From:   guindave@aol.com
Sent time:   Saturday, October 22, 2011 11:08:02 AM
To:   september17@googlegroups.com
Subject:   Re: [september17discuss] To Adbusters and others - The People Won't be Co-opted (even by "allies")
 

Doug, I understand why you have this feeling. I'm David Haack and was

in the New York times and I don't support Demands so i am particularly

sensetive to this issue because i don't even support it and feel mis

represented. The thing is Demands is a hot button issue very very

hot.The problem with the demands working group as I saw first hand is

that every person and there mother comes with there own list and trys

to push it threw. Also there plan din't take into consideration many

who have been very involved in this movement. Although I agree they

certianly have the right to exist and talk over demands. This issue

other then having anything to do with them has been the major target of

the media there have been all sorts of articles having nothing to do

with the group that have gone out ever where. It is a tactical move to

try and sifen the movement into a smaller place. So i understand the

reactiona gainst it. However I do think there is a place for the

disscussion. The reason I call it a distraction is becasue I would

rather see us all focuseing on our enemeys then on trying to define

ourselves internally. I acuse many who are into demands of

"railroading" because they seem to think that they don't need to have

support from all the other facets of the GA. Thats even more problamtic

then people wanting to silance them.

 

. I think now we should come out with a goals statement about how where

for goals this will help get around this issue completly.

 

 

-----Original Message-----

From: Doug Singsen <dougsingsen@gmail.com>

To: september17 <september17@googlegroups.com>

Sent: Sat, Oct 22, 2011 9:44 am

Subject: Re: [september17discuss] To Adbusters and others - The People

Won't be Co-opted (even by "allies")

 

This is not a "distraction," it's a central question for the movement.

If the GA doesn't want to pass demands, that's one thing, but it's

ridiculous to denounce everyone who tries to raise demands in other

forums for supposedly "speaking for the movement." What about the

people who do want demands? Do they not have a right to speak for

themselves? No one has railroaded the GA into anything. No one within

OWS that I know of has claimed that any demands have been passed by the

GA (what the media reports is another story). It's the anti-demands

people who seem to feel that no one else has any right to raise demands.

 

On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 9:34 AM, &lt;guindave@aol.com&gt; wrote:

Doug its even worse then this, because the people who wanted demands (i

know this because i was once in the group) want to railroad over the

people who are there Occupyings wishes. Which would be the worse

possible thing that could happen. I thought they should all work

together to find common ground so i tried to reach out to people down

in the park so that they could know there was this tiny group who

wanted demands and maybe then the demands people would change what they

where saying. Instead every one didn’t get along and i got an article

came out about demands with a picture of me (yesh) i don't even give a

high wholly fuck about demands only the democratic process but mabye

moving forward something will be came to. i donno I'm gonna go to talk

to the filiations committee i think there needs to be a way to just

change the subject and quick because this is an annoying distraction.

 We should think about more important things then “demands”

 

 

-----Original Message-----

From: Doug Singsen &lt;dougsingsen@gmail.com&gt;

To: september17 &lt;september17@googlegroups.com&gt;

Sent: Sat, Oct 22, 2011 7:36 am

Subject: Re: [september17discuss] To Adbusters and others - The People

Won't be Co-opted (even by "allies")

 

The NYCGA's decision not to have demands does not represent the views

of everyone in the movement. The Occupy movement is being fueled by

people's anger at how Wall Street destroyed the economy, costing people

their jobs, their homes, and much more, and people want to fight for

those things right now. There appears to me to be a divide between the

hard core of the occupiers, who generally don't want demands and/or

reforms, and the thousands (or millions) of people who support OWS

without sleeping out, who generally do want demands and/or reforms.

Both these groups are vital to the movement. Without the occupiers,

there is no occupation, but without the outside supporters, the

occupation is just a small, isolated island. The GA basically belongs

to the occupiers - they're the only ones who can afford to attend it

regularly. So the GA has no demands because it represents their

viewpoint. But it's unfair for them to use the GA to impose their

opposition to demands on everyone who identifies with the Occupy

movement. It's also going to be impossible for them to do that, and if

they insist on attacking everyone who tries to raise demands for trying

to "co-opt" the movement or speak in its name, they are going to create

a schism.

 

Doug

 

 

 

On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 10:00 PM, Guy Steward

&lt;guysteward9@hotmail.com&gt; wrote:

I think for any group or groups to take credit for planning this is

 ludacris. At the first meeting at bowling green we made it very clear

that we were the nycga for the people made up of the people. An that we

were completely autonomous from any other group. No matter what group

people came with we all left part of the nycga an that is who is

responsible for OWS 

 

Sent from my iPhone

 

 

 

On Oct 21, 2011, at 6:19 PM, "Lucas Vazquez"

&lt;lucasbostero20@gmail.com&gt; wrote:

 

 

 

+1 shaista

 

 

On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 5:51 PM, shaista husain

&lt;shaistahusain@gmail.com&gt; wrote:

sorry adbusters, the Bloombergville folks, the CUNY students against

Budget Cuts and the El Barrio folks were some of the main groups that

have long roots in this city (and i apologize if i am not mentioning

others here) that organized this occupation through long history,

before Sept 17... you send one dumb ballerina image from canada --which

is not even representative image of our diversity--and your fantasies

are out of control now....

 

 

 

On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 5:46 PM, Liliana Gomez

&lt;liligomez13@gmail.com&gt; wrote:

What you say is true and I agree, however just because this occupation

exists, that came into being on Sept 17, does not mean that there have

not been people organizing and mobilizing around various issues and

demands prior to OWS, and those people are not obligated to either drop

their demands or not join OWS.  They or we simply cannot private or

publicly imply or state that our demands are the demands of OWS, they

are simply our own...

 

Lili

 

 

 

On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 5:27 PM,  &lt;guindave@aol.com&gt; wrote:

Hey this is David Haack for the record I'm not for demands I just

happend to be at a demands working group. I haven't written any

documents and I really think Demands would be a mistake at this point.

Please let every one know I really am not even for demands

 

- Dave

 

 

-----Original Message-----

 

 

From: Alexandre Machado De Sant'Anna Carvalho &lt;ac3018@nyu.edu&gt;

To: september17 &lt;september17@googlegroups.com&gt;

Sent: Fri, Oct 21, 2011 5:24 pm

Subject: [september17discuss] To Adbusters and others - The People

Won't be Co-opted (even by "allies")

 

Fellow occupiers:

 

I am reading everywhere a move towards demands being pushed virtually

and in the larger media. What was disturbing for me was a piece

claiming a RobinHood Tax part of OWS.

 

Even though i appreciate the role Adbusters and others have played in

launching the meme of #occupywallst out there, i would like to remind

them that this movement does not belong to them, does not belong to the

NYCGA : this movement belongs to the people. And this means that ANY

attempt to speak for the people is pernicious - no matter if you threw

the meme out there or just joined. It is a matter of legitimacy. Each

occupation, through its collective voice, speak (in theory) for its

members. In parenthesis because we don't even have yet the capacity to

make sure this happens in the first place. We are vulnerable as a

political body and to use that vulnerability to push for your agenda is

a fatal flaw that goes against everything we are doing.   

 

We are still building capacity to make sure all voices are heard and

participate, and disturbs me to see some groups either infiltrating the

NYCGA or virtually producing a list of rushed demands without

any critical thinking about what this entails, saying "fuck you" to the

people who are holding ground on this cold weather. Unacceptable.  

 

What destroys a leaderless movement is ego, either individual or

organizational egos; so far a lot of ego's out there, either virtually

or on the ground. Trying to mass maneuver people is NOT ok. If you

insist on this, you are no better than the forces we are fighting

against.

 

The people won't be mass maneuvered to push your demands before we

build a space where we can legitimately, discuss, deliberate, zero-in,

build solidarity, and then march together at specific tactical

positions to clog the machine and make power bend. We are building a

broad-based movement here. In case you haven't noticed. Demands, as

everything else in this movement, comes from the bottom-up, from the

occupations up, where voices can be heard virtually and geographically,

if you care to participate in the process.  

 

If other occupations have demands, good for them. But i sincerely doubt

that we are ready as of yet to have a global demand such as a

RobinHoodTax, for the mere fact we aren't even in full connection with

all other sites, and for sure are not having a global conversation on

this proposal.  

Co-option can come from the outside and from within, but the worst ones

come from "allies" - from within. Speak WITH the people, and not FOR

the people.

 

Ale 

 

 

--

 

Alexandre M.S. Carvalho, M.D., MPH

2009 Reynolds Fellow   

mobile +1 914 563 4209

home +1 914 633 0415 

www.nyu.edu/reynolds

 

 

< PREV INDEX SEARCH NEXT >