To: Retort
From: TS
This exchange ["Bloc in traffic"] represents the most divisive and reactionary tendencies within these mobilizations right now and I find it despicable how people like Nico Dacumos hide behind a facade of racial justice as they regurgitate the same tired and old (but still effective) lines as the police and corporate media when they criticize the actions. On top of this, Dacumos' analysis of what occurred on the 880 is completely inaccurate on numerous points. It echoes similar inaccuracies that were repeated again and again following the Oscar Grant riots. By giving these disgusting arguments more play, I think there is a lot of harm being done to a very exciting and young movement that is experimenting with its power and potential. Below I have included the links and text for three other opinions from people and groups who have a much more accurate and informed understanding of the dynamics that are shaping these rebellions.
The 'Rebuttal' from Melissa Merin directly addresses Dacumos' confused and unacceptable account of the action. The 'Statement' from the Raider Nation Collective represents the views from some of those who have been organizing on the ground in Oakland around Oscar Grant and other issues. And 'An Analysis of the I-880 Direct Action' is a sharp and nuanced piece written by a legal observer who witnessed the events. All of this writing has appeared on Indybay, Facebook and other sites over the past day.
Tim
--------------------------
Rebuttal to “Why Did the March onto the 980 Freeway Happen”
Melissa Merin*
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2010/03/07/18640165.php
And just so you know:
Melissa has been an educator in a variety of capacities for almost 16 years. She has led trainings in non-violent communication, peaceful socialization, emergent curriculum and positive discipline. She has worked at daycares and single handedly run a preschool. She currently works with a non-profit at an after-school program in the South-East part of San Pancho (or, San Francisco for suckers). More than anything she believes that children are the future, children are powerful, and that as adults our job is to keep kids safe, and to keep kids asking critical questions.
Melissa did not grow up rich, or even middle class, not that it matters anyway, seeing as Melissa is a grown ass woman.
------------------------------
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2010/03/07/18640165.php
I'd like to first acknowledge the 2 line sentence at the end of this short essay encouraging folks to go out and support people who were arrested following the 980/880 action in solidarity with student/teacher/family actions across the country on Thursday, March FORTH. Unfortunately, even this small call to support had errors of fact, mainly that the majority of those arrested were taken to and processed at Santa Rita jail in Dublin. I point this out, because, for the rest of my rebuttal, I will be focusing on what I consider to be errors of fact in your essay.
In your first paragraph, you write that the march to the freeway was led by a group of “mostly white anarchists”, and in parenthesis you added (black bloc). First of all, a black bloc is a strategy, it is not a group of people. Secondly, unless they were all, every last one of them white, then I see absolutely no point in mentioning such information. By calling a group “mostly white” you are automatically making invisible the people of color on whose behalf you are supposedly writing from. More on that later. You then make the automatic leap that these people (who are leading a march onto the freeway) “don't have any link to Oakland communities”. This is problematic for two main reasons, 1) there is absolutely no way on earth that you could honestly conclude that the people involved with the 880/980 action have no community ties in Oakland. You have no real proof of this outside of mere speculation which would ultimately be proven false – a conclusion you would reach had you done the proper research (beginning with talking to people who were on the ground that day to find out who they were and what they're all about); 2) An action which aims to stop traffic on a freeway doesn't always need to be rooted in the community. The purpose of stopping traffic on this day of action was to call attention to a viral, systematic issue in public education. To this end, everyone who is able and/or willing should join in whatever actions they see fit to join in order to call attention, raise awareness, and disrupt business as usual, regardless of their speculated status in a presumed community.
You go on to say (still in the first paragraph) that the consequences of marching onto the freeway were not explained (“made aware”) to “especially young students of color”. This I find to be horrendously offensive. With one line, you assume that “young students of color” a) need to be told by white people where there's danger and that b) these very students aren't capable of making their own decisions. Really, who needs to be told that marching onto the freeway has the potential to be dangerous? Answer: babies. Do you see us, especially young people of color as babies that need to be cared after by the obviously much wiser white anarchists?
You then set up this interesting scenario whereby the nefarious and mysterious white anarchists, after leading the poor gullible people of color into danger, run away laughing, as though their laughter indicates a well hatched plan to trap Oakland's lost youth, rather than relief at getting away. Then your friend is on the phone talking about students of color getting arrested – well yes! They marched onto a freeway to defend public education! They didn't get away! Also important to add is that cops do not have any love for the supposed “white anarchists”, whom they deem to be a sufficient enough menace to follow, harass and infiltrate on a regular level. I would bet my meager paycheck that had the cops been able to catch, beat and arrest those you saw “hiking up their skinny jeans”, they would have. Oh wait...I think they did.
At this point, I have to ask what your opinion of this action would have been had everyone arrested been white, or had everyone been black (to simplify things a bit)? Would you have written a hasty argument against the action less than 24 hours after it occurred?
By your second paragraph, you mis-quote 12 year old Sebatian Beretvas (who has been quoted all over the place by now) as having said [about marching onto the freeway] “This is a bad idea...” His entire quote was conveniently omitted by you. Here it is, “Me and my friend were going to take the bus home and we saw some protesters so we decided to just follow the protester,” he said. “Then we were led onto the freeway, and I was like, ‘Okay, this isn’t a good idea.’ That was one side of my brain. And then the other side was like, ‘I want to keep going.’”
He later said, “I had fun before and the protest was fun, and then I was really scared when I was getting arrested and I had handcuffs on.” His mother said that she supported the cause, recognized that there was a “herd mentality”. Neither he nor his mother ever blame these elusive “mostly white anarchists”.
After you misquote the 12 year old who got arrested, you mention a teacher friend of yours -why you omit her race & other identities is a mystery- who equates these “mostly white anarchists” hyping people up about the 880/980 freeway action to the “mostly white anarchists” who, in her very ill-informed opinion incited an entire army of youth of color to smash shit in the wake of the execution of Oscar Grant III on New Year's day, 2009. Again I point out that you, and your teacher friend inadvertently take agency away from all those who empowered themselves to take to the streets (or freeways) in order to make their voices heard, by making the assertion that youth of color, people of color, women, kids, feminists, etc wouldn't have done it if the white people hadn't done it first. Talk about a neo-colonial, white supremacist attitude! *Incidently I strongly caution against the erroneous claim that “mostly white anarchists” started or finished the rebellions of January 7th, 14th and 30th of 2009 (the results of which ended up having long lasting effects on the way that BART, the OPD, the DA, the FBI and Mayor Dellums reacted to the execution of Oscar Grant). But I digress.
For what ever reason, by paragraph 4, you mention another friend of yours, this time with all the bells and whistles “an OLDER LATINA DYKE with years of activism and shit-starting under her belt,”. I'll stop here for a second and ask again, why she gets all of the extra adjectives? Is it because you need her credibility to validate a faulty and hasty argument? Or is it to lend hot air to the next assertion; supposedly by her, that “most black bloc-ers are hired narcs for the likes of the FBI” in order to let underprivileged folks deal with the law or, in order to encourage people of color to engage in so-called violent forms of protest...Here I have to digress again to ask other rhetorical questions – Is taking over a freeway or smashing a bus shelter really violence? Are they the same as being beaten by a baton? Shot in the back at point blank range? What do you mean when you use the word violent?
Also you mention that one person acting as a legal observer recognized some of the folks you call “anarchist ring leaders”, and didn't want anything to do with them or the 880/980 action. Why did you not mention why? Why do you assume that because your legal observer friend knew one of the people (was that person an anarchist? What is the criteria we're using to define such a person?) that your friend would then know every other supposed anarchist on the freeway? And while I'm asking questions, are “ring leaders” defined as people who are yelling and exhorting the crowd, or as people who are taking definitive action? Either? Both? Can we get specific?
You ask a question in the next paragraph that I find reductive. You ask if these 150+ care about the repercussions of young folks of color getting arrested. I'd assume that the people I know who ended up at Santa Rita do care. Beyond that, I think that placing the onus on them to plan actions such as the takeover of the 880/980 with the absolute safety of all who will or may be involved is a strategic impossibility. I think that yes, folks can yell out “Hey y'all, we're gonna get arrested here on the freeway,” or something to that degree, but you can not stop a 12 year old or a 21 year old or 91 year old from taking that action. And you can't stop the fact that some people might get swept up who didn't want to be. How many times have I myself been that person? Exactly 6 times. Also, you can not reasonably expect that anything in this whole entire mired country will change with out people taking risks. A calculated risk is still a risk. Everyone who approached that freeway knew it was a risk, and some people unwilling to risk arrest got away, while others didn't.
There's also the question of the ends of actions being clear. Sometimes they're not. And sometimes they are, and you still won't agree with 'em. There has to be a way to acknowledge these things without attacking large groups of people.
Of course you wait until almost the end of your rant to admit that you don't know what was happening for the over 150 people arrested on Thursday. Which indicates that you don't know who they were, what they were doing, what they were fighting for...You saw some people running away, read an article or two, heard from a friend and jumped to some astounding and troubling conclusions.
I'm writing this rebuttal because each time I read something like your “Why Did the March Onto the 980 Happen”, I'm immediately reminded that when it comes to people of color, particularly those we assume to be young and/or poor, the left, the commies, the anarchos all still view us in a missionary light (how can we help these poor wretches?)
I see words like “mostly white anarchists”, and as someone who identifies as an anarchist, as a black woman, as a queer, as a Jew, I recognize that in your attempt to demonize a group of people you neither know nor understand, you immediately erase me and the identities of people like me in the process (anarchists, anti-authoritarians, people of color, queers, feminists, etc.). I also find egregious the oft repeated notion that every time there is an action where something breaks, anarchists, white ones, are always behind it, luring poor unsuspecting folks of color to certain danger. I find it patronizing, if not “mostly racist” to assume that we people of color can not think for ourselves without some white person's hand up our asses, posing us for this or that danger.
On closer reading, I found much of your reactive paper to be faulty, and my hope is that eventually, people will move away from the automatically reactionary critique of actions, and onto the next topic – how to make these actions mean something more? How to keep more of us safer? How to start winning?
*Melissa Merin is a self-congratulating anarchist who has no problem being told that she is wrong when she is actually wrong. When she's not writing rebuttals to things she reads on the internet, what she does “mostly” is play guitar in 2 bands and by herself in her room at night, writes things that have little to no relationship to anarchism, hangs out with friends and lovers, sails and plays board games. As mentioned before, Melissa is a black woman, a Jew and queer. Melissa has been involved in a number of actions over the years all with the same goals in mind: to end patriarchy forever, to end racism for good and, to end police violence permanently. For the last year her main project has been working with the ad-hoc Oakland 100 Support Committee to make sure that every single person who caught charges during the Oscar Grant Rebellions of January 2009 gets their cases dismissed. So far, there's one to go, and she hopes that, since all the charges against the black people got dismissed, you will still go support the poor white anarchist who is facing serious jail time on trumped up charges. Her name is Holly and her trial begins April 5th. In Oakland, 1225 Fallon, 9am. Oakland100supportcommittee.worpress.com
In your first paragraph, you write that the march to the freeway was led by a group of “mostly white anarchists”, and in parenthesis you added (black bloc). First of all, a black bloc is a strategy, it is not a group of people. Secondly, unless they were all, every last one of them white, then I see absolutely no point in mentioning such information. By calling a group “mostly white” you are automatically making invisible the people of color on whose behalf you are supposedly writing from. More on that later. You then make the automatic leap that these people (who are leading a march onto the freeway) “don't have any link to Oakland communities”. This is problematic for two main reasons, 1) there is absolutely no way on earth that you could honestly conclude that the people involved with the 880/980 action have no community ties in Oakland. You have no real proof of this outside of mere speculation which would ultimately be proven false – a conclusion you would reach had you done the proper research (beginning with talking to people who were on the ground that day to find out who they were and what they're all about); 2) An action which aims to stop traffic on a freeway doesn't always need to be rooted in the community. The purpose of stopping traffic on this day of action was to call attention to a viral, systematic issue in public education. To this end, everyone who is able and/or willing should join in whatever actions they see fit to join in order to call attention, raise awareness, and disrupt business as usual, regardless of their speculated status in a presumed community.
You go on to say (still in the first paragraph) that the consequences of marching onto the freeway were not explained (“made aware”) to “especially young students of color”. This I find to be horrendously offensive. With one line, you assume that “young students of color” a) need to be told by white people where there's danger and that b) these very students aren't capable of making their own decisions. Really, who needs to be told that marching onto the freeway has the potential to be dangerous? Answer: babies. Do you see us, especially young people of color as babies that need to be cared after by the obviously much wiser white anarchists?
You then set up this interesting scenario whereby the nefarious and mysterious white anarchists, after leading the poor gullible people of color into danger, run away laughing, as though their laughter indicates a well hatched plan to trap Oakland's lost youth, rather than relief at getting away. Then your friend is on the phone talking about students of color getting arrested – well yes! They marched onto a freeway to defend public education! They didn't get away! Also important to add is that cops do not have any love for the supposed “white anarchists”, whom they deem to be a sufficient enough menace to follow, harass and infiltrate on a regular level. I would bet my meager paycheck that had the cops been able to catch, beat and arrest those you saw “hiking up their skinny jeans”, they would have. Oh wait...I think they did.
At this point, I have to ask what your opinion of this action would have been had everyone arrested been white, or had everyone been black (to simplify things a bit)? Would you have written a hasty argument against the action less than 24 hours after it occurred?
By your second paragraph, you mis-quote 12 year old Sebatian Beretvas (who has been quoted all over the place by now) as having said [about marching onto the freeway] “This is a bad idea...” His entire quote was conveniently omitted by you. Here it is, “Me and my friend were going to take the bus home and we saw some protesters so we decided to just follow the protester,” he said. “Then we were led onto the freeway, and I was like, ‘Okay, this isn’t a good idea.’ That was one side of my brain. And then the other side was like, ‘I want to keep going.’”
He later said, “I had fun before and the protest was fun, and then I was really scared when I was getting arrested and I had handcuffs on.” His mother said that she supported the cause, recognized that there was a “herd mentality”. Neither he nor his mother ever blame these elusive “mostly white anarchists”.
After you misquote the 12 year old who got arrested, you mention a teacher friend of yours -why you omit her race & other identities is a mystery- who equates these “mostly white anarchists” hyping people up about the 880/980 freeway action to the “mostly white anarchists” who, in her very ill-informed opinion incited an entire army of youth of color to smash shit in the wake of the execution of Oscar Grant III on New Year's day, 2009. Again I point out that you, and your teacher friend inadvertently take agency away from all those who empowered themselves to take to the streets (or freeways) in order to make their voices heard, by making the assertion that youth of color, people of color, women, kids, feminists, etc wouldn't have done it if the white people hadn't done it first. Talk about a neo-colonial, white supremacist attitude! *Incidently I strongly caution against the erroneous claim that “mostly white anarchists” started or finished the rebellions of January 7th, 14th and 30th of 2009 (the results of which ended up having long lasting effects on the way that BART, the OPD, the DA, the FBI and Mayor Dellums reacted to the execution of Oscar Grant). But I digress.
For what ever reason, by paragraph 4, you mention another friend of yours, this time with all the bells and whistles “an OLDER LATINA DYKE with years of activism and shit-starting under her belt,”. I'll stop here for a second and ask again, why she gets all of the extra adjectives? Is it because you need her credibility to validate a faulty and hasty argument? Or is it to lend hot air to the next assertion; supposedly by her, that “most black bloc-ers are hired narcs for the likes of the FBI” in order to let underprivileged folks deal with the law or, in order to encourage people of color to engage in so-called violent forms of protest...Here I have to digress again to ask other rhetorical questions – Is taking over a freeway or smashing a bus shelter really violence? Are they the same as being beaten by a baton? Shot in the back at point blank range? What do you mean when you use the word violent?
Also you mention that one person acting as a legal observer recognized some of the folks you call “anarchist ring leaders”, and didn't want anything to do with them or the 880/980 action. Why did you not mention why? Why do you assume that because your legal observer friend knew one of the people (was that person an anarchist? What is the criteria we're using to define such a person?) that your friend would then know every other supposed anarchist on the freeway? And while I'm asking questions, are “ring leaders” defined as people who are yelling and exhorting the crowd, or as people who are taking definitive action? Either? Both? Can we get specific?
You ask a question in the next paragraph that I find reductive. You ask if these 150+ care about the repercussions of young folks of color getting arrested. I'd assume that the people I know who ended up at Santa Rita do care. Beyond that, I think that placing the onus on them to plan actions such as the takeover of the 880/980 with the absolute safety of all who will or may be involved is a strategic impossibility. I think that yes, folks can yell out “Hey y'all, we're gonna get arrested here on the freeway,” or something to that degree, but you can not stop a 12 year old or a 21 year old or 91 year old from taking that action. And you can't stop the fact that some people might get swept up who didn't want to be. How many times have I myself been that person? Exactly 6 times. Also, you can not reasonably expect that anything in this whole entire mired country will change with out people taking risks. A calculated risk is still a risk. Everyone who approached that freeway knew it was a risk, and some people unwilling to risk arrest got away, while others didn't.
There's also the question of the ends of actions being clear. Sometimes they're not. And sometimes they are, and you still won't agree with 'em. There has to be a way to acknowledge these things without attacking large groups of people.
Of course you wait until almost the end of your rant to admit that you don't know what was happening for the over 150 people arrested on Thursday. Which indicates that you don't know who they were, what they were doing, what they were fighting for...You saw some people running away, read an article or two, heard from a friend and jumped to some astounding and troubling conclusions.
I'm writing this rebuttal because each time I read something like your “Why Did the March Onto the 980 Happen”, I'm immediately reminded that when it comes to people of color, particularly those we assume to be young and/or poor, the left, the commies, the anarchos all still view us in a missionary light (how can we help these poor wretches?)
I see words like “mostly white anarchists”, and as someone who identifies as an anarchist, as a black woman, as a queer, as a Jew, I recognize that in your attempt to demonize a group of people you neither know nor understand, you immediately erase me and the identities of people like me in the process (anarchists, anti-authoritarians, people of color, queers, feminists, etc.). I also find egregious the oft repeated notion that every time there is an action where something breaks, anarchists, white ones, are always behind it, luring poor unsuspecting folks of color to certain danger. I find it patronizing, if not “mostly racist” to assume that we people of color can not think for ourselves without some white person's hand up our asses, posing us for this or that danger.
On closer reading, I found much of your reactive paper to be faulty, and my hope is that eventually, people will move away from the automatically reactionary critique of actions, and onto the next topic – how to make these actions mean something more? How to keep more of us safer? How to start winning?
*Melissa Merin is a self-congratulating anarchist who has no problem being told that she is wrong when she is actually wrong. When she's not writing rebuttals to things she reads on the internet, what she does “mostly” is play guitar in 2 bands and by herself in her room at night, writes things that have little to no relationship to anarchism, hangs out with friends and lovers, sails and plays board games. As mentioned before, Melissa is a black woman, a Jew and queer. Melissa has been involved in a number of actions over the years all with the same goals in mind: to end patriarchy forever, to end racism for good and, to end police violence permanently. For the last year her main project has been working with the ad-hoc Oakland 100 Support Committee to make sure that every single person who caught charges during the Oscar Grant Rebellions of January 2009 gets their cases dismissed. So far, there's one to go, and she hopes that, since all the charges against the black people got dismissed, you will still go support the poor white anarchist who is facing serious jail time on trumped up charges. Her name is Holly and her trial begins April 5th. In Oakland, 1225 Fallon, 9am. Oakland100supportcommittee.worpress.com
And just so you know:
Melissa has been an educator in a variety of capacities for almost 16 years. She has led trainings in non-violent communication, peaceful socialization, emergent curriculum and positive discipline. She has worked at daycares and single handedly run a preschool. She currently works with a non-profit at an after-school program in the South-East part of San Pancho (or, San Francisco for suckers). More than anything she believes that children are the future, children are powerful, and that as adults our job is to keep kids safe, and to keep kids asking critical questions.
Melissa did not grow up rich, or even middle class, not that it matters anyway, seeing as Melissa is a grown ass woman.
------------------------------
Raider Nation Collective Statement on the Highway Takeover
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2010/03/07/18640169.php
Once again there is debate on the nature that mass rebellion should take as anger grows in the face of colonial, economic, racial and gendered violence. On three occasions in the last year—the first Oscar Grant uprising, the recent UC Berkeley protests and now the takeover of Hwy 880 in Oakland—the race, class and gender of those who participated in the rebellions has come under fire.
On all three occasions individuals have tried to denounce these rebellions as white, middle class outsiders “leading” the youth of color. Reports and analyses from the first two uprisings have already exposed these assumptions as completely false:
Regarding the Oscar Grant rebellions:
http://www.sfbayview.com/2009/oakland-rebellion-eyewitness-report-by-pocc-minister-of-information-jr/
http://www.counterpunch.org/maher01162009.html
Regarding the UC Berkeley occupations (also relevant to the Oscar Grant uprisings):
http://occupyca.wordpress.com/2010/03/03/response-to-a-critic-of-the-%E2%80%9Cwhite%E2%80%9D-student-movement/
The reality is that the rebellions are more nuanced and complex than the caricatures drawn by those who choose to censor them as
“extremist” and “violent”, without questioning their very deployment of these terms. On what basis are these individuals concluding that all the people involved are white, heterosexual and male when footage and first-person accounts reveal otherwise? On what basis are they assuming the people involved are necessarily middle-class or strangers to Oakland?
Individuals who were not a part of the rebellions, and have accepted the police discourse of “outside agitators” predictably disseminated through the corporate media, make these so-called observations. In contrast, accounts from the protesters themselves speak to the heterogeneous character of the crowd, made up in part by poor, queer, women, of color. To erase their presence and agency only replicates an established tradition in History.
A recent article by Nico Dacumos stated, “At issue here is not so much the political ideology of mostly white black bloc anarchists, but the ways that their incitement of actions here in Oakland speaks to an entitlement and privilege that makes them think it is okay to encourage people of color, mostly African American and Latino males, to engage in 'violent' forms of protest when they are already groups targeted and abused by the police.”
All of the same empty criticisms we encountered in previous rebellions are re-articulated in this one sentence. Not only is it a problem to assume that the people of color in the protests are led blindly, but it is also ridiculous to suggest that street rebellions are the purview of the white and middle class.
Is it not true that poor black and brown people have led the largest and most influential street rebellions of the last 50 years? In a 1968 speech, Stokely Carmichael stated, “A lot of people in the bourgeoisie tell me they don't like Rap Brown when he says, ‘I'm going to burn the country down.’ But every time Rap Brown says, ‘I'm going to burn the country down,’ they get a poverty program...[applause]...they get a poverty program...”
Frederick Douglas tells us that power concedes nothing without a demand: Street rebellions force the establishment to yield to the demands of the movement or be faced with an ungovernable, rebellious populace. In short, stopping highway traffic in protest of the dismantling of public education was a smart move and we support it with no caveats.
-The Raider Nation Collective
![]( "tumblr_kxi1w0WfnF1qax6ej")
Greek Farmers Blockading the Border Between Greece and Bulgaria
I was a legal observer at the March 4th rallies and was doing legal observation on the march that ended up blocking 880. I did not go on the highway, as many people who were on the march chose to not go when we saw this decision being made. I am very concerned at the message below and felt a need to respond.
I think it is important to critique the highway action not as good or bad, but to think about the significance of non-violent action that creates disruption and its place in our movement, and then discus in what ways this action was effective and well organized and what ways it was not.
Before presenting my analysis on the action, I want to address two concerning statements that this piece made, as it is absolutely essential to me that we not marginalize or segregate any one who chooses to take action based upon their beliefs, but that we work to build a collective voice:
Once again there is debate on the nature that mass rebellion should take as anger grows in the face of colonial, economic, racial and gendered violence. On three occasions in the last year—the first Oscar Grant uprising, the recent UC Berkeley protests and now the takeover of Hwy 880 in Oakland—the race, class and gender of those who participated in the rebellions has come under fire.
On all three occasions individuals have tried to denounce these rebellions as white, middle class outsiders “leading” the youth of color. Reports and analyses from the first two uprisings have already exposed these assumptions as completely false:
Regarding the Oscar Grant rebellions:
http://www.sfbayview.com/2009/oakland-rebellion-eyewitness-report-by-pocc-minister-of-information-jr/
http://www.counterpunch.org/maher01162009.html
Regarding the UC Berkeley occupations (also relevant to the Oscar Grant uprisings):
http://occupyca.wordpress.com/2010/03/03/response-to-a-critic-of-the-%E2%80%9Cwhite%E2%80%9D-student-movement/
The reality is that the rebellions are more nuanced and complex than the caricatures drawn by those who choose to censor them as
“extremist” and “violent”, without questioning their very deployment of these terms. On what basis are these individuals concluding that all the people involved are white, heterosexual and male when footage and first-person accounts reveal otherwise? On what basis are they assuming the people involved are necessarily middle-class or strangers to Oakland?
Individuals who were not a part of the rebellions, and have accepted the police discourse of “outside agitators” predictably disseminated through the corporate media, make these so-called observations. In contrast, accounts from the protesters themselves speak to the heterogeneous character of the crowd, made up in part by poor, queer, women, of color. To erase their presence and agency only replicates an established tradition in History.
A recent article by Nico Dacumos stated, “At issue here is not so much the political ideology of mostly white black bloc anarchists, but the ways that their incitement of actions here in Oakland speaks to an entitlement and privilege that makes them think it is okay to encourage people of color, mostly African American and Latino males, to engage in 'violent' forms of protest when they are already groups targeted and abused by the police.”
All of the same empty criticisms we encountered in previous rebellions are re-articulated in this one sentence. Not only is it a problem to assume that the people of color in the protests are led blindly, but it is also ridiculous to suggest that street rebellions are the purview of the white and middle class.
Is it not true that poor black and brown people have led the largest and most influential street rebellions of the last 50 years? In a 1968 speech, Stokely Carmichael stated, “A lot of people in the bourgeoisie tell me they don't like Rap Brown when he says, ‘I'm going to burn the country down.’ But every time Rap Brown says, ‘I'm going to burn the country down,’ they get a poverty program...[applause]...they get a poverty program...”
Frederick Douglas tells us that power concedes nothing without a demand: Street rebellions force the establishment to yield to the demands of the movement or be faced with an ungovernable, rebellious populace. In short, stopping highway traffic in protest of the dismantling of public education was a smart move and we support it with no caveats.
-The Raider Nation Collective
Greek Farmers Blockading the Border Between Greece and BulgariaAn Analysis of I-880 Direct Action
I was a legal observer at the March 4th rallies and was doing legal observation on the march that ended up blocking 880. I did not go on the highway, as many people who were on the march chose to not go when we saw this decision being made. I am very concerned at the message below and felt a need to respond.
I think it is important to critique the highway action not as good or bad, but to think about the significance of non-violent action that creates disruption and its place in our movement, and then discus in what ways this action was effective and well organized and what ways it was not.
Before presenting my analysis on the action, I want to address two concerning statements that this piece made, as it is absolutely essential to me that we not marginalize or segregate any one who chooses to take action based upon their beliefs, but that we work to build a collective voice:
First, I want to dispel the idea that the people leading this march took it to the highway and then left. While they were definitely not conspicuous, it was clear to me who was organizing the march and they did not leave when it went onto the highway, they were present, keeping people together and organized to the best of their abilities.
Second, I want to state concern at the use of the term "black block anarchists". To my knowledge this group did not identify itself as anarchist, socialist or communist (or even capitalist). It identified itself as people who were interested in taking direct action further than marching to Frank Ogawa Plaza, and I am sure that each of those perspectives, perhaps even capitalist or reformist, were on the march and even organizing the march.
Now, an analysis of the action. First, it is absolutely essential that there be a place in our movement for those who believe that direct action, beyond marching, as a significant and necessary tactic. It is right to think that those who are making the decisions and cutting our programs to the ground are not ultimately concerned with actions that do not effect the functioning of their system.
That being said, direct action must be done in a thoughtful and strategic manner. The action of taking the highway was done so in some ways and not in others. From my observations it was a thought out action that had been planned in advance. It was effective in that it was: 1. not violent and it did not involve destruction of property 2. it created a significant disruption in the Bay Area without using violence. 3. It enabled people who wanted to do more than march to have a means to express themselves. This opportunity in itself is important.
It was not a strategic action in that: 1. It was done so quickly that it did not give those who stepped onto the highway a clear opportunity to understand, reflect and take action based upon an understanding of potential consequences. 2. People were not well enough organized on the march to take action in a collective and careful manner and videos show that people were split up and did not all stay together once they took the highway. 3. There was not a clear message or reason why the highway was blocked, and no plan to communicate a message to the media and the broader community.
Thus, I think that the action had both positive and negative elements. It is not sufficient to simply dispel it or respond to it in anger, nor to simply applaud it. Each of us is comfortable taking action in our own way. It is essential that while we provide thoughtful critique people who take action in a manner that is different than us, that we not broadly condemn them. I don't think things are going to change right away in California, and things weren't really that good before they got really bad. If we want to effectively create the deep change that is needed, the type of article that I see below is not going to build unity of action, it is going to divide us, and create a separate more militant wing that is not communicating or organizing with everyone else.
If we want our change to be most effective, we must dialog about action and work to provide space for those who are able to or have the desire to take more risk to be part of making these decisions together. I hope that we can effectively respond to concerns like the one below in a way that will build unity, not foster division.
Yours in Struggle,
Jonah Minkoff-Zern
Second, I want to state concern at the use of the term "black block anarchists". To my knowledge this group did not identify itself as anarchist, socialist or communist (or even capitalist). It identified itself as people who were interested in taking direct action further than marching to Frank Ogawa Plaza, and I am sure that each of those perspectives, perhaps even capitalist or reformist, were on the march and even organizing the march.
Now, an analysis of the action. First, it is absolutely essential that there be a place in our movement for those who believe that direct action, beyond marching, as a significant and necessary tactic. It is right to think that those who are making the decisions and cutting our programs to the ground are not ultimately concerned with actions that do not effect the functioning of their system.
That being said, direct action must be done in a thoughtful and strategic manner. The action of taking the highway was done so in some ways and not in others. From my observations it was a thought out action that had been planned in advance. It was effective in that it was: 1. not violent and it did not involve destruction of property 2. it created a significant disruption in the Bay Area without using violence. 3. It enabled people who wanted to do more than march to have a means to express themselves. This opportunity in itself is important.
It was not a strategic action in that: 1. It was done so quickly that it did not give those who stepped onto the highway a clear opportunity to understand, reflect and take action based upon an understanding of potential consequences. 2. People were not well enough organized on the march to take action in a collective and careful manner and videos show that people were split up and did not all stay together once they took the highway. 3. There was not a clear message or reason why the highway was blocked, and no plan to communicate a message to the media and the broader community.
Thus, I think that the action had both positive and negative elements. It is not sufficient to simply dispel it or respond to it in anger, nor to simply applaud it. Each of us is comfortable taking action in our own way. It is essential that while we provide thoughtful critique people who take action in a manner that is different than us, that we not broadly condemn them. I don't think things are going to change right away in California, and things weren't really that good before they got really bad. If we want to effectively create the deep change that is needed, the type of article that I see below is not going to build unity of action, it is going to divide us, and create a separate more militant wing that is not communicating or organizing with everyone else.
If we want our change to be most effective, we must dialog about action and work to provide space for those who are able to or have the desire to take more risk to be part of making these decisions together. I hope that we can effectively respond to concerns like the one below in a way that will build unity, not foster division.
Yours in Struggle,
Jonah Minkoff-Zern