Of the roughly seventy-six members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, thirty-two members are white. The rest are black or Latino or Far Eastern or Pacific Islander or Caribbean or some combination. Another way of looking at it is that 58% of the Progressive Caucus is non-white. If progressives represent the leftward border of the Democratic Party, why then do we see this?
A few prominent African Americans, such as Cornel West, Russell Simmons, Kanye West and Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), have made appearances at Occupy protests. “Occupy the Hood,” a recent offshoot, has tried to get more people of color involved. But the main movement remains overwhelmingly white: A Fast Company survey last month found that African Americans, who are 12.6 percent of the U.S. population, make up only 1.6 percent of Occupy Wall Street.
One of my commitments is to occasionally remind people in the blogosphere, who are also overwhelmingly white progressives, that the bigger half of the progressive movement is non-white and that this non-white bigger half has distinctly different opinions about the president, the party, and the state of American politics. This is why the blogosphere periodically convinces itself that the president is losing his base of support only to discover that polling data doesn’t back it up.
It’s probably true that the black community is protective of the first black president in a way that your average white progressive is not. But it’s much deeper than that. Blacks are accustomed to glacial progress. They’re familiar with cutting shitty deals that move the ball a few inches down the field. They’ve never been under the misimpression that the cards aren’t stacked against them. They are no strangers to high unemployment, job insecurity, or grinding undeserved poverty. If there is one defining difference between how the black and brown progressives have reacted to the president and how white progressives have reacted, it has been that black and brown progressives had much more realistic expectations. I think a lot of blacks look at the white people protesting income disparity and think to themselves, “when did you notice?”
People might expect blacks to leap into the fray, relieved that they have new allies. But the lack of solidarity whites showed them in the boom times helps explain the lack of solidarity now.
“Occupy Wall Street was started by whites and is about their concern with their plight,” Nathalie Thandiwe, a radio host and producer for WBAI in New York, said in an interview. “Now that capitalism isn’t working for ‘everybody,’ some are protesting.”
That comment seems to be dripping with sarcasm.
Here’s another black voice:
New Jersey comedian John “Alter Negro” Minus says he won’t participate in the Occupy protests because black people are being besieged by so many social injustices, he can’t get behind targeting just the 1 percent.
Banks’ bad behavior “just gets lost in the sauce, so to speak,” Minus said. “High joblessness and social disenfranchisement is new to most of the Wall Street protesters. It’s been a fact of life for African Americans since the beginning. I actually think black people are better served by staying out of the protests. Civil disobedience will only further the public perception that black people like to cause trouble.”
There are two distinct points there. But, combined, they say that the Occupy Movement isn’t black people’s fight. Maybe John Minus is wrong about that, but that’s how he feels. And I think he speaks for a lot of other people, too. And despite his risk aversion, it’s not like black people have been historically shy about protesting for their rights. By and large, they’re not motivated by this fight.
I can’t say that I fully understand why they’re not motivated by it, but I can say that it indicates some massive flaw in the movement. A real progressive movement would encompass the entirety (and certainly the sizable majority) of the progressive spectrum.
Some will blame the black community and say that they are just being protective of the president. But I think they’re showing a shrewder political understanding and more maturity. The pace of progress may be agonizingly slow, but that’s the same as it ever was…if you’ve been really paying attention. It’s not a shock or a disappointment if you’ve been the one waiting the whole time.
“…the blogosphere periodically convinces itself that the president is losing his base…”
Say it correctly: the WHITE blogosphere…
Ding. Ding. Ding. Exactly.
You forgot the fact that that’s the only blogosphere most white progressives know.
When I was in city planning school, they taught us that you can’t bring a final product to people and try to sell it to them. At best, you’ll get their assent, but you’ll never get them to put their shoulders into pushing it.
If you don’t involve stakeholders from the beginning, they’re not going to feel ownership of the plan. It will always be “your” plan, not “ours.”
But more generally to your note: After how we white folks, both “progressive” and not, have ignored and permitted (“silence is complicity”, as anti-Obama fuckwits like to parrot) black folks to be predated upon by cops, lenders, and the rest of the country, I’ll be DAMNED if I blame black folks for telling us to FOAD now that we’re the ones getting shat upon.
The sentiment is understandable, but is it really a useful basis on which to build one’s response?
A whole hell of a lot of people just discovered the issue of police brutality. “I’ve seen it all, I was here first, don’t bother me, kid” doesn’t strike me as the most useful response with which those who have long cared about police brutality could greet this development.
And adding to the abominable way white ows-ers are treating black folks, they now accuse BLACK folks of being “divisive”.
Yah… fuck off and die ows-ers.
You’ve witnessed this personally?
the abominable way white ows-ers are treating black folks
Honest question: what are you talking about?
Could you give me some examples of this abominable treatment?
I do loveloveLOVE how you willfully ignore the point black folks are making. That point being: white ows-ers don’t care about police brutality etc. PER SE, but only police brutality AS IT AFFECTS WHITE FOLKS. Proof: crickets from white folks for decades, until at last the pepper spray was turn on THEM.
And your response? Just belittle black folks for saying “I was here first”.
Yah… any black folks telling you to fuck off, I wouldn’t say a word to defend you.
To the extent that any white people have cared about police brutality against black people, disparities in incarceration rates, etc., who have they been? White rightists? White neoliberal “centrist” Democrats? Nope. Generally speaking, they’ve been the sort of white people who are most likely to participate in or support OWS.
I do loveloveLOVE how you willfully ignore the point black folks are making.
You mean the one I acknowledged and sympathized with? I have a news flash for you: asking about the adequacy of a response as a guide to action is not an indication of not understanding it.
And I do LOVE how you’re willfully ignoring the point I’m making.
And I do LOVE how my asking a question about what is best can only be “willfully ignoring.”
I’m a terrible, terrible person – a dishonest one, really – because I brought up an idea you didn’t. Whatever.
Proof: crickets from white folks for decades, until at last the pepper spray was turn on THEM.
And this is proof of them knowing about the issue and not caring? As opposed to only recently discovering the issue and its seriousness…why? Because it makes you feel superior to say so? Because this overwhelmingly white, upper-middle-class movement must obviously have had a deep and broad understanding of the issue prior to their experience protesting? Not only is this profoundly wrong on the facts, but it’s wrong even in terms of the ideology of racial oppression that you seem to think you have a good understanding of. I think your little emotional tirade is getting in the way of your thinking.
Yah… any black folks telling you to fuck off, I wouldn’t say a word to defend you.
Perhaps we haven’t met. I’m joe from Lowell, and I need you to defend me about as much as I need an AM transistor radio in a faux-leather carrying case. I’ll be fine, thanks.
Anyway, no matter how fervently you do your little superior dance, it’s not going to cause anyone to notice that you utterly whiffed on answering the question I asked.
until they become OCCUPY VOTING BOOTH..
I’m really not paying OWS much mind.
/signed
/cosigned
Most of them will. But that’s not what the movement is about–to be someone’s field team. Anybody’s.
There’s more than one role for political activists to play.
OWS has changed the national conversation about economic issues. That ain’t nuthin.
.
A simple explanation … the black community has been active in social movement for the underpriviliged for decades. They weren’t in need of a new “white” organization. However, the NAACP has unanimously given support to the OWS movement.
Cross-posted from my diary – Global OWS Social Movement Against Greed in Capitalism.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."
Has anyone asked “the man on the street” why there aren’t more people of color involved in OWS? And no, radio producers or comedians don’t count. You know what else doesn’t help? How segregated people live. Lets face it, one of the most racist organizations out there are real estate agents. If you think about it, I am sure you can understand why I say that.
well, I am not equipped to do “man on the street” interviews, but you can read the comments here and on Twitter from black people who are responding to this article. They can be your men and women on the street.
And their source of information is actual experience with a local Occupy Wall Street general assembly? Or just what they’ve heard from the media?
Can you point me to your Twitter feed, so I can see who these black “man and women on the street” are?
My twitter feed is here but most of the discussion can be found by looking at mentions of boomantribune.com on twitter.
Ok. As I suspected, your “men and women in the street” include a fair number of the usual extreme Obama devotees.
Obvious heretics and undesirables, then. Continue safely ignoring, comrade.
Well, no. they’re the ones who are characterizing OWS as heretics and undesirables, based on one factor.
The Blacks should be satisfied. They got Justice Thomas. Isn’t that enough?
I don’t understand your constant need to slam the OWS protests, Booman. So the OWS protests are largely white. So what? The Immigration protests of 2006 were overwhelmingly Hispanic. Were they also not really representative of the progressive community? Why were the Freedom Marchers overwhelmingly black? Why were there so few men involved in the suffragette movement?
Because different groups have different needs, different priorities and different strategies. One movement doesn’t denigrate the other and no protest needs to be all things to all people. The people on the street are never going to be totally representative of the entire community.
But, by all means keep dividing progressives. Immigration reform isn’t a black man’s fight, so screw them? OWS is just a bunch of spoiled white college kids, not a black people’s fight? Why do gays keep harping on marriage equality? And why do women constantly whine about harassment in the workplace?
Because people need to fight for the things that are affect them personally. That’s how politics works. They can’t expect everyone else to know their problems.
Better question. Why don’t you stop kicking your allies?
It takes a strange blinkered myopia to take what I am saying and make it seem like I am the one kicking allies.
The president wasn’t even sworn in when the white progressive blogosphere began kicking the shit out of him.
OWS is not the white progressive blogosphere, and they haven’t been “kicking the shit out of” Obama. In fact, I haven’t seen anything particularly critical of him at all at the rallies. So maybe you could stop projecting your battle with the FDL crowd onto them.
You’re also strangely insisting that the movement cannot be truly “progressive” because they don’t look like the members of the Progressive Caucus. Which is completely backwards. The makeup of Congress should reflect the demographics of the country, and as I’m sure you know, Congress doesn’t. It’s disproportionately, white, male and wealthy. The last part being the key in any discussion of the OWS battle. These guys aren’t Kentucky coal miners. They’re millionaires. What makes OWS a progressive movement is what it stands for, not who the membership looks like.
A month ago you were complaining that the OWS rallies were from areas that are too liberal and that “Most of the country is already suspicious and afraid of what goes on in Oakland and Atlanta and Philadelphia and New York and DC.” Now you’re telling us they don’t really represent progressive views because there are too many white faces in the crowd.
So yes, you are kicking your allies. You’re kicking people who agree with most of your political ideology. You’re hinting with your quote from Nathalie Thandiwe that they are somehow racist for not having protested earlier. And you’re explicitly saying that they are massively flawed because they don’t have the right mix of people involved.
In fact in at least the one sample I am aware of where #ows members were surveyed (I believe in NYC), a very large proportion of them had voted for Obama in 2008. The sample may have shown a lower approval rating for Obama’s policies now compared to the national average, but big whoop. I have yet to see the sort of racial slander against Obama (or as you’ve put it, critical mention of him) that, say, constituted Tea Party events and websites. I’d defy anyone to find anything even remotely on par with that vile bunch.
And I suspect you’re right – we’re being treated to some sort of psychodrama where FDL is the target. I don’t even remember who Jane Hamsher’s preferred candidate was back in 2008, nor quite frankly do I care. Haven’t followed the place in ages and I don’t really miss it. FDL isn’t OWS by a longshot.
I actually thought the main point of the piece was the ethnic composition of the ows crowd, and reasons behind the lack of diversity. The same lack of diversity has long plagued the “left” blogosphere; indeed, one of the sites which claims to represent the left so totally also brags of a readership with a median income of well into the six figures, the majority with advanced and/ or multiple degrees. This is clearly not representative of the people on the left, or even in in this country (median income 45K). It might also explain some of the reason behind the failure of the president’s support to collapse as completely as some in the blogosphere have predicted.
What I take away from this post is that Economic policies in this country are finally pinching the white middle class in a similar way to what blacks and Latinos have long experienced, and they’re up in arms about wanting something to be done. Minorities have experienced this for a hell of a lot longer (not to mentionthat nobody was protesting on their behalf and they’re far more likely to get arrested than the white folks), and have seen how slowly the wheels of change turn, so have more realistic expectations.
Not sure why discussing these factual structural and historical points extends to your thinking in your last paragraph.
yes, ppl seem to be reading as polemical what Booman wrote as descriptive.
pretty much.
No one was protesting on their behalf? I’m not so sure I buy that. At least that flies in the face of the history of the Civil Rights movement as I understood it. Could more have been done? Should more have been done post 1960s? Well somewhere after there our mainstream liberal political discourse devolved into competing spheres of identity politics (at least the way I see it). I would offer that there were still radicals who never did lose sight of the need for solidarity, and who understood that racial and other divisions could be exploited by what we would now call the 1% for political gain.
I would also argue that your average radical understands all too painfully well that any meaningful change comes slowly, and not without a lot of fighting. The middle class in its current form only exists because a bunch of laborers were willing to spill a lot of blood to secure decent working hours, conditions, wages, etc. I’d daresay none of what many here enjoy now was gained by simply politely taking whatever scraps a handful of political and corporate elites were willing to toss. What few gains have been made with regard to racial equality, gender equality, etc., were also part of a very long painful struggle that is nowhere near ended. I am convinced that it is those who ONLY believe that these changes occur at the ballot box are the ones who are being unrealistic. Somehow I get the feeling that this is a point on which most leftists and most liberals will diverge, and there is essentially no hope of reconciliation.
My last paragraph was snark, but based on some of the stupidity I see going on across liberal blogs and the liberal end of twitter – to the extent that I can stomach it (and my tolerance these days sure ain’t what it used to be). I see a lot of kilobytes spilled by avowed liberals (or progressives, or whatever it is you folks call yourselves these days) dissing various liberal factions (the conversations that I witnessed for a little bit about emoprogs and firebaggers were every bit as mature as your average Beavis and Butthead episode, minus the creativity), and dissing #ows since it seems to be too independent of their agenda for comfort. I tend to read much of what is said here in that context. Agree or disagree, but that’s how I see it. Thus far I haven’t seen anything lately that would change my mind.
“Emoprog” goes straight from this comment into my vocabulary.
The first time I saw the term I expected it to be some new trend in rock music – sort of a cross between Rush and Dashboard Confessional. 🙂
“I don’t even remember who Jane Hamsher’s preferred candidate was back in 2008, nor quite frankly do I care.”
Neither do I, on both counts, but extreme Obama devotees swore she was a PUMA.
My guess is the FDL crowd were quite on board as far as Obama was concerned back in 2008. Now Taylor Marsh on the other hand I had pegged as one of the voices of the PUMAs. Could be wrong of course. Not even sure it really matters.
Your guess is wrong.
Were they PUMAS?
As long as you can supply evidence, I can accept that.
FDL had an official non-committal editorial policy. So, the evidence is via personal communications (e.g., email listservs) and just reading between the lines. And then there is the benefit of hindsight and their subsequent actions. Hamsher complained bitterly on liberal listservs that her commentators were savaging her and other front-pagers for either being pro-Clinton or pro-Obama. Their effort to be even-handed caused a bit of a revolt and people decided who they were really for based on their own prejudices.
And I don’t think everyone agreed on who they were for. Hamsher, however, was personally in the Clinton camp.
Good to know, BooMan. Thanks for clarifying. I stand corrected.
If they had an official non-committal policy, and Hamsher only voiced her support for Clinton on listservs which most of the people who swear was a PUMA had no access to, they didn’t have any evidence that she was one.
They invested a lot of effort into pumping up the Rezco “scandal”.
Is this post a defense of Obama or a critique of the white left?
You say, “The president wasn’t even sworn in when the white progressive blogosphere began kicking the shit out of him.”
The OWS movement is not about Obama, per se. It is about the ownership of government by the wealthy and corporations. Obama is the leader of that government and has been offering cuts to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, continued tiny tax rates for the very wealthy, along with the spectacular waste to human beings and resources of wars and more wars.
Do you think Obama has been an ally to the black population? Cornell West disagrees, as does the Black Agenda Report (http://www.blackagendareport.com/), among many other black folks on the left.
I have been politically active since I picketed the nearest Woolworth’s to me in the New York suburbs in 1960. I know full well that the struggles for equality, peace, etc., are unlikely to be over before I die. But, I try to know my allies and act with them.
Supporting Obama–if that’s what you’re about–is not helping that struggle. I voted for Cynthia McKinney in 2008 and I will not vote for Obama next year.
That the white left lacks perfection (at best) does not excuse you from giving a more coherent critique than you have here. Nor does it make a lot of sense to trash OWS without providing more evidence than the number of blacks in that movement. It just sounds grumpy and somewhat pathetic.
That other black folks agree with you–also with little to no explanations–does not justify what you are saying.
Dear michtom,
The point being made here is that the bulk of the progressive movement which is ethnically composed of latinos and african americans is much more patient with President Obama because they have a much more grounded expectation of their leaders and what they can achieve. They also are much more faithful to their President and his party because the cost of not supporting their President has a much more immediate negative impact on them than participating in protests. In short if you want to be with the bulk of the progressive movement you should consider their example.
Couple other points:
Your entire argument of care is undone by not voting for the President or the ticket in 2012. Real progressives don’t do that. They agitate in the party and vote the ticket. Not doing so is a narcissism that people who depend on progressive policies being maintained have no time for. It is precisely this kind of counter cultural thinking that is holding us back. The refusal of power for the sake of moral self comfort.
America’s left wing activists need to move past this if they want to mean anything to America.
We know that West is flawed, but to bash the white left a bit more–from within, in my case–the white left is generally very secular, and the man-crush they have on West completely ignores that his critique is fundamentally a theological one, though by no means abstractly so. We love our Black radicals, but not when they talk about God.
I usually follow up points like this by noting that the most radical changes in US History have come from religious movements, and above all the Black church broadly put. You could call the labor movement and its New Deal effect the exception to this.
Basing your understanding of black public opinion on the opinion of what a celebrity-Ivy League college professor said on the internet is definitely Stuff White People Like.
You might as well claim to understand the political leanings of white Americans because of something Michael Moore said.
Cornel West may be a celebrity but besides being brilliant he also has always been strongly within the Black Church tradition (father and grandfather ministers) and a supporter of economic justice. He has, however, never supported Obama or at least ceased supporting Obama early in the primary season.
OWS is claiming to represent the 99%. They don’t. That’s the point.
I don’t exactly see anyone else trying to stand up for the 99%. I won’t claim OWS is doing it perfectly, but I don’t expect perfection from social movements of any sort. At least they are trying, and that counts for something. If nothing else, terms like capitalism and income inequality have entered the national political lexicon for the first time in ages. And right now the only critiques I’ve seen of OWS are of the “divide and conquer” sort. My thought on that: no interesante.
This is the first time I have ever seen someone who purports to hold a leftist viewpoint claim that a lack of racial and ethnic diversity is no big deal.
I don’t think you’re being honest with yourself. If this observation was made about any other movement, you would nodding along. I doubt you objected to my comment that the Tea Party looked like the crowd at a Hank Williams concert in Norway.
And what is the source of the data that says that there is a lack of racial and ethnic diversity in the Occupy Wall Street movement and its supporters? An opinion poll!
That’s the point. The narrative that the Wall Street Media is building is that there is racial discrimination in the Occupy Wall Street movement. If you want to see the extreme form of that narrative, check out Breitbart’s cesspool.
And what is the source of the data that says that there is a lack of racial and ethnic diversity in the Occupy Wall Street movement and its supporters?
No, not an opinion poll. Demographic research.
http://www.fastcompany.com/1792056/occupy-wall-street-demographics-infographic
This is not data gathered by asking people what they thought; this is data gathered by asking OWS protesters how they identified themselves.
The narrative that the Wall Street Media is building is that there is racial discrimination in the Occupy Wall Street movement.
The narrative that the right-wing media has been building for 40 years is that structural causes of segregation and racial inequality do not exist; that conscious discrimination is the only possible cause of inequality and a lack of integration; and that a lack of evidence of conscious discrimination proves that there cannot be racial inequality or a lack of representation.
But we on the left know better. Right?
The explanation might also be simpler – police brutality and bias against blacks, in particular, is horrific in this country, and has even gotten worse since 9/11 gave every police dept in the country the chance to play soldier. People who already have experience with this brutality might simply see these protests as a way that they will inevitably get arrested. Not wanting that, and not being able to afford that, they stay home.
People from more sheltered backgrounds don’t feel this as directly so they’re more willing to show up. They also probably have more money and free time.
that isn’t to say occupy doesn’t seriously need more diversity, but I don’t see how it will happen on a large scale with those factors in play. While I am concerned about what I see as an irrational obama hatred among some hard-left folks, I don’t think those people are taken seriously very far outside their own circles, nor do they seem to be defining the occupy movement in the media.
Thank you for saying this, BooMan. You get this.
Actually you nailed it earlier.
The financial crisis annihilated the black and Latino middle class. Period. My first thought is “We have such a very long road left to travel, and yet we’ve come so far and we’re grateful.”
For some other folk, their first thought is “Why hasn’t Obama fixed this mess yet?” And I just shake my head.
Its not about protecting the president for this Black gal. I wouldn’t participate if the Prez was Bush or Clinton. I can’t afford to camp out and I can’t afford to get arrested. There is also the fact that I have issues with joining groups. OWS has a certain attitude and certain beliefs that I can’t get down with. Its why I don’t go to church.
http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/11/why-obama-still-matters-ctd.html
I think the only thing that I cannot let go is the Bush tax cut extension, and it’s really the only thing I haven’t let go still. Tax policy is too important to let go if we’re to fund the programs that we need, and ceding that ground is really risking making them permanent. Other than civil liberties, I guess, but I wasn’t expecting much of anything so there’s no real disappointment…when you give them up, expect them to be lost for a long time (or sometimes forever).
Anyway, in general I agree with the sentiment of this post, and it’s why I really wish liberals cared more about our criminal justice system. I’m sure you’ve seen the question going around on FB forever about drug testing welfare recipients. Well it’s like 95% in support. I bet if you asked people if felons or prisoners should be able to vote — among liberals — you’d probably get the same numbers. That doesn’t address the torture chambers that are our prisons, or necessarily reforming them, but I think it’s a simple thing that could easily be corrected to bring people back into society — to give them a stake. But it’s unbelievably unpopular…even you, Booman, have expressed reservations about it. And yet, the entire legacy of denying prisoners/felons to vote is embedded racist policy that should be fucking corrected. The NYT pointed this out not in early November here:
Who Gets to Vote?
And then there’s no care about these torture chambers we call prisons…but they’ll plenty complain about torture at Bagram or Gitmo. Yes, it’s about their getting a trial, something these prisoners have already had…but there’s barely a mention of it in most blogs barring some scandal that’s exposed. Only Jeralyn Merritt blogs about these things…the rest is left to libertarians like Radley Balko.
Prison reform should be high up on liberal policy if we really care about the poor, undereducated, and inequality. Maybe it’s because it’s not popular to be on the side of “criminals,” maybe it’s something else. But I’ve just always thought, maybe it’s because it’s not a white person’s problem…at least not yet.
“I think the only thing that I cannot let go is the Bush tax cut extension”
And I’m sure if Obama had failed to obtain unemployment benefits extension in order to expire the bush tax cuts, you’d be whining about THAT?
Obama = damned if he does, damned if he doesn’t.
I do not believe that wouldn’t have been denied. I think with enough pressure they would have ceded. Hey, the unemployment extension is about to run out…guess we’ll find out, huh?
Erm, “I do not believe that would have been denied.”
I do not believe that wouldn’t have been denied. I think with enough pressure they would have ceded. Hey, the unemployment extension is about to run out…guess we’ll find out, huh?
FOR REAL?
FOR REAL?
This is the same group of mofos that turned down MEDICAL BENEFITS FORM 9/11 RESPONDERS. …
THE ONLY reason that turned around was JON STEWART embarassing the fucking MSM who had let it pass. when STEWART went all in on the story, then, it became the story it SHOULD HAVE BEEN, and they turned around and passed it.
that you could utter the words that the Republicans would have ‘ turned around’ about unemployment benefits extensions…
FOR REAL?
you must not watch the same sociopaths that proliferate that party that I’ve been watching and reading.
And when you give in to hostage-takers, what happens? That’s the big question, isn’t it?
Not just libertarians – I suspect there are more than a few of the usual socialist, communist, and anarchist websites and blogs that have tackled the same issue. These are perspectives that among those who adhere to them, it’s safe to say if you haven’t done time, chances are you know someone who has, and you have a goddamn good idea of just how awful the US prison-industrial complex really is. It’s been an effective means of maintaining structural racism, and classism.
Oh sure, plenty of anarchists have railed about it. But none too specific. Besides, they view all coercion as the enemy; they want citizenship tossed to the wayside, and an end to the social contract of being born. That’s to be expected.
Another was cited above or below (can’t tell due to ratings), but Bruce Dixon has blogged about the Georgia prisons for a while…but he’s a socialist, and he’s black. However, I don’t know how much play he gets. I read him, but I don’t know how known he is on the internets.
Just sayin’, your standard liberal is not concerned with this shit. When the answer to the question, “Do you oppose the death penalty?” results in a resounding yes during a primary battle, the issue might be making headway. I suspect in 2016 the question of marijuana might be fairly important as well.
On that point I think we are probably in agreement.
Usual disclaimer is in order: I’m no liberal. 🙂
An aside: I suspect that the sorts of blogs that generally are of interest to me are ones that don’t get nearly the audiences they deserve. It’s a damn shame. I hope that changes one day, but I’m at best a very cautious optimist.
Not sure what I am; I try to figure it out as I go. If the word technocrat wasn’t so dirty, I might not mind identifying as one pragmatically because in my head I think, “Ok, technocrats should be endorsing the best policy for the most people…so technocrats should endorse single payer, yes?” Yet that’s not what happens…(ideologically I’d probably call myself a leftist but, again, I’m still trying to figure it out).
Yes, I try to expand my blogs to read all of the time. I think it’s important to read people you don’t ideologically agree with; at the very least to make you think about what they’re saying. Pragmatically it might make sense, for instance, to give the State the monopoly of legal violence…but does it really make sense? Perhaps over time we’re becoming more peaceful as Pinker argues — on sheer scale, anyway. Before the nation-state we were plenty violent. But did tribes or local communities or city states have the ability to commit such mass atrocity on such a large scale? Could defense contractors even exist without government? It’s something to think about.
Bleh, there’s a slight contradiction here but only in my words, not my meaning. I mean according to Pinker we had less people on Earth so it’s apples/oranges comparison to say we’re killing more people now (as an aside you could compare firebombing with drone strikes…Pinker would probably prefer the drone strikes, though both are inhumane acts of violence).
Yet…without the government/nation-state, the atomic bomb would not have been possible.
Sorry, I used the word “scale” in a contradicting way, even though it’s not really a contradiction…
No worries. I think I got what you were trying to say just fine. 🙂
I think a good dose of pragmatism is wise. A good friend of mine (from more years ago than I would want to count) called me an ideologue. At that point, it was a term often used with derision. He actually meant it as a compliment, much to my surprise. It meant that I had taken a stand. That said, having a theoretical position is one thing, but theories have to be open to testing and open to change. I learn a lot from others who have drastically different perspectives from my own. It does a mind good. Anyhoo, I may not be young, but I am always a work in progress.
I noticed you mentioned Pinker’s work. I wish I could say I had more familiarity with it, but at some point I do want to tackle that book he wrote recently. Just the brief interview of his that I saw either on Colbert or The Daily Show whetted my appetite, and got a few wheels turning (and cause me to mix metaphors!). Perhaps at some point down the road we’ll get a chance to discuss his work.
Anyhoo, we don’t always see 100% eye to eye, but you have always been straight with me and your replies have always been constructive. I want to thank you for that. 🙂
That’s neither here nor there, seabe. The plain fact is that the Occupy Wall Street movement includes, much to some members of the professional left’s dismay, Obama supporters.
And the Occupy Wall Street movement aims at changing the way issues are discussed that makes the Wall Street Media less relevant. At the local level. In something more than soundbites. With the participation of a variety of local resources educating ordinary people about the technical ins and outs of what is going on. With immediate efforts to do something of use to the community.
If more folks on the blogs actually spent more time in a local general assembly (with all its frustrations of consensus-building), they would have a clearer picture of what is going on with the entire movement.
It is not about President Obama. If anything, it is about the gobs of money and lobbying influence that the President has to carefully navigate any action through. And the unmitigated bias of the Wall Street Media against him, regardless of what he does. It is also about the way that state legislatures and county commissions and city councils are bought by realtors, homebuilders, beer and liquor interests, gaming interests, and chambers of commerce. And about progressive mayors who have to kowtow so much to those interests that they unleash paramilitary policing on nonviolent protesters.
White progressives are still operating out of the idea that a President is all-powerful. Well, never has been. That is even more true today and would be true if the President were not the first black President. The American system of government is truly broken, and President Obama has the gift of having been elected President in these “interesting times”.
If the Bush tax cuts are never allowed to expire, I’ll be upset about that.
But why should I care about whether it happens in 2011 vs. 2013? Why?
Because of the deficit? Who cares about a slightly-higher deficit for two years?
The timing just is not that important.
When they couldn’t be rescinded with as large majorities that we had, I’m wary that they’ll ever be ended.
Moreover, I get Obama can’t endorse raising taxes on people like us, but at some point “middle class” needs to be actually defined in more concrete terms. When I hear a pol say “middle class” I see white, suburban people making around $100,000 in a household where one person is the breadwinner and the other works odd jobs for an extra $10k or stays at home with the children. But I don’t think that represents what most people go through at all. Maybe we’ve evaporated the middle class so much that this is only inevitable at what I see; an upper middle class, a wealthy class, the oligarchy, and then the other 90%: poor peasants making $50,000 or less per household.
Anyway, that was a long tangent to come to the point that we should try and change the conversation that taxes kind of need to be raised on everyone, not just the wealthy, and that’s a preferable “shared sacrifice” to cutting the safety net and increasing taxes back to Clinton rats on the ultra wealthy.
Point being, I don’t see them being rescinded because of Obama’s promise not to raise taxes on people making below $250,000 (is he still making that promise for 2012?) And there’s no way they get split up…so they keep extending them.
We’ll see…
The reference sounds like it comes from Michelle Alexander’s “The New Jim Crow,” a book that makes my own personal ten best for 2011.
Caucasians have known, and felt the same repression for years. My family lived in public housing with many a night government cheese as the only thing to eat. I don’t buy into this whole whites just don’t know. Whites know, blacks just don’t want to accept that it isn’t there heritage alone.
Maybe they have. They are also more susceptible to conservative efforts to divide poor folks and turn them against each other.
Divide and conquer. Race, ethnicity, and religion have been used forever to drive wedges between the rest of us. It works remarkably well. The results of it are quite evident here, judging by how far the conversation here is devolving.
Exactly. This is why I get so exasperated when Booman runs off like this.
So Booman thinks this article Why African Americans aren’t embracing Occupy Wall Street is profound in 2011.
Meanwhile, here was the equivalent article during the immigration rights protests in 2006: Growing Unease for Some Blacks on Immigration.
The tactic is the same. Pit two progressive groups against each other and let the sparks fly. But are Blacks actually hostile to OWS? Were they hostile to the Hispanic community in 2006?
My guess is ‘No’ on both counts.
Just stop talking, dude. You fail at life.
I think he’s saying you’re putting race over class. You don’t have to agree but it’s a valid point and your response is not helpful.
Some caucasians have known this stuff, but surely you’ve noticed, your experience and the insights it’s given you are fairly unusual for white people.
The experience of being poor and white is not the same as being poor and black. There is discrimination that goes on.
And the experience of being middle class and black doesn’t end the discrimination.
And being President and black certainly doesn’t end the prejudice and discrimination.
It is both class and race discrimination at play. And the fact of the one makes the dealing with the other that much more difficult.
The experience of being poor and white is not the same as being poor and black.
Oh, absolutely, but it’s a lot closer than being upper-middle-class and white. There are certainly a lot of insights into being poor and black that it won’t provide you, but there are some.
Or is it just learned helplessness on the part of blacks? Or a norm of non-involvement.
??????
Yeah, FUCK YOU!
Black people have been fighting for their rights and getting by and making due for centuries. They’re not helpless; they’re seeing the fact that their is no political organization to OWS that will carry a movement when their aren’t even defined GOALS of OWS.
We are the 99%
Well what the fuck to do you WANT to happen?
They should be demanding another stimulus, they should be demanding the American Jobs Act pass, they should be demanding the assault on the franchise stop and the Jim Crow laws that passed be reversed.
They should be doing a lot of shit; but instead they’re simply staying at a park.
I hear them compared to the vets who descended on Hoover demanding their pay; they wanted an actual BILL to pass and were at Congress lobbying for that bill until it did go through. The senate stopped it. Those folks had a GOAL and came from across the country to occupy Congress and demand their rights legislativly. They were about camping out in parks; they had a real goal.
When the folks claiming to be the 99% do something useful like organizing voting drives to vote out the motherfuckers who refused to vote for the Recovery Act and are standing in the way of a jobs bill; then I’ll pay them some mind.
Meanwhile, I support the Mayors who with strapped budgets don’t want the fiscal nightmare of occupation draining them of money that goes towards REAL services.
Rhoda, I agree with your argument but I ask you to chill with the FU’s. We argue here but we’re not into flamewars. Thanks.
I’m sorry for the language but the initial comment had me seeing read and the question mark reply had me heated; I don’t generally comment so I didn’t realize he/she was a troll.
the questions marks were just to flag it as outrageous and inflamnatory nonsense without engaging it
obviously a troll, don’t feed. comment just designed to inflame. worthy of note, however, that an opportunity to pit white and black progressives against each other is bringing out new trolls
see, for example Gaius Sempronius Gracchus comment below that explicitly fans the flames of division in our frog pond
Errol, Sunday 27, 11:40:44
BooMan, an almost daily critic of the occupation movement, throws a shoe at a bee hive for which I criticize him.
He provokes 159 comments of heated controversy (none from me) complete with FUs (also, none from me) and quite a lot of racial resentment, pretty much as anyone might expect, given his provocative racial stab at the national occupiers.
And you criticize me for being inflammatory?
That seems odd, somehow.
obviously a troll, don’t feed. comment just designed to inflame. worthy of note, however, that an opportunity to pit white and black progressives against each other is bringing out new trolls
Good instincts, Errol. This “Rhoda” person never wrote a single comment on this site prior to today, but shows up and writes several today, all of which serve to fan those flames.
Rhoda has commented here before. I’ve argued with her/him previously. I don’t know what’s up with the comment section on this site if you try and see people’s past comments. Sometimes it won’t show any at all even though I know they’ve posted…other times it’s your most recent 30 comments.
You can click on a commenter’s handle, and their page comes up. You can then click on their comments, and see everything they’ve written.
You must have been arguing with a different Rhoda.
But that’s what I’m saying…that’s not what happens. For example, I was looking for a post written by Hurria from some time back, and all that came up was nothing. She’s since posted on November 11th, so this comes up:
http://www.boomantribune.com/user/Hurria/comments
But nothing before that. It’s not a different Rhoda…
I was supporting Rhoda, just suggesting she not feed the troll to whom she responded.
all of us have our issues that set us off, but a strong point of view isn’t the same as writing inflamnatory posts, which is what Rhoda responded to and also Gaius etc
Maybe you haven’t noticed but learned helplessness against the powers that be is an American virtue and non-involvement is its sidekick.
Don’t forget the healthy dose (or unhealthy as the case may be) of Stockholm Syndrome. Too many seem to identify with their corporate masters.
I wasn’t trolling, nor did I comment to be attacked.
From Wikiquote:
“If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be.” – Ron Paul, 1992
“Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal justice system,’ I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.” – Ron Paul, 1992
“We don’t think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That’s true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such.” – Ron Paul, 1992
“What else do we need to know about the political establishment than that it refuses to discuss the crimes that terrify Americans on grounds that doing so is racist? Why isn’t that true of complex embezzling, which is 100 percent white and Asian?” – Ron Paul, 1992
I post a comment here from one of the readers of the New Republic’s completely unsourced hitpiece from which much of this “Ron Paul is a racist” meme has arisen. (Angry White Man) he states my own take on the whole thing as well as it can be stated.
My on case vis á vis a motive”for this kind of hitpiece in the supposedly “liberal” New Republic?
Sure.
Martin Peretz is its owner.
From Wikipedia:
Ron Paul has publicly stated time and time again that he opposes the economic imperialist-based state of war in which we live at present and also opposes further military and/or financial support for any and all foreign states, including Israel.
Duh.
Of course an AIPAC-based rag like The New Republic would publish an anti-Ron Paul article the contents and lack of attribution of which would shame a Murdoch empire publication outlet.
They’re no dummies. Just vicious criminals whose influence on the US/International PermaGov far outweighs the number of Jewish people who currently live in Israel. (5.7 million at last count.)
Get real, Joe.
Get real or get gone.
AG
Every quote I provided was real, Arthur.
Shouting “hey, look over there!” isn’t going to make those quotes “not all racist anyway, just not pc.”
That’s some racist shit. If you don’t want Ron Paul’s racial history brought up, then don’t bring it up.
Prove it. Show me where Ron Paul…not some nameless asshole buried somewhere in a new and growing movement 8 or 10 or 20 years ago but the man who is running for president on an anti-permaGov, anti-economic imperialist, essentially human ecologist (As in use all human resources as wisely as possible no matter what their race.) platform…said this.
You can’t.
You also write:
And…you most certainly cannot accuse me of being a racist, either. I have spent 40+ years playing at the top of the jazz and latin musical foodchain in NYC. Like I have said elsewhere here…black brown and/or beige, wake the fuck up!!!
The title of Duke Ellington’s groundbreaking anti-racist suite…parts of which were first performed as early as 1943 in Carnegie Hall…was “Black, Brown and Beige.” Check it out.
We should all be together in this movement. All of us.
Why?
Because we are all getting ripped off.
Duh.
WTFU.
AG
I wouldn’t trust Ron Paul on race any further than I could throw him (nor would I trust any follower of Ayn Rand generally on the topic – and Ron Paul does appear to be an Ayn Rand follower).
Other Ayn Rand followers of note, who on Thanksgiving wrote a delightful article titled “Let’s Give Thanks for the One Percent”:
Alex Epstein
For so long they pretended their agenda lifted all boats; lately they’ve just come out and said what everyone’s always known: they’re selfish sociopaths, and they believe it’s virtuous. I’m thankful for their bluntness, it’s much easier to get people against it.
Yikes. That article stinks to high heaven. Yup. Rand and her followers make for very visible enemies. Been a while since I read this, and it’s admittedly OT, but I recall that part of her inspiration was the actions of a then-notorious serial killer from the 1920s. Not exactly the sort of thing that will impress me.
BooMan sure pounded in a wedge on this one, channeling Spiro Agnew criticizing the white college kids of the anti-war movement.
Whose side is he really on?
Jinchi, Michtom thumbs up.
Sherriffruitfly a big thumbs down.
You’ve really been ticking me off lately with your anti-OWS line. I recall it was a little more than a month ago that you said the occuy movement was the equivalent of holing up in your place for a week with a stash of porn. But if you did that you’d still be snug and warm inside, right? You’ve tried to be more moderate since but your animus keeps breaking out.
Why not quote from p. 2 of the opinion piece in the Post? It appears the writer also has the following opinions:
And despite their inclusive mission statements, major civil rights organizations and leaders appear to be selling out black America for corporate money. Beginning in the 1980s, for example, the tobacco and alcohol industries meticulously cultivated relationships with leaders of black communities. Institutions such as the NAACP, the United Negro College Fund and the Congressional Black Caucus have counted those industries as major donors — at the expense of the health of the black community.
More recently, the Congressional Black Caucus and other civil rights groups have received strong financial backing from telecommunications companies such as AT&T and Comcast. These firms support regulations that would be barriers to the goal of universal Internet access, stifling economic opportunity for black communities. We can’t expect our civil rights organizations and political leaders to help blacks rage against the corporate machine when they are part of it.
And what about Jay-Z and other hip-hop stars? For all their influence on American culture, they haven’t tackled big challenges such as poverty, police brutality, voting disenfranchisement and the racist prison complex. Jay-Z hasn’t shown up at any Occupy gatherings, but his clothing company appears to be trying to capitalize on the protest wave. Rocawear is peddling “Occupy All Streets” T-shirts for $22 a pop — with no plans to donate profits to the movement.
It appears that the author of this piece is several steps ahead of you, Mr. Wineman. You conjure the image of salt-of-the-earth, realist minorities who know from bitter experience the game they’re in, but the African-American author of this piece presents black/brown progressive organizations who’re down with their corporate sponsors and who’re more protective of menthols and malt liquor than the president. Of course it’s possible that the author’s views are somewhat skewed. Let’s see: she prepped at Lawrenceville, went on to Johns Hopkins and NYU, and then got a PhD at Rutgers. Perhaps the last step along the way gives her some street cred, but she seems well equipped to cover both or all sides, and give no real offense to anyone. As such she doesn’t seem like such a reliable source as to what the real people, or the real progressives, are thinking.
God knows I love you, Boo, (said in my best Biden imitation), but we keep having the same argument. Obama wasn’t elected to bring in incremental change like every other President. We would have elected Hillary for that, who had a lot more experience playing other politicians and learning from her mistakes. Obama was elected to be transformative. Yes, it’s a higher standard and yes he’s black. Sometimes history is funny like that. He got criticized before he was sworn in because of his appointments. Some of us could see what was coming.
Was it unreasonable to expect a transformative presidency from Obama? Legislatively, probably. But not rhetorically. And rhetorically, Obama has failed to advance or even to stand up for progressive goals. And that failure contributed to our losing the House in 2010, which made progressive legislation impossible.
OWS is in its infancy (hopefully) and you’re asking it to do what no other movement has done at this stage — be embraced by every demographic of the progressive community. I think that’s unreasonable. OWS is the only viable attempt right now to do what Democrats can’t do, whatever you attribute their failure to. And it does nothing if not highlight that failure.
It seems that a pragmatist’s defence of Obama needs to be more coherent. If he’s doing all he can do, and his hands are tied, then a movement like OWS should be welcomed with open arms if we care about progressive causes.
People imagine that it’s Presidents that make transformational Presidencies. Transformational Presidents get out of the way or at most, like FDR, facilitate. Obama is very willing to do that, but the movement that elected him sat on its ass once he got into office.
All of a sudden there is a repetition by people who themselves are not at the Occupy Wall Street protests the idea that all those white progressives are driving away people of color. Why has that appeared now in the midst of a campaign orchestrated by the Police Executives Research Forum (an entity funded in part by the DOJ COPS program and DHS) to shut down Occupy Wall Street encampments. A campaign in which supposedly progressive Democratic mayors and governors have come down on the encampments with the iron fist of police oppression. And mayors who are non-white have been in the forefront of suppression. Atlanta. Richmond. Mobile. Oakland.
Go look at the livestreamed general assemblies when there is no threat of eviction eminent. There is substantial participation by nonwhites. And Latinos. And Obama supporters, by the way.
In general, folks regardless of ethnicity who have been critical of the Occupy Wall Street movement in the Wall Street Media have been folks who are either in the 1% or depend for their jobs on the 1%.
The same criticism has been raised about labor. Where are the rank-and-file union members participating in general assemblies.
I do not think it is because the black community is protective of their president. It is for the same reason that rank-and-file union members have. They have more to lose by participating in what are the early stages of a movement than do white college-educated youth or the elderly and near elderly. An arrest record for them is more catastrophic than for youth or white elderly.
The fear factor is still there.
BooMan, you say that the pace of progress is agonizingly slow. Which progress are you talking about?
We have an out-of-control Congress that will be re-elected in an environment in which campaign contributions will rival the size of some social programs. We have a Congress in which members of both parties are considering allowing unlimited detention without warrants at the arbitrary decision of the government in the name of defining the “homeland” as the “battlefield” in the GWOT. We have rampant police brutality for the crime of camping on the grass at City Hall or a college quad or a city park. The European economy is falling apart because of the same austerity policies that Congress is pushing. (The trigger is the least bad solution but it will diminish economic growth.) And states and local governments are laying of teachers and first responders. States are passing laws that limit voter registration. Time magazine is shown to be obviously insulating US readers from what is going on, which providing the rest of the world that information.
What glacial progress are you seeing, BooMan?
Bloomberg is not progressive btw he just has a good image. His personal fortune has tripled since he’s been mayor evoking the scorn of NYers who work for a living, but you make a good point.
The fact that black folks don’t participate in a movement that’s open to everyone is that movements fault? What fucking world are you living in?
Is the democratic system at fault because people of color stayed home for the 2010 elections?
People of color did not stay home in 2010 and they didn’t advocate that people stay home in 2010; so why don’t you try reading BooMan again.
He’s making a point that a progressive movement isn’t going to change the country when it can’t even connect with the progressive base of the party; people of color.
OWS had a moment to become a major play legislatively and they failed to seize that comment and that makes them look like folks looking to stay in a park and tax the system without seeking a goal. I hear it all the time from a lot of people who agree with the fact income inequality is a major issue; so what do they want to do? Why are they staying in a park instead of advocating for the poor or some legislation to demand jobs?
OWS did something major; it changed the conversation. The big problem; when they did that they had NOTHING to say because they were to scared to point their fire at the Republican party and went with the easy corporate crap. Which is fine; corporations are the problem. But they’re working primarily through one party right now and OWS should have done what the tea party did and worked to take over the other party. Not sit on the sidelines.
They have more in common with the NPR tote-bag, a pox on both houses crowd than most will willingly admit. Then again, they’re probably that base.
broken out by ethnicity in 2010 compared to 2008.
Before slinging accusations about who did and did not stay home in 2010, look at the data. Democrats outperformed most midterm elections across all demographics. But Republican turnout approached presidential election levels.
Occupy Wall Street has not sorted through all of the issues involving the myriad impacts of 1% actions on national, state, and local policies to have a legislative goal.
When you have Ben Nelson and Mary Landrieu and a big hunk of Blue Dogs (and even Dick Durbin) carrying water for the 1%, it’s kinda hard to point fingers convincingly at the Republican Party. The fact that the money chase is the sine qua non of political survival makes it difficult to sort out the in the public mind the good actors from the bad actors.
Occupy Wall Street is going after the money chase itself.
It is no more a “pox on both your houses” approach than Obama’s “bipartisanship was because he sold out”.
It is a realization that until you change the context in which elections and legislation happen, no reformist politician can accomplish more than upping the ante for campaign finance. And that the media are complicit because election years are their Black Fridays.
And it is a realization that the corporate rot extends to every state and every local government.
And in every comment I see so far about Occupy Wall Street, I have the distinct impression that no one has participated in a local general assembly to know who is there or what is going on.
Folks who see the need for more involvement in electoral politics need to focus on the Democrats contesting every House, Senate, legislature and local government seat with people who will deliver the goods. Active local campaigns produce a national win. Progressives are essential to the election of Democrats in very few places; the idea that white progressives are the base of the Democratic party is a conceit.
The fact that black folks don’t participate in a movement that’s open to everyone is that movements fault?
Yes. Something else they taught is in city planning school: the fact that your public meeting, held at 3PM on a Tuesday, didn’t bring in anyone from the neighborhood is your fault.
If you want to have democratic legitimacy, you have an affirmative duty to do the outreach to make sure those voices are at the table.
Yeah, because that’s the right metaphor for a protest that was held for days and days and days on end continuously in one fixed location while receiving national press attention.
It was logistically unworkable and unclear. For the neighborhood.
Nah, it wasn’t a failure of planning. Or outreach. It’s just another failure of revolutionary sentiment. Nobody actually wants that shit. They almost never do.
Wow, way to miss the point. I’ll spell it out for you: people often have better things to do that get engaged in civic or political matters, and aren’t motivated to make doing so a priority. How you structure your activities can be both a cause of a lack of involvement by different communities, and a result of not having such representatives involved.
Your claim that the problem is a lack of “revolutionary sentiment” is belied by the fact that black Americans are quite engaged in civic and political participation – their churches, neighborhood meetings, and political organizations are quite well-attended. They’re just not engaged in yours.
If you checked in on the Occupy Newark livestream this morning, you would have concluded that it was mostly young white activists involved. You also would be mistaken about who the prime movers in Occupy Newark are. Those prime movers went to church this morning.
It is only in smaller cities and towns that there is not something going on with the Occupy Wall Street movement groups there. Which is the whole point of the encampments to allow different folks to participate at different times.
Most generally assemblies are scheduled 6pm-8pm on weekdays, noon or afternoon on Saturdays, and afternoon or evening on Sundays.
That’s all besides the assumption that the lack of black participation is true and not just a tactic to divide the movement or suppress participation.
I thought I made myself clear, but I guess not. Third time’s the charm:
I’M NOT TALKING EXCLUSIVELY ABOUT TIMING.
OK? Clear this time?
There are a lot of reasons why people from the neighborhood might not feel interested in coming to your planning meeting about a project that effects them.
If you want to have representation from that community – if you aren’t neutral on the matter, but consider it important and worthwhile to have them there – you have an affirmative duty to get them there.
That’s all besides the assumption that the lack of black participation is true and not just a tactic to divide the movement or suppress participation.
It’s not an assumption. There has been research into who is participating in these protests, and African-Americans are significantly under-represented. Don’t be like the Global Warming deniers, and insist that this must not be true because your political opponents say it is. http://www.fastcompany.com/1792056/occupy-wall-street-demographics-infographic
Sample size is good, but it is an internet poll. That has no way of determining whether that is a representative sample of the country. And it is very New York-city biased because it was on the occcupywallst.org web site.
I am contradicting the information because it is something very difficult to poll. There are too many unknown locations where there are general assemblies starting up and meeting. And because I have watched hours of general assembly livestreams and can see the composition of who is actually participating in the movement in those sample locations.
And it has been an assumption driven off the media’s first framing of the narrative as dirty hippies. And a substantial disinformation campaign by right-wing sites like Gateway Pundit and Breitbart, who have organized the Google-bombing of the John Lewis incident so that when you Google “Occupy Atlanta” all you see on the first two pages are links to right-wing sites saying that this exposes the racism of Occupy Wall Street.
The fact is that no one knows what are the demographics of support (as opposed to participation) of Occupy Wall Street movements at the local level (as opposed to this abstract thing called Occupy Wall Street or the NYC manifestation of the movement). And anyone who pretends to fools themselves.
The assumption is driven in part by the fact that in almost every general assembly they have to come to terms with the default privilege that those who are white male heterosexuals assume. It takes a week or two of long and painful discussions in the general assembly to deal with that. One of the results is what is called the “progressive stack”. The “stack” is the order of speakers in discussions of issues or in soapbox sessions. The progressive stack limits the number of white male heterosexuals who can speak until others have had proportional opportunities. Another accommodation is what is called the comfort working group, which provides a place for those who don’t feel comfortable in speaking to discuss the reasons for that discomfort and to propose actions to make the general assembly more open to everyone.
I ask that you not depend on second-hand data, like a poll, but go see for yourself. Occupy Boston is one that has struggled through this issue. Go talk with them and see where they are and what the situation is.
That’s how GA’s are run? I got onto the stack because I’m not a white male heterosexual? Ugh.
And how does the person managing the stack identify the heterosexual white males? Do they wear a sign or is it by how they dress?
I’m not defending it. I’m describing the fact that (1) it is an issue, (2) it took quite a while for general assemblies to sort it out, and (3) that is the solution that a number of locations took.
The way that it works, as I understand it, is that everyone in the stack goes in order and everyone gets to speak, with some rule that limits the number of white males in the stack who can speak before someone other that the “dominating group” gets bumped ahead in the stack.
Some folks had issues with the standard GA process that you apparently don’t. It’s symptomatic of the sorts of issues that have to be worked through in the broader society. Occupy Wall Street is trying one experimental solution. If it is not working, the general assembly likely will be forced to revisit the issue. Which is more than happens in the wider society.
I suspect that self-identification determines who is what group in this system.
Mine? What makes you think I give a shit about some protest movement?
OWS can go fuck a duck for all I care. I’m just pointing out how disingenuous you’re being.
This doesn’t have anything to do with a failure of organizing. This doesn’t have anything to do with a failure of planning or outreach. There is no potential for outreach. The message was clear, and it was received just fine. There are simply irreconcilable differences.
Unless one of the spiritual centers of a current movement is how wonderful Obama is, you will not get a lick of black support. Quite reasonably. If they smell even a hint of ambivalence, let alone distrust or disfavor towards the President, game over. You can’t expect revolutionary sentiment to take hold against the political-financial system in this country among those who have never found the system more intrinsically legitimate.
How many more times do I have to point out that there are Obama supporters an a significant amount of black support for the Occupy Wall Street movement.
As I pointed out above, one can only know what the situation is by going an seeing and not depending on second-hand reports — even mine, although I’ve spent more time watching livestreams than most.
I have never witnessed such a reluctance to go see the very visible evidence. All Occupy Wall Street general assemblies that have livestreaming or UStream capabilities have archives of all their general assembly meetings.
And my visible evidence is that the general assembly is very much dominated by white disgruntled progressives who are using it as some sort of therapy session. Maybe your experience at your local occupy is different. If so good for them but don’t discount those who have had a different experiences as unwilling to look at visible evidence.
And that is the real issues here. There is not a cohesive movement or a cohesive message so it comes across as garbled and uninviting to many.
You keep on talking up the general assembly process like it is a wonderful terrific thing. In one way it is as it is teaching people about compromises that need to be made but in another way it comes across as process for process sakes. Like the people at the various occupy movements are patting themselves on the back for this wonderful inclusive process they are sticking to instead of using that energy to come up with a few clear articulated goals and strategies to achieve those goals.
My impression both from visiting my local movement and from watching livestreams and from reading the news? White progressives are falling all over themselves to say see we have a protest group too and it rivals the tea party. They are far more impressed with themselves than they are invested in actually getting something done.
Which location?
Then my guess is that you are correct with your criticisms if the city is one of two in north central texas. My observation is that both of them had the issues that you identify.
Likely that situation will change. Or the group will collapse and be restarted from spinoff of some of the Occupy Wall Street groups that are gaining strength in some of the smaller cities/towns in that part of Texas.
movement as a whole anymore than I can. We can only speak to our own experiences and my experience was that it was a naval gazing exercise for primarily white progressives who were far more enamoured of the process and that they too had a protest movement getting some press than actually getting anything done.
I suspect that this isn’t just happening in the city I was in but in other occupy groups as well. Not all of them of course but enough that the impression is out there and many minorities who have been experiencing economic inequality for decades are not really inclined to put their time and treasure into the movement.
I know the Occupy movement prides itself on being leaderless and maybe that is a good thing for now but at some point some leaders and some governing ideas need to emerge lest the “bad” occupy protests (like the one I attended) taint the reputation of the “good” occupy protests. I actually think that is happening right now.
I can’t speak for the entire movement, but I have seen livestreams, Facebook entries, tweets, and web sites from well over a hundred locations. But the movement is made up of lots of different individuals, none of whose opinions should be privileged over others.
There is a saying attributed to Gandhi that says: First they ignore you; then they make fun of you; then they fight you; then you win. The navel gazers got sucked into the fact that they were no longer being ignored. For folks who have become used to being ignored, not being ignored is a heady feeling. The locations who have successfully deal with this attitude had people who were able to provide perspective. A group that is too much a monoculture seems to be more brittle than a group that allows more diversity.
While the Occupy movement is a leaderless movement (or more accurately a movement in which everyone is considered a leader), there are different roles. One of the critical ones is that of facilitator, who is responsible for seeing that that the process works with integrity so that neither groupthink nor factions arise even when there are disagreements. The role of facilitator can be taught somewhat, but it requires a whole lot of on-job-training. Local groups have a common decision-making process (although some groups have made modifications to deal with issues), but the content of discussion beyond adherence to principles of nonviolence and inclusion are highly dependent on the local context. The sort of issues that have been raised here take a while to work through because that is the case even without the presence of Occupy Wall Street. In fact, it is the difficulty of the conversation that has caused these issues to divide people for decades. It is unrealistic to think that some new group is going to solve that overnight.
I do not think that what is happening in Philadelphia or Denver is going to drastically affect what is happening in Knoxville or Texarkana or Provo. The folks who have experienced the failure of the economic and political system are the ones who come forward, and folks who do not experience that yet don’t have the patience to stay. Or that seems to be the case. I would suspect that those who have struggled and become somewhat better off than their parents and who have not experienced either unemployment or foreclosure might not be inclined to put their time and treasure into the movement because they do not experience its urgency.
If Occupy Wall Street fizzles, there will be a more militant movement that will follow it because the economic and political problems in this country are not going away in 2012; they are only going to intensify.
Thanks for putting more detail on your experience. This does not dissuade me from my opinion that the Wall Street Media has suddenly become concerned about the racial issues because it wants to drive a wedge in the coalition that has appeared around Occupy Wall Street.
You, meaning, the universal pronoun. “You take a left at the bowling alley to get to the supermarket.” The equivalent of “one.”
Capice?
I’m glad you’re not involved the OWS movement. I would hate to think that they would be as arrogant as you in dismissing the significance of having a diverse movement that is in touch with the actual progressive base.
Unless one of the spiritual centers of a current movement is how wonderful Obama is, you will not get a lick of black support. Quite reasonably. If they smell even a hint of ambivalence, let alone distrust or disfavor towards the President, game over. You can’t expect revolutionary sentiment to take hold against the political-financial system in this country among those who have never found the system more intrinsically legitimate.
Wow. Just wow.
Should you ever find yourself in a neighborhood that isn’t 100% white, I suggest you stick with sports and the weather, and lay off politics. And if you don’t, make sure there’s a web came so we can all watch.
Ah, so you’re a congenital liar. That clears everything up. Heaven forbid you ever once admit you leap to conclusions without evidence in 90% of your posts in your quest to tell us, in great detail, how much smarter you are than everybody else in the world. That would be like ripping your own arm off.
1000% white, motherfucker. Get it straight, please. We’ve broken the mathematical bounds of whiteness, and we’re rather proud of it.
Or…maybe…I’m right and you know it. Any movement with the claim “We are the 99%! The government works for the 1%!” better fly a big ol’ asterisk on that with one epic caveat if they want to secure any semblance of minority support. Generalized claims make everybody in the system complicit. And the black community has no patience for any nonsensical claim that Barack Obama is the problem. Or that he works for Wall Street. Or that he favors rich interests over the needs of the general public.
Because he isn’t the problem. He isn’t a tool. And he doesn’t favor the wealthy few over regular people. And any movement that doesn’t make that explicitly clear, and doesn’t exist to help him instead of implicating him, will not draw diverse support.
/I’m gonna be in such trouble with my fellow klansmen…
“And if you don’t, make sure there’s a web came so we can all watch. “
So we can all watch what, exactly?
I never though it would come down to the contrast of black and white. I suffered more than you so shut the hell up. I see a very amorphous movement called OWS which neither excludes nor includes other movements. So can’t they just be left in peace. Tell me: are they really doing any harm? OWS acts as a lightning bolt and a lightning rod simultaneiously. But the powers that be will have none of it. They want it all. It’s completely frivolous to argue that OWS is costing municipalites financial loses. Let Mayor Bloomie stick 1 of is 18 billion dollars US into the NYC treasury and everyone can go on merrily for another year. And the possibilities of finding money in DC are innumerable, like the stars.
I can’t get excited about this ‘movement’. As far as I can see it lacks any coherent goals and strategy towards reaching those goals.
As such, it’s a fucking waste of time excepting a way to vent inchoate rage, gather in drum circles and yoga practice, camp out until the cities can’t stand them any longer and boot them out, leading to cries of oppression. Lather, rinse, repeat.
You can count me out.
“You can count me out.”
What should we count you in on?
“What should we count you in on?”
Point me to a clearly enunciated set of objectives and a roadmap to make them happen. Otherwise, it’s just a camping trip without the nice scenery, dressed up in feel good talk of ‘movements’ and ‘revolution’.
Two months of meetings and teach-ins and discussions in multiple locations and – bang, wham – you expect a roadmap like those that top-down leadership delivers. Grassroots consensus is is long arduous process.
But certain things have emerged as priorities. Some you might even agree with:
… and more. Google Occupy xxxxx and read their general assembly minutes.
The roadmap is this (it should be obvious):
Now that you know, can we stop pretending that the movement lacks objectives and a roadmap.
thanks for posting this list!
And there it is.
All of this he said/she said/we said/they said foofaraw over the OWS movement?
Let me make one point. Consider it well, folks.
What interests are most involved in trying to end the supposedly disorganized, impotent, racist, weak (take your pick and/or add your own favorite epithets) OWS movement and its encampments?
The answer is plain.
It is the members of the economically-based permaGov that are at this very moment (and every other moment as well, 24/7) ripping off every citizen of the United States and most of the rest of the world for every penny that they can steal or extort.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
End of communication.
Think about it.
AG
P.S. If this movement was so useless, why wouldn’t the Bloombergs of this world simply ignore it until it disintegrated due to its own flaws and the onset of winter? Do y’all really think that some General Washington-type leader is about to emerge and rally the OWS troops to endure through a Valley Forge-type winter siege, feet wrapped in rags and eating castoff McDonalds buns?
Please.
The establishment knows the danger that this movement poses to its interests, just as it also knows that the Tea Party does not endanger it and that…on the evidence of the ongoing media attempt to non-person Ron Paul (Assassination by media. So much less messy, don’tcha know.)…what Ron Paul is saying is the single most threatening development against the ongoing growth of the Skynet-like permaGov that has occurred inside of the borders of this country.
Wake the fuck up.
Black, brown or beige.
Wake the fuck up.
Please.
Thank you and good afternoon.
Station WTFU signing off once again.
Please.
Excellent point, since this is exactly what they did for two weeks–until the NYPD’s Tony Bologna decided to pepperspray two ladies standing behind the the orange mesh.
There will be not Washington emerging out of this movement. There is too much guarding against co-option going on for that–and folks very much do not want to see another assassination.
And there are real questions about whether it can in fact make it through the winter. Doubts that are lessened every time Congress acts. But doubts nonetheless.
The police war and the information war going on against Occupy Wall Street is already sizable, if out of side of the mainstream. For example, Breitbart has sock-puppet sites all over the internet that link to his Big Government blog and are a vehicle for Google bombing negative allegations against Occupy Wall Street. There are folks pretending to be or support the police who have started a Block OWS Facebook movement.
OH yes!
The opposition is large and it is well funded.
Bet on it.
But…will it work?
As you said…every time Congress does or does not act the validity of the basic ideas behind OWS, the libertarian movement and to some degree the Tea Party become more and more plain to normal, walk-the-streets, go-to-work and hope-for-the-best American voters. As does the seriously inflationary evidence at the gas station, the supermarket and in other necessary expenditures.
I am not as sanguine as are you about the Democratic Party, though. I think that it has been so well “occupied” by the permaGov since Bill Clinton that it now poses as much or perhaps even more danger to the American people than does the Republican Party. A kinder, gentler danger. Good cop danger. Surveillance state danger. Media-enforced danger. Ho-humming, okey-doking danger. That is why I am so…perhaps quixotically, perhaps not so quixotically…enamored of Ron Paul’s candidacy whether it eventually plays out inside or outside of the Republican Party. Every time he successfully manages to state the obvious to the heretofore totally oblivious, a few more lightbulbs snap on above people’s heads.
In a perfect storm…a terrible, boring, two-or-even-three faced Republican candidate and an Obama beset by ever more serious national and international falures…a Ron Paul third party candidacy could actually win the presidency. I personally think that the permaGov would never, ever allow that to happen and would pull out all stops to see that it does not happen…violence is always an available option w/these people and a so-called “fourth” party/spoiler run by someone like Bloomberg would probably ensure a Ron Paul loss as well…but even if it did not happen the thorough public airing of contentious issues that a Ron Paul run would provide could be a very good thing for the country, long-term.
We shall see.
Soon enough.
Iowa and New Hampshire will tell the next part of the tale, barring some set of unfortunate “accidents.”
Watch.
Later…
AG
When I talk about parties in the context of Occupy Wall Street, I’m generally talking about the party self-identification of the people in general assemblies. And there are lots of “I’ve had it with the Republican Party” folks out there too.
Unless, of course, when I’m talking about Congress. There the money talks and the bullshit walks. Even for those who would wish it otherwise.
The “I’ve had it with the Republican Party” people plus the “I’ve had it with the Democratic Party” people and the “I have had it with all politicians of every stripe” contingent add up to one of two things:
1-A massive “No, I won’t vote because it’s all simply too fucked up” reaction…you know, like almost every other national vote that we have had in the preceding 50 years or so? Only even bigger?
or
2-An equally massive voter rebellion against both parties. One that could quite conceivably sweep someone like Ron Paul into the presidency.
Oh, wouldn’t that be an adventure!!!
I am all for the “May you be born into interesting times” result myself.
We shall see.
Soon enough.
2012 approaches.
Fast.
Watch.
Later…
AG
I appreciate the clarity of your vision and analysis on OWS as revealed by your comments on this diary.
As we’ve had plenty of evidence since 2008, political “success” without a strong movement behind it is near powerless to make the changes we desired.
I see OWS growing into a strong and viable NonViolent Movement that will have significant effects on our political system.
I expect their numbers will grow even more significantly when the next financial crisis hits.
I’ll state here that I’m 100% behind the OWS movement regardless of their flaws.
Seconded.
You’ve interacted with the Occupy Wall Street movement directly? Or are you just responding the media narrative about hundreds of diverse local groups, some in encampments and some just daily or weekly meetings?
Must be watching Fox News again, I see.
Here’s a very reasoned argument about how OWS missed this mark and how they might correct that.
Has the author actually been involved in the Occupy Wall Street movement? Is he judging from personal experience? Or has he just heard something and is spinning out a theory?
That’s the problem with this argument. It is being carried on third hand. When there are the livestreams available and Facebook pages available and Twitter streams available to see a substantial amount at first hand.
At this point I’d much prefer to trust my twitter feed.
What is your Twitter handle?
@DonDurito66
I do tend to retweet a lot of tweets from my various Occupy and socialist tweeps. 🙂
This is such a busy thread (as the dozens before it across the internet, and the dozens more to come), when it’s so fucking simple, that I can see why some find that simplicity so repellent. From both sides of view.
The Occupy movement is revolutionary in inspiration. It isn’t designed to canvas wards and register new Democrats. It isn’t designed to thank the President for standing alone against dangerous tides.
It declares the system, the entire financial-political intersection, stupid and corrupt. And most importantly, illegitimate.
Those who do not view the system as illegitimate will have no use for it. Those who are scared by the implications of illegitimacy will have no use for it. And those who are now viewing the system as more legitimate than ever because of its leadership, will see the movement as poison.
There is no reconciliation there. The end.
Bang, that’s about it—the end.
“It isn’t designed to thank the President for standing alone against dangerous tides.”
And that’s the real problem most of the people who are tapping out “I’m black, and I don’t like OWS” blog posts and comments have with OWS. I’ve never seen so many disingenuous excuses.
But there’s more than some truth to the idea that people should be thanking the President whenever possible. He’s head and shoulders above his political contemporaries in terms of intelligence and integrity in government, he’s the most profound political philosopher to hold office since the nineteenth century, and he has to do this all while under the burden of being “The First” in a prejudicial society (and planet, really).
His problem is that he’s doing this at a time when global paper wealth is a full order of magnitude higher than any accountable material assets underwriting it. It’s all debt that can’t ever be made good on. And nobody knows what to do about it, so they just create more fake paper wealth to cover it up. Until the next big margin call blows everything up again.
After 2+ months, the Occupy movemen is perceived to have the same “massive flaw” of racial-inclusivity issues that most of the rest of the progressive universe — including the progressive blogosphere — has had for decades.
Well, that’s terribly insightful.
I’m particularly impressed by the apples vs oranges comparison at the beginning, though it does allude to the massive race- and class-related flaws in Congress and in the Congressional Progressive Caucus.
“Civil disobedience will only further the public perception that black people like to cause trouble.”
Some black people said that in 1963, too. Aside from that, whites who need to think black people are troublemakers will find ways to justify doing so. “Those white folks will call us troublemakers” is a cowardly thing to say.
In fact, it was the civil disobedience and police abuse of white civil rights workers in the 1960s that drew the attention of the media and the Kennedy administration. This does not diminish the fact that African-Americans in the civil rights movement had exceptionally more to lose — and lose outside the glare of the media. And some of the same problems appeared then; that was one of the roots of the conflict between John Lewis and Stokely Carmichael that led to the Black Power movement.
The Occupy Wall Street groups most places are very careful to let individuals decide whether they will engage in civil disobedience and prepare them for a good legal defense. It is an individual decision. And all groups make sure that people without available documents stay well away from the possibility of arrest.
world literally collapses around your ears was the answer on your final exam. That’s your studied opinion.
This would be a good time for you to go to Philly, BooMan, meet the folks there, discuss this issue, and stand across the street chanting slogans (there is absolutely no disgrace in that) while the Philly police evict a peaceful encampment that suddenly has to move because a delayed construction project suddenly got legs.
Occupy Wall Street is not dominated by progressives (tell me if Philly is different). It is dominated by folks who are fed up, mad as hell, and aren’t going to take it anymore. That tends to be a pretty diverse group (tell me if Philly is different). Most likely I’ll be watching their livestream when it comes up. If you get there and see the livestream camera or phone, give me a shout out.
I’m glad you said that. Somehow I think that point gets lost in all the muck.
Am I wrong about Philly? I’ve stopped by there a few times, and I never get a sense of energy from the place. They have the trappings of OWS, but somehow, not the edge that drew me into Zuccotti Park.
To be honest, it was the food that drew me in. As soon as I took a bite of roasted potatoes, I was invested in the community. After Ben & Jerry’s, there was nothing else to do but go to working groups and staff the info desk.
Somehow when I’m at Philly, I feel like I’m walking into someone else’s camp.
My statement said nothing about Philly but asking BooMan to go and check it out. The comments about Occupy Wall Street were about the movement as a whole. And there was no implication necessarily about “energy” in my observation that the folks who are out there are the ones who’ve decided not to take it anymore.
Thanks for the on-the-ground insight.
Didn’t mean to imply your comment was implying anything. Just thought you might have a different perspective abouf Philly than my superficial one. I think that tents may have been the biggest factor in my impressions of tbe two camps. The only tent at Zuccotti when I was there was the medical tent. It was a very publicly-orirnted space. I think tents make the occupiers more like settlers, and they become physical barriers delineating private space. I think tbe movement becomes more meta with tents.
One of the things that is happening is acquisition of barracks-sized tents. Occupy Missoula has a US Korean-War vintage one, and Occupy Dayton acquired a Russian one – likely Cold War vintage.
Isn’t settlers what an occupation is? Settling in a location until the system changes. The fact that they are tents and not permanent construction communicates the conditional nature of the occupation.
The private space issue does arise in several different forms in terms of what general assemblies have had to do to accommodate the fact that tents create de facto private spaces.
And the fact that there is arbitrary decisions (based on political clout, based on money) as to when local rules and permits can be waived is another issue that goes to the heart of the protest. Consider if the Chamber of Commerce wanted to put up an indefinite encampment on public land to house folks considering relocation to the area in luxury tents with all sorts of services. How fast do you think the rules would be waived? And the permits discriminate on the basis of ability to pay. They are seen as compensating revenue for use (essentially a usage fee).
In addition, there is the argument that if corporate money is speech, so are protesters’ tents. I’m not sure the meta is as meta as you think.
Here is the Occupy Philadelphia Livestream site should any of you want to be part of the “the whole world is watching”.
Occupy Philly livestreams their general assembly tonight at 7pm
Occupy Newark NJ general assembly 11-28-2011