Race And The Occupy- Movement

In response to this article I wrote this:

Ah the eternal racial divide, will it ever be breached? While this piece is full of valid criticism, it wreaks of ugly ethnocentrism. You know, that thing which is called racism and condemned when expressed by whites, but all to often lauded when directed at whites.

While I celebrate the fact that most of the black left, including Elaine Brown and Erica Huggins and other former members of the Black Panther Party, do not share JR's contemptuous views, it is important that racially divisive statements be countered, particularly when they are as ridiculous as those above.

JR says that OccupyOakland is responsible for making downtown Oakland unsafe. (Someday, with luck, I will be able to stop laughing about this.) Yet this is belied by the fact that he took his seven-year-old there. Does he often take his daughter to places he regards as unsafe? Or was the charge specious?

JR blames OO, which he identifies as largely "white" (note that he doesn't capitalize this race-identifier), for a lack of security which resulted in the murder of a black by another black. Wow, just wow!

JR says that the whites, whom he condescendingly refers to as "kids", are to blame for the low participation of "Black and Brown" people (please note the use of capitals in the case of these race-identifiers). He adds that many of these "kids" never witnessed before "they, in Christopher Columbus fashion, decided to 'occupy' the area," how hardscrabble life was for the black unemployed who live there. He then adds wistfully that "They can’t even relate to these people, and in most cases these [white] activists have stopped trying."

Oh where to begin? Columbus was on a mission for international capital, the "white kids" at OO are at the very least trying to limit the power of the elite, and in many cases seeking to overthrow them entirely. The analogy just couldn't be more stupid and dishonest, and JR just makes a fool of himself by stooping to make it.

The idea that white elements in the Occupiers are to blame for the fact that the movement has been almost completely abandoned by non-whites, and, in the case of OO, literally attacked upon orders of an non-white mayor, is almost as funny as OO making Oakland unsafe, and just as tendentious. If non-whites cannot see that a movement of the 99 percent against the one, a movement which has steadfastly endorsed directly democracy, isn't in their best interests and something worthy of support, then whose fault is that?

The assertion that these white Occupiers cannot relate to poverty, or are indifferent to the plight of non-white peoples, and that a majority have given up trying, is an ugly, vicious, racist lie. And JR ought to be ashamed of himself for telling it. White occupiers have bent over backwards trying to induce and preserve non-white involvement, and provide, as best we can, for the homeless and unemployed of all races (for which JR schizophenically criticized us). We have elicited tactical advice from the People of Color Caucuses and have been exceedingly attentive to their recommendations. JR's tired, enervating claim simply couldn't be more wrong.

Again, in the interests of fairness, it must be pointed out that many on the black left, including the aforementioned, Cornel West, and many, many more, have endorsed the Occupy Movement enthusiastically. And I have no doubt that it is this faction which will triumph over the reactionary elements within the black community. Indeed the Occupy Movement can trace its lineage in style and content in part back to the sublime examples of the Panthers and SNCC (as well as anarchist and radical feminist traditions). But, judging from what I read from the Minister of Disinformation, it's going to take some time.

Down with capitalism! Down with racism in all its ugly variants! Long live the Oakland Commune!