Already millions of people have been captivated by the Occupy Wall Street protests, as well as the Occupy events that have cropped up in Los Angeles, Houston and dozens of cities. The actions have recently raised discussions about race and how to connect Occupy Wall Street more widely with Black and Brown communities.
There are many ways to advance this conversation. There are a number of disputes with the Occupy Wall Street movement, its approach and politics. Some have declared they have no interest in working with these movements. Others are supporters and see the Occupy clashes with the powerful as a revolutionary breaking point.
I want to come at the issue from the position as one who believes in the power of people to seek justice, and who wants to assume the best of everyone. I find so many valuable things about the space that Occupy Wall Street has created. Helping to foster popular conversations about capital, profit motives, privilege and class — in some cases for those (white and of color) who do not think of society in those terms — is one of those rare national moments that do not come around too often. I have frank assessments of how Occupy Wall Street and its myriad splinters are tackling the matter of race and, on a larger stage, racial justice. However, all critique is offered in an effort to make movements better.
How does this Occupy movement confront racial justice head on? Issues facing those engaged in, and interested in, the campaign include:
1.) Consciousness of History
As is apparent to many, some communities of color are rightly suspicious of white left activist initiatives. Some whites react with defensiveness or, worse, as if they are at liberty to just ignore criticism because what they do is regarded to themselves as more essential to the world than what disenfranchised people think.
More important than rehashing histories of such indifference or even understanding that people of color are suspicious is understanding why.
Groups that are not sensitive to communities of color are marching up a well-worn hill. Obscuring needs particular to Black and Brown communities needs to also be understood by Anglos as it is perceived by those communities: deflection. Even when one comes to politically inexperienced people and seeks to agitate around a line that says, in effect, a particular drive’s relevance trumps a community’s longstanding needs, such positioning needs to be understood for the problematic relations and tensions such set up. The regularity with which such occurrences go down is a part of why incursions by white-dominated movements get the sideeye. People of color are always expected to look beyond our needs, interests and ways we are treated in our seemingly endless toil for the greater good. And a lot of us are tired of it.
Some people of color are open to coalition work and come to these events to do that. Others want to work independently of larger groups. Neither approach needs to be treated by whites as a threat. How groups address this can further be educational, and the Occupy movement needs to be sensitive to the past. Even if none of us are responsible for things that transpired generations ago, privilege and power are passed down and we are obligated to ensure the present isn’t one where past truths were denied or unreconciled.
2.) Credibility Gaps
It’s been said in comments on People Of Color Organize! as well as on the streets generally, but it bears repeating, even if it stings. What do people of color gain by staking our credibility in our communities on a group of white left activists, many of whom we do not know, have no history organizing with, or have no knowledge of their personal and political efforts in our communities?
That’s not to say, obviously, that the Occupy Wall Street pickets have not been interesting or even valuable. Nor does that say participating and demonstrating discontent isn’t valuable. But these movements need to speak to communities of color and relate tangible gains for involvement, for the truth is (as mentioned before) that people of color have been recruited by white-dominated movement after movement with promises of hope, so there’s a lot of skepticism.
It is often unspoken, but people of color who actively go into communities of color to back up white activist friends put themselves politically, socially and culturally on the line in those communities. These movements need to be aware of that reality, and act accordingly.
Accountability is a related subject. One Black organizer I know shared a story of how those leading her city’s Occupy protests were, in many past run-ins, openly hostile to activists of color, treating community concerns as “identity politics.” Are these really the folks you want us to vouch for? How are these groups addressing internal racism and perceptions in communities of color? Have they asked? If not, how can one reasonably expect people of color to stake ourselves on white people who come in (whether they are responsible directly or not) with a burden of history, but have not done the appropriate work to earn that support?
3.) The Power of Political Trickle Down
Speaking of earning support, some people of color, I have found, engage in movements like Occupy Wall Street, regardless of who is leading things, in hope that “everyone” (people of color) can gain if the majority gains. Call this “political trickle down” after the Reagan Administration contention that gain for the wealthy would benefit the working class by improving the overall economy. It’s also known as “the magic of low expectations.”
But these kinds of approaches would not happen if not for implicit and explicit messaging that such movements and their participants supersede the needs of communities of color.
A good friend and activist puts it this way: “why is it considered an ‘opportunity’ for people of color to participate in this ‘movement’? This epitomizes the arrogance and ignorance of these people in this ‘movement’ and even other people of color who are in argument that the settler should always be seen as ‘subjects’ of history as opposed to ‘objects’ of history. This puts forth a mindset that nothing ‘real’ or substantial is put forward without the settler’s agreement.”
While political trickle down is a tendency that should be struggled against (very little historically indicates that the majority’s gain will be enjoyed by anyone but the majority in the case of people of color), it is incumbent for Occupy activists and others to actively resist this notion that their message somehow is more important than the needs of everyday communities. Intentional or not, when one talks about the greater purpose when responding to concerns, the message is that one group’s objectives are a movement’s and indeed an entire country’s objectives. Not only can a lot wrong be read into this, but given the Occupy Wall Street movement’s pretensions of egalitarianism, it likely may not be what participants want to say to communities of color.
4.) Lack of Leaders Means Leaders Move Covertly
Many Occupy actions are forwarded around the idea of no leadership. I’m reminded of what Jo Freeman wrote about striving for structurelessness: it is useful as it is deceptive, for these ideas do not prevent the idea of informal structures (validated by existing power and relationship dynamics), only formal ones (which can be voted on).
The rationale for telling everyone that no one is leading is obvious: it is harder for law enforcement to quash protests, for organizations and different political stripes to squabble over power, for media to single out people and so on. But it is naive to think the rest of the world around us is in such denial when a reportedly leaderless group defers in various ways to individuals who clearly have leading roles, but are not accountable or chosen formally to do so.
Inherently, the ideas of leaderlessness in Western countries depend on notions of meritocracy, or the belief that intelligence, education and skill organically bring people to the top. In practice, meritocracy does not address the networking, connections, preconceived notions and assumptions that reside in our world. Without a process and commitment to develop organizers and leaders, those closest to leaders get opportunities to develop. People of color have historically been shut out of these circles, and Occupy activists should be aware of this.
Yet simply choosing people of color (who may be friends, associates, etc.) to participate in organizing does not address the issue; practical efforts must be made to ensure transparency. Organizations still need to prioritize racial justice structurally in organizations and act on disempowerment of people of color, if they want regard from communities of color.
5.) Lack of Agenda
More than a few people have pointed out that the Occupy Wall Street protests will merely be a cover to shore up Democratic Party support in the 2012 elections. With an agenda focused on corporate greed, an occasional campaign stump point during the 2008 Obama run, but little else, one has to give credence to this worry.
Every community wants to represent their agenda as well as broader interests. But is, in seeking to appeal to lots of people by making no real demand, appealing to only those who will quickly be led a direction by a contingent with a clearer message?
Most noteworthy in the agenda matter is how little we are talking about the role of capital. Corporate greed does not cut it. Nor do CEO salaries. Capital’s role intersects many complaints about how things are run, and the hardships people face. Why can’t Occupy say it formally? And are people ceding that ground unconsciously so to not alienate particular people, while forgetting others in that decision?
For communities of color, the dangers of no-agenda should be apparent. There are many issues of great importance in our communities. Simply bringing them to a protest, as some Occupy outgrowths suggest, does not substantively address those issues. In fact, just doing that likely would be drowned out by the goulash of grievances and causes that are dominating the platform. It feels like something people of color have been told before: bring it up, but do not expect the majority to take it seriously, make it a discussion point or act as a group on it. Without an agenda that centers racial justice, the Occupy Wall Street fight will be looked at as something that looks to please everyone but please no one.
As we saw with Egypt, raising grievances without a manner for achieving them gives an opening for those who are organized, have leadership and clear objectives to ascend quickly in a political moment. Much was made by U.S. conservatives of the Muslim Brotherhood’s rise during the Arab Spring, but students of history can tell you such uprisings are bound to push forward consolidated resistance forces and always have. Further, Occupy activists must comprehend that movements that do not set their own programs are doomed to have one set for them. This is the nature of Western politics and no degree of idealism can alter how business works.
6.) Occupy Language
Many activists have written extensively about the use of the word “occupy” and how it is used as well as the practice applied historically. Occupation for people of color, many of whom have roots in countries that are past colonial subjects, has a particularly monstrous history. I am sure nobody meant offense or harm by choosing the word, but intent really isn’t the issue. Embracing this language is certain to alienate many people.
If the movement is unwilling to change the name or move racial justice up as a priority, what does that communicate to communities of color, especially those who see the word “occupy” and think guns, rape and degradation?
7.) Process Issues
Finally, something has to be said about the utterly stifling and fundamentally anti-democratic format that Occupy Wall Street and its offshoots are using, consensus and its variants.
For those who have not had the joy of sitting through a meeting run via the consensus process, smile. Picture this: meetings of dozens of people, with the ability to completely halt or “block” a proposal, idea or suggestion by as little as one person. Wonderful if you are a person who completely hates a proposal and just can’t work with the majority that favors it. A nightmare if you are a person who has worked with others to craft something that virtually everyone else can agree on.
The problem with consensus, as you can guess, is that the rest of the world understands the population is composed of people who obfuscate, who harbor prejudices against people and politics, and who are sufficiently incoherent that building support for their positions is next to impossible. In that world, such folks do not have the political capital to halt society because they are not able to grind life to a stop with a single motion.
While I certainly share Occupy Wall Street’s opinion that money and other influence can shape majority-rule democracy, we’re not talking Iowa here. We are talking relatively small groups, where decisions can be reached by a simple vote.
By Occupy activists’ admission, their process is slow. But this acknowledgment fails to get to the heart of the matter. Consensus is not democratic, radically or in any other way. As noted earlier, Occupy spaces often have people with known and unknown biases. Bringing new communities in then asking them to submit themselves to the will of such individuals as a representation of the ideals Occupy activists hold dear seems a surefire way to chase them off.
Conclusion
My last words are directed to people of color interested in these movements. Though most of my words address how largely white activist endeavors should review their approach, activists of color striving for this sort of institutionality are just as culpable.
It is the obligation of people of color who want to be involved in Occupy efforts and wish to see more political investment by communities of color to organize in a united fashion independent of Occupy actions, and to do community outreach. It is on you to meet with our communities who cannot or will not come out to these events, for whatever reason, hear openly and share their concerns with a movement you clearly wish to support. It is up to you to lead community mobilizations. If you have no relationships or credibility in those communities, beyond your skin tone, it is up to you to be honest about that and mend fences and/or build relationships.
It is also on you to remember that having a space created in the Occupy movement, having a spokes or leadership role, being taken seriously, having caucuses or forwarding demands to be adopted by your city’s general assembly are not political objectives. These are needs you may personally have specific to a political subculture with little to no bearing on what communities of color coping with American austerity and financial meltdowns are dealing with. Please remember that. It is up to people of color involved in these movements to formulate and forward a political agenda. Black and brown people holding the bullhorn changes nothing, and our focus needs to be on conveying what our communities face.
Finally, people of color involved in these movements should remember your political futures and aspirations are only as dependent on the Occupy project as you allow. Too often, people act as if their existence depends on particular causes, but really, one should hang fortunes solely on a single movement.
I am hopeful for the work that is going into the Occupy Wall Street struggle and hope these ideas help conversations that need to be had.
“for the truth is (as mentioned before) that people of color have been recruited by white-dominated movement after movement with promises of hope, so there’s a lot of skepticism.”
Examples, please?
If Satan cast out Satan them how can his house stand! This is not our fight let their father and his children fight among themselves and when they start killing each other stay out it’s not our fight! It’s like the civil war why would you fight on either side let them kill each other then we step in. If this turns violent don’t get caught down there, you might not make it out alive.Black Leaders who endorse this madness and called our people to go down there, if our people lose their lives down there you better make sure you lose yours to down there. Don’t come back to us telling your stories. Leadership comes with a dam price! When the Million Man March was taken place and the police came to Minister Farrakhan and told him if it turns violent they have an escape route for him. The Minister said” if any trouble breaks out he’s going down there with his people he said he would die with his people”!!!
Great Article! Full of truth now will we be able as people of color to come together and plan our road ahead. If not then our future is not very bright!
Brilliant article! So many lessons everyone involved with the Occupy movements, hoping to be involved, or just vaguely sympathetic with the broad “goals.” Thank you for writing. I hope everyone reads this, and I will certainly pass it on.
Well put… really well put… There is something in the air… i wrote something about this today on my blog Nothing To Be Gained Here, that would work as a great companion piece for this piece…
http://nothingtobegainedhere.wordpress.com/2011/10/07/to-occupy-and-unoccupy/
some valid points and questions but as always it’s made to be only a black and white issue. please don’t forget to remember us Asians and the indigenous peoples that do not claim black or white privilege.
Wow! Thank you for this piece. I couldn’t have said it better myself. Would it be okay with you all, if we ran it on our website: http://www.dominionofnewyork.com ?
@theOTHERpeople –
the article states ‘POC’ and other times “black and brown’, so no, it’s not made to only be about black and white
Hi:
Thanks for this piece and for generating critical dialogue with the intention of moving forward with hope and positivity.
I just would like to comment on a few points you’ve made:
4). Re the “lack of leaders…” it’s not that there are ‘no leaders’ but *everyone* is a leader. It’s like the leadership style that Ella Baker advocated (not the centralized ones but decentralized in that each community member is a leader). That said, I certainly agree that power and privilege shape who takes on more leadership, which is something we as people of color and the white allies need to work through to ensure equality in the power relations.
5). Re lack of agenda…again, I think that this is a reflection of the commitment to the horizontal process. It’s not about some ‘leaders’ setting the agenda, but instead is an organic process that all participants shape.
6). Occupy language…what about the possibility of the people re-claiming such a word? When the people occupy the center of global capitalist power, it’s not the same as when a small group of elite occupy a group of marginalized and oppressed people. I understand, though, the utmost important of folks knowing the history of ‘occupations’ that POC worldwide have and continue to experience.
7). Process issues…the GAs use a modified consensus approach, and it’s explained very clearly at each meeting (at least the ones I have been to) that one should only use a block for a serious ethical or safety disagreement with the proposal. Also, modified consensus means they reach 9/10ths agreement, so one individual does not have the power to block a proposal if the group as a whole is on board. I think of consensus as a way to allow each affected person’s voice represented in decisions being made, which I think can get lost when we rely on regular voting.
Finally, I certainly agree that white folks need to do their work and check their power and privilege (and be accountable about it), and I am beginning to realize that POC also need to work through the internalized pains, trauma, and oppression that we have taken in as a result of living in a white supremacist world. So, we both have work to do together. I am hopeful that it is happening right now!
Overall a great piece. Thanks for sharing!
Love,
Prita
@Kelly – Feel free to run in on your site POCO is meant to be a nexus for all radical ideas. We don’t hoard information
Why are you making this about race? This is a movement that supports the progress of “the 99%” of people in this country, regardless of color. It is downright insulting for you to generalize all occupiers as “white left activists” stirring up “Democratic Party support in the 2012 elections.” In fact, many of us are neither white nor Democrat. All of us, however, are human, as well as disgusted by the role that the richest and greediest have had on oppressing the majority of humans. This movement supports, respects, and welcomes the grievances of all communities affected by the unjust wealth gap in the United States. I beg you to spread the word not to show hostility towards this movement but to cooperate with it. Come speak at general assemblies. Come pass out food. Come organize occupations. Come march. Come be part of the movement for humane justice. Above all, know that this is not about what race you are, but the race we all are.
Peace and Love
colorless, you cannot ignore the fact that some people involved come from communities that are -especially- targeted and brutalized by the police. every movement needs to recognize intersecting oppressions, or else it ends up reproducing many of the hierarchies already present in mainstream society. i went with a qtpoc contingent so that i could feel more secure and know that we had each others’ backs. it’s important to be conscious of these things.
@colorless –
Colorless, I will add on to bq’s comments by pointing out that over the last 50 years, in both good times and bad times, the unemployment rate of black communities has been double that of white communities. I can’t speak to the unemployment rate of brown communities, but I suspect it is just as high.
Yes, we must certainly question the corruption of Wall Street, but the negative effects of their corruption are not colorblind. If ever there was a time or place to actually have an open dialogue about how to solve for such systemic flaws, this is most certainly it.
Regarding consensus – I’ve used it in small groups and it works. I find that in this situation, POC issues can be absorbed into the agenda of the group, which is ultimately what POC in a minority situation want.
In this large-group format, I see it breaking down when you deal with minority issues. It’s failing because large group consensus really depends on people becoming educated about issues being discussed outside of the meeting. It depends on people developing strategy outside of the meeting. Without doing the work to understand issues, they cannot make good decisions. Decisions are made out of ignorance and ultimately a kind of prejudice.
I’ve talked to some Occupy people, online as well as off, and the impression I get is that many participants lack experience. Their perceptions about POC issues and unions are shaped by the media. They misunderstand reality, but don’t even know it.
bq & Mr. Jimmy,
I wholeheartedly agree that certain communities (yes, typically with a high concentration of minorities) have been negatively affected substantially more than others due to the current economic/political system, of which I am certainly not an advocate. However, I find it completely counterproductive to, as this article suggests, “organize in a united fashion independent of Occupy.” The occupiers are NOT the enemy. As Dr. King so eloquently put it, “A riot is the language of the unheard.” Everybody in Liberty Plaza has been oppressed. Everybody in Liberty Plaza is fed up with the unjust system. Everybody in Liberty Plaza feels that it is time for their voice to be heard. The Occupation is completely focused on being a pure democracy where ALL citizens are accounted for regardless of color, race, religion, political stance, orientation, height, weight, income, education, shoe size, handedness, et cetera. Unlike “mainstream society” that has ingrained social hierarchies, the ([I feel obligated to say] vast majority of) occupiers aspire for a future where we are all seen and treated as human first and foremost. These occupiers are the ones in the trenches fighting for this future; their future, your future, my future, OUR future. So if you are sick and tired of the way the government has treated you and want your perspective to be heard then GO SPEAK IT. Join the movement and add to the conversation. This is no more my fight than it is yours; treat it as such.
#4 is especially relevant – in situations where no obvious, consistent, majoritarian process is in place to make decisions, the people with the most confidence, power, and privilege are going to speak the most and loudest.
Thus, consensus-based decision making leads directly to marginalization of voices. Majoritarian democracy, by contrast, has the potential (with safeguards) to consistently produce better, more equitable, and more representative results in decision-making.
How? Well, in consensus-building, everyone has to agree before something can pass. On the one hand, a single individual can filibuster and hold up the whole process. On the other hand, if a small part of the group is unsure of a proposal, it’s been my experience that those who have already agreed to the thing will pressure the undecided into agreeing.
The emphasis of consensus is on the individual, ironically.
Majority-rule creates the possibility of seeking common purpose with others for the sake of reaching the requisite of 50%-plus-one-vote. Workers can make class-based arguments against racism, homophobia, and sexism, embracing one another as fellow members of the working class, and move the process forward equitably.
Personally, I feel it’s necessary to gently prioritize the voices of people of color and of women, to compensate for their systematic silencing in culture and government. Let them speak first, or sooner, and prioritize training women and POCs to be leaders; again, the goal is to fix what capitalism has broken.
@colorless – What you are speaking to is an ideal, but I think we also need to be considerate about our language.
Absolutely many people are struggling. Such doesn’t obscure the distinctly racialized nature of capitalism’s failure; disproportionate numbers of communities of color impacted by the economy, criminalization, etc. as a manifestation of matters that do not impact whites in the same fashion due to historical inequalities and, yes, white privilege. We have to be open in addressing that.
I have no doubt everyone wants to treat everyone equally. That is great. Does that mean social hierarchies, which influenced virtually all the participants before this few weeks, and their collective lingering history have vanished? Of course not. So let’s not delude ourselves by assuming this last month has evaporated things everyone has been taught. The movement has a lot of positives. Miracles are not on that list.
Nowhere do I imply in my piece that the Occupy movement is the enemy. I know of many people of color who *DO* feel that way. Some people of color [you imply in another comment that you are a non-white person, so perhaps this is you] believe it’s most important to blend with the existing group. Others who support the Occupy movement believe outreach to communities of color is more effectively done if led by those from those communities, with cultural ties, etc.
If you don’t subscribe to such and your Occupy group is having great success connecting with, by extension, whites going into communities of color and recruiting support and building alliances with community leaders, I’d love to know specifics. In my experience as an organizer, there are many benefits to independently organizing, and it seems in New York at least (I am connected to some folks out there) the effort is embraced and looked at as positive.
@theOTHERpeople – Though I think it is valuable to relate our histories and unity as oppressed people — ‘people of color’ simply being a concise phrasing for that — I feel it necessary to write about the Black/white issue.
I use people of color to acknowledge all oppressed people (e.g. non-white people), but it is incumbent on all non-Black people of color to understand Black oppression globally (as well as the effort to obscure Blackness by shifting conversations and language) is something we must prioritize.
Things being referred to as Black/white issues is common in the Latino community. The desire is an ok one — to have our issues talked about. However, too often, the implicit message is also one in which non-Black people do not want to be associated with Blackness, or otherness, in a society that favors and offers privilege to whiteness. The dominant white culture has no issue with using non-Black people of color as a wedge against Black people when it needs to, under the auspices of recognizing our struggles (e.g. ‘Asians come here as immigrants and excel’ [implicit message: 'unlike Black folks']; ‘look how hard Latinos work at the jobs no one wants’ [implicit message: 'not like those lazy Black people']). And we get suckered by this. I’ve experienced such in the Latino community, and I’m aware such politics are at play in other non-Black communities of color.
If it is a Black/white paradigm, non-Black people of color SHOULD be siding with the fight for Black liberation, period. That’s not to say we shouldn’t talk about the textures and contexts of oppression. I’m just saying we need to think strategically and as a united front.
ernesto, I couldn’t find a more appropriate forum for this request, as I could not find an email address for you. My name is Ben Fenton. I have a blog called Resisting the Milieu. I have been pondering the question of the role of racial justice within the Occupy movements, aiming to do a piece on the subject. While I am collecting contributions and composing the piece, I would also like to request permission to reprint this article on my blog. (My blog is not monetized, so I’m not seeking financial gains.)
I read a story not long ago about a woman of color who was inadvertently ignored, and thus silenced, at an Occupy gathering. Everyone had gathered to listen to people tell stories about home foreclosures. Her story was last, and she was preempted by a public announcement. She was marginalized further when the crowd turned away and left as she was speaking. Her story is like many others in movements spawned by largely white constituencies. This, as well as my familiarity with issues of privilege, has inspired me to use my small platform to draw attention to this issue. It is unfortunate, but my whiteness grants me the privilege of being more likely to be heard by white people. I hope to use that against privilege itself.
As an individual who is familiar with and owns his white privilege, I have found it all too difficult to address the issue within this typically resistant-to-privilege, mostly white movement. I would submit that it is crucial to get the subject matter into white consciousness while there is still time to shape the dialogue. Your article summed up many of the concerns I have seen voiced by many people of color since Occupy Wall Street began.
Thank you for taking the time to consider my request.
Ben
resistingthemilieu@gmail.com
ernesto,
I have already agreed that this nation’s capitalist system has failed different groups to varying extents and strongly believe that everybody at the Occupation would concur, for that is why they have occupied. You are wrong to assume that this movement is causing people to abolish their preconceived social hierarchies, when it is the people who have already rejected said social hierarchies that are causing this movement. It is imperative to understand this.
True, you never specifically called the Occupation the “enemy.” However, as I read your piece, it became evermore clear that you are implying that the occupiers do not have the minorities’ best interests at heart, which could not be further from the truth. I challenge you to find one iota of concrete evidence that shows that the Occupation is more concerned about whites than any other race.
If minorities such as yourself are absolute in their resistance to trust and work with whites (and vice versa)on this issue then this country is destined for failure. What is the foreseeable downside to all citizens working together as human beings, of which you called “an ideal?” And why not work TOWARDS this idealistic state? Whisking away the idea of symbiosis between all races and/or presuming it too difficult to achieve is working AWAY from what you yourself endorsed as ideal! That, in my mind, is hypocritical.
We, the 99% of citizens, have a common enemy in the ultra-wealthy and powerful that have corrupt the government to the point of dysfunction. In order for all races to progress in this country, all races must be unified in their movement. Division amongst the 99% empowers only the 1%. In my opinion, the fundamental backbone of capitalism, competition, is the reason it will ultimately fail. I believe the same is true about society and subsequently its movements. Nature shows that cooperation is the most efficient way for living things to survive and advance, exempli gratia, the multitude of cells working nearly flawlessly together in our own bodies. We must embrace this attitude of cooperation over competition in order to thwart our broken government and replace it with one that is beneficial for all.
“A dream you dream alone is only a dream. A dream you dream together is reality.” -John Lennon
Hi again @colorless -
If you’re a regular reader of this site, you may notice I have no problem calling out enemies as I see them. I do not imply the Occupy movement is an enemy of “minorities.”
I’m a lifelong sociologist, an ardent studier of movements, and I don’t believe social hierarchies, biases, etc. disappear in a month. If you do, lovely. Let’s talk in two years and see how that disappearance looks!
If you do not believe me, other accounts or dozens of efforts to address issues of race, okay. If you wish to contribute to conversations to address issues of racial justice (which I’m not alone in raising), great. If you’re posting to deny others’ contributions or refute the necessity of racial justice conversations in the context of Occupy, this is likely not the site for you. Two comments extolling Occupy movements while refuting racial justice issues (e.g. alleging racial justice is divisive, etc.) that *supporters* bring up is plenty.