Call to action: #OCCUPYWALLSTREET 2

[b]Massive Union votes to support #OccupyWallstreet[/b]

Quote:

According to Daily Kos, The New York Transit Workers Union (TWU) voted to support the Wall Street Protestors at their meeting last night.

A member of TWU Local 100 told a reporter that they would join the protest Friday at 4PM.

Here's more about them from their website:

The TWU has four main divisions: Railroad; Gaming; Airline; Transit; and Utility, University and Service. The Union has 114 autonomous locals representing over [b]200,000 members and retirees[/b] in 22 states around the country.

[url=http://www.businessinsider.com/a-massive-union-just-voted-to-side-with-t... (Caution: huge bandwidth-sucking website!)

Don't know if this was posted earlier - last night Bill Maher showed photos of the Tea Baggers at the protest. They joined in chanting "we are the 99%".

Maysie, can you expand a bit on that?  I am trying to understand it but having some trouble.  In some ways it sounds like an "oppression olympics" approach.

Quote:

Not that I’m surprised that this was a misstep in organizing against Wall Street or really any organizing that happens when the “left” decides that it’s going to “take back America for the people” (which people?!). This is part of a much larger issue, and in fact there is so much nationalistic, patriotic language of imperialism wrapped up in these types of campaigns that it’s no wonder people can’t see the erasure of existence of the First Peoples of THIS territory that happens when we get all high and mighty with the pro-America agendas, and forget our OWN complicity and accountability to the way things are today – not just the corporations and the state.

I see the USian flags at the protest and I see "nationalistic, patriotic language of imperialism wrapped up in these types of campaigns".  Imperialism is wrapped into everything we do and so I'm not surprised.

But I'm not actually finding what she is saying to be very clear:

Quote:

Let me be clear. I'm not against ending capitalism and I'm not against people organizing to hold big corporations accountable for the extreme damage they are causing. Yes, we need to end globalization. What I am saying is that I have all kinds of problems when to get to "ending capitalism" we step on other people's rights - and in this case erode Indigenous rights - to make the point.

Can you provide some insight as to how Indigenous rights are being erodod by this action?  I'm not looking to argue and I am friendly to the idea, I just don't quite get it.

I see that there is no recognition of Indigenous rights/land theft/colonialism.  And I think that's a valid criticism.

On the other hand I've heard a lot of unimaginative status quo criticism like "they don't have a coherent message", "theyr're not wearing presentable clothing", etc.  And to these status quo criticisms I've made replies such as "they're determining demands together right now and that's part of the process", "it's not about having the answers it's about focussing our collective attention on problems that need to be addressed trather than ignored", and "if you can do the protest better then why aren't you?".  To some extent I feel those same responses are appropriate to Jessica Yee's criticisms.

I know that she is a committed activist (rather looking to rationalize inaction).  I do think if she or anyone else went to Wall Street wanting to coomunicate her message that she would find people to be all ears.  I know they are overjoyed that both Unions and military veterans are jumping on board in huge numbers.  I would imagine that they would be very happy to have a large native presence there.  They have been doing callouts to everyone to please come down...but they have not been getting any press from the mainstream, and the media channels they've been using for the callouts dispropotionately reach younger white people (I would assume).

I'm not sure what to take from Jessica Yee's article and your posting of it.  I think it means that both she and you support the protests are encourage occupiers and would be occupiers to be more conscious about how we're on this land to begin with.  Beyond that I'm not really sure.

I know that you view the notion of "human rights" as a problematic concept and I agree with some of the reasons for that.  But I'm stuck here.  I am so excited to see the start of what could be mass uprisings.  I'm glad that people are standing up and making demands for their voices to be heard and their "rights" to be met.  When it is pointed out that none of us settlers really have any right to be making demands or to expect prosperous lives on stolen land, well, it's almost like it's too much to hold in my head.

These problems we have to solve together are so complicated.  How do we solve them?  #OccupyWallStreet feels like the best thing that's happened politically in a long time...it gives me a headache that from a valid perspective it is just a bunch of entitled settlers.

Jessica Yee wrote:

What I am saying is that I have all kinds of problems when to get to "ending capitalism" we step on other people's rights - and in this case erode Indigenous rights - to make the point.

wage zombie wrote:

Can you provide some insight as to how Indigenous rights are being erodod by this action? I'm not looking to argue and I am friendly to the idea, I just don't quite get it.

I won't speak for Jessica, but I can share my perception of her critique.

The idea of "taking back America" from the Wall Street bankers is an idea grounded in the erasure of Indigenous history and present in the US (and Canada). Why? Because in the act of taking it "back" from the 1% ruling class and giving it to.... who? The working people? The unions? Tenants and small businesses?.. in this act is the acknowledgement of the "owenership" and "entitlement" to the "land" by the 99%.

The question of who "gets" what's "taken back" obliterates the reality of Indigenous struggle, and reasserts the white supremacist narrative that America (and Canada) was a vast empty land at first contact and that (regular, working-class) white folks are entitled to it.

That said, I agree with you, wage zombie, that this is a remarkable movement that is spreading and yeah, I hope like hell it comes to Bay Street. We might be all burnt out from the ongoing fight against Ford as well as the upcoming provincial election. Give us a week or so. 

North American movements such as this that are dominated by white folks are rarely inclusive. Lessons and leadership from groups of people of colour and indigenous folks could have been put at the forefront. They were not. To me this doesn't mean the movement is a sham, or worthless. But nothing is above critique, especially when the goal is, among other things, to not reproduce the power structures of the ruling class, yes?

Anonymous: 'The Bankers Are The Root of All Evil' (and vid)

http://geraldcelentechannel.blogspot.com/2011/10/anonymous-bankers-are-r...

"...the Bankers are the problem..."

Webster Tarpley: The Global Mass Strike (podcast)

http://geraldcelentechannel.blogspot.com/2011/10/webster-tarpley-world-c...

The Best Among US  -  by Chris Hedges

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article29271.htm

"There are no excuses left. Either you join the revolt taking place on Wall St. and in the financial districts of other cities across the country or you stand on the wrong side of history. Either you are a rebel or a slave..."

.....

Maysie wrote:

Jessica Yee wrote:

What I am saying is that I have all kinds of problems when to get to "ending capitalism" we step on other people's rights - and in this case erode Indigenous rights - to make the point.

wage zombie wrote:

Can you provide some insight as to how Indigenous rights are being erodod by this action? I'm not looking to argue and I am friendly to the idea, I just don't quite get it.

I won't speak for Jessica, but I can share my perception of her critique.

The idea of "taking back America" from the Wall Street bankers is an idea grounded in the erasure of Indigenous history and present in the US (and Canada). Why? Because in the act of taking it "back" from the 1% ruling class and giving it to.... who? The working people? The unions? Tenants and small businesses?.. in this act is the acknowledgement of the "owenership" and "entitlement" to the "land" by the 99%.

The question of who "gets" what's "taken back" obliterates the reality of Indigenous struggle, and reasserts the white supremacist narrative that America (and Canada) was a vast empty land at first contact and that (regular, working-class) white folks are entitled to it.

That said, I agree with you, wage zombie, that this is a remarkable movement that is spreading and yeah, I hope like hell it comes to Bay Street. We might be all burnt out from the ongoing fight against Ford as well as the upcoming provincial election. Give us a week or so. 

North American movements such as this that are dominated by white folks are rarely inclusive. Lessons and leadership from groups of people of colour and indigenous folks could have been put at the forefront. They were not. To me this doesn't mean the movement is a sham, or worthless. But nothing is above critique, especially when the goal is, among other things, to not reproduce the power structures of the ruling class, yes?

I'm sorry Maysie but I think the Jessica Yee piece is narcissistic drivel, founded on a flawed premise. I'm in the middle of a working day here so I can't elaborate my arguments as I should like but, first: as far as I know the original callout to occupy Wall Street came from the Vancouver-based Adbusters magazine. It is an open call to the ENTIRE POPULATION. As far as I know, FN ARE represented among the protestors on the ground.

Wall Street epitomizes modern capitalism which is only the current face of the exploitation paradigm that did such damage to the original First Nations cultures. It is as much the logical target for anti-colonialists of all stripes as it is for anti-capitalists. One need only consider the numerous local fights led by indigenous peoples from South America to New Guinea against Canadian mining firms to appreciate the truth of that.

Ms.Yee has a bit of a whine about how the North American colonial history has been ignored by the nascent, leaderless, platformless 'movement' now taking shape in a park on Wall Street. Instead of celebrating her victimhood why doesn't she join her FN brothers and sisters on Wall Street and speak up?

She mistakenly personalizes this protest as 'the left' whereas a moment's contemplation makes clear the '99%' are not so easily labelled. The seeds of the protest certainly lie in the widespread feeling of grievance against a financial elite and the political system that enables it. While there is no explicit position regarding trans or gay rights, gender issues etc one expects the natural condition of this so-far inchoate protest to be sympathetic and supportive of related struggles rather than the antagonism Ms.Lee seems intent on stoking.

'Because in the act of taking it "back" from the 1% ruling class and giving it to.... who? The working people? The unions? Tenants and small businesses?.. in this act is the acknowledgement of the "owenership" and "entitlement" to the "land" by the 99%.'

The term 'Occupy' obviously plays on other occupations, such as the Occupied Territories and clearly indicates dissatisfaction with the official government response which has seen not a single banker go to prison. The implicit idea is that government won't do it and 'the people' must take it upon themselves to see justice done. The people in this sense is inclusive and that means justice for indigenous peoples too! Because it does not intrinsically reference the original colonization of the continent does not mean it is antagonistic to the interests of First Nations cultures.

Nor need the idea of 'taking back' be intrinsically property-centered; it can as much be about an ideal, a 'city on the hill' or some such, which many believe has been sullied or undermined by the current state of 'the system'. Considering the attitude of many on the left to property there is more in common with traditional cultures than with the ideology of Wall Street. But Ms.Yee must grind her racist ax and the hell with the bigger picture.

She says 'colonialism leads to capitalism...' getting it precisely backwards. Columbus' trips were funded as profit-seeking endeavors by the Spanish crown. Personally, I think she lacks the political sophistication to understand the implications of much of what she says.

She says the movement is fundamentally nationalistic in character but this flies in the face of similar demonstrations from Chile to Greece to Egypt. At this early stage, like anti-capitalism, it is a trans-national phenomenon, essentially defined only in negation.

The charge that the movement is built on the backs of First Nations and somehow furthers their exploitation is patently ridiculous. Ms.Yee might as well be on the payroll of Goldmann-Sachs. First Nations people comprise less than 4% of the North American population. Such rights as they possess are directly threatened by the proto-fascist dominant culture and Ms.Yee should think strategically and stop trying to score cheap points off of those who are her natural allies.

And finally, contemporary science confirms most of the native North American population were killed by epidemic waves of European disease introduced by the first contacts in the 16th century, long before most of them ever set eyes on the white man. Their DNA indicates the Americas were 'colonized' by a relatively small original Asiatic population that were comparatively vulnerable to new diseases. Something to do with haplotypes, they only have 11 where Europeans have 44 or something like that. Anyway, much narrower gene pool, it did for them.

This from commondreams.org today:

________

To show how hypocritical they are about this: PBS Newshour covered the original Tahrir Square encampment/protest in Cairo, Egypt for MONTHS--day by day coverage almost from its inception. They still haven't sent a single reporter to Wall Street to cover the Occupy Wall Street general assembly or anything else pertaining to this movement.

NPR is no better. Their news director basically said yesterday that the Occupy Wall Street protesters weren't newsworthy. I'm old enough to remember when NPR was an excellent source of news on a wide variety of issues, national and global. In the late 1980s they'd have sent a reporter to do street interviews of the OWS protesters by now.

I hope both PBS and NPR are extremely shamed and lose substantial citizen donations for refusing to cover these already historically significant events. If you have donated to them in the past, then please consider donating instead to independent media, Pacifica Radio, Free Speech Radio News, FAIR, Counterpoint, Democracy Now or any progressive local low power FM radio stations in your area. These outfits are either mostly or all listener and viewer sponsored and have no corporate bottom lines to tow. They all need the money and will produce more real and timely journalism than PBS or NPR are allowed to produce anymore.

_________

No more illusions about NPR or PBS, folks.
I know that they have donors in Canada as well as the US - well, it's time to pull back and give your money to places with greater integrity or simply to the OWS movement. And let PBS and NPR know why you're not giving to them. Their programming has become ultra-safe, even conservative; they take weeks on end to fundraise by running reruns of old-timer pop concerts, horrid little girl singers, snake-oil salesmen, and the odd documentary bio from the American Experience archives. They boot out the likes of Bill Moyers. And then they're too cowardly to run extended reports on the OWS movement after devoting hours to Tahrir square.