Update (10/7): This document represents the views and opinions of just some members of Occupy Boston. This living document was crafted to express that all are welcome and intolerance is not a value we will condone.
This is a living document. As the Occupy Boston community, we have the right and responsibility to edit this document on an ongoing basis. We welcome feedback and new ideas.
We are the 99%, and our task is to unify the 99%. Unfortunately, we live in a society that is racist, sexist, classist, homophobic, and ridden with various other forms of oppression.
As the Occupy Boston community, we will consciously and urgently work on dismantling these systems of oppression in our movement. We are working on creating a community where everyone’s rights are respected, protected, and treated equally. We all have different levels of privilege that we strive to acknowledge and educate ourselves about in order to ensure that these privileges are not used to oppress others. We want to have an inclusive atmosphere of ideas in which we do not police each other’s thoughts, but we have absolutely no tolerance for oppressive or intimidating words or actions. If a conflict arises it should, if possible, be settled through democratic discussion or debate; otherwise, it should be settled with the help of the Conflict Resolution Team, the Support Team, or both, if necessary.
We do not welcome any of the following in our community:
- White supremacy (racism against people of all colors)
- Patriarchy (sexism)
- Ageism
- Discrimination based on ability
- Homophobia or heteronormativity
- Transphobia
- Anti-Arab sentiment
- Anti-Jewish sentiment
- Religious intolerance or intolerance of nonreligious people
- Islamaphobia
- Class oppression (classism)
- Cultural intolerance
- Discrimination based on immigration status
- Discrimination based on experiences with the justice system
- Disregard for indigenous rights
- Weight-based discrimination
223 Responses to “Internal Solidarity Statement”
= )
If we’re going to rebuild..let’s start with a good strong foundation..I like it!
Please don’t get distracted by identity politics, folks. Keep your focus on the issue at hand.
Have there actually been any instances of overt racism *within* the Occupy Boston movement?
If so, have they not been dealt with quickly, and with plain old common sense?
Unless there is a really pressing issue that threatens to seriously undermine the solidarity of the movement (which I seriously doubt), statements like this are a waste of time and energy.
Worst of all, they threaten to alienate folks who would otherwise be entirely sympathetic. If you want the 99% to be on board, focus on the economic conditions that constitute that 99%.
In truth, simply getting the folks together in one spot, unified by a feeling of solidarity, will do far more to break down prejudices than any sort of mission statement could ever accomplish. But no prejudices will ever be broken down if those folks never show up in the first place.
Here are a couple of clips of Dylan Ratigan addressing OWS and a clip of his show last night. He and a team of experts are working on a constitutional amendment that would address the most serious issue we face. A bought government.
http://dailybail.com/home/must-see-dylan-ratigan-rocks-the-house-at-wall-street-protes.html
Here is Dylans’ site regarding that amendment and needs as many signatures as possible.
http://www.getmoneyout.com/
Please spread the word.
So are there some types of racism you do tolerate, or are you just extra against the ones you call out specifically and less against the ones you don’t?
there is a way to phrase that comment constructively.
There are some forms of discrimination we tolerate: certainly we tolerate discrimination against those who disrupt the community, aren’t willing to participate in the way the community has chosen to operate or who are unwilling to participate in an inclusive community.
As for calling out anti-Arab discrimination, for example, that becomes about xenophobia in addition to racism. Just because we are addressing American-centric dynamics of oppression does not mean that we are not also addressing international and cultural-imperialist dynamics. Specificity is useful.
If these things look un-encompassing to you, the pieces missing would be good to hear. If you are annoyed that specific behaviors are called out as unacceptable, I think I don’t understand what you are worried will happen because of this?
I think the wording on the list of what we do not tolerate could definitely be tightened up a bit to something more along the lines of “we expect respect for and from all participants regardless of race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual identity, age, income, or ability.”
That.
agreed!
I also agree.
Yes. Being general is more inclusive, when we get specific there is no hope of listing every and we are bound to seem exclusionist to someone
I suggest that since this movement is pushing for a direct vote domocracy that this issues along with all other be voted upon by all. I propose a transparent online poll system so everyone can read, diggest, discuss and choose best. and have a way for non GA attendant to be able to stack and make summit proposals on item no brough out to table yet.
This is a local movement. If you would like to participate, OccupyYourHometown! It isn’t about Internet voting. This was adopted by GA: the participants agreed. You don’t get to object that process was followed just because you disagree with the results.
This is for the members of this community.
Many people who are participating in Occupy Boston cannot attent GA’s frequently due to other obligations. There’s no reason to be hostile towards those who want to participate online when they cannot be there irl.
yup. #OccupyTogether would like to officially announce its opposition to all people of Asian descent.
~~~TwoCanPlayTheSarcasmGame/you’re not helping
Wylde – but the community goes beyond the tent city – there are people supporting the movement in a lot of ways that can’t be in Dewey Square on a daily basis. It would be nice if there was a way to include them in the conversation. If we want to get support from more people we need to include everyone who wants to help.
Instead of calling out specific races/ethnicities/creeds, (ex: Arabs, Jews, Muslims), perhaps a more blanket statement would be in order. For example: Discrimination based on race, ethnicity, nationality, or religion.
I don’t speak for the group, but I am in favor of calling out specifics because each sort of oppression is unique, and also there are times when blanket statements aren’t clear. For example, some people consider themselves against racism, but are for racially profiling Arabs. Being inclusive is about saying to many different people, “I am specifically against the oppression that you face, among others.”
The “race” card is one of many tools used by the elite to divides us. wake up. we are all one same spirit in different vessel traveling on space at a zillion miles per second. A person born blind will most likely no judge people by their color. A person born deaf will most likely no judge another by their language. We are product of our enviroment, step out box and look inside, see what you can change from all the endotrination implanted in you by parents, school, religion, society as a whole.etc etc etc.
Carlos, that’s not how anti-oppression works. You don’t get to just pretend the world is already the way you imagine it should be; all that does is let the bigots and racists and misogynists silence and erase and marginalized people in piece.
You might as well say, “Why are we protesting? Money is just bits on a computer somewhere; it doesn’t mean anything!” These things mean something because they have a real, tangible, measurable effect on interpersonal and social dynamics.
Could we include specific behaviors that are also coincidentally silencing? It is not just the attitudes we need to address but also the unconscious systems that have been established that support them.
For example, “interrupting or speaking out of process”, “generalizing the experiences of groups you are not a member of except to say, ‘I would like to hear how this affects such experiences'”, “assuming that something shouldn’t be important or is a ‘distraction’ from ‘real’ work when some other community members care enough to tell you otherwise”, “disregarding facilitators” or “stepping forward in a general space when your point has already been made” are all problems I have seen that have highly racialized and gendered and cis-privileged and other power dynamics, but can’t easily be called out as “racism” or “sexism”. The only way we will be able to prove they carry those connotations of power and oppression is after everyone who doesn’t feel welcome interacting that way leaves, and we are left with a sub-set of relatively-privileged voices.
I agree that being hard of facilitators is often a part of dynamics of power and privilege. I also think that holding facilitators accountable is an important part of insuring that authority is not taken on by the facilitators. Its a hard job, and I appreciate anyone willing to do it, but its supposed to be hard because struggle and democracy are hard things.
I suppose, I don’t see mid-meeting as the place to do that. I would propose the facilitator’s working group as an excellent place to handle such issues.
@beth, if I see someone being oppressed by the facilitator or an authoritarian dynamic develop during a GA, my silence is complicity
I don’t think I understand your use of “authority.” Facilitation itself requires a certain level of authority—the authority to cut someone off when they’re making an inappropriate or off-topic point, for example. Shouldn’t our goal be to ensure that the facilitator’s authority is freely given to them by our community as a whole and freely revokable by our community as a whole at any time? A facilitator without the authority to facilitate is just a warm mic stand.
The dynamic I have observed is facilitators being cut off and disrespected by the crowd so it can marginalize and oppress. The group decides on rules, the Facilitator implements them. If the facilitator is acting oppressive, that would be a point of process. But the crowd can’t be allowed to throw out the process whenever it is inconvenient to them (or their egos)
OK, so I know what your AGAINST. What are you FOR?
The world is looking to your for leadership that includes a positive, constructive vision of the future and how we’re all going to get there. Please don’t get stuck in identity politics. When you offer low-income people of color something to get behind, they’ll get behind it.
Great point.
The focus needs to concise and tight. We don’t need to have the specifics nailed down. It makes it too easy for the opposition (or even people who support us) to say, well, that’s not realistic – and discount the overarching goals. When I think of “We are the 99%”, I’m thinking of the income disparity that exists and is growing in this country. Ditch the list of demands and focus on that.
Keep it simple. Something like:
“We seek policies that will protect the 99% of the population in the United States so that we may achieve the American promise of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.”
american dream might have slavery or misseries of other attach to it. it is a monetary system. most american are not trully aware that in order to have all the goodies that we so much like it come at other countrys cost. and they are human too. in really crappy condition and dont play the it is their choice. most are oppressed.
Shouldn’t your task be to unify and represent the 100%? I’m trying to wrap my head around why there is an official statement opposing oppression but then you are by definition creating the exclusion of a minority. I’m not one of the 1% but there are some among them (e.g. Buffett) who agree that the rich should contribute more and Congress should not be bought and paid for. I want these people on my side.
I agree that identity politics can be a huge distraction. The statement is against ‘cultural intolerance’, but why should I tolerate a culture that says it’s ok for men to beat their wives or that gay people should be shunned/killed? Why not focus on what we can agree on? Here are some that I think most people would support:
1. Get money out of campaigning.
2. Expose war profiteering and make it illegal.
3. Bring back the financial firewalls we had with Glass-Steagall that enabled the huge postwar economic boom. Their removal encouraged wall street cowboys to take huge risks that triggered the collapse.
4. Lower medicare costs by expanding benefits to ALL citizens (aka single payer) so that the young and healthy are in the same risk pool as the old/sick who are more costly to cover.
If we focus on getting more benefit for our tax dollars, there are many concrete goals we can agree on.
Bravo, lodger! There are cultures I don’t support that imprison, torture, mutilate and kill gay people and women. And if I’m called “Islamophobic” for pointing out that these are not the actions of “extremists” but actually laws of their lands, handed down and enforced from the top, too bad. That doesn’t change facts…and if anyone thinks to trot out the usual irrelevant meme “that was the culture that existed before Islam” —um, wrong. See Russia. Women are being bombed and shot into submission today. They are who I stand with.
So, it is very discouraging to get bogged down with these overarching issues that will take a long time to evolve, and serve only as a huge distraction, when we have pressing issues such as those listed by lodger. Excellent job on those 4 points.
But I disagree that we should “include” the 1%—that is the entire issue at hand. Occupy Boston did an EXCELLENT job dumping trash on the Beacon Hill doorstep of BoA CEO…Patch covered it…but that message is getting lost lost lost everywhere else!
Onward!!
I believe the goal behind the 99% is to raise awareness of the fact that 99% of us are woefully underrepresented in our current system. It’s nice that Buffet wants to reach out and help, but that doesn’t change the fact that he currently has the ability to buy politicians. We want everyone to have their fair representation, like a true democracy, and unless we address head on the issue that a small fraction of Americans are currently running the show we can’t hope to accomplish that.
This, 100% this. What is OccupyBoston FOR?
My suggestions/tweaks to lodger’s items:
1. Bring back/Introduce new regulations that limit the effect of corporate money, PACs (this includes Unions), and SuperPACs, on politics and elections. (You are never going to get all money out of politics…and then the bigger question is should you? What about individual money?) Another thing to ask about and, in my opinion, advocate for is the repeal of corporate personhood.
2. The war profiteering points needs to be much more specific. Is it harsher penalties for price gouging the citizens and providing faulty products or services? Is it something else?
3. Amen. Bring back financial firewalls that increase the overall stability of the system and discourage boom and bust cycles. Prevent the opportunities for financial companies to take massive financial risks with other people’s money while divorcing themselves from the consequences (and then taking bailout money to prevent the system from self-imploding). Would more regulation on derivatives be a concrete step in the right direction?
4. Increase health care access to ALL citizens. Support measures that will lower the cost of health care across the board. Specific steps: allow Medicare to collectively bargain for the prescription drugs they buy, lower the barriers for generic drugs to enter the market, other reforms to lower the cost of health care.
@MillerZ: I think it is counter-productive to your movement, or any movement, to dump trash on a person’s private property. If you want to be taken seriously, stop with the antics that are so stereotypical of young, left-wing fanatics. Stay away from people’s homes. Imagine if this CEO had/has a small child who looks out his or her window and sees a group of “peaceful” protestors dumping trash on their front step? Classless. Here’s hoping you work to eliminate that sort of action, and transcend into something more progressive, intellectual, and inspring.
You can not unite the 99% by demanding that most of them accept the oppressive status quo while we only address the issues important to the middle-class white cis male portion. These aren’t a distraction: it ISA core issue.
Also, how about being FOR increased protections against evictions due to mortgage foreclosures and preventing variable rate loans and similar financial instruments from being used?
This times a hundred. If we start focusing on identity politics to the exclusion of the real message, I’m done caring about this. If there are people there in Dewey Sq. acting in an oppressive way they should be dealt with onsite when it happens, not by making a list like this.
This isn’t identity politics; it’s basic human respect. What part of this do you wish to be allowed to violate?
“And I know there’s people out there who do not love thier fellow human beings, and I hate people like that” Tom Leherer
I agree with Aria. You need a mission statement or platform of things you are in favor of. If you’re just against stuff, then you are the Tea Party.
Nailed it.
Temperature check?
o/ o/ o/ o/ o/
This is why liberalism fails. We’re too quick to identify our fellow comrade as the enemy.
You realize that the Tea Party and Occupy Wall St started from the same sentiment? That the TARP bailouts were immoral and illegal? And that Wall Street bankers should get whats coming to them?
This movement is going to fail for the same reason the Tea Party failed. It gets hijacked by the status-quo.
At some point, Obama is going to appear high on his precipice and offer some grandiose and yet meaningless gesture like bow. And then everybody’s going to go home feeling good about democracy.
Fuck going home. That bastard promised me a lot and I’m not going to be satisfied with a symbolic gesture.
This is a meaningless statement, that does nothing to address the real problems facing real people. You need to put this kind of shit aside and address the real problem people face. This makes you feel good about yourselves, but doesn’t nothing.
RIGHT ON!
Agreed.
this^ is also a meaningless statement. propose something better. be constructive, why are you here?
Thank you.
The model that Occupy has adopted is an inclusive, lateral decision-making structure. This statement aims to outline that.
Now, if you don’t think racism, sexism, heterosexism, ableism, ageism, classism, (_____ism) are problems people face every day then that’s a completely different issue altogether.
on October 4th, 2011 at 11:35 am #
[…] For obvious reasons this is an important statement that deserves circulation and study. It was made public by Occupy Boston. […]
The Solidarity Statement is a Living Document. That means it can be changed and improved. Respect and Patience are both required with a Horizontal Democracy and mistakes will be made. Things will not be stated perfectly. The idea is to build on from a foundational statement and improve it.
I think that honestly, breaking out only anti-Jewish and Anti-Arab sentiments leaves the door wide open for everything else. Why not say that
We do not participate in the attacks on creed, ideology, or nationality? I’m not sure if that would be the best wording, but protecting specific groups leaves a lot of room for allowing other groups to be targeted. I do like this though and appreciate the effort
I love what you are doing. Saw this on channel 2. I think it is a long time coming…I am “just” a suburban mom….but I, along with my frieinds and neighbors see the injustice going on in the country. I have thought it would take someone to take a stand…a hero if you will…to organize people, to come together as “We the people”. Power in the masses…together I hope we can make America work. Spread the word via Facebook….get the idea accross.
Elaine: if you are unable to attend the occupation in person but would like to volunteer some virtual time, we’re getting a group together for that. We’d love to have you aboard!
Count me in for that also. Thank you.
I need to preface this comment by saying that I wholeheartedly agree with everything in this statement. I’ve been following Occupy Wall St and Occupy Boston (I live in Medford) since the beginning and I can’t describe how much I support the work of everyone involved.
I have to preface this because nobody’s going to like what I have to say. Please, please do me the favor of reading the whole thing and listening to what I’m trying to say because you guys are incredible and this movement is insanely important right now.
As the first thing to greet new visitors to the site, this statement is downright harmful. When the mainstream media tries to pretend that the Occupy movement doesn’t have a unified purpose, this is that kind of thing they point to. Are people occupying Wall Street because of transphobia, ageism, or heteronormativity? Not so far as I can tell. They chose Wall St because of an incredible lack of participatory democracy and economic justice in society today. Anything that takes away from those two points dilutes our message. Economic justice isn’t even mentioned in this statement, nor is corporate influence in the government. Once we throw in the kitchen sink with respect to issues, it becomes very easy to dismiss as another ultra-left rally with no purpose. We all want to change the world, but we need to do it one step at a time.
The other major problem with this statement is how exclusionary it is. By writing this, the movement has said that anyone who’s even moderately conservative, or centrist left isn’t welcome, even it it doesn’t feel exclusionary writing it. If we’re talking about economic justice why does it matter if the person next to me doesn’t like current immigration policy? I would disagree with them all day long, but we can at least agree on the problem at hand and work toward a solution there. We would never let them turn it into an anti-immigration rally, but that’s not the point of the rally anyway.
Let me take a step back and head off the slippery slope argument before someone makes it. We’re not going to be marching with the Klan, but we can march with reasonable people we happen to disagree with. Maybe they haven’t come around to support gay marriage. Weird in Massachusetts, but that isn’t the issue at hand. If they started preaching against gay marriage at the rally, well then that becomes another issue. It dilutes our message and hurts us, in addition to just being unacceptable.
We talk about uniting the 99%, but this statement does just the opposite. If the movement is to succeed and thrive, we need to make it as inclusive as possible. We want to get the support of that 99%, not just those that happen to agree with all of our political views.
When you look at the success of other movements, you see a clarity of message. The tea party is an obvious example, but even going back to the women’s suffrage and civil rights movements, you see a large, inclusive movement built around a single issue. Heck, women’s suffrage was supported by a lot of people opposed to it in principle, but wanted to pass Prohibition and saw that as expedient. But you know what, it got women the vote, didn’t it?
These organizations have a single issue and a single voice. They were a coalition made up of very different people joining their voices to make them heard. This is what we need to emulate when we craft our message. When people ask us why we’re standing out there, we don’t give them a list of disparate issues they may or may not agree with, we give them one. This is how every successful movement operates and it’s how we need to work.
I realize most of this message will be poorly received. If you’ve read this far, I thank you. I can’t do anything more than ask that this be taken under consideration. I hope that someone will listen and bring it to the attention of the larger group.
I think you were very respectful and well-informed in what you were saying here.
Thank you for being more articulate in your response than I was. 🙂
One of the things that is in the works for this site is to change the front page to be a static welcome text, instead of the most recent post, which will help keep the Message out front. I believe that this internal statement was important for the people in the encampment to put together for themselves as guidelines everyone could agree to in their living space. Like a chore chart in an apartment, it’s good for the residents but might look weird to visitors.
Given the increased media attention all of the Occupy movement is getting right now, it is probably wise to temporarily remove that from being the first thing people see. I know I was sending the link around to family members who promptly dismissed the movement after seeing that.
The press release, however, was great. That was a great first intro to the site, and that’s what I though I was sending around. 🙂
could not agree more!
I am sorry KB, but I do not think that allowing bigoted, ignorant people to infiltrate this movement is going to help it.
Yes, this movement is full of inclusive language and “all-in-it-together” rhetoric. However, some of our sisters and brothers in the 99% have chosen to participate in their own, and all of our oppression.
Forget them.
If people choose to support the military’s conquest, the corporations’ exploitation, and the government’s lack of acknowledgement of huge portions of it’s ‘subjects’ then I withdraw my invitation to those folks.
You are with us, or against us. For example, the police department, serving as foot soldiers, knowingly and proudly asserting laws that were written specifically written to undermine the needs and rights of the majority of citizens. We are oppressed, and so are the police. But as soon as they put on their costumes and strap on their gun belts and stand IN DEFENSE OF banks, companies, and politicians and AGAINST the general population, their solidarity and overall relevance to this movement disintegrates.
I, for one, would rather not march alongside those who harbor racially, sexually, religiously or otherwise or otherwise oppressive thoughts or prejudices. And while economically they may be in the same boat as us, they are no allies of mine.
i also apologize for not editing for typos.
Then we are not the 99%.
Much as I would like to associate only with those that I am most comfortable with, this is too important to allow the message to become dilluted. The whole point initially was take political power back.
There is no utopian society on this planet and there never will be, but positive change is always possible. Fixing income disparity and holding our politicians accountable are major foundational steps in that direction.
This is a time to come together, sort out the differences later.
i like you Paul. you seem like a good dude.
i do find these things problematic as well and wonder to what extent we can control them.
in the camp, if someone speaks inappropriately, are they spoken to about it, or asked to leave immediately? who is in charge and what is our official policy??
I appreciate your opinion. However, Wall St. is housed in, and benefits from, an intersectional matrix of oppression. Capitalism is dependent on there being an underclass/underclasses. You cannot separate one from the other. Additionally, all of the 99% should feel safe participating in this movement. If instances arise where people are oppressed within the camp, how can we even begin to think that we can present a better way of doing things? Therefore, ageism, transphobia, and heteronormativity are all legitimate stances to be against in trying to preserve the unity and safety of the community. This doesn’t mean a “non-lefty” should also not feel safe. In fact, we encourage open conversation/exchange of opposing ideas, realizing that some people will just agree to disagree. What we will not tolerate, however, is hate language or violence against any particular group. That’s the purpose of this statement.
It seems to me that the only people who would pose that type of problem would probably be there with that specific purpose in mind. I know people from all different ages, ethnicities, education levels and social groups. If we get all of these people together, which is our goal, there will be some treadiing upon eachothers values.
We need to accept that these events will arise and deal with them when they do. Right now we need open boarders. We need to grow. We don’t need this statement, it is self evident. Just having this conversation is probably scaring away people who would not be comfortable entering into this dialog.
We need to bring all well intentioned people in. We will all learn from eachother.
Paul, that’s simply not the case. Most sexism and racism is unconscious, the result of living in a world with messed up power dynamics. I suggest taking the test at https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/demo/ to explore your own implicit assumptions.
If you aren’t aware of these dynamics it is probably because they don’t affect you, not because they aren’t happening around you.
A mostly ad hoc movement (or any movement) needs time to foment and to find its identity, its needs. Couple that with a decision-making process that takes a loooooong time to come to consensus further exacerbates the kind of singular purpose other models of protest seem to exemplify.
Occupy is not those other protests. It is an occupation. It demands time.
Also, this statement is saying that people should leave their bigot-face behind if they want to join in on the process/protest/occupation.
“Single voice” will always end up meaning “not mine”. I consider that unacceptable and will not martyr my expectations of basic respect to the cause. I am truly sorry for you if you think that makes me the problem.
My cousin contacted me through facebook this morning. She said: “Are you one of the protesters? I can see tent city from my office! Sounds dumb, but what are the issues that are being protested? Is it the same as in NY? Wall Street Greed?”
Here is my answer:
It doesn’t sound dumb; it’s right to the point. They say that the power in this country resides with 1% of the people and the other 99% need to get involved and take back the power by creating an actual democracy, rather than one in name only. That’s the general message. The specifics are being hammered out each day through a process that is itself a message – a truly democratic consensus based process. Messy and time consuming, but worth it because the results have the input of the many.
Well put, Lisa!
The long, messy process with living documents being hammered out are very much the business of those doing the work in Occupy Boston…and the “99%” in itself is a simple, intuitively-understood message.
The problem is that once you start listing everyone you “support” and won’t tolerate “phobia” of, you’re leaving out others. I notice Catholics were left out, and there is constant denunciation of the Catholic Church… you hear “Islamophobia” but never “Catholiphobia.” And then there are the atheists and free thinkers. Do we tolerate bigotry against them? Conversely, do we tolerate their loathing of all organized religions? If all of the major religions are toxic-level patriarchal and tools of the warmongers, how are we not to denounce them, and how to avoid being called “intolerant” when we do correctly take them to task? Pretty endless, isn’t it? 🙂
Keep working on the living document, but meanwhile, let people know about the direct actions being taken regarding the current crisis we all find ourselves in….that is, that 99% of us find ourselves in! I want to come here and read about the trash brought to the doorstep of BoA CEO! That was a great action, and I learned a lot from the comments at the Patch story, about the criminal practices the banks are committing due to the changes in the laws that make it more profitable for them to kick people out of their homes, not sell them, not even keep up the property, and then keep the empty run-down hoes on their books at fraudulent paper “worth!”
THAT is hot stuff, and you are fighting vicious media memes that concentrate on things like this evolving document and purposely black out the actions that Occupy Boston are undertaking on behalf of the 99%! Toot your own horn more, while you’re also working on World Peace! Don’t feed the meme….
your cousin is the 1% huh?
I think this is a great starting point! The things outlined here are the most pervasive and seemingly acceptable in our current society. As human beings we aren’t perfect and we never will be, but then again I don’t know of any species that is. I think we must respect the rights and differences of all people, from all walks of life. This is a blanket statement which addresses many of our shortcomings, our frailties. This statement is a new paradigm, still in it’s infancy stage, and we, the people, need to be retaught to accept and respect all differences, and to be an all inclusive society without preconceived bias’ or skewed perceptions. It’s not an easy task but it can be done. As I said in the beginning-this is a great starting point! Now let’s all practice what we preach! (John Lennon is smiling right about now!)
John Lennon beat women, you could be making women feel excluded by mentioning him.
See how this slope slants?
No.
@susan, word. @Dan, shut up. @occupy: stick together!
good meeting you at smartmeme last night nadeem and thank you for posting this solidarity statement – this means a lot. i look forward to continuing the dialogue.
Hello everyone,
This statement ISN’T our message or purpose of occupying. It is a statement that guides relationships in our occupied territory and is meant to create a safe space for diverse people to come together. At the general assembly we agreed to this statement and reserved the right to change it.
All political approaches are welcome (from conservative to revolutionary) but as a community we cannot tolerate oppression (is words or actions) against any underrepresented groups.
We are working on our “message” and “purpose statement” but this isn’t it.
Thank you! Come join us!!!!
Great clarification, thanks. 99% is already carrying a lot of meaning for people in today’s climate! Thank you for your actions….if the trips to the CEO’s doorstep end up being a regular thing, I will see you there! And I will support the camp daily if possible.
It seems to me that this would be a good message:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.–Declaration of Independence 1776
Bingo!
Yes…that!
well put.
Why single out “White Supremacy”? I think just “Racism” is more all-encompasing. Unless you are espousing the idea that racism is only perpetrated by “Whites”?
I believe that may have been in response to a specific incident or group.
kate do you know anything more about the incident??? i find this disturbing
A lot of people think only white people can be racist, don’t even bother opening this wormcan.
Current American Population: 312,355,610
Largest Estimate of your supporters: 300,000
you are the 0.096044377112356%
If you make less than $1M a year, you are the 99%. Stop by after work and participate in the discussion.
Except that’s not even true. According to the census a combined household income of $250,000 would put you in the top 1.5% (they don’t break out incomes above 250k). That’s actually a pretty reasonable household income for a family of two with professional degrees and honest careers.
Congratulations on having a job.
We don’t need you.
you the portion of the 99% that will never, EVER, ask the 1% for a little bit of power.
SPINELESS
CHILDISH
IGNORANT
class traitor.
The thing about power is that if you have to ask for it, you will never get it.
Largest estimate of supporters? Where’d that come from? Nobody asked me, so please up the number to 300,001.
word, i second this haha!
come on, really? what is the goal of this movement really? to be the institution most crippled by chronic political-correctness? i mean, I dont disagree with any of these statements really except for one of them ( “no discrimination based on ability”. as far as my experience goes recognition and reward of superior ability produces excellence ), but making these kind of “rules” is absurd and goes against the freedoms that we supposedly protest in favor of. we’re adults, not 3rd graders, and we dont need stupid “lets-never-offend-anybody-because-people-are-sensitive-and-fragile” *rules* holding us back.
See Stacey’s clarification above.
this is also ignorant. people with physical or mental handicaps ARE NOT equally able, but are still ABSOLUTE equal citizens and welcome, equal participants in this movement, as well as in the decision making of what might better represent us all.
if discrimination based on ability breeds excellence, then let us be ruled by the fastest, strongest, and most intelligent, eh?
i think your mind will change upon the shocking and sadly true realization that you are not among them.
OOPS, SORRY, YOU’RE BACK IN THE 99%
oppression is simple.
use common sense, and think before you speak, Mr. Disappointed.
-Disillusioned
Absolutely.
also, as usual, god forbid we celebrate white culture but we can celebrate every other culture all day long, right? and finally, an ideal society is not one full of overweight couch potatoes. physical fitness should be encouraged, because, my friends, as far as functioning of the natural body goes, an overweight individual and a fit individual are by no means “equal”.
In a society where people are supposedly ‘free’ would one not be free to gain weight? NEWS: we no longer live in the jungle. Human beings need not run and jump and hunt unless they so choose.
An overweight or obese person is less of a human being than an “in-shape one” HA! both have THE RIGHT TO BE TREATED EQUALLY. you are exactly who is not welcome in this movement. You are oppressive and ignorant about body politics.
many people gain weight due to injuries or even diseases which are entirely beyond their control. Would you dare call them couch potatoes if you weren’t hidden behind the veil of anonymity on the internet? and don’t pretend your grandparents don’t have a bit of extra flab, i’d like to see you call them “fatties”
FURTHERMORE, there is more than one definition of beauty in this world. There is a large window of weight, size, and body-type variance before heath risks become factors. NOT EVERYONE WANTS TO LOOK THE SAME.
if i hear this talk around camp I WILL ENGAGE YOU in an uncomfortable and hostile debate!
also, HEATH&FITNESS&FANCY DIET = PRIVILEGE
if all you can afford/have time to eat is macdonalds, kfc, pizza, etc.
how do you not become overweight?
IMPOVERISHED, TRULY OPPRESSED PEOPLE CANNOT GO TO TRADER JOES AND WHOLE FOODS LIKE YOU DO. THEY ALSO CANT AFFORD GYM MEMBERSHIPS. THEY ALSO WORK SO MANY HOURS THAT THEY GO HOME AND YES, THEY DO RELAX BEFORE BED.
WORK A 70 HOUR WEEK AT A SHIT JOB AND THEN TELL ME YOU FEEL LIKE MAKING SMOOTHIES AND GOING FOR A JOG.
get. FUCKING. real.
Oh lord someone walk this chick over to the meditation tent.
Oop or dude?
Viva, the comments like “IMPOVERISHED, TRULY OPPRESSED PEOPLE CANNOT GO TO TRADER JOES AND WHOLE FOODS LIKE YOU DO” while well intentioned, are actual condescending, in that you are claiming to speak on behalf of someone else, and you’re denying any agency at all among poor/oppressed people. It shouldn’t come as a surprise that that attitude is insulting.
Mutual respect is powerful, and empowering. But you can’t really respect someone when you feel sorry for him/her and think he/she is powerless.
SECRETARY OF SHIT CAN EAT A DICK
lodger, do you really think an attempt to put oneself into the shoes of the even less fortunate is an insult? how can a bunch of middle class folks plan to change the world if not at least trying to relate to the real lower class?
hippie, attempting to put oneself in the shoes of another is a laudable, but it often ends up in people making assumptions about others based on their own preconceptions.
Don’t you see how condescending it is to ‘try to relate to the lower class’? Right off the bat you’re calling others ‘lower’, so it sounds like you’re talking down to and feeling sorry for (which can be an ego-trip way of elevating yourself) those you consider beneath you. I trust you probably don’t mean to do this on a conscious level, but it has that effect.
Why not direct your focus to the ‘higher’? We should focus on putting the banksters in prison and fixing the laws and regulations that allow these people to destroy without consquence. We need to study and understand the powerful, not just feel sorry for the powerless.
VIVAVIVAVIVA(YOUASSHOLE)
on October 4, 2011 at 3:42 pm said:
SECRETARY OF SHIT CAN EAT A DICK
Now that just doesn’t seem remotely constructive. It may have been patronizing, but she was talking about engaging in a HOSTILE debate, so I merely suggested she take a walk over to the meditation tent to breathe deeply and reboot.
white people are not oppressed in this society for being white. There is no reason to say we are against something that doesn’t exist.
white people are BOring
Endocrine Disrupting Compounds, (EDC) are widely implicated in the obesity epidemic. The Chemical Council, the plastic industry’s own demon, is following the lead of tobacco companies in trying to discredit experts, etc., and claiming that the filthy lies of each and every one of it’s dirty corporate members had a FIRST AMENDMENT right to be heard.
http://www.fastcompany.com/welcome.html?destination=http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/132/the-real-story-on-bpa.html
NO BODY! NO RIGHTS!
Kate….please tell me what it would mean to volunteer my virtual time.
I feel that some people are getting too caught up with the details of the wording of things, and how it makes them feel/react. Maybe they are missing the point. I think this is about unifying the 99%, forget about what divides us….lets come together, whoever we are…we are all human, and need a voice together….strength in numbers. The 1% have the money and that kind of power. The strength of the 99% is in numbers, if only we will come together.
Sharing information on facebook, reddit, twitter and other social networking sites, collecting information that the camp needs (like online suggestions for actions from people who would like to participate but don’t know how to contact the encampment remotely), and possibly posting flyers in your neighborhood to improve visibility. Anything to help people get involved in the discussion.
There’s certainly some aspects that need considering in this document, as many people have already noted; however, it is important to note that this is an “Internal SOLIDARITY Statement”, not a a statement of purose or a declartion of motives. That being said, this work is a great step to reach out to multiple communities, although as we know this is not enough. Self-education is needed, and while the piece calls for no “policing”, it is our job to police and check each other when it comes to recognizing privlege. If we are unable accept being called out when we are unintentionally being racist or sexist or whatever, then we are not willing to listen and learn from each other. Critically engaging each other is extremely important in an social movement, and I feel it is particularly crucial in this movement as we attempt to create a multicultural, multiclassed, nonhierachical, democratic experience. My only other personal addition to this is to remove “heternormativity” from the list of unwelcomes, or add the word thoughts or attitudes after. While I personally am not heteronormative (nor am I homonormative for that matter) and dispise heteronormative attitudes, beliefs, and the multiple oppressions that depend on these notions, in the “99%” they certainly are plenty of people who fit into the definition or label of heteronormative. Again since this is a letter of solidarity, saying that we don’t welcome those who recieve the highest level of privlege because they fit (and have been socialized to fit) into this mold of is rather unfair.
INTERNAL being key! nobody seems to understand this
The front page of the website is a poor place to put something so internal. Especially when so many people will be coming here to figure out the message of the group. So, no, people coming here for the first time won’t understand that at all because this is what greets them.
makes sense
I think heteronormative is meant to stand in for heterosexism, naming the oppression and not the privilege.
My humble musical offering to the Occupiers:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=juywAoQvMm8
this is great. haha
ship the bastards off to Guantanamo!
To be frank, the first two things on this list disturb me greatly.
– white supremacy (Racism against people of all colors)
– patriarchy (sexism)
There should be no delineation between racism coming from a white person and racism coming from someone of any other skin tone. Don’t say you aren’t comfortable with white supremacy, unless you follow it up with “and brown supremacy, and black supremacy, and purple supremacy…”
In the same vein, sexism is sexism. To say you don’t stand for “patriarchy” is uncomfortably coloring perception of gender discrimination. Sexism is sexism. Don’t say you aren’t comfortable with patriarchy, say you aren’t comfortable with sexism. I was planning on donating to this cause until I read this “solidarity statement”. It is unfortunate to know that this movement discriminates based on gender and race.
what you mean to say is:
“i was never planning on donating a dime, or giving a minute of my time to this, and I now have an easy excuse.”
this movement needs to work on its diction, yes.
but to give up on it entirely because of wording errors?
you never cared.
you aren’t convincing anyone.
THIS MOVEMENT DOES NOT DISCRIMINATE ON THE BASIS OF AGE, CLASS(within 99%), RACE, HEIGHT, WEIGHT, GENDER, SEXUAL IDENTITY, ETC ETC ETC ETC ETC that is exacty what the 89,0000 comments above said.
So we need to work out our phrasing better.
Come to Dewey, you can probably help!
I work for an actual non profit with a defined and clear mission statement… it is that case for support that you get people to donate to. You can’t take pot shots at people who don’t want to donate a “dime” to a 3 day old “movement.” Come on, be fair. Don’t guilt trip.
i think youve got it wrong there, secretary. this person claims to have had the intention of doing so. i dont think calling that out as a lie is ‘guilttripping’
what was unfair about this criticism? it even included an invitation to participate and do something productive rather than simply say ‘i was gonna support you, but now i dont cause you seem a little accidentally racist’ because, to be honest, that statement was crap.
Long answer short, please wiki Power and Privilege as it pertains to Oppression.
It seems to me a good place to start for what Occupy stands for would be here:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”–Declaration of Independence 1776
We the people put the government in place. We the people can remove them for becoming destructive to our personal safety and happiness. Wall Street has no business running OUR GOVERNMENT!!!
Please consider adopting the resolution that Corporations Are Not Persons; Human Beings are Persons
ive actualy heard a lot of this
I see a ton of people giving up on the movement because of this statement. why so angry? why so quick to freak out and drop everything? change takes time and hard work! let’s work at it, nobody claimed that this statement was perfect. it is still being reworked constantly. also, it is internal, and not for use by the press or to attract outsiders to join up. im confused as to why all of you are confused, as the words preceding the document itself stated exactly this…
sorry this was not intended as a reply to your comment.^
I see a ton of people giving up on the movement because of this statement. why so angry? why so quick to freak out and drop everything? change takes time and hard work! let’s work at it, nobody claimed that this statement was perfect. it is still being reworked constantly. also, it is internal, and not for use by the press or to attract outsiders to join up. im confused as to why all of you are confused, as the words preceding the document itself stated exactly this…
It’s the _first_ thing people see when they visit the site. Yes, it says it’s internal in the text, but that doesn’t change that it’s how new visitors are greeted. Given the structure of the document, the first thing the eye goes to is the bullet points. The problem is web design. The eye goes to what’s in the middle of the page and it’s assumed that’s the point of the site.
When this is the first message people get, it will be the one that sticks, regardless of any disclaimers at the top. If it’s internal, then it should be kept that way. Not hidden, but not displayed as the very first thing to greet new people.
In short, yes, people are confused. The presence of this confusion should be enough to convince someone running the site that this is the message being disseminated, rather than the one the group is working on overall. The confusion stems from the decision to put this front and center, and not necessarily from the reading comprehension of those making the mistake.
i agree that newcomers should see a mission statement of sorts long before this
Yeah, I really liked the press release when I was looking around yesterday. It’s not a full mission statement, which I understand the group is working on, but it’s a good intro and a good start.
Totally! and the letter to the 1% is clear and concise.
Funny, I’ve been telling folks, “not internal as in internal to the organization, internal as in….how they want to relate to each other/other people, kind of like internal processing….or something.
This post was a mistake. It has already become a huge distraction. Take it off and let’s focus on the one thing that we know we all have in common. WE ARE THE 99%.
There is a reason that you are camped in front of the Fed.
There is a reason that people in NY are attempting to Occupy Wall Street.
Focus people! Let the other stuff go for now.
attention! sexism/patriarchy being perpetuated in this very forum!
“Secretary of Shenanigans
on October 4, 2011 at 3:12 pm said:
Oh lord someone walk this chick over to the meditation tent.”
disregard all comments by the Secretary of Sexism.
This is very upsetting to me. I realy believed that this statement would be taken to heart at least on an internal level. instead, we now patronize and disrespect our comrades as well as allowing oppression to go on. This makes me sick.
To the so-called “secretary” of Shenanigans: you are a pig, and you’re fired.
C.E.O, Shenanigans, Inc.
Yep he’s just as bad as all those corporate raiders ruining our nation.
Is anyone getting the message? This is the most unproductive, democracy stifling thread imaginable. Is this why we are here?
for some of us, paul, yes.
as it says, we have many motivations and sets of opinions. not everyone wants to affiliate with scumbags.
srsy
Actually… I am a woman.
I’m not, actually. I surpassed my fundraising goal this year to raise money for disadvantaged children throughout Boston. So I am very much not fired. I just don’t need to write in all caps to get my point across. I guess that makes me patronizing.
These threads tend to be a lot harsher than what would happen if two people stood face to face and talked things out. If any of us were scumbags, they would not be here (unless they were trolling) this whole thing is about dialog.
If possible, face to face dialog works best.
if you are a woman, you oppress yourself and all women.
if you are in a nonprofit, that doesnt actually make you better than the rest of us believe it or not. youve bragged about your ‘charity’ work in like ten posts on this forum.
I’m curious about whether there’s a plan to take any action on these issues. I may have missed something, but I worry that protest will bring a lot of attention and energy to the cause, but are there plans for how to channel that energy into something tangible and real? Yes, the people are angry, and it’s fantastic that so many are in solidarity. But at some point, I think there needs to be a plan for what comes next. Could anyone enlighten me about any potential plans that I may have missed? Bravo, by the way, on organizing this! It’s about damn time!
I think that these things tend to take on a life of there own. If we continue to grow and remain inclusive politicians will have to continuously face some very difficult questions. Opportunities arise along the way. I hope…..
this group acts and behaves like the 1% bottom feaders of society, a freak show and circus
I don’t understand – doesn’t the Bill of Rights say “All men are created equal”…doesn’t that cover all that is being said here?
Yep! That wraps it up! Let’s move on to more constructive topics.
Point of Fact: “All men are created equal…” is from the Declaration of Independence. It is not part of our Bill of Rights nor our Constitution.
In the same way our forefathers wished to set the tone for a new nation, this solidarity statement aims to set the tone in truly creating a non-hierarchical, democratic, consensus-driven, decision-making model of occupation/protest.
It might sound obvious to us now, but if we look at our history, even though our forefathers declared “All men are created equal”, that didn’t mean all people were equal to [their definition of] men, or definition of full men (i.e. slaves).
Even with an seemingly all-encompassing statement like that, people still got shafted.
I think it would have been better to say that “We are the 99%, and while we know that we’re not all perfect, and that we are not all even very nice, we are together in this cause. Let us put aside our intolerances, misunderstandings, and bigotries aside and focus on the problems we are trying to face. While we are together, try to understand, respect, and even value others who you may feel, or may have felt wrongly about, and realize that we all hold some common values that bring us together as citizens and people with power.”
Really, as it was written in the “Internal Solidarity Statement,” I wholeheartedly reject it, as there are NO RULES, and NO LEADERS in this movement. I even believe that the entire dynamic and fluidity brings a certain kind of true anarchy to the movement. Kant described Anarchy as a nonviolent state where law and freedom are inherent, as opposed to what we all are facing, which is despotism – a violent state of law without freedom.
We have laws pertaining to discrimination. This entire movement is intended to be lawful. If hateful or ignorant people come to stand together with those who are not, that alone can help to change things. I hate to use war as a “positive” example, but during WW2, many bigoted whites learned to tolerate, like, and love as brothers their various ethinically and religiously different fellow soldiers. The draft certainly didn’t rule out anyone from participating. Neither does democracy.
You can’t send out invites and “uninvites” in a democracy. We all have common values which tell us what is appropriate and expected of us. I’ll let that keep working the way it has been.
Well said! You hit the mark, Mark!
If only there were some way to drag this comment to the top of the page and get rid of the rest we could move on to more productive topics.
Amen.
This.
Yaay Mark.
This statement aims to address action between people in camp, as I read it. That doesn’t mean people can’t be raging-racists. They just can’t bring it into the occupation.
I.e. Don’t be an asshole. AND acknowledge the fact that you may or may not be oppressive.
Free as in Sexism, eh? I’ve heard this argument before and it doesn’t hold water. I’m all for Free as in Beer, and Free as in Speech, but when your actions start affecting the individuals around you it’s not just about your freedom anymore, it is also about theirs.
We aren’t uninviting anyone. We are setting out expected standards of behavior. Are you against our alcohol/drug-free policy too?
I am against racism, against sexism, and ALSO against the drug/alcohol policy. In what way does me shooting heroin in MY tent affect you?
@Junkie We’ve already had disruptive behavior obviously fueled by alcohol. Because your behavior towards other community members is affected by your consumption of mind-altering substances, it is a community issue.
The only way to imagine shooting heroin in your tent affects only you is to ignore the interconnected and interdependent nature of human society.
Who ever is writing these articles, please post another so that we can get off this inane subject. Enough navel gazing already!
Short, “racist” anecdote. The Black Woman said, ‘The reason I’d rather be X’s friend than yours is because when you make a racist blunder, it’s the end of the world. For X, it’s like snot on her lip, she wipes it off and continues on.”
We cannot go backwards and be raised in a discrimination free environment, we’re all going to make mistakes. Have patience, forgive, and CONTINUE ON.
Add attempt to educate to that motto and I agree to Continue ON. To let it stand is tacit acceptance.
…while expecting better behavior in the future. Otherwise, why are we even here?
Very Important to read. This holds alot of helpful information we can use and things to look out for.
http://www.reddit.com/r/occupywallstreet/comments/kyjo2/an_open_letter_and_warning_from_a_former_tea/
Do any of you people have a job? Because I do have a job and I can not afford what you want this country to become. It takes MONEY to enforce the suggestions e.g. “free” medical for all. Hate to tell you anarchists who believe that our country would be better off in a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority, how are your special/social interests going to be funded? What about infrastructure, how will that be maintained?
The message is that all of that is being maintained on the backs of the working poor. These people are asking that we stop being asked to fund corporate welfare.
Unemployment is seldom a choice. I’m glad that you have a job, but in case you haven’t noticed, the unemployment rate is around 10% locally and much worse in other parts of the country.
I too have a job, and a house and two kids in school. I’m looking toward college and have no idea how I’m going to pay for it.
Income disparity has never been so high and the standard of living for the 99% has not been so poor in modern times.
We are looking for change.
AHHH! Was not sure what exactly what this movement was about I agree with change as I am aware of the unemployment rate. We should vote ALL the current bums in DC out as they are not helping things either. Thank you for helping me understand….
What is it you think you cannot afford?
I support single payer health insurance — which is most definitely not free — because it is the most efficient model i know of, in that healthcare dollars are not siphoned off as profit or overhead. Medicare is way more efficient than any private plan out there.
Do you know that you are already paying — through taxes — half the medical expenses in the USA? You are paying the healthcare bill for the elderly, the disabled, the sick, the imprisoned, veterans, servicemembers, etc. These are the most expensive groups to cover, and they enjoy tax-funded single-payer healthcare!
The big scam is that you pay for them AND you are presumably also covering yourself (i assume, possibly through your job). And those costs keep growing.
What you can’t afford is to keep this two-tier scam going. Don’t let the insurance companies brainwash you into thinking we can’t afford to get rid of them. They add nothing but fear and lame name-calling about ‘socialism’ or ‘obamacare’.
Why do you think most other industrialized countries provide some kind of healthcare for all? What makes the US exceptional? I’ll tell you what: our congress is bought and paid for by the companies that profit the most out of preventing you and I from changing anything. They cover the low-cost patients and pocket the profits.
FYI the German tax rates are:
Less than 8,004 Nil
8,005 to 52,881 Progressive rates of between 15% and 42%
52,882 to 250,000 42%
More than 250,000 45%
So rmb your brother is paying too much. (Or you just made up the 50% figure.)
Germany has a great economy, and somehow manages to have (pretty much) free college and health care.
Germany has a truly multi-party system where many voices, not just RepluDems can be heard.
do you know Germany’s tax rate? My brother lives there and there personal rate it’s at 50% while we here we are at 30%…maybe Germany is a bad example.
I’d wager the difference in taxes is much less than most people’s student loans and health insurance. Plus they actually have jobs there.
I’d rather pay 50% than be in debt for the rest of my life.
Factor into it the cost of Health care, education expenses, and all of the other taxes… real estate, sales, liquor, tobacco, service, hotel, airfare social security, excise, luxury… and what percentage do you think we pay? Probably getting pretty close to 50%
Free medical care saves the nation money. Right now that money comes out of your paycheck *and* costs more than socialized medicine in other countries. The US government could tax you at 75% the rate you are currently paying for insurance and give you free health care that produces better health outcomes.
VENUS PROJECT, silly
Hello, let me preface my comment by saying that I was at the site on Friday evening and was heartened by the energy and earnestness of everyone I encountered.
That said, this focus on statements of inclusion/solidarity is low hanging fruit and further, will do more to alienate and balkanize actual and potential supporters than it will serve to unite us. Why? Because it is negative focused: what (and who) you are against, and because it focuses on personal politics which, though important, ironically tends to be divisive and exclusionary. Democrats and the Left are always getting derailed or getting caught up in this sort of minutiae to the detriment of the larger political goals. My old auntie and uncle may feel the same sort of frustrations and despair with the state of our economy and corporation controlled political process but they don’t know about “heteronormativity.” Don’t exclude them and people like them with your statements of inclusion. It is enough to say that you are for inclusion of broad humanist concerns and against discrimination based on race, class, sex, gender identity, religious affiliation etc. We get it.
As for the low hanging fruit aspect – statements of inclusion/solidarity are easy. What are your views and demands as to the economy, PAC fueled politics, crony/predatory capitalism? What are your positions? Why are you demonstrating? This is the hard, messy work that urgently needs your attention.
Sorry it’s been raining so much!
YES! The ordinary people you want in the movement just want to know, “What are you going to do for me and when are you going to do it?” Answer: Jubilee Year!
That is not the answer to our problems. That would hurt our already fragile economy. But more than that.
This movement is not about demanding certain programs be put into place. That is a good way to divide the 99% and subvert democracy.
This movement is about fixing democracy and making it feasible for us to work towards our own political goals!
We are here to fix the government, not bypass it.
Fixing democracy means a new system where every voice can be heard
Proportional Representation!
Crowd Source Taxation!
Is A/anonymous for electronic democracy?
U R One-der-Full. thank you for all you are doing!!! I hope all of us, including me (gulp) gets our grins on down there ASAP, bringing refreshments, warm things, etc. in solidarity and support.
thank you thank you, thank you, beautiful inclusive movement!!!
Hello All,
First I just want to salute all of you who have pitched your tents in Boston (and beyond) and those who support them in making it happen. It’s inspiring, it’s time we raise our voices, and it’s a great way to get a dialogue started.
Everything outlined in your statement about all the isms and such I agree with. It’s an important part of the dialogue and sometimes in an effort to be universal and inclusive in our message we ignore the divisive and oppressive elements present in the world and by extension within our movements.
With that said, it saddens me that the language we are most familiar with on the left often is one that speaks in opposition to what exists, one that sets up a polarized dynamic, and can, frankly, sap out all of the energy and enthusiasm from a group of motivated people who are energized about doing something and pushing the dialogue into alternative models and solutions.
In many ways this is hard, probably harder than being anti-“what is”; after all we have inherited a pretty strong critical analysis of the isms. However, when I seek new visions for the world, well beyond a communist/socialist model, I don’t think we have pushed far into discussing and envisioning new models for organizing society. Granted I think those models have great elements to offer. But I think more energy can be put into coming up with both cohesive/realistic demands and a vision for a better model of government/society/community.
I guess what I am saying is, what if we rephrased the question a bit? What if we ask instead, what do we want to welcome into our communities? How do we want to be with each other in our communities? What are the values we want to encourage and foster and support each other in practicing?
I have some ideas. But I’ll keep it at this for now.
Thanks for reading and I appreciate any other ideas.
Best,
Marlo
My name is Ayanna Israel, also known as Laviyah, co-creator and owner of Ste Martaen a vegan gourmet cheese and catering company in Chicago, IL. I am the mother of four children and the wife of Jeffrey St. Martin aka Nahum, founder and creator of Ste Martaen. He was sentenced to prison after being coerced into a guilty plea in order to save my mother and me from further harassment by the Cuyahoga County Prosecutor’s office. He and I used to work in the real estate industry as property owners and loan processors. As loan processors we worked first hand with banks that encouraged our clients to extend their credit beyond traditional limits. In our court case, the banks were named the “victims” and we were charged with “tricking” the banks into doing sub-prime loans. When the legal process first began for us back in 2006, we stated repeatedly that we didn’t do anything the banks were not fully aware of or encouraged. It is now 2011 and this truth is now widely known and well documented — to the extent of documentaries, news reports and the federal government suing banks because they too believe that the banks by and large facilitated the real estate collapse. My husband is currently incarcerated for a crime that he did not commit. He was trained and taught by the banks themselves, which made him a very effective and efficient loan processor. He is not the only one, our clients and many others like him who made a living, worked and invested in real estate have been criminalized. They have been made to pay heavy fines and restitution towards banks that no longer exist (the state collects the money).
Some of my fellow co-defendants who have been viciously pursued are: Sandra McRae (my mother & African American), Jimetrice Johnson (African-American), Prahbu Singh (Asian Immigrant), Deborah Nunoo (African American), Samuel Nunoo (African Immigrant), Baboucar Jallow (African Immigrant), Aminata Jallow (African Immigrant), Edreeysa Ashraf (African American). All including myself have been terrorized and coerced into guilty pleas.
Our case was widely publicized by the media in Cleveland, but it was evident that the news stories were coming from the prosecutor’s office; filled with wild tales of religious cults, conspiracy theories and blatant falsehoods, based on more fiction than actual fact.
After months and years of fighting back on our own, I am pleased and encouraged to see the populace waking up to the greed of corporations and banks. I am deeply motivated by those who have come forward to protest the injustice of the so-called justice system. I will not stop until the release of my husband and that we all may be pardoned from this grave injustice. I am just one voice among many. My case is just one case among many.
DEMAND the release of Jeffrey St. Martin and demand that the prosecutors cease and desist from targeting/prosecuting/criminalizing the minority population that was targeted by Wall Street.
Jeffrey St. Martin’s petition is on our business website: stemartaen.com
He has also documented his journey on a blog: walkingintosunlight.tumblr.com
I wish there was more of a forum type UI here but I’ll toss this question/statement out here anyway:
Are there *teach-ins* going on and/or planned? If not, I strongly urge that an initiative of this sort be begun. I would volunteer to start this but like (I think) many of the participants here, I have more raw emotion and gut feeling than clear thought and historical perspective as to the root problems and issues, and no clear ideas about specific, realistic options for positive, achievable change.
yes to to teach-ins! and on line forums on issue/demands/paths!
I’ll mention to the rest of the web team that there’s demand for a proper forum structure. These comment threads are definitely a sign that there’s at least some interest out there. It may take a little while to get going, so please bear with us.
What kinds of teach-ins would you be interested in? From your post, I would assume you might like to see some qualified experts in macroeconomics help us understand how we got where we are and what polices might be important targets as we move along?
Hi Kate,
@ teach-ins – YES – macroeconomics, and specifically the politics/consequences of TARP, of the deregulation of the banking industry, the various politically motivated tax loopholes and upside down tax rates. The corporate takeover of our political process, the lobbying power of the health industry, the abuse of student loan programs by for profit colleges – there is a huge range of relevant topics I know I could be better informed on, so I assume others could be as well.
Most of us don’t have the time to follow this stuff in depth (unlike lobbyists, politicians, corporate lawyers etc. who’s full time job it is to find ways to game the system to their benefit) but we still need to back up our outrage and yearnings with facts and knowledge, and most importantly, with realistic proposals for change. Anything that helps us do this is a huge plus.
Perhaps an #occupy teachIn channel on YouTube/Vimeo/wherever in addition to anything f2f
Suggested teach-in topics:
1. Why has the media in the US become more focused on entertainment and other fluff at the same time we are in the midst of wars and recession? What are the processes that lead to some stories getting buried?
2. Why is there national majority popular support for things like ending the Bush tax cuts, and having some form of public health care, and support for public spending to create jobs (in the manner of FDR) and yet our elected representatives repeated kill any efforts to accomplish these?
3. Why have the laws that were set up since the great depression to keep our economy thriving been weakened/overturned? Some examples: Glass Steagall, which protected commercial banks by keeping them separate from investment banks, laws against consolidation of media outlets in one market, laws againsts monopolies that health insurance companies enjoy an exemption from (which is one reason costs rise).
I am in love with every single one of those suggestions. I’ll ask if anyone has contacts with professors who might be willing to volunteer to cover something.
Teach-in topics:
proportional representation
electronic direct democracy
ending corporate personhood
how the tax code favors the rich
the health insurance industry and prescription drug shortages
Check in with Truthout.org for teachers, also dollars and sense in Somerville Ma
Another suggestion: How does the Federal Reserve system work?
It would be amazing to have somebody there providing an outline of how it all functions, right outside the Fed building.
Good PR op, and also a good way to enlighten the 99% of us (including me) who want to learn more.
#1 tv, media ,etc are tools used by the elite to keep the masses asleep. If you dont believe watch the movie THE NETWORK 1976 and you will get the point. tv and radio are double edge sword. in the bad hand, playing sport, soap opera, reality show, biased news, and a bunch of crap to make the 99% that what they see is what it is. IT IS AN ILUSSION. WAKE UP.
#2 AND 3 Is what we are trying to achieve. Getting money out of politics isn’t it.
lodger
on October 5, 2011 at 12:38 am said:
Another suggestion: How does the Federal Reserve system work?
It would be amazing to have somebody there providing an outline of how it all functions, right outside the Fed building.
Good PR op, and also a good way to enlighten the 99% of us (including me) who want to learn more.
The zeitgeistmovement and thevenusproject have some good material on how THE FED work. i suggest before we dismantle this horse we all get educated at how it works.
Saturday, Sunday and Monday there is a Free School at the site. Definitely sign up!
Am I nuts or is this a GREAT CHANT?
PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION
CROWD SOURCE
TAXATION!
I view this list as an unfortunate turn of events that will deflect attention from the actual fight against the 1%, At heart–and in practice– I agree with your list, but the list, itself, is non-inclusive: You forgot to list Reverse Racism against Whites (which is really racism by any other name), and Hetero-phobia (which I’ve experienced as a straight man in a largely gay workplace). Can’t you just cover it like this: “We celebrate our differences and, as a community, vow to show respect for everyone regardless of those differences.”
Trying to manage social politics instead of attacking the problem that brought us all here is not the best idea. It’s the place for workshops, open discussion, GA, and so on. Let’s not get sidetracked by our better nature…
Agreed. Ignore it. This is not what this is about, it’s a sideshow.
if this is a document is for tent city residents, say it. you say “We do not welcome any of the following in our community:” to me this is the community at large, not the tents (which is fine by me, but not others – its not right but its how it is). its confusing and will push people away (not that its right that it pushes people away, but again, this is the real world and it does). I happen to agree with everything listed here, but others may not, and then you whittle the 99% down to 90% and 75% and so on…please remove from the front page…this movement is all a lot of us have left to hope for and we need numbers
Letter to the Ruling Class
You control our world.
You’ve poisoned the air we breathe, contaminated the water we drink, and copyrighted the food we eat.
We fight in your wars, die for your causes, and sacrifice our freedoms to protect you.
You’ve liquidated our savings, destroyed our middle class, and used our tax dollars to bailout your unending greed.
We are slaves to your corporations, zombies to your airwaves, servants to your decadence.
You’ve stolen our elections, assassinated our leaders, and abolished our basic rights as human beings.
You own our property, shipped away our jobs, and shredded our unions.
You’ve profited off of disaster, destabilized our currencies, and raised our cost of living.
You’ve monopolized our freedom, stripped away our education, and have almost extinguished our flame.
We are hit … we are bleeding … but we ain’t got time to bleed.
We will bring the giants to their knees and you will witness our revolution!
Sincerely,
The Serfs
http://weaintgottimetobleed.com/
Founded in 2008, The Zeitgeist Movement is a Sustainability Advocacy Organization which conducts community based activism and awareness actions through a network of Global/Regional Chapters, Project Teams, Annual Events, Media and Charity Work.
The Movement’s principle focus includes the recognition that the majority of the social problems which plague the human species at this time are not the sole result of some institutional corruption, scarcity, a political policy, a flaw of “human nature” or other commonly held assumptions of causality in the activist community. Rather, The Movement recognizes that issues such as poverty, corruption, collapse, homelessness, war, starvation and the like appear to be “Symptoms” born out of an outdated social structure.
While intermediate Reform steps and temporal Community Support are of interest to The Movement, the defining goal here is the installation of a new socioeconomic model based upon technically responsible Resource Management, Allocation and Distribution through what would be considered The Scientific Method of reasoning problems and finding optimized solutions.
This “Resource-Based Economic Model” is about taking a direct technical approach to social management as opposed to a Monetary or even Political one. It is about updating the workings of society to the most advanced and proven methods Science has to offer, leaving behind the damaging consequences and limiting inhibitions which are generated by our current system of monetary exchange, profits, corporations and other structural and motivational components.
The Movement is loyal to a train of thought, not figures or institutions. In other words, the view held is that through the use of socially targeted research and tested understandings in Science and Technology, we are now able to logically arrive at societal applications which could be profoundly more effective in meeting the needs of the human population. In fact, so much so, that there is little reason to assume war, poverty, most crimes and many other money-based scarcity effects common in our current model cannot be resolved over time.
The range of The Movement’s Activism & Awareness Campaigns extend from short to long term, with the model based explicitly on Non-Violent methods of communication. The long term view, which is the transition into a Resource-Based Economic Model, is a constant pursuit and expression, as stated before. However, in the path to get there, The Movement also recognizes the need for transitional Reform techniques, along with direct Community Support. For instance, while “Monetary Reform” itself is not an end solution proposed by The Movement, the merit of such legislative approaches are still considered valid in the context of transition and temporal integrity. Likewise, while food and clothes drives and other supportive projects to help those in need today is also not considered a long term solution, it is still considered valid in the context of helping others in a time of need, while also drawing awareness to the principle goal.
The Zeitgeist Movement also has no allegiance to a country or traditional political platforms. It views the world as a single system and the human species as a single family and recognizes that all countries must disarm and learn to share resources and ideas if we expect to survive in the long run. Hence, the solutions arrived at and promoted are in the interest to help everyone on the planet Earth, not a select group
Mission statement from THEZEITGEISTMOVEMENT.ORG
These sorts of statements come off as obligatory, like a chore.
Rather than do the finger-wagging thing, which isn’t effective, perhaps we should politely educate people about the history and economic context of racial conflicts and discrimination.
And do it in a way that is sensitive to the feelings of people who identify as white, since they often feel antagonized or threatened (or oppressed, even) by this kind of language.
Wouldn’t want to offend those fragile White people! If we ask them not to misbehave they might be upset!
I don’t really give half a shit about whether people understand the history and economic context of all of those oppressions (not just racial, mind you. Cis-privilege, for example, has more to do with misogyny than economics.) What I care about is that everyone who joins the community is expected to treat all others with basic respect and acknowledgement and not say uninformed shit, to check their privilege and listen to people they would usually interrupt or ignore. Apparently, according to this comment thread, that is *way* too much to ask.
This thread just makes me depressed. I’m starting to think the chant should be: “tell me what Democracy looks like!” “A giant doomed mess of status quo only with different white cis men on top!”
Should the straight white men leave? OK, cool, see ya! Have fun with your revolution!
I feel that we need to acknowledge that the lack of police/government/other oppression that we have directly encountered at occupy boston is hindering our movement. It is causing us to fracture and oppress each other, this is unfortunate. We are too comfortable We need direct action, otherwise it’s just camping.
To say that this document might alienate people is extremely offensive, if this document offends anyone and turns them away, then maybe they did not have the right intentions in the first place.
Last night at the GA, while discussing whether or not to ratify New York’s declaration, the process completely broke down and we allowed 3 people to block giving them a considerable amount of power.
There seems to be a group among us who are more concerned with obtaining the support of the far right than that of other sections of the population. I am of the opinion that everyone is welcome and we all should participate, but if there is something that you fundamentally disagree with in the declaration, that’s a problem. If you are afraid of alienating someone or some group that may not agree that all of the 99% are equal and therefore should be treated with respect, maybe you’re in the wrong place. And if there’s something specific that you are so fundamentally opposed to in that document, tell us what it is, don’t hide behind the idea that it’s too broad. The more specific we get, the more divided we become.
Our priority should not be kowtowing to make sure hate groups feel uncomfortable, it should be about creating a space where all feel comfortable. That being said, welcoming groups who preach intolerance and hatred should not be the first place we start.
I only speak for myself but I did not join this movement to reform or perpetuate a broken system. I joined this movement to create an alternative.
The overweight should be discriminated against. They are selfish and dont care enough about the rest of us to show some self control
YOU ARE A DIRTY FUCKING SHIT AND I WILL STAB YOU AT DEWEY SQUARE. NONVIOLENCE BE DAMNED, THIS FUCKER IS DONE
on October 5th, 2011 at 2:33 pm #
[…] this struck me as even more amusing. The “Occupy Boston” offshoot issued an “Internal Solidarity Statement” [!!??!!] to define who was welcome to join their tantrum and who was not. It starts with a […]
on October 5th, 2011 at 9:32 pm #
[…] Find Out here! http://occupyboston.com/2011/10/04/internal-solidarity-statement/ […]
Those objecting to homosexuality are not welcome. Those objecting to Islam are not welcome. Islam does not welcome homosexuality. Therefore, those within the group must object to Muslims. But they can’t object, since anyone objecting to Islam is not welcome. Surely I’m not the only person to notice this contradiction. I’m probably the only one willing to point out the obvious.
You’re confusing Islam (highly complex religious tradition) with Muslims (over 1.4 billion people; around 1 out of 6 people on Earth).
There’s a lot wrong with your statement. Like so many people in this society, you have a developed suspicion and hatred of Muslims stemming from exposure to media propaganda and images.
I know many American Muslims who have dedicated much time and energy to the gay rights movement (and vice versa: many gays who support Muslim civil rights). What are you doing?
Aside from that, let me make a sloppy assumption: you know very little about Islam. You don’t know what it says about homosexuality, let alone war or ‘jihad’ or a whole slew of social or political issues.
Setting aside the heated scholarly debate on this issue, one thing is very clear: out of all 3 monothiestic faiths (let alone Hinduism), Islam, without a doubt, says the LEAST about homosexuality and what it says is not as clear cut as, say, the Bible. Do you know what the Bible says about homosexuals.
But “pragmatist” that you are, you’ll say “well, Muslims are the most hostile to homosexuals in all the world.” When I hear this, what becomes apparent is that I’m communicating with someone who doesn’t know or doesn’t want to know anything about how the world operates outside of their small, insignificant bubble. There are still large areas of the United States where being visibly homosexual makes you the target of violence or death… for starters.
———————
Everyone is welcome to these events. Ignorance and close-mindedness isn’t.
Since I’m so ignorant as you imply, I did a little research. Here are a few things I found that may be of interest to you, assuming you practice the open-mindedness that you preach.
http://www.galha.org/briefing/2003_03.html
http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/homosexuality.html states the following:
“Islam is probably the most rigidly and inhumanly anti-homosexual in its practices of all the world religions. The verses from the Koran condemning homosexuality are much clearer than those that the Christians use. In all Muslim countries and all areas where the Islamic Sharia law is enforced homosexuality is strictly illegal. All of Islam fits within the area of Christianity that we call “fundamentalist” with regards to sexuality. The debates in Islam about homosexuality are not about whether it is acceptable, but merely about how severe the punishment should be. So although there are liberal and strict elements within Islam with concern to homosexuality even the liberal opinion is the lesser of two evils.
“Islamists deny human rights to gays. An attempt by the United Nations to include gay people in anti-discrimination measures is being derailed by a coalition of Islamic countries. UN sources said that Pakistan, Egypt, Libya, Saudi Arabia and Malaysia were doing everything in their power to stop the resolution. They hope to delay the vote long enough to kill it off entirely. Secretary of the Gay and Lesbian Humanist Association in Britain, George Broadhead, commented that all Muslim countries outlawed homosexuality, and the penalties for those convicted ranged from prison, flogging, execution by a variety of perverted methods – such as throwing the victim off a cliff or pushing a stone wall on to them. “The record of these countries on human rights in general is bad enough, but when it comes to gay human rights, they are disgusting.””
National Secular Society (2003)8
Very few individuals speak up for homosexuality, although there is an international Muslim gay rights group, they are widely detested within Muslim countries, and opposed and campaigned against by Muslim groups in Western countries.
“According to a pamphlet produced by Al-Fatiha, there is a consensus among Islamic scholars that all humans are naturally heterosexual. Homosexuality is seen by scholars to be a sinful and perverted deviation from the norm. All Islamic schools of thought and jurisprudence consider gay acts to be unlawful. They differ in terms of penalty: The Hanafite school (currently seen mainly in South and Eastern Asia) teaches that no physical punishment is warranted. The Hanabalites, (widely followed in the Arab world) teach that severe punishment is warranted. The Sha’fischool of thought (also seen in the Arab world) requires a minimum of 4 adult male witnesses before a person can be found guilty of a homosexual act.
Al-Fatiha estimates that 4,000 homosexuals have been executed in Iran since their revolution in 1979. 10 public executions of homosexuals have been performed in Afghanistan by the Taliban army.”
Notice that these comments are from those within the homosexual community. Would you consider them ignorant or close-minded? And since you know so much on this topic, could you please send me a link to our country’s (or any other Judeo-Christian country for that matter) penal code as it relates to homosexuality? Thanks.
Maybe everyone should focus on what has already been started. Help with the list.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/proposed-list-of-demands-please-help-editadd-so-th/
You’re a bunch of complete faggots, everyone last one of you
I was going to support the Occupy Boston rally, but I do not have problem with job discrimination based on ability, so I can’t go because I am not welcome.
This is why Occupy is constantly on the verge of non-existence. Camp needs a million things done, and the larger movement needs a million things done, and here we have a big chunk of time (including the time everyone spent to read this thread, argue, comment, and generally get distracted by this statement of the obvious. Though it could be worse … the document is poorly written, so even more time can be spent on this (please don’t), instead of TRYING TO CHANGE THE FACT THAT OUR GOVERNMENT IS OWNED BY BIG BUSINESS.
If every cause, issue, or philosophical struggle is attached to this protest against national and international political and financial corruption, we are sure to not get anything done with the above issue, and you can sure as hell bet to accomplish even less for any attached causes, concerns, etc.
“Those objecting to homosexuality are not welcome.
Those objecting to Islam are not welcome.
Islam does not welcome homosexuality.
Therefore, those within the group must object to Muslims. But they can’t object, since anyone objecting to Islam is not welcome. Surely I’m not the only person to notice this contradiction.”
That’s a contradiction alright. How do you suppose anyone with half a brain will take your statement seriously when it has such a gems?
I am appalled, I’ve been supporting Occupy for quite some time & just because I’m a Protestant Christian(heteronormativity), I am NOT WELCOME!? I can’t believe they have the balls to sit there & say that certain religions & beliefs are not welcome, this isn’t even what Occupy is mainly about in the 1st place. What next? Pro-Life people aren’t allowed? People against cloning are not allowed? People who eat meat are not allowed? So, because some people have different beliefs & feelings compared to you, they’re struck down by your lightning if they try to join the Occupy movement?…. This is obnoxiously ridiculous. I hope it’s only a fraction that are ignorant Occupiers who stand for this. 🙁 Like it or not, I will ALWAYS support Occupy.