[Peace-discuss] [OccupyCU] [sf-core] Another Guantánamo prisoner death highlights Democrats' hypocrisy

Thu Sep 13 01:45:18 UTC 2012

Ingbert, Scott, Sarah, Brook---

Thank you for your words, your support. You're right. I don't want people
to shut up--I want people to talk to each other, and frequently, but with
the aim of reaching that deep meaningful, vulnerable place--the one that
makes you feel uncomfortable, but stimulated. Ingbert, I hear you and I
agree that checking each other is an act of care that we do for people we
love and want to make community with---I want to organize here and so. My
email wasn't just directed towards those who are dominating conversation,
but all of us--myself included--to stay privy to our privilege.

You're right. I was angry. I am angry. I think it's good to be angry and it
isn't the critiques I've had trouble with. I think what Carl and others
offer are good topics of conversation, good information. It's the way it's
presented and the fast-forward towards debate that I find toxic.

Anyway, for what it's worth, thank you.

RS

On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 6:24 PM, Ingbert Schmidt <ifloyd2 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Thank you Scott!
>
> On a different vein, here's part of my perspective:
>
> Isn't Occupy supposed to be about us as individuals trying to
> conceptualize the kind of society we *want* to live in, and then work to
> try to create that society?
>
> My answer is yes.
>
> If so, then what are the qualities that we'd like to see practiced in a
> better society?
>
> I have many thoughts on this, but certainly one of them is people treating
> each other with respect.
>
> Have the discussions on this list been respectful?
>
> My answer is not really.
>
> Do we want people to feel comfortable posting what is important to them?
>
> My answer is yes.
>
> Can repeated, aggressive posting be intimidating to people and prevent
> them from feeling comfortable posting what is important to them?
>
> Yes.
>
> Is, therefore, the repeated aggressive posting of your particular
> positions with harsh critiques of anybody who might disagree an act of
> silencing people?
>
> Yes.
>
> Is, therefore, a response that attacks people for pointing out that a
> particular behavior is intimidating and silencing by claiming that this
> observation is an attempt at repressing the poster's ability to speak
> hypocritical?
>
> I would argue yes: If the poster isn't aware of how suppressing their mode
> of communication is, then the fact that they feel disrespected and silenced
> should make them more aware of when other people feel disrespected and
> silenced, and at the very least they should pay attention to the content of
> what the other posters might say.
>
> Is the act of silencing people disrespectful?
>
> Yes.
>
> Rachel was not calling on anybody to shut up. Rachel was annoyed by how
> some members of a group claiming to be progressive was engaging in the very
> kinds of behaviors and attitudes that reinforce some of the societal
> practices that others in the group are trying to address through
> participation in the group. So she called out this behavior. And what she
> was asking is for the people who are a part of the group to pay attention
> to all members of the group and how their behaviors are affecting them. In
> my understanding, this kind of activity constitutes respect.
>
> Rachel was annoyed when she wrote the email. It came across. As it should
> have. When you or a group you are a part of is being disrespected, I think
> it is perfectly fair to be annoyed. Hell, I'd be angry.
>
> I send annoyed emails all too often as some people on this list can
> attest. They often bother people. I have never been called a bitch, a
> shrew, an ass-hole or any male variant on this. Not once. Why? I suspect
> because I am a white male, and my emotion is often treated as
> "man'splainin". I.e., acceptable to white males, and intimidating to some
> other people.
>
> I have been checked by people. I should probably be checked more often. I
> try to check myself but I'm not very good at it. I sometimes don't respond
> very well to being checked. But I try. And the people who check me I feel
> are my friends. Usually, my best friends. No matter how annoyed they might
> be with me. Because I am by no means a perfect human being, and I don't see
> myself very well, so they help me stay in line. And put up with me despite
> the mistakes I often make.
>
> We can look at this "discussion" in any number of different ways. Here's
> mine:
>
> I want to be part of an activist community where participants
> fundamentally respect each other, and treat each other with respect.
>
> I would like people to try to be respectful by paying attention to their
> own actions as much as possible. I try to do this myself. I don't always
> succeed.
>
> I don't always know when I or other people are being disrespectful, so I
> assume that others may have this problem as well.
>
> Therefore, I welcome it when people point it out to me when I am being
> disrespectful, and I would like other people to welcome this as well so
> that we can all learn how to be respectful together. I have a lot to learn
> and can use all the help I can get.
>
> I don't have any patience for somebody who asks for respect but has no
> interest in giving it, or in trying to understand why another person might
> feel disrespected.
>
> Part of being respectful is understanding why a mailing list exists, why
> people participate, and being mindful of that in their posts. It is good to
> discuss this purpose if there is disagreement about it. It is not
> respectful to enforce your own perspective on the list. Agreements should
> be arrived at, preferably by the same consensus mechanisms adopted in
> meetings of the group.
>
> But most importantly, we should be trying to practice our conceptions of
> how society as a whole can be made better by practicing the very things we
> would like to have changed in society in the microcosms we are a part of,
> and the very groups devoted to making those changes should be the *first*
> place they are implemented. I don't believe in giving anybody a pass for
> intentional disrespect, but here? No excuses, period. Before we can be
> credible to others, we have to be changing ourselves.
>
> So, to everybody on the list:
>
> I want to be respectful of others. Please help me be that way.
>
> Ingbert
>
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 7:08 PM, Scott Kimball <scttkmbll at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> While I normally try to stay out of listserv battles, as a white male I
>> feel the responsibility to challenge other white males when they are
>> so blatantly perpetuating patriarchy and/or white supremacy. In particular,
>> I cannot believe the comments directed at Rachel, one of the hardest
>> working organizers in our community. The two responses to Rachel thus far
>> are examples of how the patriarchy permeates our society and this listserv.
>>
>> First Comment:
>>
>> "There is nothing revolutionary about conversations here. I can listen to
>>> white men man'splain in desperate pissing contests virtually
>>> anywhere--that's what patriarchy continues to afford me."
>>>
>>> Rachel, do you think that an individual's views can be reduced and/or
>>> dismissed on account of their age, race, and/or gender?
>>>
>> This is example of how men feel entitled to choose the parameters of
>> "acceptable discussion". Whenever a woman or person of color brings up
>> issues of race or gender, a reactionary white man responds with something
>> like " What does this have to do with race/gender? You're the one bringing
>> up race/gender, therefore you are the one who is racist/sexist".
>>
>> It is not a matter of reducing one to their race, age, gender, class,
>> etc, its about acknowledging privilege and how that affects one's
>> orientation towards others. The term "mansplaining" is used to describe the
>> tendency of men to feel entitled to "tell it like it is" to others. In
>> other words, men are somehow the subject matter experts on *everything *and
>> need to tell *you* "how the world really is" or "the truth" or whatever.
>> The issue is not the content one's statement; *it is the presumption of
>> authority*. This tendency is exacerbated by whiteness, class privilege,
>> and education level. I've met way too many white dudes from upper middle
>> class backgrounds and graduate degrees who want to show everyone how smart
>> and knowledgeable they are.
>>
>> This is not to say, however, that one is bound to act in such a way. It
>> is a challenge to those with privilege to reflect upon that privilege, on
>> how it permeates their life, and to think about how they, as privileged
>> members of society, can be an ally to oppressed communities.
>>
>> David, I am not trying to argue that you act in such a way. However, your
>> comment was a prompt for a response and this group needs some discussion
>> about white and male privilege.
>>
>>  Second comment:
>>
>> How does silly and childish compare with shrewish and bitchy on the value
>> scale?
>>
>>
>> This is such such a typical patriarchal response to a woman speaking up
>> that it would be comical if it were not the case that this man actually
>> lives in our community. Whenever a woman speaks up and challenges the men,
>> she becomes "the bitch". It doesn't matter what she says.Her words are not
>> heard. Only the challenge to male authority is heard.  Compare this to when
>> a man speaks out. When a man speaks out, he is heard and his thoughts are
>> acknowledged to be worthy of discussion. Men can "reason" together in
>> groups. Women, however, are too emotional and, perhaps, too intellectually
>> inferior to be worthy of discussion. And, again, if a woman brings up the
>> claim that men are being patriarchal or misogynistic, she is berated for
>> being divisive or deviating from the important discussion (you know, the
>> one the men are having).
>>
>> I find the discussions on this listserv to be very mean spirited, and
>> most importantly, disorganizing. This is not the mode of discourse folks
>> should use who want to organize for economic and social justice. You cannot
>> work towards building a mass movement if you can't stop being an asshole.
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 5:38 PM, Sarah Lazare <sarah.lazare at gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>> Rachel,
>>>
>>> We've very much appreciated your comments on this thread. Thanks for
>>> your strong feminist voice and leadership. We've often found that it's the
>>> moments when we're trying the hardest and putting ourselves out there the
>>> most that we face the greatest attack. I hope everyone who's had the good
>>> luck to work with Rachel can find your own way of showing her your love and
>>> appreciation. Here's to building a culture of liberatory, respectful debate
>>> and discussion within our movements.
>>>
>>> In Solidarity,
>>> Sarah Lazare and Brook Celeste
>>>
>>> On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 5:18 PM, Rickman, Aimee N <arickman at illinois.edu
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>  Whoah.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     **************Apologies for any random question marks my system
>>>> has weirdly added to this email********************
>>>>
>>>>  *From:* occupycu-bounces at lists.chambana.net [
>>>> occupycu-bounces at lists.chambana.net] on behalf of E. Wayne Johnson [
>>>> ewj at pigsqq.org]
>>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 12, 2012 3:58 PM
>>>> *To:* Rachel Storm
>>>> *Cc:* peace-discuss at anti-war.net; David Green;
>>>> occupycu at lists.chambana.net
>>>> *Subject:* Re: [OccupyCU] [Peace-discuss] [sf-core] Another Guantánamo
>>>> prisoner death highlights Democrats' hypocrisy
>>>>
>>>>       How does silly and childish compare with shrewish and bitchy on
>>>> the value scale?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 9/13/2012 3:08 AM, Rachel Storm wrote:
>>>>
>>>> David,
>>>>
>>>>  I sent this email to Occupy, not Peace Discuss and your question
>>>> illustrates precisely what I seek to illuminate. Listservs are designed for
>>>> the people on them. Not others and the assumption isn't that they will be
>>>> forwarded willy nilly to folks off of the list. I expect that from people
>>>> typically, but not from people I am trying to build movements with--we can
>>>> do better. I'm not going to engage with you, when you seek no understanding
>>>> and only want to ignite debate. It's silly and childish.
>>>>
>>>>  Rachel
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 1:46 PM, David Green <davegreen84 at yahoo.com>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>   "There is nothing revolutionary about conversations here. I can
>>>>> listen to white men man'splain in desperate pissing contests virtually
>>>>> anywhere--that's what patriarchy continues to afford me."
>>>>>
>>>>>  Rachel, do you think that an individual's views can be reduced
>>>>> and/or dismissed on account of their age, race, and/or gender?
>>>>>
>>>>>  David Green
>>>>>
>>>>>    *From:* C. G. Estabrook <carl at newsfromneptune.com>
>>>>> *To:* Rachel Storm <rachelstrm at gmail.com>
>>>>> *Cc:* peace-discuss at anti-war.net; "occupycu at lists.chambana.net" <
>>>>> occupyCU at lists.chambana.net>
>>>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 12, 2012 8:24 AM
>>>>> *Subject:* Re: [Peace-discuss] [OccupyCU] [sf-core] Another
>>>>> Guantánamo prisoner death highlights Democrats' hypocrisy
>>>>>
>>>>> I thought the local Occupy group supported the efforts of AWARE
>>>>> against US war and racism abroad - even to participating in our
>>>>> demonstrations.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's why I posted to the "OccupyCU" list information about the
>>>>> ongoing scandal of Guantanamo, which is scanted in the corporate media (as
>>>>> is Manning's persecution, etc.).
>>>>>
>>>>> --CGE
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sep 12, 2012, at 12:16 AM, Rachel Storm <rachelstrm at gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> > I must share this...
>>>>> >
>>>>> > I've been both terribly bored and fairly annoyed at how this Occupy
>>>>> listserv is being used. I am someone that cannot regularly attend Occupy
>>>>> meetings and for me, it's important to be able to stay connected, but what
>>>>> is Occupy here--in this communication space? What is worth occupying? There
>>>>> is nothing revolutionary about conversations here. I can listen to white
>>>>> men man'splain in desperate pissing contests virtually anywhere--that's
>>>>> what patriarchy continues to afford me. I'm tired of having to ask men in
>>>>> the movement to check their privilege. It shouldn't have to be asked-- I
>>>>> hear men in the movement say they want revolution, but I don't see
>>>>> willingness to do the work. We are failing to model what we seek. We need
>>>>> more imagination than this. We can do better.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >     • We can value dialogue over debate. Modeling that we're a
>>>>> community of people seeking understanding, rather than trying to get their
>>>>> word in edgewise. Those with privilege in the movement (men, white folks,
>>>>> etc.) can step back, make space, talk less/listen more. This isn't hard to
>>>>> do and makes a world of difference. (Just count the number of women, people
>>>>> of color, etc. actively engaged on these C-U activist lists or being
>>>>> listened to at meetings and you'll see how deep this problem is.)
>>>>> >     • We can "check each other" in an act of care. Knowing that
>>>>> we're not perfect, but we're trying and we have a responsibility to help
>>>>> one another grow where possible. We can tell those who are dominating
>>>>> conversation to step back, to ask for clarification, and to listen.
>>>>> >     • We can reject "occupation" as our language in solidarity with
>>>>> native peoples all over North America. We can privilege people of color and
>>>>> women's voices--knowing these voices ought to drive the movement that seeks
>>>>> decolonization and an end to marginalization.
>>>>> >     • We can spend more time imagining what we want, alternatives,
>>>>> and raging where it matters!
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> > In the past month alone, I've witnessed a silencing conversation
>>>>> around the rape allegations facing Assange that signals to me--as a
>>>>> woman--that the same men that say they care about women in the movement are
>>>>> no where to be found when it comes time to stand up against violence
>>>>> against women. I've been to meetings where women's voices were rarely
>>>>> heard--and I know my sisters had plenty to say!
>>>>> > I am reminded of Adrienne Rich who cautioned a white-led feminist
>>>>> movement, "Without addressing the whiteness of white feminism, our movement
>>>>> will turn in on itself and collapse."
>>>>> >
>>>>> > There are other voices we need in this space. This local organizing
>>>>> will not last unless we turn our attention to these matters.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_s3X0uW9Ec&feature=player_embedded
>>>>> >
>>>>> > love and rage,
>>>>> >
>>>>> > RS
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>  _______________________________________________
>>>>> Peace-discuss mailing list
>>>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>>>>> http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>  ------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Peace-discuss mailing listPeace-discuss at lists.chambana.nethttp://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Scott Kimball
>> Project Organizer
>> American Federation of Teachers
>> Higher Education Project
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> OccupyCU mailing list
>> OccupyCU at lists.chambana.net
>> http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/occupycu
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> ==========================================
> Ingbert Schmidt
> http://ingbert.org/     ||     skype/twitter/etc.: spacesoon
>
> "Dream in a pragmatic way."
> -Aldous Huxley
>
> _______________________________________________
> OccupyCU mailing list
> OccupyCU at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/occupycu
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20120912/57d3c1cb/attachment-0001.html>