From:   shaista husain <shaistahusain@gmail.com>
Sent time:   Saturday, November 05, 2011 1:12:14 PM
To:   september17@googlegroups.com
Subject:   SPAM-MED: Re: [september17discuss] Re: way cool infographic on the demographics of OWS,
 

Let me add one more argument in solidarity to appeal to the

"demographics committee." As you know, OWS has not yet listed any

"demands" mainly because we did not want to be pigeonholed into

conventional politics--and it hasn't been consensed, so it has been

left open. I argue the same tactic and strategy about racial

categorization. Why is it necessary to claim an 81% white majority? In

whose interest is this being made and for what purpose? So i fought

hard and clumsily and fiercely--to at least demand a deeper

analysis--I prefer to keep the dialogue open rather than reified into

narrow racial parameters. If we didn't identify our demands, why is it

necessary to identify our race?

 

"The demand for demands is an attempt to shoehorn the Occupy

gatherings into conventional politics, to force the energy of these

gatherings into a form that people in power recognise, so that they

can roll out strategies to divert, co-opt, buy off, or - if those

tactics fail - squash any challenge to business as usual.

Rather than listing demands, we critics of concentrated wealth and

power in the US can dig in and deepen our analysis of the systems that

produce that unjust distribution of wealth and power. This is a time

for action, but there also is a need for analysis.

Rallying around a common concern about economic injustice is a

beginning; understanding the structures and institutions of

illegitimate authority is the next step.

We need to recognise that the crises we face are not simply the result

of greedy corporate executives or corrupt politicians, but rather of

failed systems. The problem is not the specific people who control

most of the wealth of the country, or those in government who serve

them, but the systems that create those roles."

 

In solidarity,

Shaista

 

On Sat, Nov 5, 2011 at 2:45 PM, shaista husain <shaistahusain@gmail.com> wrote:

> I don't think and open wound should be left this way. Yes i came out

> strongly against the racial description of the chart. I also think

> MoveOn has been a progressive force for change-and has a part to play,

> this isn't about being Anti-MoveOn. I really believe we can come up

> with a better description of ourselves that highlights our diversity

> and our strengths of this very important Occupation. There is a

> diversity of tactics and an inclusive way to bring people together.

> Some agreements of Solidarity should be encouraged so we don't get

> angry--i would not be angry if MoveOn made this flyer on their own,

> but this flyer was made through a working group here. I honestly found

> the chart resembling something that perhaps the Tea Party would be

> happy to lay claim to. I have already argued that. MoveON is more

> "progressive" than the Tea Party so it was a bit troubling to see them

> identify us to the "right" of them. I believe it will be important for

> us to promote a vision of diversity that sets us apart from both Tea

> Party and MoveOn, inclusive of the multiracial middle classes/working

> classes, labor, communities of color etc. IF we portray ourselves

> proudly as a white majority, this is not only dishonest but allows us

> to become co-opted into old racial paradigms and old race conflicts

> that we are trying to dismantle. If we are to demographically

> represent ourselves it should be through a General Assembly and

> consensus.  We would all be proud of our diversity, if there is a lack

> of it, we should address flyers that will encourage folks to join. If

> you remember the October 15th "Global Day Of Action" it was a huge

> turnout because the outreach was very multicultural and multiracial

> and shows our strength. So yes i freaked out with a chart that would

> reflect and appeal to Tea party's narrow racial view of "america"

> perhaps it is a mainstream view of "america" but it doesn't vibe with

> NYC's plurality and culture of resistance. If we are committed to

> direct democracy, horizantalism, leaderless, etc etc lets define it

> and join forces, prove it in our daily actions and win.

>

> On Sat, Nov 5, 2011 at 10:19 AM, Winter Siroco <wintersiroco@gmail.com> wrote:

>> I agree that it is better to leave it as an open wound. If we are committed

>> to true healing we should be ready for some pain, not for lousy band aid.

>> There is some sort of antagonistic consensus between both of you so far

>> "...You must be crazy and blind"  which is replied after some escalation

>> with "....you clearly bring nothing to our collective struggle with society

>> except for your irrational anger"

>> I barely know the two of you, but I suspect you can do better than this.

>> Otherwise, I would run away in fear.

>>

>> I am actually glad that this unfortunate thread came about, because it is

>> the hidden reality to confront, and this is not an isolated incident.

>> So, yes if you do not want or can resolve the dispute, at least be honest.

>> Recognizing the problem is the first step towards its solution.

>> Cesar

>>

>>

>>

>>

>> On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 5:01 PM, Harrison Schultz <schuh072@gmail.com> wrote:

>>>

>>> +1 Charles,

>>> I have no clue how moveon got involved, I don't know anything about this

>>> "white agenda" Shaista keeps referring too, and I'm glad they no longer

>>> appear to be involved.

>>> Jon, I can tell you're doing your best to be neutral and moderate here,

>>> but your assumption about my privileges based upon your perceptions of my

>>> appearance from a google search is only a slightly better attempt than the

>>> ones made by Shaista to define me as something other than what I choose to

>>> define myself as, which is neither as white nor as a racist, even if only by

>>> default as your comment implies.  Both of you are maintaining and

>>> perpetuating the same sort of racial labeling and categorization that

>>> Shaista has repeatedly accused me of reproducing with this information.

>>> Shaista, you've repeatedly harassed me with these groundless accusations

>>> while in the midst of my work and you've made no attempt to disguise your

>>> belief in the importance of publicly calling out myself and other members of

>>> this movement with obvious commitments to social justice as racists over

>>> this thread for reasons which make no clear sense what-so-ever, so don't

>>> expect me to believe any of your bullshit back-tracking about wanting to

>>> move forward in spite of disagreements which you have been all to eager to

>>> begin.

>>> H.

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>> 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 >