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

Thu Sep 13 04:13:33 UTC 2012

Hello,

Discussions/Arguments like these tend to bring out the worst mood in me for
reasons perhaps too complex to explain in an email, but I'm going to try to
isolate some of the elements of that mood for the group and myself.

1. I tend not to be a very vocal person. This is partly because I, at some
point, noticed that most of the people who I encounter in our society (as
it is) are more interested in conversing so that they can express
something, rather than so that they can listen to the view of another. This
is especially true of people who have social privilege. Oddly, one of the
venues where this is most noticeable is in activist groups, and this was
glaringly apparent in Occupy (certainly more so early on, it ebbs and
flows, but this email list has been really bad for the last week or more).

2. Through my involvement in activist groups, I've noticed divergent views
on the idea of freedom/liberty, and that these different views often
correspond to individuals' social privilege. Often, the loudest, most
privileged members conceive of liberty as something that gives them the
right to act as they please with little regard for the well-being of
others. For them, socially (perhaps not politically/economically) freedom
is the status quo, and their activism tends to be abstract. On the other
hand, those who remain quiet, and who often lack social privilege, conceive
of liberty as something that necessarily involves a transformation of
society (and the individuals therein) such that privilege
(social/individual) is minimized, as their experience often teaches them
that freedom and equality are intertwined.

My frequent use of the word "often" in the last paragraph is intentional --
please don't think I'm saying that privileged=loud="free-for-all liberty"
and those lacking privilege=quiet="equal liberty" are iron-clad equations,
always applicable.

3. Finally, while I am cynical of the notion that the path to a liberated
society can be traversed via an organization that adopts both libertarian
and egalitarian principles in the immediate, believing that such
organizations tend to crumble under the weight of the dominant notion of
liberty, such organizations (in which I include Occupy) sometimes do offer
respite from our unequal, un-free society. I have enjoyed those times.

But I'm tired. I'm often tired. And if anyone would like to private-message
me about a more stable social "safe-space" I'd greatly appreciate it.

Autonomy,
Chandler

On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 8:45 PM, Rachel Storm <rachelstrm at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20120912/54bc04e2/attachment-0001.html>