[OccupyCU] 2 scents

[David Johnson]

Excellent suggestion and focus Susan.

I look forward to Monday's meeting

David J.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Susan Parenti" <sparenti at illinois.edu>
To: "Stuart Levy" <stuartnlevy at gmail.com>
Cc: "ocCUpy" <occupycu at lists.chambana.net>
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2012 2:34 PM
Subject: [OccupyCU] 2 scents


> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> OccupyCU mailing list
> OccupyCU at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/occupycu