The uglier side of Occupy…

I've talked before about how I was happy to see people rising up in protest against corporate corruption with the Occupy movements, and I'm still in full support of the anti-corruption spirit behind the movement. However, as time has gone by, I've been reading the blogs of people who aren't so enamored with the name Occupy serving as the slogan for the entire protest. There's some other problems lurking within the movement as well, and so today I'd like to talk about some of these problems. I want to stress, I'm not saying, "I can't support this movement because…" I'm bringing these issues to your attention to make you aware that even a movement created with good intentions can become hindered by poor decision making. I'm bringing this up so we can fix this together, not so I can walk off in a huffing tizzy. Huffing tizzies come next month.

First of all let's talk about Occupy. When the idea was just Occupy Wall Street, the word Occupy didn't seem so bad. But as the first phase of the protests close and people shift to other tactics, the name Occupy remains as the apparent goal of the protestors. Occupy what? Well, that changes with each group and location. People might occupy political rallies, or libraries, or foreclosed homes. But the idea is to keep the protest alive by occupying someplace.

Which, again, doesn't seem so bad on the surface. It's sums up the majority of the movement's tactics, right? Except the word Occupy ignores that most of the Occupiers are white, and as such are descendants of people who occupied America and stole the land from the indigenous people. The natural defense from most people is, "You can't blame me for that, and I'm just trying to defend what's mine." Problem with that logic is, you don't really own what you're occupying. You also don't have a legal leg to stand on, but you were silent when these decisions were made.

A few years back, several laws got passed and signed off by courts, and among those was an odious idea called imminent domain, the concept that even if you own your land, someone rich can come along and claim they need it for something better, and voila, they take your land. Kinda like Native Americans, except the bankers who stole their land also killed off a few hundred thousand NA peoples and forced the rest into death camps on barren land. Also, famous people Like Frank Baum wrote eloquently about slaughtering the survivors as "mercy killings to preserve their dignity." These atrocities have never been adequately addressed by the US, and the term Occupy is extremely offensive to peoples whose lands are still being occupied by foreign invaders. When those people speak out on the offensiveness of the term, white people tell them to stop complaining and focus on the present. Which shows that the core Occupiers can be just as biased and privileged as the Tea Party protestors.

But I digress, those of you protesting by using Occupy either remain unaware of the harm the word causes, or you are ignoring the harm it causes. Those who don't ignore it are attempting defenses that critics shouldn't attack people who are just trying to do the right thing. This is the classic "Why do you only see my negative side? Why can't you see the good things I'm doing?" Which is a straw man, because I have also reported on the good Occupy is doing. So the request being made is dishonest at best, and it ignores that I'm not just reporting the bad stuff. I'm giving a truly balanced report. So what they're really asking is, "Ignore our movement's bad side and only focus on our positives." Well I'm sorry, but I can't do that. None of us should, but there's a natural tendency to circle the wagons, even when an "attack" is legitimate criticism.

Which is why I also have to bring up how Occupy is turning into a great big white male rage stage. Worse, you guys don't want to acknowledge that many of the problems you're just now noticing are not new, nor are these changes coming "overnight." You were told time and again to expect this, and you dudes repeatedly said, "It's not our problem, and we don't owe the rest of you anything." You scoffed at people who quoted "They came for the Jews…" because you never believed anyone would challenge your white male privilege. And now that someone has checked your privileges, you're pissed.

Everyone else gets your rage, really. But it's just, now that you white dudes are bellowing, you won't let anyone else speak for Occupy. It's all white guy, all the time. You might as well start wearing tea bags, because you're just as unwilling to confront reality as the conservative's favored protesters.

Finally, there's been some talk among many of the Occupy camps that gender variant protestors did not feel safe or welcome in the camps. This goes hand in hand with the movement's unwillingness to embrace ethnic and racial diversity, but is even more problematic because it shuts out whole groups of well-trained activists who would have liked to help, if only they hadn't been treated poorly by their own potential allies. (Allies who are stumbling blindly due to inexperience while pretending to be thought leaders.)

It's up to you guys to recognize how close-minded your movement is becoming. If you snap at critics and refuse to acknowledge your own ignorance and privilege showing, then you shouldn't be surprised when you have trouble recruiting allies from oppressed minorities. In other words, quit acting like your one-year old boo-boo stings worse than the decades of system-wide oppression that you ignored because it didn't concern you yet.