http://boingboing.net/2011/11/19/one-day-after-pepper-spraying.html
"In the video above, UC Davis students, silent, with linked arms, confront Chancellor Linda Katehi just one day after the incident. It's hard to tell exactly how many of them are present, but there they are, a huge crowd. They're seated in the same cross-legged-on-the-ground position their fellow students were yesterday just before Lt. John Pike pulled out a can of pepper spray and pulled the trigger.
Note that Katehi remains silent during what looks like her perp walk. She does not acknowledge the presence of the students. And yet, within an hour she was live on CNN explaining away the pepper-spray incident to host Don Lemon, who had to cut her off a few times because her responses were so long-winded."
I'm sort of dumbstruck by this video in many ways. The self-control, the brilliance, the poignancy of the moment by using silence, and sitting in the way those who had been pepper sprayed were sitting; this just amazes me. It was like the students saying to the dean, here, you can pepper spray us now. Go ahead. You had the cops do it to us yesterday.
When I hung out with Anonymous as they protested Scientology, it gave me hope for our future. When I see much of what is coming out of OWS, I am again moved to great optimism.
Yes, a lot of this is due to new technology and how people are using it. But from this video you can see that it is still the spirit of the people that is the most important ingredient. And these students have that in spades.
Internet Collective Action is people organizing in a nonhierarchical manner to accomplish a particular goal. The reward is in the doing, and how much or how little anyone participates is completely voluntary, depending on their abilities and commitment to the goal. By this process amazing things can be accomplished. ICA will grow so long as the Internet is free. http://www.lisamcpherson.org/pc.htm is an example of ICA.
Saturday, November 19, 2011
Best professor letter EVAH!
http://bicyclebarricade.wordpress.com/2011/11/19/open-letter-to-chancellor-linda-p-b-katehi/
"Your words express concern for the safety of our students. Your actions express no concern whatsoever for the safety of our students. I deduce from this discrepancy that you are not, in fact, concerned about the safety of our students. Your actions directly threaten the safety of our students. And I want you to know that this is clear. It is clear to anyone who reads your campus emails concerning our 'Principles of Community' and who also takes the time to inform themselves about your actions. You should bear in mind that when you send emails to the UC Davis community, you address a body of faculty and students who are well trained to see through rhetoric that evinces care for students while implicitly threatening them. I see through your rhetoric very clearly. You also write to a campus community that knows how to speak truth to power. That is what I am doing."
Woah. Just woah. This is how EVERYTHING should be done. Straight talk. No political mushiness. Just say what you mean.
"Your words express concern for the safety of our students. Your actions express no concern whatsoever for the safety of our students. I deduce from this discrepancy that you are not, in fact, concerned about the safety of our students. Your actions directly threaten the safety of our students. And I want you to know that this is clear. It is clear to anyone who reads your campus emails concerning our 'Principles of Community' and who also takes the time to inform themselves about your actions. You should bear in mind that when you send emails to the UC Davis community, you address a body of faculty and students who are well trained to see through rhetoric that evinces care for students while implicitly threatening them. I see through your rhetoric very clearly. You also write to a campus community that knows how to speak truth to power. That is what I am doing."
Woah. Just woah. This is how EVERYTHING should be done. Straight talk. No political mushiness. Just say what you mean.
Thursday, November 17, 2011
Do new information and communication technologies (ICTs) empower repressive regimes at the expense of civil society, or vice versa?
http://www.movements.org/blog/entry/do-liberation-technologies-change-the-balance-of-power-between-repressive-r/
"The main contributions and highlights of my dissertation include:
* New dataset on protests, ICTs, political and economic variables over 18 years.
* New econometric analysis and contribution to quantitative political science.
* New conceptual framework to assess impact of ICTs on social, political change.
* New operational application of conceptual framework to assess impact of ICTs.
* New datasets on independent citizen election observation in repressive states.
* New insights into role of ICTs in civil resistance against authoritarian regimes.
* New comprehensive literature on impact of ICTs on protests, activism, politics.
* New targeted policy recommendations based on data driven empirical analysis.
* New lessons learned and best practices in using the Ushahidi platform."
"The main contributions and highlights of my dissertation include:
* New dataset on protests, ICTs, political and economic variables over 18 years.
* New econometric analysis and contribution to quantitative political science.
* New conceptual framework to assess impact of ICTs on social, political change.
* New operational application of conceptual framework to assess impact of ICTs.
* New datasets on independent citizen election observation in repressive states.
* New insights into role of ICTs in civil resistance against authoritarian regimes.
* New comprehensive literature on impact of ICTs on protests, activism, politics.
* New targeted policy recommendations based on data driven empirical analysis.
* New lessons learned and best practices in using the Ushahidi platform."
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
OWS figures how to deal with provocateurs
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/09/nyregion/at-occupy-wall-street-protest-rising-concern-about-crime.html?_r=1
"When confronted with a rabble-rouser, protesters use a technique they call de-escalation, talking provocateurs down or putting their bodies between people throwing punches. In tenser situations, they have encircled troublemakers and ushered them to the edge of the park, one time while yelling “get out, get out,” another time while chanting “om.” But several times, people who have been kicked out or arrested have returned."
I like this. It's a passive way to deal with people who want to disrupt the movement or turn to violent means. It's good to see OWS working through these problems and coming up with nonviolent solutions. It's also interesting to see that OWS can accomplish quite a bit without any hierarchical structure. That does not mean there isn't a need for structure, just not a vertical chain of power.
"When confronted with a rabble-rouser, protesters use a technique they call de-escalation, talking provocateurs down or putting their bodies between people throwing punches. In tenser situations, they have encircled troublemakers and ushered them to the edge of the park, one time while yelling “get out, get out,” another time while chanting “om.” But several times, people who have been kicked out or arrested have returned."
I like this. It's a passive way to deal with people who want to disrupt the movement or turn to violent means. It's good to see OWS working through these problems and coming up with nonviolent solutions. It's also interesting to see that OWS can accomplish quite a bit without any hierarchical structure. That does not mean there isn't a need for structure, just not a vertical chain of power.
Tuesday, November 8, 2011
Monday, November 7, 2011
An old hippie provides sage advice to OWS
http://occupyamerica.crooksandliars.com/diane-sweet/occupys--Ahole-problem-flashbacks-old
1. Let’s be clear: It is absolutely OK to insist on behavior norms.
2. It is OK to draw boundaries between those who are clearly working toward our goals, and those who are clearly not.
3. The consensus model has a fatal flaw, which is this: It’s very easy for power to devolve to the people who are willing to throw the biggest tantrums.
4. Once you’ve accepted the right of the group to set boundaries around people’s behavior, and exclude those who put their personal rights ahead of the group’s mission and goals, the next question becomes: How do we deal with chronic a**holes?
5. It is not wrong for you to set boundaries this way.
* * *
Great advice from an experienced voice.
1. Let’s be clear: It is absolutely OK to insist on behavior norms.
2. It is OK to draw boundaries between those who are clearly working toward our goals, and those who are clearly not.
3. The consensus model has a fatal flaw, which is this: It’s very easy for power to devolve to the people who are willing to throw the biggest tantrums.
4. Once you’ve accepted the right of the group to set boundaries around people’s behavior, and exclude those who put their personal rights ahead of the group’s mission and goals, the next question becomes: How do we deal with chronic a**holes?
5. It is not wrong for you to set boundaries this way.
* * *
Great advice from an experienced voice.
Friday, November 4, 2011
violent subgroup within OWS causing problems
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57319036/is-black-bloc-hijacking-occupy-oakland/
"It wasn't the only time during a huge Occupy demonstration in Oakland this week that protesters found themselves on opposite sides. When dozens of black clad marchers began attacking a supermarket, others urged them to stop -- finally linking arms to protect the store from further destruction. "
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=%2Fc%2Fa%2F2011%2F11%2F04%2FMN5E1LQ9UB.DTL
"A majority of Occupy Oakland protesters sought Thursday to distance themselves from masked vandals who they said had undercut the movement by hijacking the tail end of a mostly peaceful protest, damaging downtown buildings and clashing with police."
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/michael-moore-ows-protesters-if-you-see-so
"If you see someone trying to incite violence, start with the assumption that that person is undercover, Homeland Security, cop, or whatever, because this is the history of America where those in charge have tried to ignite people, incite them into acts of violence..."
This seems to be a common problem in protests in the U.S. I saw it in the 1990's in anti-war protests. Gandhi would call off protests if violence started. So it has to be something that protesters plan how to counteract.
My opinion is that the legitimate protesters must do everything they can to show that those committing violence are not part of the protest. Immediately separate yourself from them. Point them out to the police, cooperating with prosecution of anyone who vandalizes or physically attacks someone. Shame the vandals by yelling at them, pointing at them, chanting "we don't want this." Try to talk to their group ahead of any action to let them know their tactics are counterproductive and not wanted.
"It wasn't the only time during a huge Occupy demonstration in Oakland this week that protesters found themselves on opposite sides. When dozens of black clad marchers began attacking a supermarket, others urged them to stop -- finally linking arms to protect the store from further destruction. "
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=%2Fc%2Fa%2F2011%2F11%2F04%2FMN5E1LQ9UB.DTL
"A majority of Occupy Oakland protesters sought Thursday to distance themselves from masked vandals who they said had undercut the movement by hijacking the tail end of a mostly peaceful protest, damaging downtown buildings and clashing with police."
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/michael-moore-ows-protesters-if-you-see-so
"If you see someone trying to incite violence, start with the assumption that that person is undercover, Homeland Security, cop, or whatever, because this is the history of America where those in charge have tried to ignite people, incite them into acts of violence..."
This seems to be a common problem in protests in the U.S. I saw it in the 1990's in anti-war protests. Gandhi would call off protests if violence started. So it has to be something that protesters plan how to counteract.
My opinion is that the legitimate protesters must do everything they can to show that those committing violence are not part of the protest. Immediately separate yourself from them. Point them out to the police, cooperating with prosecution of anyone who vandalizes or physically attacks someone. Shame the vandals by yelling at them, pointing at them, chanting "we don't want this." Try to talk to their group ahead of any action to let them know their tactics are counterproductive and not wanted.
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
some quotes from a good book
some quotes from A Movement of Movements, edited by Tom Mertes, 2004
"We have not come to lead you, we have not come to tell you what to do, but to ask for your help." [Subcomandante Marcos, p. 7]
"Our analysis of the farmers' movements of Latin America and Brazil taught us that whenever a mass movement was subordinated to a party, it was weakened by the effects of inner-party splits and factional battles. It was not that we didn't value parties, or thought it wrong to join them. But the movement had to be free from external political direction." [Joao Pedro Stedile, p. 21]
"Our success or failure should be defined by the vision of the world we develop, and the kind of solutions for it we offer, rather than by whether we can tactically out-manoeuvre the most powerful combined police forces in the world..." [John Sellers, p. 184]
"We have not come to lead you, we have not come to tell you what to do, but to ask for your help." [Subcomandante Marcos, p. 7]
"Our analysis of the farmers' movements of Latin America and Brazil taught us that whenever a mass movement was subordinated to a party, it was weakened by the effects of inner-party splits and factional battles. It was not that we didn't value parties, or thought it wrong to join them. But the movement had to be free from external political direction." [Joao Pedro Stedile, p. 21]
"Our success or failure should be defined by the vision of the world we develop, and the kind of solutions for it we offer, rather than by whether we can tactically out-manoeuvre the most powerful combined police forces in the world..." [John Sellers, p. 184]
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
OWS works on structure
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/david-graeber-the-antileader-of-occupy-wall-street-10262011.html
"When Graeber and his friends showed up on Aug. 2, however, they found out that the event wasn’t, in fact, a general assembly, but a traditional rally, to be followed by a short meeting and a march to Wall Street to deliver a set of predetermined demands ('A massive public-private jobs program' was one, 'An end to oppression and war!' was another). In anarchist argot, the event was being run by 'verticals'—top-down organizations—rather than 'horizontals' such as Graeber and his friends. Sagri and Graeber felt they’d been had, and they were angry.
What happened next sounds like an anarchist parable. Along with Kohso, the two recruited several other people disgruntled with the proceedings, then walked to the south end of the park and began to hold their own GA, getting down to the business of planning the Sept. 17 occupation. The original dozen or so people gradually swelled, despite the efforts of the event’s planners to bring them back to the rally. The tug of war lasted until late in the evening, but eventually all of the 50 or so people remaining at Bowling Green had joined the insurgent general assembly.
'The groups that were organizing the rally, they also came along,' recalls Kohso. 'Then everyone stayed very, very late to organize what committees we needed.'
While there were weeks of planning yet to go, the important battle had been won. The show would be run by horizontals, and the choices that would follow—the decision not to have leaders or even designated police liaisons, the daily GAs and myriad working-group meetings that still form the heart of the protests in Zuccotti Park—all flowed from that."
* * * *
In my previous post I mentioned that it appeared to me that the OWS was using an organizational structure that would only work for smaller, less complex groups. OWS seems to be figuring this out as well and has proposed adding to the General Assembly a Spokes Council:
http://www.nycga.net/groups/structure/docs/final-proposal-thursday-oct-27-afternoon
2) Approval of Occupy Wall Street budgets and expenditures
3) The addition or subtraction of Operations Groups and Caucuses to the Spokes Council
* * * *
I'm not sure I grasp exactly how this works but I'm glad to see they are working on some method that will streamline the General Assembly.
"When Graeber and his friends showed up on Aug. 2, however, they found out that the event wasn’t, in fact, a general assembly, but a traditional rally, to be followed by a short meeting and a march to Wall Street to deliver a set of predetermined demands ('A massive public-private jobs program' was one, 'An end to oppression and war!' was another). In anarchist argot, the event was being run by 'verticals'—top-down organizations—rather than 'horizontals' such as Graeber and his friends. Sagri and Graeber felt they’d been had, and they were angry.
What happened next sounds like an anarchist parable. Along with Kohso, the two recruited several other people disgruntled with the proceedings, then walked to the south end of the park and began to hold their own GA, getting down to the business of planning the Sept. 17 occupation. The original dozen or so people gradually swelled, despite the efforts of the event’s planners to bring them back to the rally. The tug of war lasted until late in the evening, but eventually all of the 50 or so people remaining at Bowling Green had joined the insurgent general assembly.
'The groups that were organizing the rally, they also came along,' recalls Kohso. 'Then everyone stayed very, very late to organize what committees we needed.'
While there were weeks of planning yet to go, the important battle had been won. The show would be run by horizontals, and the choices that would follow—the decision not to have leaders or even designated police liaisons, the daily GAs and myriad working-group meetings that still form the heart of the protests in Zuccotti Park—all flowed from that."
* * * *
In my previous post I mentioned that it appeared to me that the OWS was using an organizational structure that would only work for smaller, less complex groups. OWS seems to be figuring this out as well and has proposed adding to the General Assembly a Spokes Council:
http://www.nycga.net/groups/structure/docs/final-proposal-thursday-oct-27-afternoon
The Occupy Wall Street Spokes Council
A Spokes Council is structured similar to the spokes of a wheel: It is designed to combine large group participation (like in the GA) with small group deliberation and consensus process.- Each group selects a “spoke” to sit with the other “spokes” in a circle in the middle of the meeting space, with the rest of their group sitting right behind them
- Spokes have no authority and are not decision-makers. They actively discuss all agenda items with all other members of their group who have joined them for the Spokes Council.
- Spokes are responsible for communicating any diversity of sentiments that may exist within their group to the rest of the spokes council
- Spokes rotate at every meeting, and can be recalled by their group at any time
- During Spokes Councils, individuals in multiple groups are free to sit with any group that they are a part of and to move around at will
- Movement Groups may partner with Operations Groups and/or Caucuses
Decisions & Decision-Making
- The four types of decisions that the Spokes Council attend to are:
2) Approval of Occupy Wall Street budgets and expenditures
3) The addition or subtraction of Operations Groups and Caucuses to the Spokes Council
- All Working Groups and Caucuses will be admitted to the Spokes Council that adhere to the above definitions of an Operations Group or Caucus and that agree to abide by the Principles of Solidarity adopted (as a working draft) by the GA [available at http://www.nycga.net/about/]
- The only reason a group may be asked to leave the Spokes Council is for either repeatedly disrupting the Spokes Council’s process or for behaving in a way that seriously violates the GA’s Principles of Solidarity
* * * *
I'm not sure I grasp exactly how this works but I'm glad to see they are working on some method that will streamline the General Assembly.
Occupy Denver shows a weakness in ICA; interlopers
http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_19236277
"'We see two elements within the crowd,' he said. 'There are clearly people committed to the cause, but others who are obviously out to start trouble.'
A man arrested Saturday for allegedly knocking a police officer off his motorcycle appeared to have little connection to the protesters who keep the effort alive. John Sexton, 33, remained in jail Monday in lieu of $20,000 bail, facing a charge of second-degree felony assault on an officer."
I've always wondered why Scientology didn't infiltrate our protests with firebrands who would demand that we resort to violence or property destruction. Fortunately it never happened. Meanwhile, the Occupy Denver group has such people who have an individual agenda that they want to use the group to hide behind. The best way I know to deal with this is for the group to make it abundantly clear that anyone who promotes violence or destruction is not part of the group. Point them out to police. Try to isolate them in marches or rallies by simply keeping a distance from them. When they do something wrong, point them out and yell "shame!"
Quitting is a very last resort. If the good people quit, then what's left? The idiots. Please stay in and fight for the good, both for the cause and for the local movement.
Meanwhile, here's a great OWS blog to keep up with things;
http://www.thenation.com/blog/164295/occupyusa-blog-tuesday-nov-1-frequent-updates
"'We see two elements within the crowd,' he said. 'There are clearly people committed to the cause, but others who are obviously out to start trouble.'
A man arrested Saturday for allegedly knocking a police officer off his motorcycle appeared to have little connection to the protesters who keep the effort alive. John Sexton, 33, remained in jail Monday in lieu of $20,000 bail, facing a charge of second-degree felony assault on an officer."
I've always wondered why Scientology didn't infiltrate our protests with firebrands who would demand that we resort to violence or property destruction. Fortunately it never happened. Meanwhile, the Occupy Denver group has such people who have an individual agenda that they want to use the group to hide behind. The best way I know to deal with this is for the group to make it abundantly clear that anyone who promotes violence or destruction is not part of the group. Point them out to police. Try to isolate them in marches or rallies by simply keeping a distance from them. When they do something wrong, point them out and yell "shame!"
Quitting is a very last resort. If the good people quit, then what's left? The idiots. Please stay in and fight for the good, both for the cause and for the local movement.
Meanwhile, here's a great OWS blog to keep up with things;
http://www.thenation.com/blog/164295/occupyusa-blog-tuesday-nov-1-frequent-updates
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)