I added "social" a couple hours ago, to acknowledge that even within cultures there are social hierarchies that divide and oppress people. I figured class was too strong a word, and not the most accurate in terms of today's capitalist-controlled society where class has less to do with bloodline and more to do with where you grew up and how much money your family had.
I would also add "social" to that list of backgrounds in the fifth sentence, with the acknowledgement that I'd rather say "class," but don't want a bunch of people jumping down our throats saying "OMG! They're Marxists! Get 'em!"
And I do think there's harm in having too many items in a list, because the more things we state, the more things we exclude by implication. Also because listing so many items reduces the importance of each one.
Gender background encompasses sexual/sexual identity background, but not the other way around.
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 1:43 PM, shaista husain <email@example.com>
where did "social" backgrounds appear, how about "political" backgrounds, meaning re-grouping of political affiliations.
Also, no harm leaving both gender and sexual.
so can we wrap this up?
who is presenting it GA?
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 1:39 PM, Jon Good <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Rob, you're confusing the word "gender" with the word "sex". Sex refers to the distinction between male and female bodies, while gender refers to socially-constructed identities surrounding how we relate to the biological reactions those differences produce. But don't take MY word for it... http://twitter.com/#!/feministhulk/status/93029337367986176, http://www.ruzovyamodrysvet.sk/chillout5_items/4/1/2/412_92f5e9.pdf, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_Trouble,
I'll take your critique about "we, the people," but still would like to put "we, the occupation," or something similar. I don't like "we, the general assembly," because nobody knows what a general assembly is.
I still argue that "materialize" is much more vague than "create." What do we think of "make?"
I do, however, agree with your analysis of "fraud" as not really what the 1% is doing.
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 1:10 PM, rob hollander <email@example.com>
Re Jon's suggestion of "we, the people" -- I think it is presumptuous at this early stage and leaves us open to a chuckle at our idealistic immaturity. Since this is a document of the GA, the "we" is implicit and clear; I think it should be left as was.
About gender backgrounds: gender regards only femaleness and maleness. "Sexual backgrounds" is an odd expression since it's not clear whether it means 'sexual orientation backgrounds (gay, straight, bi)' or 'gender backgrounds (men, women, trans)' or both. I assume you mean both. You could spell it out: "...and gender backgrounds and sexual orientations..." but that's clumsy. I think readers will understand what is meant by "sexual backgrounds" even though it is odd and ambiguous.
"Create" seems vague, and it's redundant with "imagine." "Materialize," though polysyllabic and dry in affect, is semantically clearer and more down-to-earth to me, Orwell notwithstanding.
The Democratic and Republican parties do not represent the people, because they've been bought and corrupted by Wall Street, so the occupation does not support their candidates. In collusion with both parties, the top 1% has profited at the expense of everyone else. We have moved beyond false hopes, submission to eloquent speeches, and populist manipulation. We rely on cooperation and solidarity to imagine and create the changes needed for a sustainable world. From diverse multicultural, racial, ethnic, social, and sexual backgrounds and from different walks of life, we have begun to unite on common ground to oust the global financial powers that have bought our governments and who hold us hostage to their greed.
I replaced "and" with "so," but it's not essential. It just completes the logical implication and closes the rhetorical space.
Sorry to come so late to the discussion today.
Couple of things. Why "through fraud"? Fraud -- deceit -- is only a small part of their profiteering. Much of it is in-your-face. The bail-out was not deceit. CEO's giving themselves huge paychecks is not fraud. I think everyone knows that their profiteering is not mostly through fraud -- it's using their money to create money and use its influence everywhere. It's coercion, it's harassment, it's pushing small commerce out of business, undermining wages -- none of that is fraud. Also it's not true that only the top 1% has profited (through fraud or otherwise). I suggest:
With the collusion of both parties, the top 1% has profited at the expense of everyone else.
Also "among us" says the opposite of what you want. You want to say solidarity with 'the people'. "Solidarity among us" means solidarity only among occupiers. Also "create" seems superfluous -- what does it say more than imagine or materialize? This:
We rely on cooperation and solidarity to imagine and materialize the changes needed for a sustainable world.
would work (and, btw, whoever wrote this one: it's a wonderful, beautiful sentiment!)
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 10:39 AM, shaista husain <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Ok folks --can we agree on this--are there any constructive suggestions---
The Democratic and Republican parties do not represent the people because they've been bought and corrupted by Wall Street, and the occupation does not support their candidates. With the collusion of both parties, only the top 1% has profited through fraud, at the expense of everyone else. We have moved beyond false hopes, submission to eloquent speeches, and populist manipulation. We rely on cooperation and solidarity among us to imagine, create and materialize the changes needed for a sustainable world. From diverse multicultural, racial, ethnic, and sexual backgrounds, from different walks of life, we have begun to unite on common ground to oust the global financial powers that have bought our governments and who hold us hostage to their greed.
Lower East Side Residents for Responsible Development
622 E 11, #10