OCCUPY WALL STREET: The Game of Colonialism and further nationalism to be decolonized from the “Left”

Ah. I feel a bit better now. A lot of good people that Id say are casual friends of mine have been at Wall street since the protests started, and I have yet to join them. It didn’t feel right…something about it unsettled me. To see tweeds and Facebook statuses/manifestos about the goings on down there turn into “Russell Simmons is meditating with us!” and “Radiohead is going to play!” starts to uproot the source of my aversion. And now Jessica posts this, and I am that much closer to not only understanding why I dislike “the occupation,” but what I can do and where I can go to aid in the release.

For the past fifty years, the people of this country have been absolutely paralyzed into helplessness and immobility. The past 4 years of Obama did more to tranquilize our social movements than anything else could have. These people are DOING something… and it’s gaining momentum. At this point I am not willing to count out ANY kind of action no matter how imperfect it is or how much I might disagree with certain aspects. I hope I am conveying, not a frustration with you or the ideals you espouse, but a desperation to do SOMETHING, ANYTHING that is effective!  I don’t disagree with you. I know that we are all standing and living on occupied, indigenous land, and I fully recognize the importance of facing the history of colonization that has brought us to this point. I agree with you that a decolonization process must be a fundamental component of any movement that attempts to effectively confront capitalism. But my god, are we really willing to so readily dismiss, what has the potential to be, the Tahrir square of the USA? If anything, we must recognize that social movements, unlike the bureaucracies and institutions that the US Gov is comprised of, are mobile, fluid, dynamic and ever evolving organisms. Ideologies and goals of the movement change depending on the people that participate in it. I would urge you than to educate others in this movement about your struggle for decolonization while also learning about their struggles rather than simply dismissing the movement as a whole, with all of its potential. Divide and conquer is the oldest (and most reliable) trick in the book. Lets not play into their game.

I’m disappointed in the (currently) 9 likes. People, do you have no analysis of colonialism? I agree with Jessica Yee that any talk of resisting capitalism needs to include resisting colonialism. Colonialism isn’t the *presence* of people from other parts of the world, it’s the continuing process of genocide and domination set in motion with the invasion.

Your reply is a total derailment. “Evict everyone” is a cliché trotted out any time Indigenous people talk about decolonisation. Instead of reacting defensively as if you’re being asked to leave the land, think about how you can be in solidarity with liberatory Indigenous struggles.

You joke about how the protestors could address this issue in an attempt to dismiss a complicated point. Sure, decolonisation and other struggles don’t always easily fit into soundbites, but relying on simplistic analyses is part of why things are terrible and more marginalised people are ignored.

This post mirrors what happens any time a member of an oppressed minority speaks up to point out flaws in an approach. “Deconstructing unjust parts of the current system are difficult enough” is an excuse that lets you prioritise your privilege to win victories for yourself to remain comfortable at the expense of more broad freedom.

sorry to be a libra, but i feel like both the writer and everyone below has valid points. 1. as a white liberal, really, shut up and listen is very wise advice, when it comes to issues involving First Nations people and people of color. 2. of course there’s always something not 100% right about political actions initiated by white people… and by “not right” i mean, [usually] re-enacting racist beliefs/ideologies, generally un-intentionally. 3. however, i do believe that doing *something* is better than doing nothing (altho i realize not all lefties/radicals share that belief); 4. “the Left will eat itself” is a warning i always carry with me, which means, it’s easier for us to attack/discredit/deconstruct each other, than those who are enemies of us ALL on the Left… and further means to me, think long and carefully before attacking those I generally agree with; and acknowledge my solidarities with those Lefties/Radicals i agree with, before enumerating my disagreements (which however deserve hearing); 5. which leads back to some of what’s been said below, which is, “Divide and conquer is the oldest (and most reliable) trick in the book. Lets not play into their game.” – frankly that’s the most powerful tool the Right has, and 6. “holier-than-thou” is politically (but not necessarily ethically) bankrupt, as is “more-politically-aware-than-you”… all of which relies on an obvious truth — I can ALWAYS find something politically suspect about your position — to accomplish the enemy’s objectives: divide and conquer… but again, maybe I’m being too knee-jerk defensive, which again, as a white liberal, is a pretty natural — but ultimately philosophically/politically/ethically defeating — position…

oh… and… I too initially wrote off the “Occupy Wall Street” actions as mostly ineffective, inarticulate, misguided white “radical” anarchist kids… but after seeing the mainstream media blackout, followed by a mainstream media mocking… sided with Naomi Klein & Michael Moore, 2 somewhat “mainstream” white lefties, and decided that my challenge was not to figure out how I *don’t* align with the protestors, but rather, to support them and expand the message into something articulate, politically sophisticated and fundamental, packing as much punch as possible, and re-align it into the already-articulated POC-led initiatives…

There’s another piece running on this on Monday, a dispatch from people who organized at the Wall Street Protests, and  pointed out problematic “colorblind” framings and their battle to be heard.  Wondering how that conversation will go. The comments on this one are interesting – I’m deleting the ones that say what Jessica brought up is “irrelevant” because we’re dealing with capitalism, not colonialsm.

As an aside, this is kind of hilarious to me because some folks are acting like ending capitalism is a cakewalk, but ending colonialism is so extreme it cannot be considered. A comment I deleted might as well have been bingo (“I care about indigenous rights and plan to will my land to native nations when I die, but I didn’t ask to be born white and now is not the time!”) People would argue that ending capitalism is not realistic – but this isn’t a matter of realism, it’s what people are choosing to mobilize around.  Jessica points this out in bold:  ”Colonialism also leads to capitalism, globalization, and industrialization. How can we truly end capitalism without ending colonialism? ”

She’s arguing it’s a root cause of the issue.  Why is that so frightening to engage with?

Hi everyone!  I read this article with great interest.  I have been with Occupy Wall Street since the second night, on and off (I have to work), and was arrested last week in the mass arrests.  I started going to the protests because, like many, I agreed with the vague sense of discontent with economic injustice, but I’ve stayed because as the movement has solidified, it has started to make more and more sense.  Here are the recently published demands, if you haven’t seen them. https://occupywallst.org/forum/detailed-list-of-demands-overview-of-tactics-for-d/

I am commenting because I want to do all I can to fix the problem being addressed in this article.  I intend to bring these issues before the General Assembly this afternoon.  Because of the system we use to address large crowds, I won’t be able to read out the whole thing (we aren’t permitted amplification, so we simply have the speaker break their speech into several word bites, which those near enough to hear repeat in chorus for those further away.  A symbolically beautiful way of communicating, I think, but not the speediest).  Because of that, I thought I’d try to express here what I feel the main points of the article are, and ask that anyone who feels I have misunderstood the author’s point offer their input, so that I can clearly and concisely represent the arguments using the medium I have.

-America, as a nation, was built, and continues to be built, on land stolen from people still exploited and oppressed under the current system.  This fact should be acknowledged and vocally opposed by Occupy Wall Street.

-The nationalistic language of phrases like “take our country back” is something that should be examined in terms of its associations with imperialism and colonialism.

-Occupy Wall Street should oppose and seek to end colonialism as much as it opposes and seeks to end unregulated capitalism, imperialism, war, or institutional racism. 

Does that reflect everyone’s understanding of the article’s points?  Lastly, I would ask that anyone who has an ideas for a concrete action that can be taken by Occupy Wall Street, please offer their suggestions, and I will bring them before the General Assembly.

Thank you!

Having just come back from a Coexistence project in the West Bank and in Jerusalem, your reply really took a lot of my hopes away. Punch in the gut.

Never said that Yee wanted to evict anyone.  I made the point that Yee herself didn’t SAY anything.  She didn’t make any specific examples of what the activists could have done to decolonize the movement.  I’m tired of hearing these blanket, bullshit statements about “well, um, we need to build solidarity”, with no explanation of what that realistically means.  A lot of people here seem to think that they can shake an indigenous person’s hand, maybe invite one to a meeting once in a while and then clap themselves on the back, because this is what they think constitutes solidarity.  My ass.  I’m fine with constructive criticism.  This is not constructive criticism on Yee’s part.  Constructive criticism deals with SPECIFICS.  What it is that people can do to make a movement better.  That’s not what this is.  This is “you’re on our land, you’re no better than the wall street bankers” kneejerk nonsense.  And I don’t try to write that off as another “white liberal dismisses POC color complaint about white liberals”.  This isn’t like when WoC criticize white feminists for constructing a movement that largely only represents white women, because in that case writers like Latoya did list examples of what they thought should be different, and their criticism was a bit more substantial and actually does result in serious dialogue and (hopefully) improvement.  Honestly, what is Yee’s only specific suggestion in this article?  That they should change the name of the protest?  Is that it?  Is that the whole point of this article?

Obviously not, but it’s hard to tell because she doesn’t list any examples of what else should be changed or different.  And neither did you, nor any other poster who defended her.  We’re all apparently supposed to take it on good faith that you’re doing your part in decolonizing, unlike those activists on Wall Street.  Sorry.  This is just more “holier than thou” tripe.  And the net result is that we end up in a juvenile, endless cycle of “you’re just privileged/seeing things like a colonizer/trying to ignore the oppressed” vs. “you’re holier than thou/giving the Right what it wants/mindlessly harping on your own allies” etc…

I’m not Jessica, but I’ll engage until she gets here.

In essence, she is arguing that this framework is blocking us from seeing other alternatives to this. Occupy Wall Street is currently creating a document but this is very much a work in progress.  I would be interested to see what happens Monday morning.  So the demand for specifics isn’t easy to do since we aren’t exactly sure how OWS wants to create change.

However, starting from the framework of taking America back is damaging when applied to this broader conversation.  This isn’t an easy thing to parse – many people implicitly accept the legitimacy of the US nation-state.   Many people ALSO inherently the legitimacy of capitalism as the best system in the world – which is something OWS is trying to challenge.  So dismissing this out of hand and liberal holier than thou ness but acting like challenging capitalism is so simple amuses me. 

But anyway, I digress again.  I am not the best person to talk about decolonization since I am still gathering info on that (I am much more comfortable talking about capitalism) but I would point you to a blog I’ve been reading lately:

http://unsettlingamerica.wordpress.com/2011/09/13/decolonizing-restorative-justice/

Many Indigenous Peoples’ teachings and traditions distill generations of experiences about coexistence as a way of life and therefore about how to mend relations when they break down. For people living in closely knit communities, reacting to the surface event of harm without addressing the dynamics that led to it is neither logical nor practical. The realities of connectedness suggest that hurt is not an isolated event; it comes from somewhere, and because of connectedness, it affects many if not all people in the community.
In fact, those most affected serve to protect the wellbeing of the community, much as the canaries who died in the mines warned the miners of bad air: one person’s harmful act or another person’s suffering signals something out of balance that could be harming everyone. If a member of a community is behaving hurtfully to others, the rest of the community needs to ask why. Where is the urge to harm coming from? To effectively heal a hurt, those involved need to consider how it arose, and to do that, the whole community needs to participate in some way. The goal is not retribution but to repair broken relationships for the good of all. When harms occur, the most practical question is: What does it take for the community to come together and feel whole, so that the community and everyone in it are stronger, healthier, and less susceptible to similar harms in the future?

So this is key to reframing the problem – if we are to coexist, what is out of balance?  If we have voices missing from the conversation, what does that mean about our ability to reduce total harm?  Are we declaring capitalism as the root of this problem when it’s just a thick branch?  And will crumbling the capitalist system in America help all these groups – or will it unleash a wave of immediate harm?  (Remember, our economies are intertwined at this point – major instability and changes in the US market may capsize smaller nations.) Is that immediate harm worth the long term benefit, and what would that benefit be, since we will need to articulate that to the world.
To be even more specific, we are asking for an America that we believe exists because we are operating under a framework that something has gone awry because America is inherently just.  But if we swap out that initial assumption for a different framework , that problem becomes clear.  Andrea Smith writes:

Post 9/11, even radical scholars framed George Bush’s policies as an attack on the U.S. Constitution.  According to Judith Butler, Bush’s policies were acts against “existing legal frameworks, civil, military, and international.”[7] Amy Kaplan similarly described Bush’s policies as rendering increasingly more peoples under U.S. jurisdiction as “less deserving of … constitutional rights.”[8] Thus, Bush’s strategies were deemed a suspension of the law. He was said to be eroding U.S. democracy, eroding civil liberties. Under this framework, progressives overwhelmingly called on the state to uphold the law, defend U.S. democracy, and protect civil liberties.
The question this poses, however, is what are we to do with the fact that, as Native scholar Luana Ross notes, genocide has never been against the law in the U.S.?[9] On the contrary, Native genocide has been expressly sanctioned as law.  And, as legal scholar Sora Han points out, none of these post-9/11 practices are actually extra-constitutional or extra-legal. In fact the U.S. Constitution confers the right of the state to maintain itself over and above the rights of its citizenry.[10] 

Read more:http://unsettlingamerica.wordpress.com/2011/09/08/against-the-law-indigenous-feminism-and-the-nation-state/If we are upholding American ideals and taking it back, it means we are also cosigning these things we do not challenge.  So this is why the framework needs to be challenged, before we create action items.I know this is tough, but it is necessary.  You don’t have to agree with this analysis, but I will ask that people critically interrogate their assumptions.  I’ve been thinking about global economics since 2003 or so, when I had to write a paper on whether or not the WTO was effective as an organization.  Had I followed my first gut reaction to the things I read, I would have completely dismissed the perspective of the global south.  It is only through interrogation you make your argument stronger and fully understand the issue.I challenge everyone, not just SouthJerseyJew, to interrogate the assumptions we bring to framing and solving problems.  The results may surprise you.

I went through the same thought process.

As a student and professor of Spanish Imperialism (did a PhD on masculinity in Hernán Cortés), but born, living and working in the USA, I am constantly amazed at how the US refuses to acknowledge its centuries-old imperialism. This transcends mere denial and, in my opinion, resides more in the realm of pathological lying.

Case in point, I attended a U of Chicago faculty seminar not too long ago on the topic “American Empire” and to my disgust and dismay, some of us had to argue for the existence of the empire to some the UofC faculty leading us in discussion! Mind-blowing to me. So, even some very smart people are clueless about these things, which means that those of us who see it should try and use the most effective means possible for getting the message out and heard. Words, tone, image, all of it matters.

Decolonization may not start with the mind, but for it to be lasting and meaningful, eventually we must free ourselves of the mentality of occupation.  (So, to me, “occupy” Wall Street is an unfortunate choice of label for the movement trying to take hold in lower Manhattan. Oh well, as someone said upstream, it doesn’t have to start off perfect, just be willing to adjust for the better.)

One last thing, after many long hours of hard thinking and deep learning, I arrived at the conclusion that not only is colonialism and imperialism intimately tied, and inextricable from the origins, structures and institutions of capitalism, (among other -isms they depend upon for their support and reproduction), colonialism and imperialism are also born of the performance of a concept of masculinity that is centered on a competition for what is perceived to be limited resources (capital, good breeding females, power, etc.) and a slavish adherence to the organizing principle of hierarchy.

This is a fight for the liberation of the human family from so much.

“Colonialism also leads to capitalism, globalization, and industrialization. How can we truly end capitalism without ending colonialism?”

This is not accurate. Capitalism leads to colonialism, not the other way around. Capitalism (and primitive accumulation) is the driving force behind colonialism; it is the reason why it exists in the first place.

Solidarity with indigenous peoples and an intrinsic opposition to colonialism must be part of any resistance strategy. This is an important and necessary critique that I hope will only grow in strength. The leaders of the OWS movement must internalize your message and keep a belief (and act upon it) of solidarity with first nations people.

This critique is so necessary that I hope that this does not simply stop at criticism (thus leaving us fractured, weak and disparate). This is unfortunately what happens all to often. I would like to see this analysis be synthesized into the movement and developed into actual recommendations and concrete strategies – a unification of effort and a holistic approach that could be strong enough to actually be a challenge. All too often we simply point out the problem again and again, instead of actively being part of the solution. Is any movement that does not maintain a solidarity with first peoples worthy of criticism? Yes. Is Wall Street even more deserving of this criticism? Without a doubt yes. That fact should not be dismissed.

There is no resistance movement that is perfect, but that does not mean that they are not workable and worthy of our time and effort. Unfortunately too often the potential for cooperation and solidarity is immediately dismissed before it has been accurately explored. Is OWS opposed to solidarity with first nations people? I’m not sure, I doubt it. But why should we stop there? Are they centering the experience of women, who have had their labor stolen since civilization began? What about people of color who have been occupied and marginalized and exploited, in the creation of this country and others? And what about disabled people who have been historically marginalized in every resistance movement? A movement will always struggle to be all things for all people, but that doesn’t mean we need to dismiss it out of hand without engaging and working towards a common goal that would benefit us all. We are cannibalizing ourselves, and that will only lead to our defeat.

All of us, except for a tiny minority, suffer in this system. Some more
than others, absolutely. But none of us are truly free. Ending
capitalism must be a priority, because it is the fount from which many
evils spring – colonialism, poverty, and to a large extent racism and
sexism. When we put our criticism to work and move past simply calling out, when we come together, and dialogue together and build together, we are powerful. The success of the Occupy Wall Street movement would not be a defeat for first nations people, it would be a win for all of us.

As Sascha said: “Ideologies and goals of the movement change depending on the people that participate in it. I would urge you than to educate others in this movement about your struggle for decolonization while also learning about their struggles rather than simply dismissing the movement as a whole, with all of its potential. Divide and conquer is the oldest (and most reliable) trick in the book. Lets not play into their game.”

Why do Yee or Buck need to list or define anything for you?  There is a world of information out there about how to confront colonialism.  Lots and lots of examples that may not be what you want to hear, but are there nonetheless.  It’s not our job to spoon feed people who want to participate in colonialism by dismissing it’s hold on the world, and the effect on us and our communities personally, or who refuse to take a simple intellectual leap to connect the glaring connections between colonialism an capitalism, or who assume that it’s our job to lead you to the water and then waste our valuable time trying to convince you to drink. 
And did you not notice the representative from Occupy Wall Street’s response?  You could learn a lot about listening and engaging that individual. 

Way to derail from the point of the original post.

When I read Jessica’s commentary I honestly had not connected the Occupy Wall Street protests with the indigenous struggle and wondered too how anti-colonialism would be operationalized. But your comments are incredibly condescending and belittling to American Indian and First Nation’s struggle for diginity in their own land. You reduce the concerns with the protest outlined above to progressive in-fighting as if all progressives should defer to what the mainline “leadership” sets as the agenda. You then reinforce colonialism in your comments by basically saying “Us outsiders are already here on this land, NOT MUCH YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT, SO SHUT UP”. She never advocated evicting anyone or reparations of any kind in her essay. You seem to be saying us little folks should put our criticisms on the backburner for the greater good of the movement even if we feel this movement has faults that could be fixed to build an even stronger one. Specifically, you seem to be saying that indigenous people in this country should just “get over it” and be satisfied with being historical relics as defined by the colonizers.

Jessica Yee:  What more appropriate term would you suggest to replace the word “Occupy”? Since mainstream media will not provide any time for explanation, it will need to be one that people are already familiar with.

Your objection is well-founded, according to this article from the Lewis & Clark Law Review:
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:q8MN-DAbc_4J:legacy.lclark.edu/org/lclr/objects/LCB_12_4_Art1_Clarkson.pdf+wall+street+indians&hl=en&gl=ca&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESiuD0m8dAm8LoNLZTeKQv0OIZ76tdm0pDqDjb_EwHSyn8ezZ9ZUx6cASafDUhPS90N_MbRsLWxxdKWMzR9wAOGNJ4Dm90Hgh8IevAz4MOooYrdbBAPivO_Dbl2SCmN6zZ-xx8FT&sig=AHIEtbRZbCLzKapqiDp9cCxoDthJZ1ARaw
…the original wall on Wall Street was built to keep the Indians out. Despite the initial “purchase” of Manhattan Island, the mythos of which is often used to falsely enshrine Indians as incapable of understanding land ownership or capitalism, hostilities frequently broke out between the Dutch and the Indians. In 1653, Director-General Peter
Stuyvesant ordered a wall built along the northern border of New Amsterdam to keep the Indians out. The path going along that wall was called the Walstraat…. Unfortunately Wall Street has remained true to its origins and has
excluded Indian tribes from equal participation in the capital markets…. In reality, the Manhattan Indians were probably quite aware of the value of their land, and the fact that the Dutch “bought” the land from the non-resident Canarsie Indians was probably one of the reasons that the wall on Wall Street was erected.
in the first place.

Eeeegggzackly!!

Oops Sorry lindzanne – I basically just said many of the same things that you said, but I only read your comments after I posted mine. Sorry!

Uh. I’d say the fact 1000 people turned out on the first night and that this has been going on for 2 weeks as evidence of it being a “big deal” whether or not the NY Times chooses to report on it.

Hi Shades of Grey.
This is Erin Konsmo (the Artist of the picture – Occupy – The Game of Colonialism). I only contributed the illustration to this post on Racialicious and was NOT involved in any of the writing process. Jessica Yee authored and posted this blog.  Jessica Yee had permission to use my illustration to add to the points that she made.

Andrew – please note that I said NYC is Haudeonsaunee territory and HOME TO MANY OTHER FIRST NATIONS. I did not say it’s only  Haudenosaunee territory and I also did not say that it’s only Manhattan proper – I’m referring to NYC the larger and understanding that the Haudenosaunee adopted several other nations. If we are going to speak about what is “Manhattan” now that’s a different story.

Yes – I wrote the piece and Erin is an intern at the Native Youth Sexual Health Network. With her permission the picture was posted. Why do you think she wrote this?

Derailment and also not what I said. I said that NYC as in the larger NYC is Haudenosaunee territory as the Haudenosaunee have also adopted several other nations and most importantly I said NYC is also HOME TO MANY OTHER FIRST NATIONS.

And for the past 500+ and present the First Peoples of THIS territory have experienced genocide, violence, and erasure at the cost of everyone else “moving on” with it. What say you to that?

Also who said anything about dismissing? Odd how if you are truthful and accountable to what’s really going on you are “against” something. Especially when my article clearly said what I’m not against.

well said j. yee

Why is that so frightening to engage with?

I can’t speak for anyone but me.  But for me, it’s frightening for pretty specific reasons that have to do with what it means to be Jewish in the modern world.  In Europe, where my family comes from, Jews were always perceived as outsiders.  The nation was framed in ethnic terms, and Jews were not members of the national ethnicity, no matter where we were.  We belonged nowhere.  Because we were permanent ethnic outsiders who belonged nowhere, we were always seen as interlopers, as pollution, as a problem that needed to be solved.  That belief led to the annihilation of most of my family and to my grandparents coming to America where, for the first time ever, my family got to belong somewhere, rather than be seen as interlopers and pollution.

I know that this nation was founded on genocide and colonialism, and I know that my ability to belong here means that I’ve benefited from that.  But it still feels like a punch in the gut when someone suggests that I’m an ethnic outsider to the US and that this is just another place where my family is going to be framed as interlopers and outsiders and pollution.  If I were a Zionist, it wouldn’t be as big a big deal, but I’m not.  The US is all I’ve got.  The idea of losing my claim to the US is truly terrifying, because I have a pretty visceral understanding of how vulnerable you are when you belong nowhere. 

I’m not saying that Jessica Yee’s perspective is illegitimate or that she shouldn’t have posted this or that she’s wrong.  But it is frightening for me to engage with, and I’m not really going to apologize for that.  

I was on the live feed and the global revolution producer is on talking and he brought up white privilege and Native Americans in the Occupy movement briefly! It went by so fast!  http://www.livestream.com/globalrevolution

This rhetoric you hear from so-called Progressives about “taking back America” is ironically similar to the jingoistic chest-beating you hear from Right Wingers or Tea Party types, who often use exactly the same phraseology about “taking back the country/America.”

These groups are two sides of the same coin in that they both display a nostalgic desire to reclaim a more innocent, pure America … that has never existed except as a Hollywood-style delusion in their own heads!

In terms of capitalism, the United States of America was founded as a capitalist nation since Jamestown and Plymouth Rock.  How can people claim to be anti-capitalist yet also want to “take back America” at the same time?  

Being anti-capitalist means fundamentally challenging the very foundation of the American entity itself.

Hi, I posted Saturday, saying that I would take these issues to the General Assembly.  I have been unable to do so, as I spent Saturday evening in jail, along with nearly 800 of my fellow protestors  (This was my second time being arrested as part of the Occupy Wall Street protests).  I had to work during today’s GA, but I thought people might like to know that the GA has published a Declaration, which does include mention of colonialism.

http://nycga.cc/2011/09/30/declaration-of-the-occupation-of-new-york-city/

I am not sure whether I feel that the attention that they give to it is adequate; I would like to see stronger attacks on colonialism in this declaration and in the movement in general, and I still intend to bring the concerns brought up in this article to General Assembly, as long as the NYPD doesn’t grab me again before I get a chance. 

Again, if anyone has anything further they would like me to say to the group at Liberty Plaza, or has a problem with the summary I gave of the points in the article in my previous post, please let me know! 

Thank you so much Jessica for your post and Erin for your art piece. I feel it’s critical that colonialism and decolonization be the focus of discussions and action as movements that speak of challenging capitalism are occurring in numerous places all over Turtle Island. I agree with Jessica’s questioning of how ending capitalism without ending colonialism would work. Without addressing colonialism, any efforts to topple oppressive or violent systems won’t work. And addressing colonialism can’t happen in a tokenizing way, or as an “add-on”. It is the core of so much oppression, violence and continued injustice. As a white settler woman living on unceded Lkwungen, WSANEC and Esquimalt homelands in “Victoria, BC” where there are discussions starting about similar movements to OWS happening here, I want to engage about this and it’s good to see this article being discussed and circulated. I hope that anyone seeking to topple any forms of injustice can see the undeniable need to address colonialism and the injustices perpetrated on stolen lands everyday, which so many Indigenous people are and have been challenging for centuries. I’m glad to see that someone taking part in the OWS protest currently is participating in this discussion and seeking to address the lack of anti-colonial analysis. 

Boom! 

There it is.

This needs to be a stand a lone post.

Rhianna,
How can or what would you suggest as readings to accurate give history on Native peoples?  my email is shodreamin@sbcglobal.net   Very interested.

I’m also Jewish and understand your fear, but we live in a kyriarchy. Being displaced and persecuted does not mean we do not have privilege and benefited (and continue to benefit) from colonialism, the subjugation/genocide of POC, and white supremacy.

I figured it out!!! “Evict Wall Street!” “Convict the Bankers!” !!??? whaddya think?

I agree that both need to be ended, and that one can’t prioritize which comes first.  But I wonder if it’s possible that ending one might loosen the ties that bind us to the other, since they are so interwoven.  I also wonder if we can accept that one person or one group can’t work on every single issue simultaneously and if we view them as complexly  interwoven maybe we can creatively build on each other’s work instead of shooting it down as “too much” or “not enough.”  Just thoughts.

Likewise, neither does SJJ need to do anything for POC.  He/she won’t look for primary resources regarding colonization, and POC won’t give him/her any pointers.  Well then, looks like nobody’s going anywhere here.

I refuse to think that anyone is beyond critique. I think that looking at any political thing white people are doing through a racial lens is always a good idea. This protest does have people of color in it; some very articulate ones. The dynamic of colonialism, of ownership of the land is always a good critique. I thought the article and the first response were both intended as statements, not arguments. I mean, I was thinking about the Yee article and yeah, it’s a critique from a really valid position, but it seems so ‘shut down the discussion’ – and then the next response was so stereotypically white-privilige. I mean, I was reading it going – and here comes the dismissive part. And there it was!

Kiki’s post I am so greatful for taking the time to articulate some of the stages. I really also liked the kid who was up going to report to the General Assembly and his/her masterful summarizing the points without responding to the provocation. I guess that’s what the original seemed to me – provocative. Is that bad? I don’t know – I like this discussion thread.

Teach!

How did we jump from “let’s keep in mind that progressive, anti-capitalist action should keep in mind that this a settler colonial state and organize accordingly” to “I’m more progressive than you, let’s deport everyone who’s not native!” Jessica’s not saying that.
Nor is Jessica required to “explain” what she wants from you and I (or herself, if I assume correctly; Yee is a name of East Asian extraction.)

What Jessica IS saying is that the system that OWS is opposed to is rooted, at bedrock, in the exploitation of indigenous residents of this continent and the continued attempts to eradicate their communities – which it is. It’s also rooted in the push and pull factors of the “other 298 million” of us – economic imperialism, religious bigotry, dictatorship, genocide, etc. Jessica’s not asking you and I to go home, she’s suggesting that OWS could augment their opposition to Wall Street  with an affirmation of Wall Street’s targets – in her case, natives.

That said, the movement as I’m observing it isn’t in that headspace yet – these are young people facing a broken social contract they they themselves were conditioned with false promises of hard work and comfort. Some folks just want jobs and insurance. Some wants socialism now. To quote a political activist from Seattle  “It’s just a couple bad apples. But look a little closer, you will see: the shit isn’t the apple, it’s the tree – it’s rotten underneath.” Jessica’s just saying Wall Street is rotten root (settler colonialism) trunk (black slavery, disenfranchisement of white workers and creation of an immigrant-heavy underclass) and branch (the erosion of the “middle class.)

I’m not Jewish, but I can understand your uncertainty with engaging with this. I’m Asian American. We’re a small segment of the population just about everywhere, but in places where we reach a critical mass and form plurality or majority communities we also intersect with the problem of colonialism in a big way – namely, the Pacific coast and Hawai’i, with First Nations, Native Hawaiians,  Chican@s. Some folks use “APA” to include Pacific Islander populations, which I do as well, but it obscures our relationships with colonialism. Some of us are the subjects of imperialism – the Philippines and Hawai’i, Vietnam, Guam. Others of us are more beneficiaries than targets, though we’re marked by the nativism paradigm.
It scaes me, too – America’s all I’ve got, too.

“We all have a common opponent; the corporate elite that runs this country
(& the world) with no concern for anything but their own enrichment.” – absolutely. Nobody here is arguing that.

Thanks for the reply but best not to assume! I am indeed Indigenous and a young person!

I totally agree.  Different use of the word occupy.  That said, the mostly white protesters could use this reminder of their privilege.

“Conflict” within indigenous groups and between neighboring groups is a common argument used to claim that indigenous peoples do not have a right to occupy our own territories. Interesting that it is never used to question weather or not Europeans have a right to not be forced out of their homes in Europe in favor of some other group of people, or challenge the legitimacy of European “nation states”.It is a line of reasoning historically tied to ideas that indigenous
people are too barbaric to know what to do with the land and the land
was put to better use in the hands of Europeans.

There was conflict between the Haudenosaunee and the Anishinaabek, but it was made much worse with colonization. The Haudenosaunee did not commit rampant acts of genocide or attempt to force the Anishinaabek out of our lands entirely, so I don’t think that conflict compares to European imperialism. Even if there is injustice in the Haudenosaunee’s relationship with the Anishinaabek (and the Anishinaabek were not passive victims, in our migration west we came in conflict with the Haudenosaunee just as they came in conflict with us as they migrated north and west) that is an issue between our nations and we are now allies. It does not follow that Europeans are justified in claiming title to both Anishinaabe and Haudenosaunee land and limiting indigenous access altogether.

Finally the “Iroquois League” is a dated term and should probably only be applied when referring directly to historical sources. In English the Haudenesaaunee I know refer to their government as The Great Law of Peace or the Haudenesaaunee Confederacy. Iroquois is a derogitory term from Anishinaabemowin, it means rattle snake. It originates from a time of conflict arising from the pressure of European expansion and we don’t call our allies that (except sometimes in teasing).

 I stand corrected – thanks!

The power we all have is in our voice and our actions. Our rights are closely tied to what we say and do – ACTION. During the 1960s Civil Rights marches, Dr. King stressed that nothing would change if people didn’t use their right to vote, along with their right to protest. Groups were formed to go out and sign African-Americans up to vote and, in many communities, people were transported to polling stations during elections; these actions often cost lives, but things did change. It took a combination of marching, protesting, voting and demanding the same equal and human rights as white people had. The old adage “together we stand, divided we fall” is so true.
Let’s not forget that when we want change we have to ACT (ACTion). America is no longer a majority of male, capitalistic, white people. We are a true melting pot of multi-culturalism with one thing in common - I think we all believe in the pursuit of happiness.
If your happiness is tied to the government actions of the country you live in, then ACTion is required no matter what race you identify with.
Protest, march, VOTE and DEMAND a change in the status quo and if enough people, who believe in the same idea, ACT & REACT then things will change. Remember one thing though, change does not happen overnight. It takes a lot of blood, sweat, tears and action to create real change.

Ok, what’s really irritating me right now is this bullshit:http://s3.amazonaws.com/data.tumblr.com/tumblr_lsfbczNElv1qh4zx1o1_1280.jpg?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAJ6IHWSU3BX3X7X3Q&Expires=1318045316&Signature=qHLxLEEVBhAGPmcNWSSlsPi%2FYuk%3DNow, I’m excited this takes the North American settler states and their ongoing colonization one serious step further into the mainstream mind. But if you fuck up the google search required to find out that New York is Lenape traditional territory and Algonquin traditional territory is on the Ottawa River watershed in Eastern Canada, five hundred kilometers north, you’re doing an incredible disservice to the indigenous nation that is fighting against so many odds for survival. So I email the artist because I feel it’s important if this viral shit’s going to bring the poster around the world, to be factually accurate, for the Lenape’s sake. Having done indigenous solidarity activist work (with Algonquins, incidentally) the most important thing to keep in mind is that you must take leadership from the community members, but there is no solidarity going on here, it’s just some Shepard Fairey wannabe with a rasterized photo of Sitting Bull and when I emailed him he told me that, the Lenape are the “elders” of the Algonquins. Clear he hasn’t spoken to members of either nation. I wouldn’t care except this misinformation could catch on like wildfire. So, hey, LN, how the fuck do I get this before it becomes a chant on Wall Street and inadvertently, ignorantly, well-meaningly, further erases the Lenape First Nation? 

haha, the funny thing is that eveything that SJJ is saying to the author, Yee – sounds exactly like what people are saying to Occupiers all over the country. 99% is a big margin. Better be ready to hear what the ALL have to say.

Thank you for writing this. As an Indigenous woman I find it very hard to join the “occupation” of a corporation, when our lands have been occupied for 519 years. More so, bothersome, seeing so many white people talk about occupation when they themselves have been occupying our lands for centuries. There will be no justice on this land until the process of decolonization begins. From the cleaning of Eurocentrism in our schools, to the transission of political power to us, the Indigenous, Nican Tlaca people. We in the Mexica Movement have been fighting colonialism and the continuing occupation of our lands and our humanity for decades! http://www.mexica-movement.org