From:   shaista husain <shaistahusain@gmail.com>
Sent time:   Friday, November 04, 2011 2:47:44 PM
To:   september17@googlegroups.com
Subject:   Re: [september17discuss] Re: way cool infographic on the demographics of OWS,
 

I would step back if i heard my position argued, so why not just go to

the next thread...where in the flyer or MoveOn's "Who are Occupy Wall

Street?" --is there any concern about 81% white majority? Has this

chart of demographic "research" been used to recruit people of color

to OWS, as Harrison et al claim was the purpose for it? Is there any

language about this white majority being a problem? No there is isn't.

It is a problem at OWS, NYC is multicultural and diverse city and it

should be represented that way, even liberals will agree--it is an

insult to large middle class people of color, who are not represented

here. Only the right wing would like appear both "revolutionary" and

majority white. that is the problem, Charles with how this chart

gloats over its bright red 81% majority hubris.

 

On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 1:17 PM, Charles Lenchner <clenchner@gmail.com> wrote:

> "manipulated as false propaganda for MoveOn's very white middle

> class agenda."

> First of all, propaganda isn't necessarily 'false.' Calling it that seems

> strange. Propaganda is much more effective when it's true.

> Secondly, MoveOn doesn't have a 'white' agenda. That's just.... ridonkulos.

> It's an insult to the large numbers of middle class people of color, let

> alone MoveOn Staff of color (and I'm thinking of a former CCC staffer who

> was hired not long ago, among others.)

> Third, why would a middle class agenda be suspect? Aren't they, be

> definition, part of the 99? Of course, alienating middle class folks so they

> feel more in common with the wealthy is a classic..... REPUBLICAN strategy.

> Not sure I'd want to go there.

> Fourthly, whatever happened to 'step back' if your voice is heard too often,

> eh?

>

> Charles

>

> On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 12:58 PM, Cesar <wintersiroco@gmail.com> wrote:

>>

>> No idea, perhaps those who know how it got there...?

>> Cesar

>>

>> Sent from phone

>>

>>

>> On Nov 4, 2011, at 12:26 PM, Jon Good <therealjongood@gmail.com> wrote:

>>

>> Cesar: I agree we should try and get MoveOn to take the thing down.  How?

>> Harrison:

>> "just as false as your presumptuous assumption that I am white"

>> Google Image Search obviates the need for any assumption.  (If you don't

>> identify as white, we maybe need to talk more about the privilege inherent

>> in perception and in "passing.")

>>

>> Shaista:

>> "nowhere on MoveOn's infomercial does it say that this research was

>> based on internet traffic"

>>

>> Yes it does.  It says it right at the top (albiet in rather small print).

>> "...analyzed results from 5006 surveys completed surveys at

>> occupywallst.org".

>>

>> Both of you have good and valid arguments couched in spite and in

>> assumptions about the malicious intentions of each other. It is blinding all

>> of us. I'm sick of it.  If we can't trust one another we might as well give

>> up now.

>>

>> On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 11:51 AM, shaista husain <shaistahusain@gmail.com>

>> wrote:

>>>

>>> Harrison, this work was co-opted to depict and illustrate something

>>> you did not intend to show, or the research you conducted was

>>> manipulated as false propaganda for MoveOn's very white middle class

>>> agenda. Let's agree on some basic principles of solidarity-- we can

>>> fight together as comrades towards a vision of inclusiveness,

>>> diversity and plurality.  But that chart ultimately is a total

>>> fabrication of your work. You refuse to acknowledge that fact and

>>> continue your macho defensive aggression, like Grim, attacking my

>>> intelligence. Forget me, why avoid the question--how did YOUR team's

>>> research get manipulated and co-opted on MoveOn's page as official

>>> demographics of OWS, when it was some internet research you did,

>>> nowhere on MoveOn's infomercial does it say that this research was

>>> based on internet traffic.... it gets about a thousand "likes" on

>>> facebook--eliding and misrepresenting our efforts at multicultural

>>> diversity and makes OWS look like Tea Party demographics. This is part

>>> of a national effort to make OWS look like Tea Party alternative..

>>> these are the underlying motives of the co-optation of our movement by

>>> white middle class. I know you don't agree with that so stop attacking

>>> me--bro. I am not here to make you feel guilty or racist, i just find

>>> your continued attacks on my intelligence as racist. I knew the chart

>>> was suspicious and finally when it was advertised validated and proved

>>> all my worse fears. You refuse to realize here that MoveOn are

>>> manipulative liars and took all your research and turned it into some

>>> bogus hubris to define OWS.

>>> Anyway, i am wasting my time. Your words are just hurtful thats all.

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>> On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 11:35 AM, Harrison Schultz <schuh072@gmail.com>

>>> wrote:

>>> > A quick pragmatic comment...I am less than pleased with the fact that

>>> > this

>>> > infographic, which I didn't make but still happen to think looks cool,

>>> > doesn't clearly communicate that this is traffic on occupywallst.org as

>>> > opposed to actual occupiers on the ground.

>>> >

>>> > Shaista,

>>> >

>>> > I stand by my insult on your intelligence, having reconsidered your

>>> > posts,

>>> > just as you have stood by your assertion that I am a racist after far

>>> > too

>>> > many of my posts to this thread.  Your deliberate attempts to

>>> > misconstrue

>>> > empirical findings from this research which don't happen to fit your

>>> > preconceived and highly prejudiced notions of what you think this

>>> > movement

>>> > should look like are far more racist than anything within the findings

>>> > themselves.  I joined this movement precisely to oppose the sort of

>>> > self-righteous willful ignorance you've demonstrate every time I've

>>> > posted

>>> > numbers because it's exactly the same sort of willful ignorance that

>>> > enables

>>> > Fox News and members of the 1% to deny climate change and rising

>>> > unemployment rates.  I'll grant you that there's no scientifically

>>> > reliable

>>> > definition of race, and that continuing to use the category on surveys

>>> > ultimately perpetuates the spurious belief in racial categories among

>>> > the

>>> > general population.  However I put out a call to meet, discuss a formal

>>> > research and analytics committee and attempt to brainstorm of new ways

>>> > to

>>> > re-write that question (based on nationality), with the help of

>>> > specialists

>>> > on the subject of the sociology of race, which everyone including you

>>> > ignored, which is precisely how I know that your accusations are based

>>> > purely on spite as opposed to substance.

>>> >

>>> > I will not submit to moderation from any of the self-appointed

>>> > moderators on

>>> > this thread who seem to share your privileged belief that only white

>>> > people

>>> > are capable of racism, (which is just as false as your presumptuous

>>> > assumption that I am white), since that would be tantamount to allowing

>>> > more

>>> > of your insidious racism to further spread throughout this movement.  I

>>> > will

>>> > not continue to share findings from this research on this thread since

>>> > its

>>> > way more trouble than its worth.  However I will remain on this thread

>>> > in

>>> > order to attack the basis of the privilege you seemed to have claimed

>>> > in

>>> > order to label myself, trusted colleagues, and random strangers I've

>>> > never

>>> > met on this thread as racists.

>>> >

>>> > Anyone who dares to persistently accuse me or any of my colleagues of

>>> > being

>>> > a racist on grounds as ridiculously incoherent as Shaista's should not

>>> > be

>>> > surprised to receive the full measure of my contempt in return for

>>> > their

>>> > efforts.

>>> >

>>> > I'll keep this up as long as I have to, unless of course you bore me in

>>> > to

>>> > quitting first.  Your move,

>>> >

>>> > H.

>>> >

>>> >

>>> >

>>> >

>>> >

>>> > On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 9:18 AM, Winter Siroco <wintersiroco@gmail.com>

>>> > wrote:

>>> >>

>>> >> ...together and ignoring our internal problems and the insults that we

>>> >> inflict upon each other, and let's throw a few under the truck, some

>>> >> will

>>> >> survive.

>>> >> Cesar

>>> >>

>>> >> On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 3:57 PM, rob hollander <lesrrd@gmail.com>

>>> >> wrote:

>>> >>>

>>> >>> It might have been more useful to release just the jobs, college,

>>> >>> income

>>> >>> and age data alone which show that it's the opposite of a bunch of

>>> >>> unemployed kids: it's mostly people over 25, either gainfully

>>> >>> employed,

>>> >>> though underpaid, or trying to improve themselves in college, many of

>>> >>> whom

>>> >>> are both in school and working full time (at least 7% and quite

>>> >>> possibly

>>> >>> much more -- it's not explicit from the chart).

>>> >>>

>>> >>> But the graphic as it is has no methodology, no background, minimal

>>> >>> explanation, no example of the survey questionnaire, no effort to

>>> >>> make any

>>> >>> point with the data. I'd have to say the graphic qualifies as

>>> >>> flaunting.

>>> >>>

>>> >>> Ah, well, the movement will survive. I'm with grim here -- learn from

>>> >>> our

>>> >>> mistakes and missed opportunities, but by all means let's keep moving

>>> >>> forward together.

>>> >>>

>>> >>>

>>> >>>

>>> >>> On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 3:12 PM, Jon Good <therealjongood@gmail.com>

>>> >>> wrote:

>>> >>>>

>>> >>>> ...fuck.

>>> >>>>

>>> >>>>

>>> >>>>

>>> >>>>

>>> >>>> On Nov 3, 2011, at 2:47 PM, shaista husain <shaistahusain@gmail.com>

>>> >>>> wrote:

>>> >>>>

>>> >>>> > And here it is JUST AS I THOUGHT --the official release---the

>>> >>>> > demographic data of OWS ---released by MoveON!!!! yes you guessed

>>> >>>> > it--the same folk we were taking about

>>> >>>> > http://front.moveon.org/who-is-occupywallstreet/?rc=fb.fan

>>> >>>> >

>>> >>>> > On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 2:01 PM, shaista husain

>>> >>>> > <shaistahusain@gmail.com> wrote:

>>> >>>> >> Thanks Grim- for calling me irrational. i think my writing is

>>> >>>> >> self

>>> >>>> >> evident---please be the change you want to see in the world.

>>> >>>> >> I still offer you some herbs for healing....

>>> >>>> >> peace

>>> >>>> >> shaista

>>> >>>> >>

>>> >>>> >>

>>> >>>> >> On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 1:17 PM, gwomyn <grimwomyn@gmail.com>

>>> >>>> >> wrote:

>>> >>>> >>> I have published the email thread as a public document if anyone

>>> >>>> >>> would

>>> >>>> >>> like to read it: http://bit.ly/tPlXTw after Shaista sent me an

>>> >>>> >>> invitation to meet I made a mistaken assumption. Regardless, I

>>> >>>> >>> have

>>> >>>> >>> no

>>> >>>> >>> wish to engage with a person who has spoken to myself and others

>>> >>>> >>> with

>>> >>>> >>> such irrationality.

>>> >>>> >>>

>>> >>>> >>> On Nov 3, 11:50 am, shaista husain <shaistahus...@gmail.com>

>>> >>>> >>> wrote:

>>> >>>> >>>> Being defined as an arab, by Lauren, then told that arabs are

>>> >>>> >>>> actually

>>> >>>> >>> I have personal

>>> >>>> >>>> threats from Grim "privately" sent to me, which i shall spare

>>> >>>> >>>> at

>>> >>>> >>>> the

>>> >>>> >>>> moment--and really really disturbing threats. Perhaps this is

>>> >>>> >>>> the

>>> >>>> >>>> reason why i have been so "edgy" and emotional and paranoid,

>>> >>>> >>>> when

>>> >>>> >>>> someone tries to silence you by threatening to turn you over to

>>> >>>> >>>> the

>>> >>>> >>>> police:

>>> >>>> >>>

>>> >>>> >>

>>> >>>

>>> >>>

>>> >>>

>>> >>> --

>>> >>> Rob Hollander

>>> >>> Lower East Side Residents for Responsible Development

>>> >>> http://savethelowereastside.blogspot.com/

>>> >>> 622 E 11, #10

>>> >>> NYC, 10009

>>> >>> 212-228-6152

>>> >>>

>>> >>

>>> >

>>> >

>>

>

>

< PREV INDEX SEARCH NEXT >