[OccupyCU] 2 scents

[Susan Parenti]

Thank you, Stuart. This is an excellent recap.

I don't consider email a medium for discussion, so I've stayed away  
from the torrent. However, that's a kind of snooty position, as we  
probably have way more people on the Occupy CU list serve who can  
participate in email discussion than come to the meetings, so this is  
something we need to think about in the future.

When I hazarded the idea at the November 5 meeting that Occupy follow  
liberation theology's 'preferential option for the poor' by making  
Occupy a movement of 'preferential option for women', or, as Karen  
suggested, for 'preferential option for marginalized voices' I was  
hoping to ward off such torrents. But it may be we each feel  
marginalized (but how can a 'we' feel marginalized?), so this might  
not yet be a sufficient direction.

I'm sorry that friend and fantastic organizer Sarah Lazare is  
resigning from the Occupy CU list-serve. I don't think there's yet an  
Occupy CU to resign from, so I'm persisting.

BUT I'm nervous that good will and trust between us is running out---- 
we've had 3 meetings with attendance of 22 people October 29, 15  
people November 5, and 18 people November 12. There will be one more  
meeting this Monday, Nov. 19th. Jesse made an offer, and the response  
would make me, if I were Jesse, jump back into silence.

WHAT WE HAVEN'T YET DONE:
create a mission statement or core idea that we excites us, that makes  
us feel we are moving towards a system/society we want, and  
fundamentally undermining the current system/society we have, and that  
we can build campaigns around. We need to find a mole we can whack  
that will break the whack-a-mole system.

Towards that end,
1. we haven't yet made connections between the various ideas that  
people have presented. Could we prepare to do that for Monday's  
meeting--connect the various proposals, provide an analysis?The notes  
are on email.
2. take into account that Occupy successfully put two (non-binding)  
referenda on the Nov. 6th ballot. This is serious.
3. take into account that Obama not Romney won, that Obama continues  
to pursue corporate-financed state capital policies as we speak

Probably there are other things to take into account.
susan
On Nov 15, 2012, at 6:33 AM, Stuart Levy wrote:

> I'd like to back off a bit and look at how we've been discussing  
> Jesse's presentation & OccupyCU.  What I see:
>
>   - Jesse asked to come and speak to Occupy on Monday.   He told us  
> about his well-visited website, featuring many dozens of subjects  
> from the Iraq war to colony collapse disorder to the LIBOR scandal,  
> but most prominently about 9/11 truth.  He offered its services, if  
> OccupyCU wants them.   We asked him some questions.  We deliberately  
> (thank you Susan!) postponed any discussion of whether we considered  
> taking up his offer to be a good idea.
>
>   - Scott, who wasn't present but read about this offer, made a  
> connection which must be incandescently strong to him - between the  
> 9/11 truth movement and neo-nazi sympathies.   I'd never heard of  
> this association before.  None of the people I've talked to who were  
> at the meeting had, either.
>
> Then what?   How the conversation *might* have gone:
>
>   Scott:  Is OccupyCU seriously considering associating itself with  
> this web site?   Were people aware of this connection?   Look at A,  
> B, and C on that site if you don't believe me.   I say we should  
> have nothing to do with this.
>
>   Any of us might have replied:   That is news to me.    Thank you  
> for raising it.   We've had little discussion and no decision, but  
> this will be important when we do.
>
> What happened instead?    I'm guessing that, Scott, you assumed we  
> did know, and we (a) didn't care and (b) were happily going  
> forward.   And further, that you *expected* not to be heard. Right?
>
> If so it reflects an alarming distrust of the group.  Where has that  
> led us?    Accusations have flown.  We've had *27* messages on this  
> topic yesterday.   At least two people have dropped off the list.  I  
> don't think we've made any progress toward anything that Occupy  
> stands for.
>
> Worse, I think this discussion has deepened what mistrust there had  
> been.   That is a terribly destructive thing for a group.   What can  
> we do to heal it?
>
>
> Yesterday's flames were also a distraction from the really fine  
> presentation we heard from Francisco Baires in the latter part of  
> Monday's meeting.  He talked about Johan Galtung's theory of  
> hierarchies of violence, direct and cultural and structural; how  
> movements - particularly the immigration rights movement - can form  
> effective responses to them; and what we in Occupy might take from  
> their experience.   This is 'way more fruitfully consequential.  
> Let's talk about that!
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OccupyCU mailing list
> OccupyCU at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/occupycu