to make sure this
document didn't reflect the ideals of a few people unaware of their
power and privilege, but instead could reflect more of the reality of
the 99%.
Thank you for reading.
peace,
Hena Ashraf
Thanks for sharing. This is very interesting, kudos for what you have accomplished, and for being patient with those who don't understand right away. Despite feeling that there was some hostility, you have made sure that this is now a document that can represent you that feels like an important victory.
Hena Ashraf,
that was a powerful intervention and yes, you really seemed to have shown amazing patience. I agree that it was a victory.
Victory against the power will only be achieved when we are united by the goal not divided by race and color. This fight for justice is not about a race that has been or is being oppressed, but about the color of greed, this is about the have not vs the have everything. Look around the world and accept that greed, control, and power come in all colors. We, the ones who have grown up without an issue towards race, sexual orientation, and the other external identifiers understand that the greed wants you to be divided and perpetuate the racism that was discussed in great length. Get past this ploy, unite with the goal of justice for all not just greedy scumbags who wish you all to go away and still buy their bull shit.
COLONIALISM and the Occupy Wallstreet Movement
Message to the General Assembly:
To speak of colonialism without moving into decolonization on the ground you occupy is not purposeful. The US has yet to endorse the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Call for the Lenape to return and once and for once, let's set things straight. Denounce Columbus Day! Raise the liberty pole!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPRomed7WB8
Binh - This is a great recap of our experience that day and really insightful. I like the comparisons you drew to other movements and your intelligent grasp of the issues at stake - both structurally and directionally within OWS.
^- Kevin, thank you for sparking my interest in this working group with the words you shared at the General Assembly. It was nice to meet you. I'm glad we have experienced people from the Viet Nam era involved in this.
Add new comment