Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Critique of Authoritarianism in the Anti-Gentro Gay BID Campaign
A group of activists affiliated with Anarchist People of Color (APOC) and Gay Shame: a virus in the system, who fundamentally differ from the authoritarian organizing style detailed below came together to make visible our dissent. This letter is a result of ongoing discussion and is an attempt to speak to concerns that have been silenced.
“It is learning how to stand alone, unpopular and sometimes reviled, and how to make common cause with others identified as outside the structures in order to define and seek a world in which we all can flourish. It is learning how to take our differences and make them strengths.
For the master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house.”
---Audre Lorde
A group of activists affiliated with Anarchist People of Color (APOC) and Gay Shame: a virus in the system, who fundamentally differ from the authoritarian organizing style detailed below came together to make visible our dissent . This letter is a result of ongoing discussion and is an attempt to speak to concerns that have been silenced.
It is anticipated that the reception of this document by the “No to Gentrification” steering committee will be used to justify their argument that anti-authoritarianism is a white “structureless” movement of radicals that do not value coalition-building or collective organizing. To the contrary, it is to voice concerns, revealing authoritarianism and putting it on the table as a public document, so that it can never again be silenced. Reclaiming our voices and actions is essential to serving our community as well as any alliances for the future. This document reflects clearly divergent themes and voices. This is a protection of individuality in voice and style. This is not intended to speak in a single voice, rather to provide a collective forum of expression. We must write this because it is necessary if we are serious about being absolutely uncompromising in our goal of stopping all development.
The Terror of Gay Capitalism
In the spring of 2004, Oakland City Council Member Danny Wan announced the city and developers’ plans for a “Gay Business Improvement District” (BID) in the Eastlake neighborhood of Oakland. The developers’ plans for the neighborhood include, recruiting “gay” businesses including bookstores, restaurants, specialized retail stores and entertainment facilities according to Tina Lupe, legislative analyst for the city. Large corporations will not be turned away, Lupe said.
Upon hearing these plans, community members and activists in the Bay Area immediately raised concerns about the effect of development on the neighborhood’s residents, many of whom are immigrants, people of color and lower-income families. As history has shown, such development tends to drive up property values and increase the cost of living in the surrounding community.
At a City Council-sponsored bi-monthly LGBT Roundtable discussion in November, a group of people raised concerns about the affects of gentrification in the area under the auspices of providing a “business district” for queers. Many of these activists and/or community members convened an impromptu meeting outside city hall immediately following the roundtable.
Before a conversation about process could be initiated, Dawn Phillips stepped forward and began ‘facilitating’ the group. During the course of the meeting, an email list was compiled, and a steering committee was formed by a show of hands. The majority of the people who volunteered for steering committee positions were leaders of various non-profits based in Oakland and reformist political organizations. Within a week of its formation, the steering committee set up a private email correspondence, with information about an upcoming meeting and to set the agenda for the larger meeting.
A meeting arranged by and for those in leadership roles and not widely advertised (i.e. kept secret) was held at the EBASE office on 1714 Franklin St. in Oakland. Again, there was no discussion about the group’s process and the role of the steering committee in general. One Gay Shame/APOC activist pointed out that no Eastlake residents were in attendance, to which steering committee member responded that in order to reach-out to Eastlake residents, through flyers, networking etc., the group had to get approval from an NGO already working within the Eastlake neighborhood. The only outcome of this meeting was the delegation of responsibilities, including making an agenda, for a larger open meeting the group had planned for two weeks later.
On December 5th the larger “open,” but unadvertised meeting convened at the Providence House in Oakland. Participants decided that facilitation duties would be shared by several people, but many observers felt that the ultimate decision-making power was in the hands of a select few members of the steering committee. Though people expressed their thoughts and concerns about the development, nothing was decided or planed for future actions by the group. Furthermore, steering committee members held a ‘secret’ debriefing meeting after the conclusion of the larger meeting.
Again, a week later, committee members and a select few others held a smaller closed meeting at Dawn Phillips house in East Oakland. The five people in attendance attempted to write a mission statement for the group at large. Attempting to justify their closed authoritarian leadership style, Lisa said “I’ve worked with anarchists, if you bring them to the table things fall apart.” “Gay Shame doesn’t coalition-build. They didn’t win any hearts in the Castro,” “In certain battles there are people who need to be at the table an certain people who don’t.” added another attendee. One activist at the meeting felt that those speaking were making individual issues sectarian.
No Gods, No Masters, No Steering Comities
>From Buddhism to Bush, patriarchy to the Panthers, imperialism to the International Socialist Organization (ISO), authoritarianism is the methodology of oppression. Authoritarianism is, after all, a structure that allocates power through a top down model thus creating those with power (gods, presidents, fathers and steering committees) and those without power, all the rest of us.
Authoritarianism is the system of organization used in all oppressive regimes this is evident. However, often times organizing that is built precisely to resist these larger projects of domination also work through authoritarianism. In contrast to imagining new modes of organizing and creating new ways for power to work, these groups simply substitute their goals for that of the oppressor’s and believe liberation can be achieved without a radical shift in the very methods of organizing or the structuring of power.
Sometimes people choose to organize this way because they are not aware there are other ways to work but most organizations seem to know the alternatives but believe that authoritarianism is the way to create change. Once the structure of these groups is challenged there seems to be two typical reasons given for authoritarianism.
The first is the efficiency alibi. This is the belief that things will work better and faster if fewer people are allowed to make decisions. Representative democracy is built upon this model as where each elected official is symbolically representing a larger group of people. The No To Gentrification Group uses this model through the creation of a steering committee. Steering committees are groups of people that are to act as “leadership” for the larger collective of people. They make the important decisions for the group as well as filter information as they see fit. It may be easier not to have all the voices in the room, it may be easier to brush people’s concerns to the side, it is easier to go through these normal channels- but it is not revolutionary nor is it even grassroots organizing.
The second major reason given for working through authoritarianism is creating a “security culture”. A security culture is the belief that there is a way to protect those involved with the group from the powers of the State. Both the Weather Underground and the Black Panthers worked through this model of organizing. The United States Government also uses this security culture alibi to support the unlimited powers of the CIA and the Department of Homeland Security. In this model of organizing the top tier of the group (presidents, community leaders etc.) decide who needs to know what, and when. Through this system, information circulates on a “need to know” basis, while the people that are actually participating in actions often times do not have access to all the information available. This security culture has been evident already in secret messages being passed back and forth through the steering committee without the knowledge of most people affiliated that there even is a steering committee, let alone separate conversations.
For SIAFU, a person of color (POC) group of anti-imperialists who came together to protest the RNC, a major obstacle in nurturing collective intelligence was a staunch commitment to “security culture.” The term was applied in the same way that “national security” is used to censor the amount of information that is going to be shared with the public. In the case of SIAFU, as well as other groups that use “security culture” to operate on a “need to know basis,” the demand to do so is usually evoked if “illegal activity” is being planned. Admittedly, it is a legitimate safeguard measure during a climate where activism is increasingly criminalized. However SIAFU was not participating in illegal activities. If anything, those are the unique situations that we need to fully deconstruct because the trade-offs come in the form of loses to transparency, openness and inclusion. In a democratic process, the manipulation of information and constructs of knowledge is a mechanism for control, and should be regarded suspiciously.
Efficiency is often necessary in the context of organizing. Things do come up in a moments notice, and also most of us have other obligations than the specific group we are working in so sometimes things don’t get done on time. However, what kind of culture does it create when the group you are working in has “leadership”? It seems that the very notion of leadership itself is oppressive. There are limitless other ways to both organize, and be in the world, where collectivity is the model of organizing. In these dire moments of worldwide murder and oppression our organizing may slip past these all too important critiques.
Carving out a space where resistance can be built hopefully in some degree away from the auspices of State power is surely one of our goals. Yet, what does it mean for us as people working for lasting social change to be working through the same model as the United States government?
Tragically, activism in this area is now primarily a business with its own code of conduct and conference rooms. On one side you have the government and corporations implanting death, on the other side you have “community organizers” often times paid by grants from these same governments and corporations allegedly opposing this death. While these community organizers brunch with counsel members in hopes of guarantying a “community center” while the rest of the neighborhoods is literally torn to rubble and unaffordable live-work lofts are erected in their place- we must be fighting on both fronts.
Radically Complicit?
If you're a city, you can get money to develop a neighborhood. If you're a career activist, you can get money to pretend to stall the development. Or at least enough salary to be a part of the first wave of gentrification, such as those who claim to be “residents” of the neighborhood but play an unacknowledged role in its transformation.
On a number of occasions, the “No To Gentrification Group” and the LGBT Roundtable employed similar identity politics tactics. Also, these tactics manifest in the Bay Area’s liberal activist communities. Many critiques of authoritarianism and race have not been discussed based on many mutually beneficial relationships. White anti-authoritarians have used authoritarian POCs as an entrance into long-term people of color battles while many of these same anti-authoritarians do not critique these authoritarian POC structures. These POCs tend to use these anti-authoritarian groups for the illusion of a mass movement. Superficially these may appear to be strong ties, but if the necessary critique of racism, authoritarianism and tokenization are not present, how strong can these movements be? Dawn was quick to point out that at the LGBT Roundtable meeting that the two Black people at the table always came to Danny's aid. At a later meeting Dawn stressed a need for the anti-gentrification campaign to "have people of color in leadership roles." Both seem to suggest the same form of exploitation. Danny Wan would like to create a physical space for LGBT's in Oakland. The “No To Gentrification Group” would like to mobilize a progressive queer left. Both these strategies involve the imposition of an outside will exerting itself onto peoples' bodies. Where does self-determination enter into the equation?
However, the concept of opening dialogue with the enemy arose again at a meeting of the so-called anti-gentrification (No To Gentrification) activists. One person brought up the idea of going to Danny Wan's front lawn and setting up our own gay business improvement district. Soon after, it was suggested that a delegation should go to Danny Wan's office and tell him that if he doesn't do such and such people are going to be on his lawn. Why? So that the police will be there to meet us?
As an experience, it often feels initially exciting to be led by people who seem to be militant and to have a plan; sooner or later, though, it feels disempowering. By then, however, people are often selected to move up in the hierarchy. But, hierarchy has its limits: many leave in frustration, exhaustion or powerlessness. When confronting an issue which at its height of perversity does not give people autonomous control over their own living spaces and community, we must oppose this oppression and create spaces where people will feel empowered to take back their neighborhoods, not hand it over to someone new.
It serves as a reminder of a campaign led by Just Cause in 2003 where the issue was fighting for affordable housing and organizing renters in West Oakland and Uptown to lead the fight. But it turns out that many of the poor renters participating in the struggle themselves probably wouldn’t be able to qualify for “affordable housing” and existed outside of the goals outlined by Just Cause. Many of these folks probably weren’t informed of this during all of the “open” house meetings regarding the direction of the campaign. If a campaign for poor people leaves its membership behind, something is clearly incongruent. Who defined the terms and set these watered down, reformist goals? The power in framing the campaign was held by two senior staff members, who were clearly not folks directly from the neighborhood being organized. When it came time to stage the big community meeting regarding the campaign, which all the house meetings had been leading up to, certain members were handpicked and invited by the Just Cause core to speak out. The appearance was based on bringing visibility to the members of the community who were empowered through working with Just Cause. They realized their power to transform from “objects” to “subjects” of their own circumstance and had found their own voice to speak out about the issue. But according to a former Just Cause organizer, the member from his turf who was selected as a community leader was given a piece written by Just Cause to literally read. Is this the fate of our own organizing? Are we recreating these same falsehoods by allowing disjointing labels like “organizer” vs. “activist” vs. “community leader” vs. “community” to fragment our coalition and disproportionately transfer and control power? We must all see ourselves as all of these things. The mistake in applying such titles is that they construct standards of acquiring political clout and therefore agency.
Many of us are activists in our everyday lives in ways that are not recognized as activism by the existing hierarchy. Given that the dissemination of information has followed this pattern of “acceptable organizing”, the people who were called upon from the community were, not surprisingly from other non-profits. Much the same way the assumption was made that the steering committee reflects the diversity of queers in Oakland, the assumption was made that this non-profit from the Eastlake is representative and in good standing with the residents that community. Most notably, there is an assumption about the politics of the residents of Eastlake that is an assumption based on immigration and the maintenance of the current power structure.
The assumptions about the Eastlake community, primarily based on its immigrant population, have been that these residents do not want to assert agency in their own destiny. Residents of this neighborhood have been told continually, ‘you are too radical for the community”. What comprises community self-determination if it isn’t the will of those who live there! Cohesive communities loves and trust each other. But unlike what many would love us to assume, gentrification battles are not fought at City Council meetings or in Court Houses, gentrification battles are fought with existing social ties and personal relationships. Some of us have seen our own families radicalized by this process, as they also wish to not lose their homes.
There is also an ahistorical assumption that immigrants aren’t radical or engaged in politics. Most notably, these residents have risen up in defense of the prejudiced cruising laws which held them under siege a decade ago. Many of these residents who live in the Eastlake come from much more radical backgrounds than anyone who has yet participated in these forums. Many of them are indeed in this country because of their radical politic. In addition, it is important not to underestimate the radicalizing force of eviction and displacement. Even assuming that the residents are not engaged in resistance today, we cannot assume that they will not be tomorrow.
The Gentrification of Activism
Gentrification as well as our activism against it must be thought through historically. Gentrification is not a simple an act, nor is it a specific construction project. Gentrification is a tool of capitalism that produces an excess in exchange value, a neighborhood that had a lower exchange value is transferred, through development, into one that has a higher “value”. However, historically speaking today’s gentrifiers may eventually become tomorrows gentrified. This is evident to some extent in the Castro in San Francisco. As lesbian and gay people moved in during the late 1960s and early 1970s taking over what had historically been a working class neighborhood the social landscape changed. Yet now, many of these same gay people that first moved into the Castro are being forced out to make way for more wealthy heterosexuals who think the “safety” of a gay neighborhood would provide the perfect place to raise a family.
Sadly, just about every effort to beautify, green, build community spaces in, or culturally and artistically enrich an area makes it more appealing from a market standpoint. Taking the money out of such a process requires a long-term engagement with land trusts, secured squats, publicly subsidized housing, etc. From an anti-state perspective, were talking a very serious and open commitment that will not dismantle it immediately. Essentially, we have to design solutions that avoid commodification, enforced segregation, and mass contempt between one part of society in another. Community centers, grandfather clauses and “responsible development”, may bring faster tangible evidence, but do little to create community resistance, agency or visibility. This fight is about how many people we can keep from being forcibly removed from their neighborhoods in the Eastlake, but it is as much about creating lasting changes in community organizing and models of resistance. It is imperative to equip people with the tools for lasting community change such that we can define our own struggle as our own agents for sustainable change.
As gentrification is an ongoing process our response must also be equally about stopping the specific “development” but it must also be about creating ways of living and organizing where we are not reproducing the concepts of gentrification. Just as we cannot even dent racism by wearing an “anti-racist” shirt printed in toxic ink on a sweatshop made shirt, we cannot say “no to gentrification” by displacing valuable ideas or silencing dissent in the very name of non-displacement.
Our tactics and methods for organizing resistance must not replicate the asymmetrical divisions of power as those we are fighting against. We cannot simply replace their “white straight male” leaders with our multi-cultural ones and have faith that racism, sexism and heterosexism will come crumbling down. We must destroy the very systems that created this inequality of power, which is, certainly working through authoritarianism.
Already, the language we have adopted to communicate the issue sets out to suggest that a unified body of radical queers has already been established. To let this assumption go unchecked would be counterproductive to the larger interests of truly realizing a radical queer left. As “radical queers,” how are our tactics or the way we develop internally “radical”? For many of my “radical” folks reading this, let’s be honest now and admit that there is definitely some closeted reformism sneaking a peep and eyeing the pie.
For that matter, how is our organizing specifically “queer”? If this group intends to present itself as “a queer left”, it should critique authoritarianism as a patriarchal structure which requires conversations around gender dynamics within this body. As patriarchal power is accessed and perpetuated by all genders, people’s lack of response to this patriarchy has been coded in liberal notions of reversing visibility and justice. If liberal ideology plays itself out everyone will get their fifteen minutes of patriarchy.
Contrary to encouraging exploration into our multiplicity and how to use our many talents advantageously, the complexity of our different politics, class backgrounds and notions of shared experience have largely gone unacknowledged and unaddressed during our meetings. In fact the lowest common denominator by which we operate as a homogenized body has amounted to a dysfunctional model of central, non-rotating leadership that promotes hierarchy and makes no concerted effort to engage and draw everyone fully in its decision making process, let alone discuss if we even want this type of structure. Sadly, this is a depoliticizing force of reductionism that puts the interest of building a strong moderate base before stretching the terms of the debate as far reaching as possible. It is a force that underestimates the lengths to which empowered people will go to fight against the business interests that seek to eliminate them. The unilateral choices imposed by those on the steering committee and legitimized by the larger group does very little to differentiate itself from Danny Wan and his band of token sellouts.
One major distress signal sounding out in the dynamics of our group is a disconnect between the group and the countless other unknown, unsought out queers in Oakland. Nor is an analysis around queer bicultural immigrant experiences being prioritized. This is inherently patronizing because so much of the decision-making is being made on behalf of those who are not even participating in the issue and whose “queer” experiences may not be reflected in the group, let alone in the ways we approach the organizing.
Another similar situation occurred in relation to SIAFU, this body was a composite of various ideological influences, class backgrounds, and strategies. And again, the basic elements that outlined the directives of the group were channeled along rigid hierarchies that promoted top down leadership. There were three layers or tiers as they were described within the structure. The first tier was the core decision-making body, the next tier were trustworthy organizers to execute the decisions, and the third tier were the majority of folks used to implement the decisions. People interested in participating had to pony up an obscene amount of money, something like $700 to be a part of SIAFU’s trip to the RNC. The cost was justified as covering airfare, housing, food and uniforms. Once you joined, you were farmed into your choice of a handful of pre-designed committees. The contentious part about the cost of membership to THE anti-imperial bay area POC delegation was that in actuality it pushed other POCs, who couldn’t or refused to pay up club dues, to the margins. For example, much of the free housing offered up by POC organizations in New York were snatched up by SIAFU, exhausting most of the limited resources specific to POC activists. How is it that you can justify such an exorbitant cost to cover housing, and then take up most all of the free housing available? Who made that decision? Did members of SIAFU realize that this was happening? And how many radical anti-imperial, anti-property, anti-authoritarian POCs were invisible at the RNC because of this?
Ending the Non-profit Industrial Complex
True to form, this pattern of alienating the folks who are supposedly leading the campaign is rearing its ugly head here in this body. Anti-authoritarians who are committed to radical means for radical ends have been isolated , stripped of political agency, and snubbed by the steering committee for being “too radical or the community”. Is it happenstance that the folks who were most obviously disturbed by the reformist concessions and lack of consensus building were also the ones who were attacked? From the original fallacious notion that “collective engagement” was based on a single e-mail to a steering (think about when you steer you bike, you tell it where to go) committee based on these same affiliations; this association has had a coded agenda based on their concepts of “queer”, “community”, “activism”, “gentrification” etc.
It would seem that when select reformers get ready to make career moves and concessions they need radicals and direct action out of the way- it could erode their relationship with the government officials on whom their power is based. This restriction of autonomy has been ostensibly based on not “scaring the community”. But, what has become very clear is that restriction from direct action in this fight is not about making our movement more palpable for the community, because indeed we have not even asked
“the community” to come to a meeting let alone assert some type of collective strategy. Rather this restriction is based upon making this movement more palpable to the City Council and government officials with whom this committee has had far more interaction on this issue.
We all have different relationships to the power structure in our coalition because in the decision making process of “our” group we are all situated differently. By this reasoning, power is realized by directing decisions towards particular goals. Because of this, everyone’s direct input into determining the goals, especially the language that describes and frames the goals must be ensured.. A smaller working group might be useful if it was overseen by the entire group as a tool in keeping account of the logistics needed to realize everyone’s desired objectives. But, as things stand now, a steering body that does not report to the larger whole compromises transparency and information sharing for the whole and limits the full participation of all queer folks who want to get involved
Referring back to SIAFU as a structural reference, the irony is that this organization exerted a lot of energy in carving out a specific identity. It chose the symbol of the West African ant whose colony is so well organized that it is able to take down an elephant. The ant, specifically the worker ant class, is a popular metaphor for the power of collectivism because it gets shit done. What is underrepresented in the use of the metaphor is that the strength of the colony is not its militancy as much as it is its ability to interact with its environment. Tasks are distributed in a way that there is no central organizer. Most noticeably, self-organized ant colonies are adaptive and able to move around quickly and efficiently because of collective intelligence. They communicate tactically through pheromones. Therefore collective communication leads to collective intelligence. If we are serious about importing this operating model, then we need to address the fact that we do not have a strong communications infrastructure to rely on for quick adaptations and decision-making. In fact, the proclivity demonstrated actually bends towards non-adaptive, predetermined “old school” modes of organizing that are predictable. More so, a very particular central organizing body is delegating the tasks within that structure. By ant standards, this is totally unsustainable.
Similarly, the decisions concerning the fate of the Eastlake district have not been made readily available to the mostly immigrant population living there. Our group has a steering committee that most people who first get involved are not aware of. The objective of various secrecies may diverge slightly, but in the end each winds up with the same effect of muting the urgency of the situation. Especially dangerous for those seeking to get involved with a purported fight against gentrification, is that members of the steering committee are looking for ways to reach concessions through opening dialogue into "responsible development," as it will wind up drawing the most volunteer resources and energy from participants seeking to halt all development.
A steering committee that was developed by a show of hands has now made many important decisions that set the tone for the entire campaign. Who empowered those folks with that much authority? To date there have been no conversations around structure involving more than a handful of people.
Activism and Ownership
On the other hand, there has been excessive usage of singular possessive pronouns like “my” meeting, “my” call out, etc. There is no ownership of this network of people, we are all here by our own convictions. In addition, there has been a proclivity towards qualifying each other’s authority a lot. This takes on the form of also fronting like an authority on all things organizing, which is ridiculous. This form of authoritarianism directly relates to creating dialogue about structure, because after all no one benefiting from hierarchy wants to call itself out as it assumes a radical position. When we give unspoken permission for activist rockstars to take the helm, it keeps someone less established in the “activist world” from adding their perspective because it might sound naïve or inexperienced. For a campaign that values personal experience we have got to honor everyone wherever they are at. We are all bringing in our own shit, so let’s work it out.
Until we flush out and make clear the inconsistencies of our organizing concepts, we will fail to identify many of the hidden assumptions that implicate larger attitudes about power, privilege, class, race, immigration, gender, sexuality, ability, age, environmentalism, capitalism and so forth that we bring to our work. Operating solely within a mode of identity politics carry with it these sorts of limitations. Rather than addressing the limiting factors which reduce our multiple identities and politics and draw us away from our diversity, we have remained uncritical of the tensions between us. Let’s get beyond poli-tricking.
In addition, we as a whole must take notice that throughout the “No To Gentrification” meetings, an ongoing self-evaluation has not been built directly into the process. Stepping back and critiquing the power structure as it emerges is necessary for the health of any organizing body, particularly coalitions that write themselves across many political identities, ideologies and strategies. The next steps we have indicated formally in outreach has been a call for people to join in a radical queer response to stop gentrification and gay business development, which is all the more reason that intentionality around how and why we are organizing must be explicit. It has already happened in past meetings, where people who may be new to organizing or unfamiliar with activist literacy sink into the background and be silenced. Incorporating an ongoing internal dialogue is helpful for equipping us with a means of orienting folks to the process of coalition building, one that maintains a strong decentralized mode for everyone to find their place. It provides space for holding controlling and authoritarian elements accountable because it creates the kind of transparency for people to make informed decisions.
Processing Power
In order to ensure an organization that hopefully represents it’s own diversity and that of the communities it purports to represent, clearly defined process in a group such as the one that formed in response to the announcement of the gay business improvement district. in Oakland, should be something that pre-empts the creation of “steering committees” and the appointment of “leaders”. There are at the very least five primary components essential for a representative organization: the dissemination of information, non-hierarchical organizing, open process, consensus and diversity of viewpoints.
Dissemination of Information
When we speak of the dissemination of information, it is meant that there is generated a consistent and meaningful attempt to spread as much word to as many people as possible about things like: upcoming meetings and significant decisions. There are many traditional mediums with which to aid the promulgation (i.e., print, internet, broadcast media, flyers, wheat-pasting and stenciling) that are readily accessible to most groups and individuals. When individuals within an organization withhold or treat information meant to affect the whole as secret, it then becomes a group not of the people, but rather of the interests of the individuals whom remain in power. Also, it is important to remember that all forms of communication are raced and classed. For example, organizing vis-à-vis the Internet already presupposes a specific “class” of people who have access to the internet and are able to read English, if that is the language used by those organizers. When disseminating information, that we are not the “origins” of such knowledge, and in this process of dissemination we have much to learn in that the process works both ways.(?)
Non-hierarchical Conduction of Affairs
At the beginning of each meeting, the people present decide upon an individual to facilitate the agenda, orchestrate its logical order and to ensure that everyone has space to listen and to hear. The aim of establishing the facilitator role is not to enthrone a dictatorial leader, yet rather to allow different individuals the opportunity to facilitate for the duration of the meeting, ensuring things such as the stack order, helping to establish dates/times for upcoming meetings, announcing agenda items and eliciting responses from participants. Switching facilitators not only allows the greatest number of people the gain the experience of facilitation, but it also helps for power to be constantly challenged. Regardless of who is facilitating everyone’s opinion are equally valid and will have the same amount of attention .
Open Process
In order to maintain consistent levels of anti-authoritarianism and diversity there must be total transparency in the processes the group adapts. This ensures the full, accurate, and timely disclosure of information, which accordingly ensures that actions represent as many of the differing viewpoints within a group as possible and that no one person or subgroup holds majority control over the decisions made.
Consensus
In order to avoid an organization that operates on liberal models of “democracy” the process of deciding upon official actions must be a uniformly non-hierarchical and based on consensus of those present at the general meetings. For consensus process the first step is that one person or group of people offer a proposal for action, or an idea. Then the proposal is discussed and talked about until everyone seems to be more or less on the “same page”. Once this seems to be reached, the facilitator asks if there is consensus, in which time anyone can block. This process enables dissent to have a real and meaningful voice, in opposition to “majority rule” this model pushes the group to come to mutual understandings. Yet another dimension of the spokes process worth exploring is a compromise formation that includes autonomy, where everyone may not necessarily participate in the proposed course of action, but there is support for those folks willing to put energy into a plan of action, Once something has been consented upon, the only way to change the decision is to propose a second time to change the original proposal, wherein a new consensus must be reached before any changes will be made to the original understanding.
The point is to ensure that power is distributed broadly and collectively, for which a solid decision-making process, which is how and where power is negotiated, must be agreed upon. This process must make space for everyone to contribute ideas and strategies, include space for collective discussion and debate, and provide a clear means of reaching an agreement in which everyone can consent.
Diversity of Viewpoints
It is crucial that differences in opinion within a group be fostered and encouraged so that different approaches can be made clear to those who take different stances on subjects. This on one hand prevents any one individual from impressing their approaches/tactics upon the group in a tyrannical manner that may hinder others from expressing difference in approach and on the other hand sometimes leaves a large margin for conflict within the group, especially where the consensual decision making process is concerned. This is a rare occurrence, however it should also be approached as an opportunity to challenge each other’s ways of thinking and giving time to talk out methodologies until a satisfactory compromise can be settled upon by everyone concerned. Obviously, this mechanism for implementation has the potential to be troublesome, but is far better than having either an appointed or self-appointed “leader” dictate action, as this is far more representative of the true aspirations of the people.
Coalition building does not mean restricting individuals and collectives from asserting their own self-determination. Coalition building admits a level of diversity. It acknowledges our differences and appreciates them. It allows the diversity of tactics that creates an environment where the spontaneity which once existed amongst organizers can be returned. Instead of outmoded ideas and old school tactics we have the amazing privilege to develop something new and unexpected. Especially, once we have recognized the resident’s roles in the strategy building, we have the amazing opportunity to implement ideas that have never been heard before and we have the opportunity to use tactics from all over the world.
The critique we have laid out is, in fact, an attempt to make our organizing and the activist work we do, in some ways, like the kinds of worlds we hope to create and inhabit. Deconstruction is an important analytic and political tool we feel that is often dismissed as simply divisive. The good thing about critique is that it helps expose our very real differences. And in this exposition, it is our hope to use these differences to strengthen our resistance. However, it is also imperative that the methodology of our resistance is modeled after a non-hierarchical structure that displaces power from the top-down scheme that we are all too accustomed to. Our reasons for this intervention are not that we simply want to destroy the work that some of the aforementioned groups are involved in, as it is important work. Nor are we interested in simply critiquing players in this authoritarian organizing. This authoritarian structure has displaced too many of us for too long, and it is our drive for making the world a more livable place for us all that makes this discourse not only important, but necessarily urgent.
For more hate mail and love letters, contact those contributors involved in performing the final edits on this piece 1/21/05:
Inez, Ralowe, Eric, Xan, Kentaro at theregoestheneighborhood [at] gay.com
For the master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house.”
---Audre Lorde
A group of activists affiliated with Anarchist People of Color (APOC) and Gay Shame: a virus in the system, who fundamentally differ from the authoritarian organizing style detailed below came together to make visible our dissent . This letter is a result of ongoing discussion and is an attempt to speak to concerns that have been silenced.
It is anticipated that the reception of this document by the “No to Gentrification” steering committee will be used to justify their argument that anti-authoritarianism is a white “structureless” movement of radicals that do not value coalition-building or collective organizing. To the contrary, it is to voice concerns, revealing authoritarianism and putting it on the table as a public document, so that it can never again be silenced. Reclaiming our voices and actions is essential to serving our community as well as any alliances for the future. This document reflects clearly divergent themes and voices. This is a protection of individuality in voice and style. This is not intended to speak in a single voice, rather to provide a collective forum of expression. We must write this because it is necessary if we are serious about being absolutely uncompromising in our goal of stopping all development.
The Terror of Gay Capitalism
In the spring of 2004, Oakland City Council Member Danny Wan announced the city and developers’ plans for a “Gay Business Improvement District” (BID) in the Eastlake neighborhood of Oakland. The developers’ plans for the neighborhood include, recruiting “gay” businesses including bookstores, restaurants, specialized retail stores and entertainment facilities according to Tina Lupe, legislative analyst for the city. Large corporations will not be turned away, Lupe said.
Upon hearing these plans, community members and activists in the Bay Area immediately raised concerns about the effect of development on the neighborhood’s residents, many of whom are immigrants, people of color and lower-income families. As history has shown, such development tends to drive up property values and increase the cost of living in the surrounding community.
At a City Council-sponsored bi-monthly LGBT Roundtable discussion in November, a group of people raised concerns about the affects of gentrification in the area under the auspices of providing a “business district” for queers. Many of these activists and/or community members convened an impromptu meeting outside city hall immediately following the roundtable.
Before a conversation about process could be initiated, Dawn Phillips stepped forward and began ‘facilitating’ the group. During the course of the meeting, an email list was compiled, and a steering committee was formed by a show of hands. The majority of the people who volunteered for steering committee positions were leaders of various non-profits based in Oakland and reformist political organizations. Within a week of its formation, the steering committee set up a private email correspondence, with information about an upcoming meeting and to set the agenda for the larger meeting.
A meeting arranged by and for those in leadership roles and not widely advertised (i.e. kept secret) was held at the EBASE office on 1714 Franklin St. in Oakland. Again, there was no discussion about the group’s process and the role of the steering committee in general. One Gay Shame/APOC activist pointed out that no Eastlake residents were in attendance, to which steering committee member responded that in order to reach-out to Eastlake residents, through flyers, networking etc., the group had to get approval from an NGO already working within the Eastlake neighborhood. The only outcome of this meeting was the delegation of responsibilities, including making an agenda, for a larger open meeting the group had planned for two weeks later.
On December 5th the larger “open,” but unadvertised meeting convened at the Providence House in Oakland. Participants decided that facilitation duties would be shared by several people, but many observers felt that the ultimate decision-making power was in the hands of a select few members of the steering committee. Though people expressed their thoughts and concerns about the development, nothing was decided or planed for future actions by the group. Furthermore, steering committee members held a ‘secret’ debriefing meeting after the conclusion of the larger meeting.
Again, a week later, committee members and a select few others held a smaller closed meeting at Dawn Phillips house in East Oakland. The five people in attendance attempted to write a mission statement for the group at large. Attempting to justify their closed authoritarian leadership style, Lisa said “I’ve worked with anarchists, if you bring them to the table things fall apart.” “Gay Shame doesn’t coalition-build. They didn’t win any hearts in the Castro,” “In certain battles there are people who need to be at the table an certain people who don’t.” added another attendee. One activist at the meeting felt that those speaking were making individual issues sectarian.
No Gods, No Masters, No Steering Comities
>From Buddhism to Bush, patriarchy to the Panthers, imperialism to the International Socialist Organization (ISO), authoritarianism is the methodology of oppression. Authoritarianism is, after all, a structure that allocates power through a top down model thus creating those with power (gods, presidents, fathers and steering committees) and those without power, all the rest of us.
Authoritarianism is the system of organization used in all oppressive regimes this is evident. However, often times organizing that is built precisely to resist these larger projects of domination also work through authoritarianism. In contrast to imagining new modes of organizing and creating new ways for power to work, these groups simply substitute their goals for that of the oppressor’s and believe liberation can be achieved without a radical shift in the very methods of organizing or the structuring of power.
Sometimes people choose to organize this way because they are not aware there are other ways to work but most organizations seem to know the alternatives but believe that authoritarianism is the way to create change. Once the structure of these groups is challenged there seems to be two typical reasons given for authoritarianism.
The first is the efficiency alibi. This is the belief that things will work better and faster if fewer people are allowed to make decisions. Representative democracy is built upon this model as where each elected official is symbolically representing a larger group of people. The No To Gentrification Group uses this model through the creation of a steering committee. Steering committees are groups of people that are to act as “leadership” for the larger collective of people. They make the important decisions for the group as well as filter information as they see fit. It may be easier not to have all the voices in the room, it may be easier to brush people’s concerns to the side, it is easier to go through these normal channels- but it is not revolutionary nor is it even grassroots organizing.
The second major reason given for working through authoritarianism is creating a “security culture”. A security culture is the belief that there is a way to protect those involved with the group from the powers of the State. Both the Weather Underground and the Black Panthers worked through this model of organizing. The United States Government also uses this security culture alibi to support the unlimited powers of the CIA and the Department of Homeland Security. In this model of organizing the top tier of the group (presidents, community leaders etc.) decide who needs to know what, and when. Through this system, information circulates on a “need to know” basis, while the people that are actually participating in actions often times do not have access to all the information available. This security culture has been evident already in secret messages being passed back and forth through the steering committee without the knowledge of most people affiliated that there even is a steering committee, let alone separate conversations.
For SIAFU, a person of color (POC) group of anti-imperialists who came together to protest the RNC, a major obstacle in nurturing collective intelligence was a staunch commitment to “security culture.” The term was applied in the same way that “national security” is used to censor the amount of information that is going to be shared with the public. In the case of SIAFU, as well as other groups that use “security culture” to operate on a “need to know basis,” the demand to do so is usually evoked if “illegal activity” is being planned. Admittedly, it is a legitimate safeguard measure during a climate where activism is increasingly criminalized. However SIAFU was not participating in illegal activities. If anything, those are the unique situations that we need to fully deconstruct because the trade-offs come in the form of loses to transparency, openness and inclusion. In a democratic process, the manipulation of information and constructs of knowledge is a mechanism for control, and should be regarded suspiciously.
Efficiency is often necessary in the context of organizing. Things do come up in a moments notice, and also most of us have other obligations than the specific group we are working in so sometimes things don’t get done on time. However, what kind of culture does it create when the group you are working in has “leadership”? It seems that the very notion of leadership itself is oppressive. There are limitless other ways to both organize, and be in the world, where collectivity is the model of organizing. In these dire moments of worldwide murder and oppression our organizing may slip past these all too important critiques.
Carving out a space where resistance can be built hopefully in some degree away from the auspices of State power is surely one of our goals. Yet, what does it mean for us as people working for lasting social change to be working through the same model as the United States government?
Tragically, activism in this area is now primarily a business with its own code of conduct and conference rooms. On one side you have the government and corporations implanting death, on the other side you have “community organizers” often times paid by grants from these same governments and corporations allegedly opposing this death. While these community organizers brunch with counsel members in hopes of guarantying a “community center” while the rest of the neighborhoods is literally torn to rubble and unaffordable live-work lofts are erected in their place- we must be fighting on both fronts.
Radically Complicit?
If you're a city, you can get money to develop a neighborhood. If you're a career activist, you can get money to pretend to stall the development. Or at least enough salary to be a part of the first wave of gentrification, such as those who claim to be “residents” of the neighborhood but play an unacknowledged role in its transformation.
On a number of occasions, the “No To Gentrification Group” and the LGBT Roundtable employed similar identity politics tactics. Also, these tactics manifest in the Bay Area’s liberal activist communities. Many critiques of authoritarianism and race have not been discussed based on many mutually beneficial relationships. White anti-authoritarians have used authoritarian POCs as an entrance into long-term people of color battles while many of these same anti-authoritarians do not critique these authoritarian POC structures. These POCs tend to use these anti-authoritarian groups for the illusion of a mass movement. Superficially these may appear to be strong ties, but if the necessary critique of racism, authoritarianism and tokenization are not present, how strong can these movements be? Dawn was quick to point out that at the LGBT Roundtable meeting that the two Black people at the table always came to Danny's aid. At a later meeting Dawn stressed a need for the anti-gentrification campaign to "have people of color in leadership roles." Both seem to suggest the same form of exploitation. Danny Wan would like to create a physical space for LGBT's in Oakland. The “No To Gentrification Group” would like to mobilize a progressive queer left. Both these strategies involve the imposition of an outside will exerting itself onto peoples' bodies. Where does self-determination enter into the equation?
However, the concept of opening dialogue with the enemy arose again at a meeting of the so-called anti-gentrification (No To Gentrification) activists. One person brought up the idea of going to Danny Wan's front lawn and setting up our own gay business improvement district. Soon after, it was suggested that a delegation should go to Danny Wan's office and tell him that if he doesn't do such and such people are going to be on his lawn. Why? So that the police will be there to meet us?
As an experience, it often feels initially exciting to be led by people who seem to be militant and to have a plan; sooner or later, though, it feels disempowering. By then, however, people are often selected to move up in the hierarchy. But, hierarchy has its limits: many leave in frustration, exhaustion or powerlessness. When confronting an issue which at its height of perversity does not give people autonomous control over their own living spaces and community, we must oppose this oppression and create spaces where people will feel empowered to take back their neighborhoods, not hand it over to someone new.
It serves as a reminder of a campaign led by Just Cause in 2003 where the issue was fighting for affordable housing and organizing renters in West Oakland and Uptown to lead the fight. But it turns out that many of the poor renters participating in the struggle themselves probably wouldn’t be able to qualify for “affordable housing” and existed outside of the goals outlined by Just Cause. Many of these folks probably weren’t informed of this during all of the “open” house meetings regarding the direction of the campaign. If a campaign for poor people leaves its membership behind, something is clearly incongruent. Who defined the terms and set these watered down, reformist goals? The power in framing the campaign was held by two senior staff members, who were clearly not folks directly from the neighborhood being organized. When it came time to stage the big community meeting regarding the campaign, which all the house meetings had been leading up to, certain members were handpicked and invited by the Just Cause core to speak out. The appearance was based on bringing visibility to the members of the community who were empowered through working with Just Cause. They realized their power to transform from “objects” to “subjects” of their own circumstance and had found their own voice to speak out about the issue. But according to a former Just Cause organizer, the member from his turf who was selected as a community leader was given a piece written by Just Cause to literally read. Is this the fate of our own organizing? Are we recreating these same falsehoods by allowing disjointing labels like “organizer” vs. “activist” vs. “community leader” vs. “community” to fragment our coalition and disproportionately transfer and control power? We must all see ourselves as all of these things. The mistake in applying such titles is that they construct standards of acquiring political clout and therefore agency.
Many of us are activists in our everyday lives in ways that are not recognized as activism by the existing hierarchy. Given that the dissemination of information has followed this pattern of “acceptable organizing”, the people who were called upon from the community were, not surprisingly from other non-profits. Much the same way the assumption was made that the steering committee reflects the diversity of queers in Oakland, the assumption was made that this non-profit from the Eastlake is representative and in good standing with the residents that community. Most notably, there is an assumption about the politics of the residents of Eastlake that is an assumption based on immigration and the maintenance of the current power structure.
The assumptions about the Eastlake community, primarily based on its immigrant population, have been that these residents do not want to assert agency in their own destiny. Residents of this neighborhood have been told continually, ‘you are too radical for the community”. What comprises community self-determination if it isn’t the will of those who live there! Cohesive communities loves and trust each other. But unlike what many would love us to assume, gentrification battles are not fought at City Council meetings or in Court Houses, gentrification battles are fought with existing social ties and personal relationships. Some of us have seen our own families radicalized by this process, as they also wish to not lose their homes.
There is also an ahistorical assumption that immigrants aren’t radical or engaged in politics. Most notably, these residents have risen up in defense of the prejudiced cruising laws which held them under siege a decade ago. Many of these residents who live in the Eastlake come from much more radical backgrounds than anyone who has yet participated in these forums. Many of them are indeed in this country because of their radical politic. In addition, it is important not to underestimate the radicalizing force of eviction and displacement. Even assuming that the residents are not engaged in resistance today, we cannot assume that they will not be tomorrow.
The Gentrification of Activism
Gentrification as well as our activism against it must be thought through historically. Gentrification is not a simple an act, nor is it a specific construction project. Gentrification is a tool of capitalism that produces an excess in exchange value, a neighborhood that had a lower exchange value is transferred, through development, into one that has a higher “value”. However, historically speaking today’s gentrifiers may eventually become tomorrows gentrified. This is evident to some extent in the Castro in San Francisco. As lesbian and gay people moved in during the late 1960s and early 1970s taking over what had historically been a working class neighborhood the social landscape changed. Yet now, many of these same gay people that first moved into the Castro are being forced out to make way for more wealthy heterosexuals who think the “safety” of a gay neighborhood would provide the perfect place to raise a family.
Sadly, just about every effort to beautify, green, build community spaces in, or culturally and artistically enrich an area makes it more appealing from a market standpoint. Taking the money out of such a process requires a long-term engagement with land trusts, secured squats, publicly subsidized housing, etc. From an anti-state perspective, were talking a very serious and open commitment that will not dismantle it immediately. Essentially, we have to design solutions that avoid commodification, enforced segregation, and mass contempt between one part of society in another. Community centers, grandfather clauses and “responsible development”, may bring faster tangible evidence, but do little to create community resistance, agency or visibility. This fight is about how many people we can keep from being forcibly removed from their neighborhoods in the Eastlake, but it is as much about creating lasting changes in community organizing and models of resistance. It is imperative to equip people with the tools for lasting community change such that we can define our own struggle as our own agents for sustainable change.
As gentrification is an ongoing process our response must also be equally about stopping the specific “development” but it must also be about creating ways of living and organizing where we are not reproducing the concepts of gentrification. Just as we cannot even dent racism by wearing an “anti-racist” shirt printed in toxic ink on a sweatshop made shirt, we cannot say “no to gentrification” by displacing valuable ideas or silencing dissent in the very name of non-displacement.
Our tactics and methods for organizing resistance must not replicate the asymmetrical divisions of power as those we are fighting against. We cannot simply replace their “white straight male” leaders with our multi-cultural ones and have faith that racism, sexism and heterosexism will come crumbling down. We must destroy the very systems that created this inequality of power, which is, certainly working through authoritarianism.
Already, the language we have adopted to communicate the issue sets out to suggest that a unified body of radical queers has already been established. To let this assumption go unchecked would be counterproductive to the larger interests of truly realizing a radical queer left. As “radical queers,” how are our tactics or the way we develop internally “radical”? For many of my “radical” folks reading this, let’s be honest now and admit that there is definitely some closeted reformism sneaking a peep and eyeing the pie.
For that matter, how is our organizing specifically “queer”? If this group intends to present itself as “a queer left”, it should critique authoritarianism as a patriarchal structure which requires conversations around gender dynamics within this body. As patriarchal power is accessed and perpetuated by all genders, people’s lack of response to this patriarchy has been coded in liberal notions of reversing visibility and justice. If liberal ideology plays itself out everyone will get their fifteen minutes of patriarchy.
Contrary to encouraging exploration into our multiplicity and how to use our many talents advantageously, the complexity of our different politics, class backgrounds and notions of shared experience have largely gone unacknowledged and unaddressed during our meetings. In fact the lowest common denominator by which we operate as a homogenized body has amounted to a dysfunctional model of central, non-rotating leadership that promotes hierarchy and makes no concerted effort to engage and draw everyone fully in its decision making process, let alone discuss if we even want this type of structure. Sadly, this is a depoliticizing force of reductionism that puts the interest of building a strong moderate base before stretching the terms of the debate as far reaching as possible. It is a force that underestimates the lengths to which empowered people will go to fight against the business interests that seek to eliminate them. The unilateral choices imposed by those on the steering committee and legitimized by the larger group does very little to differentiate itself from Danny Wan and his band of token sellouts.
One major distress signal sounding out in the dynamics of our group is a disconnect between the group and the countless other unknown, unsought out queers in Oakland. Nor is an analysis around queer bicultural immigrant experiences being prioritized. This is inherently patronizing because so much of the decision-making is being made on behalf of those who are not even participating in the issue and whose “queer” experiences may not be reflected in the group, let alone in the ways we approach the organizing.
Another similar situation occurred in relation to SIAFU, this body was a composite of various ideological influences, class backgrounds, and strategies. And again, the basic elements that outlined the directives of the group were channeled along rigid hierarchies that promoted top down leadership. There were three layers or tiers as they were described within the structure. The first tier was the core decision-making body, the next tier were trustworthy organizers to execute the decisions, and the third tier were the majority of folks used to implement the decisions. People interested in participating had to pony up an obscene amount of money, something like $700 to be a part of SIAFU’s trip to the RNC. The cost was justified as covering airfare, housing, food and uniforms. Once you joined, you were farmed into your choice of a handful of pre-designed committees. The contentious part about the cost of membership to THE anti-imperial bay area POC delegation was that in actuality it pushed other POCs, who couldn’t or refused to pay up club dues, to the margins. For example, much of the free housing offered up by POC organizations in New York were snatched up by SIAFU, exhausting most of the limited resources specific to POC activists. How is it that you can justify such an exorbitant cost to cover housing, and then take up most all of the free housing available? Who made that decision? Did members of SIAFU realize that this was happening? And how many radical anti-imperial, anti-property, anti-authoritarian POCs were invisible at the RNC because of this?
Ending the Non-profit Industrial Complex
True to form, this pattern of alienating the folks who are supposedly leading the campaign is rearing its ugly head here in this body. Anti-authoritarians who are committed to radical means for radical ends have been isolated , stripped of political agency, and snubbed by the steering committee for being “too radical or the community”. Is it happenstance that the folks who were most obviously disturbed by the reformist concessions and lack of consensus building were also the ones who were attacked? From the original fallacious notion that “collective engagement” was based on a single e-mail to a steering (think about when you steer you bike, you tell it where to go) committee based on these same affiliations; this association has had a coded agenda based on their concepts of “queer”, “community”, “activism”, “gentrification” etc.
It would seem that when select reformers get ready to make career moves and concessions they need radicals and direct action out of the way- it could erode their relationship with the government officials on whom their power is based. This restriction of autonomy has been ostensibly based on not “scaring the community”. But, what has become very clear is that restriction from direct action in this fight is not about making our movement more palpable for the community, because indeed we have not even asked
“the community” to come to a meeting let alone assert some type of collective strategy. Rather this restriction is based upon making this movement more palpable to the City Council and government officials with whom this committee has had far more interaction on this issue.
We all have different relationships to the power structure in our coalition because in the decision making process of “our” group we are all situated differently. By this reasoning, power is realized by directing decisions towards particular goals. Because of this, everyone’s direct input into determining the goals, especially the language that describes and frames the goals must be ensured.. A smaller working group might be useful if it was overseen by the entire group as a tool in keeping account of the logistics needed to realize everyone’s desired objectives. But, as things stand now, a steering body that does not report to the larger whole compromises transparency and information sharing for the whole and limits the full participation of all queer folks who want to get involved
Referring back to SIAFU as a structural reference, the irony is that this organization exerted a lot of energy in carving out a specific identity. It chose the symbol of the West African ant whose colony is so well organized that it is able to take down an elephant. The ant, specifically the worker ant class, is a popular metaphor for the power of collectivism because it gets shit done. What is underrepresented in the use of the metaphor is that the strength of the colony is not its militancy as much as it is its ability to interact with its environment. Tasks are distributed in a way that there is no central organizer. Most noticeably, self-organized ant colonies are adaptive and able to move around quickly and efficiently because of collective intelligence. They communicate tactically through pheromones. Therefore collective communication leads to collective intelligence. If we are serious about importing this operating model, then we need to address the fact that we do not have a strong communications infrastructure to rely on for quick adaptations and decision-making. In fact, the proclivity demonstrated actually bends towards non-adaptive, predetermined “old school” modes of organizing that are predictable. More so, a very particular central organizing body is delegating the tasks within that structure. By ant standards, this is totally unsustainable.
Similarly, the decisions concerning the fate of the Eastlake district have not been made readily available to the mostly immigrant population living there. Our group has a steering committee that most people who first get involved are not aware of. The objective of various secrecies may diverge slightly, but in the end each winds up with the same effect of muting the urgency of the situation. Especially dangerous for those seeking to get involved with a purported fight against gentrification, is that members of the steering committee are looking for ways to reach concessions through opening dialogue into "responsible development," as it will wind up drawing the most volunteer resources and energy from participants seeking to halt all development.
A steering committee that was developed by a show of hands has now made many important decisions that set the tone for the entire campaign. Who empowered those folks with that much authority? To date there have been no conversations around structure involving more than a handful of people.
Activism and Ownership
On the other hand, there has been excessive usage of singular possessive pronouns like “my” meeting, “my” call out, etc. There is no ownership of this network of people, we are all here by our own convictions. In addition, there has been a proclivity towards qualifying each other’s authority a lot. This takes on the form of also fronting like an authority on all things organizing, which is ridiculous. This form of authoritarianism directly relates to creating dialogue about structure, because after all no one benefiting from hierarchy wants to call itself out as it assumes a radical position. When we give unspoken permission for activist rockstars to take the helm, it keeps someone less established in the “activist world” from adding their perspective because it might sound naïve or inexperienced. For a campaign that values personal experience we have got to honor everyone wherever they are at. We are all bringing in our own shit, so let’s work it out.
Until we flush out and make clear the inconsistencies of our organizing concepts, we will fail to identify many of the hidden assumptions that implicate larger attitudes about power, privilege, class, race, immigration, gender, sexuality, ability, age, environmentalism, capitalism and so forth that we bring to our work. Operating solely within a mode of identity politics carry with it these sorts of limitations. Rather than addressing the limiting factors which reduce our multiple identities and politics and draw us away from our diversity, we have remained uncritical of the tensions between us. Let’s get beyond poli-tricking.
In addition, we as a whole must take notice that throughout the “No To Gentrification” meetings, an ongoing self-evaluation has not been built directly into the process. Stepping back and critiquing the power structure as it emerges is necessary for the health of any organizing body, particularly coalitions that write themselves across many political identities, ideologies and strategies. The next steps we have indicated formally in outreach has been a call for people to join in a radical queer response to stop gentrification and gay business development, which is all the more reason that intentionality around how and why we are organizing must be explicit. It has already happened in past meetings, where people who may be new to organizing or unfamiliar with activist literacy sink into the background and be silenced. Incorporating an ongoing internal dialogue is helpful for equipping us with a means of orienting folks to the process of coalition building, one that maintains a strong decentralized mode for everyone to find their place. It provides space for holding controlling and authoritarian elements accountable because it creates the kind of transparency for people to make informed decisions.
Processing Power
In order to ensure an organization that hopefully represents it’s own diversity and that of the communities it purports to represent, clearly defined process in a group such as the one that formed in response to the announcement of the gay business improvement district. in Oakland, should be something that pre-empts the creation of “steering committees” and the appointment of “leaders”. There are at the very least five primary components essential for a representative organization: the dissemination of information, non-hierarchical organizing, open process, consensus and diversity of viewpoints.
Dissemination of Information
When we speak of the dissemination of information, it is meant that there is generated a consistent and meaningful attempt to spread as much word to as many people as possible about things like: upcoming meetings and significant decisions. There are many traditional mediums with which to aid the promulgation (i.e., print, internet, broadcast media, flyers, wheat-pasting and stenciling) that are readily accessible to most groups and individuals. When individuals within an organization withhold or treat information meant to affect the whole as secret, it then becomes a group not of the people, but rather of the interests of the individuals whom remain in power. Also, it is important to remember that all forms of communication are raced and classed. For example, organizing vis-à-vis the Internet already presupposes a specific “class” of people who have access to the internet and are able to read English, if that is the language used by those organizers. When disseminating information, that we are not the “origins” of such knowledge, and in this process of dissemination we have much to learn in that the process works both ways.(?)
Non-hierarchical Conduction of Affairs
At the beginning of each meeting, the people present decide upon an individual to facilitate the agenda, orchestrate its logical order and to ensure that everyone has space to listen and to hear. The aim of establishing the facilitator role is not to enthrone a dictatorial leader, yet rather to allow different individuals the opportunity to facilitate for the duration of the meeting, ensuring things such as the stack order, helping to establish dates/times for upcoming meetings, announcing agenda items and eliciting responses from participants. Switching facilitators not only allows the greatest number of people the gain the experience of facilitation, but it also helps for power to be constantly challenged. Regardless of who is facilitating everyone’s opinion are equally valid and will have the same amount of attention .
Open Process
In order to maintain consistent levels of anti-authoritarianism and diversity there must be total transparency in the processes the group adapts. This ensures the full, accurate, and timely disclosure of information, which accordingly ensures that actions represent as many of the differing viewpoints within a group as possible and that no one person or subgroup holds majority control over the decisions made.
Consensus
In order to avoid an organization that operates on liberal models of “democracy” the process of deciding upon official actions must be a uniformly non-hierarchical and based on consensus of those present at the general meetings. For consensus process the first step is that one person or group of people offer a proposal for action, or an idea. Then the proposal is discussed and talked about until everyone seems to be more or less on the “same page”. Once this seems to be reached, the facilitator asks if there is consensus, in which time anyone can block. This process enables dissent to have a real and meaningful voice, in opposition to “majority rule” this model pushes the group to come to mutual understandings. Yet another dimension of the spokes process worth exploring is a compromise formation that includes autonomy, where everyone may not necessarily participate in the proposed course of action, but there is support for those folks willing to put energy into a plan of action, Once something has been consented upon, the only way to change the decision is to propose a second time to change the original proposal, wherein a new consensus must be reached before any changes will be made to the original understanding.
The point is to ensure that power is distributed broadly and collectively, for which a solid decision-making process, which is how and where power is negotiated, must be agreed upon. This process must make space for everyone to contribute ideas and strategies, include space for collective discussion and debate, and provide a clear means of reaching an agreement in which everyone can consent.
Diversity of Viewpoints
It is crucial that differences in opinion within a group be fostered and encouraged so that different approaches can be made clear to those who take different stances on subjects. This on one hand prevents any one individual from impressing their approaches/tactics upon the group in a tyrannical manner that may hinder others from expressing difference in approach and on the other hand sometimes leaves a large margin for conflict within the group, especially where the consensual decision making process is concerned. This is a rare occurrence, however it should also be approached as an opportunity to challenge each other’s ways of thinking and giving time to talk out methodologies until a satisfactory compromise can be settled upon by everyone concerned. Obviously, this mechanism for implementation has the potential to be troublesome, but is far better than having either an appointed or self-appointed “leader” dictate action, as this is far more representative of the true aspirations of the people.
Coalition building does not mean restricting individuals and collectives from asserting their own self-determination. Coalition building admits a level of diversity. It acknowledges our differences and appreciates them. It allows the diversity of tactics that creates an environment where the spontaneity which once existed amongst organizers can be returned. Instead of outmoded ideas and old school tactics we have the amazing privilege to develop something new and unexpected. Especially, once we have recognized the resident’s roles in the strategy building, we have the amazing opportunity to implement ideas that have never been heard before and we have the opportunity to use tactics from all over the world.
The critique we have laid out is, in fact, an attempt to make our organizing and the activist work we do, in some ways, like the kinds of worlds we hope to create and inhabit. Deconstruction is an important analytic and political tool we feel that is often dismissed as simply divisive. The good thing about critique is that it helps expose our very real differences. And in this exposition, it is our hope to use these differences to strengthen our resistance. However, it is also imperative that the methodology of our resistance is modeled after a non-hierarchical structure that displaces power from the top-down scheme that we are all too accustomed to. Our reasons for this intervention are not that we simply want to destroy the work that some of the aforementioned groups are involved in, as it is important work. Nor are we interested in simply critiquing players in this authoritarian organizing. This authoritarian structure has displaced too many of us for too long, and it is our drive for making the world a more livable place for us all that makes this discourse not only important, but necessarily urgent.
For more hate mail and love letters, contact those contributors involved in performing the final edits on this piece 1/21/05:
Inez, Ralowe, Eric, Xan, Kentaro at theregoestheneighborhood [at] gay.com
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
".....From Buddhism to Bush, patriarchy to the Panthers, imperialism to the International Socialist Organization (ISO), authoritarianism is the methodology of oppression. Authoritarianism is, after all, a structure that allocates power through a top down model thus creating those with power (gods, presidents, fathers and steering committees) and those without power, all the rest of us..... "
.........
In looking for authoritarianism in religions, why pick Buddhism?
Does Buddhism have a history of being ruled by one man ( a Pope or a Caliph?)? Does Buddhism have a history of burning heretics?
No doubt authoritarianism does exist in Buddhism,
as in most human organizations ---
but far less strongly than in Christianity or Islam.
..........
.........
In looking for authoritarianism in religions, why pick Buddhism?
Does Buddhism have a history of being ruled by one man ( a Pope or a Caliph?)? Does Buddhism have a history of burning heretics?
No doubt authoritarianism does exist in Buddhism,
as in most human organizations ---
but far less strongly than in Christianity or Islam.
..........
because christianity and islam dont alliterate with Bush.
I'm happy to see some honest critique of top down organizing models in the the activist community, but i'm confused about why so much of this talked about Siafu. Is this about airing dirty laundry about another group, or is Siafu involved in this current issue too?
Interesting text although I had to look up Siafu to try to understand what it was and could only find http://www.indybay.org/news/2004/09/1694919.php
In theory I agree with some of the problems mentioned with security culture and authoritarian organizing but in practice I often find anti-authoritarians more authoritarian in their organizing style than supposedly authoritarian Communist groups. Individuals dont get much input into an ANSWER protest and NION has its behind the scene RCP stuff going on but both groups act towards outsiders and other activist groups in a respectful fashion that one often doesn ot see in the infoshop and other anarchist critiques of such sectarian groups. To take another example, a nonprofit institution like MECA does effective work and can control their message to appeal to everyone respectfully wheras many gress roots Palestinian activist groups have email lists that often get ugly with cray people accusing everyone else of being closet Zionists. Perhaps the clearest case of authoritarian style acting to silence reasonable discussion is in online discussion forums like this site. One can think of moderation as authoritarian but when nothing is hidden a few loud agressive trolls take over and shout down everyone else with paternalistic talk, constant references to violence etc.. (Im thinking of Nessie as well as the right-wingers)
I think activists should strive towards nonauthoritarian organizing that allows everyone a voice, but from what Ive seen antiAuthoritaian groups tend towards more rather than less abusive behavior, the formation of cliques that treat open meetings as front group, and a sort of anti-sectarian sectarianism that can be much more destructive than even Marxist quiblling over actions of people who have been dead for decades. In a way it feels better to be locked out of decission making, kept out of the loop, or have everything one says ignored at meetings because of secuirty culture or authoritarian hierarchy than the Anarchist equivalent which is almost a grade school like "your not cool enough to play with us" message where the in crowd makes all the decissions and discussion mainly exists to convince the rest of the group to consense on what was already decided ( I have been around quite a few anarchist/anti-authoritarian collectives and most either have one informal leader or a clique that pretty much runs the collectives via this process).
In theory I agree with some of the problems mentioned with security culture and authoritarian organizing but in practice I often find anti-authoritarians more authoritarian in their organizing style than supposedly authoritarian Communist groups. Individuals dont get much input into an ANSWER protest and NION has its behind the scene RCP stuff going on but both groups act towards outsiders and other activist groups in a respectful fashion that one often doesn ot see in the infoshop and other anarchist critiques of such sectarian groups. To take another example, a nonprofit institution like MECA does effective work and can control their message to appeal to everyone respectfully wheras many gress roots Palestinian activist groups have email lists that often get ugly with cray people accusing everyone else of being closet Zionists. Perhaps the clearest case of authoritarian style acting to silence reasonable discussion is in online discussion forums like this site. One can think of moderation as authoritarian but when nothing is hidden a few loud agressive trolls take over and shout down everyone else with paternalistic talk, constant references to violence etc.. (Im thinking of Nessie as well as the right-wingers)
I think activists should strive towards nonauthoritarian organizing that allows everyone a voice, but from what Ive seen antiAuthoritaian groups tend towards more rather than less abusive behavior, the formation of cliques that treat open meetings as front group, and a sort of anti-sectarian sectarianism that can be much more destructive than even Marxist quiblling over actions of people who have been dead for decades. In a way it feels better to be locked out of decission making, kept out of the loop, or have everything one says ignored at meetings because of secuirty culture or authoritarian hierarchy than the Anarchist equivalent which is almost a grade school like "your not cool enough to play with us" message where the in crowd makes all the decissions and discussion mainly exists to convince the rest of the group to consense on what was already decided ( I have been around quite a few anarchist/anti-authoritarian collectives and most either have one informal leader or a clique that pretty much runs the collectives via this process).
I tend to agree with your critique...
My own experience has been that this clique-ishness is part and parcel of radical communities (and counter-culture generally) and the real question isn't 'this is bad how do we get rid of it?' but 'How easy/transparent is it how to join?' because I have found that @ cliques, for all their problems, are also pretty damn easy for motivated people to get involved in.
I guess it's just about people...
A!
My own experience has been that this clique-ishness is part and parcel of radical communities (and counter-culture generally) and the real question isn't 'this is bad how do we get rid of it?' but 'How easy/transparent is it how to join?' because I have found that @ cliques, for all their problems, are also pretty damn easy for motivated people to get involved in.
I guess it's just about people...
A!
I totally agree that anarchists today are authoritarian. But that is a matter of practice over theory and also a deeply entrenched ideology which cant pull itself out of a punk hippy subculture vein. In some ways you can blame the anarcho punk bands for this. I think anarchism when put into actual practice is this best method for organizing.
"Organisation, far from creating authority, is the only cure for it and the only means whereby each of us will get used to taking an active and conscious part in collective work, and cease being passive instruments in the hands of leaders." Errico Malatesta
"Organisation, far from creating authority, is the only cure for it and the only means whereby each of us will get used to taking an active and conscious part in collective work, and cease being passive instruments in the hands of leaders." Errico Malatesta
"cant pull itself out of a punk hippy subculture vein"
I think subcultures are their own problem but I think the issue with clique control of anarchist groups goes deeper. A lot of it has to do with how real disagreement is dealt with and modern anarchist ideas of consensus process. In a group with majority voting cliques are in the open and you get voting blocks battling it out over disgareements but when you require everyone to agree up to the point of saying they wont block you seem pretty nasty power structures emerge. Security culture and guilt tripping based off race, gender, economic background (or other such things) can make this dynamic veen worse since the decission making process encourages psychological tricks to maintain an almost cult-like group agreement. This of course also exists in more openly authoritarian groups, but there is something about having the authoritarianism be in the open that makes it less troubling (and more open to outsiders). I can go to an RCP event and know that when I argue with people I have to hold back from expressing my disgareement with their view on Stalin or Mao (unless I want to argue in circles for hours or risk being denounced as a counter-revolutionary) but in anarchist cliques there are more rules and they are less openly defined so its easier to get locked out because one doesnt fit in (which tends to happen to anyone who thinks for themselves).
I think there are ways process can be fixed to prevent this type of stuff but in most cases where people claim its working the antiauthoritarian groups take on the form of a small group of friends (and disagreements, splits and sectarianism starts to look just like highschool clique dynamics disguised in political garb). The problem with this is that when anarchist ideals like mutual aid and antiauthoritarianism are reduced to a social scene (even if its not tied to any counterculture) its not obvious that one has anything new. Right-wing cults practice mutual aid within their groups too and I've had corporate jobs before where groups of Republican coworkers lived together, shared resources etc.. Social and economic class are in many ways the same sort of clique dynamic within Capitalist society (businessmen giving promotions based off personal connections or becauses someone went to the same university or belonged to the same fraternity seems psychologically similar to solidarity within a political sect)
I think what radicals of all stripes need to fight for is societal change and the internal group dynamics required to accomplish this have to be inclusive and welcoming to those with different views. But, I dont think there is a huge amount people can do to get rid of bad dynamics that almost seem a part of human nature. Often those going around denouncing all other groups as being authoritarian, too reformist, too middle-class etc.. are in effect just engaging in a form of authoritarian power struggle themselves where the issue isnt making the group better as much as it is seeking power and control over the group. I can think of a few individuals nationally and locally who make it their point in life to go around denouncing everything as not anarchist enough and its always struck me that those individuals seem very concerned with promoting themselves as leaders in a way that almost in direct contradiction to their stated aims (its always funny to me that the most violent haters of the RCP seem to want anyone associated with the Maoist groups to engage in an almost Cultural Revolution form of self-denunciation wheras Ive rarely seen an organized attempt by the RCP or other hardline Communist groups to ever engage in the same form of authoritarian like personal attacks). Obviously its ok for people to be critical of other activist movements, but bobody is going to want a movement whose primary aim is to attack other left-wing movements. I mean its ok to ocassionally hear critiques of the direction things are going but who wants to hang around people who are sure to eventually turn on you and write denunciations all over the place....
I think subcultures are their own problem but I think the issue with clique control of anarchist groups goes deeper. A lot of it has to do with how real disagreement is dealt with and modern anarchist ideas of consensus process. In a group with majority voting cliques are in the open and you get voting blocks battling it out over disgareements but when you require everyone to agree up to the point of saying they wont block you seem pretty nasty power structures emerge. Security culture and guilt tripping based off race, gender, economic background (or other such things) can make this dynamic veen worse since the decission making process encourages psychological tricks to maintain an almost cult-like group agreement. This of course also exists in more openly authoritarian groups, but there is something about having the authoritarianism be in the open that makes it less troubling (and more open to outsiders). I can go to an RCP event and know that when I argue with people I have to hold back from expressing my disgareement with their view on Stalin or Mao (unless I want to argue in circles for hours or risk being denounced as a counter-revolutionary) but in anarchist cliques there are more rules and they are less openly defined so its easier to get locked out because one doesnt fit in (which tends to happen to anyone who thinks for themselves).
I think there are ways process can be fixed to prevent this type of stuff but in most cases where people claim its working the antiauthoritarian groups take on the form of a small group of friends (and disagreements, splits and sectarianism starts to look just like highschool clique dynamics disguised in political garb). The problem with this is that when anarchist ideals like mutual aid and antiauthoritarianism are reduced to a social scene (even if its not tied to any counterculture) its not obvious that one has anything new. Right-wing cults practice mutual aid within their groups too and I've had corporate jobs before where groups of Republican coworkers lived together, shared resources etc.. Social and economic class are in many ways the same sort of clique dynamic within Capitalist society (businessmen giving promotions based off personal connections or becauses someone went to the same university or belonged to the same fraternity seems psychologically similar to solidarity within a political sect)
I think what radicals of all stripes need to fight for is societal change and the internal group dynamics required to accomplish this have to be inclusive and welcoming to those with different views. But, I dont think there is a huge amount people can do to get rid of bad dynamics that almost seem a part of human nature. Often those going around denouncing all other groups as being authoritarian, too reformist, too middle-class etc.. are in effect just engaging in a form of authoritarian power struggle themselves where the issue isnt making the group better as much as it is seeking power and control over the group. I can think of a few individuals nationally and locally who make it their point in life to go around denouncing everything as not anarchist enough and its always struck me that those individuals seem very concerned with promoting themselves as leaders in a way that almost in direct contradiction to their stated aims (its always funny to me that the most violent haters of the RCP seem to want anyone associated with the Maoist groups to engage in an almost Cultural Revolution form of self-denunciation wheras Ive rarely seen an organized attempt by the RCP or other hardline Communist groups to ever engage in the same form of authoritarian like personal attacks). Obviously its ok for people to be critical of other activist movements, but bobody is going to want a movement whose primary aim is to attack other left-wing movements. I mean its ok to ocassionally hear critiques of the direction things are going but who wants to hang around people who are sure to eventually turn on you and write denunciations all over the place....
Way too wordy, You wrote about an intersting situation, but put too much of your own power trip into it. Is their somewhere I can read a concise article about the gentrification plans in Oakland?
so what do these activists think of Thompson's article?
Take Two Buses and Call Me in the Morning
In pursuit of an unrealistic and improbable retail fantasy, activists are opposing plans for tangible improvement in West Oakland.
BY CHRIS THOMPSON
chris.thompson [at] eastbayexpress.com
Craig La Rotonda
Stop! Chain pharmacists bad!
Printer friendly version of this story
Email Chris Thompson
More stories by Chris Thompson
Send a letter to the editor
From the Week of Wednesday, January 5, 2005
Feature
The O Word
Kristie and Rick Knoll were early pioneers of organic farming. So why are they now rebelling against organic?
Cityside
The Designer Foot
The latest trend in cosmetic surgery is elective procedures to beautify women's feet.
Letters
Letters for the week of January 5-11, 2005
Response to the Perata package, more letters about UC Berkeley's African American Studies Department, and reflections on college sports.
Gentrification. People often throw that word around without really understanding what it means. Usually, it means the long process by which young middle-class professionals buy up homes in working-class neighborhoods and gradually drive up property values and rents so that indigenous residents are forced to move elsewhere. But to activists in West Oakland, gentrification is a drugstore.
Some people are laboring under the delusion that not having to spend two hours on the bus to shop at the nearest drugstore would be a good thing for West Oakland. These poor, deluded souls include officials with the Oakland Housing Authority and Bridge Housing, a nonprofit developer hired to build and lease a new housing and retail project at the corner of Mandela Parkway and 7th Street. The project is part of the grandiose Mandela Gateway "transit village," a constellation of condos and storefronts designed to transform several blighted blocks around 7th Street into a thriving promenade. The transit village, they believe, is the best chance to begin replacing West Oakland's liquor stores and decrepit factories with shops that provide area residents with cheap consumer staples and maybe even jobs.
After holding a series of public meetings about what the neighborhood needs, officials concluded that a chain pharmacy such as Walgreens could serve as their perfect anchor tenant. That's when self-styled community activists began denouncing the proposal as gentrification. Ever since they learned that Bridge was trying to attract a drugstore, activists have jammed into public meetings and denounced the proposal. A few even argued that Bridge and the housing authority should offer the site to a theoretical African-American pharmaceutical collective. After all, they argued, Walgreens represented a sinister plot to undermine the health and dignity of West Oakland's residents.
They needn't have bothered. Walgreens had indeed agreed to look into opening a store at the site, and Bridge president Carol Galante figured the company would take one look at the numbers and get on board. Instead, it walked away from the proposal -- and so did every other drugstore chain she contacted. They looked at the neighborhood's income level and decided that it was still too low for them to make any money. "They haven't been able to take what for them is a leap and a risk," she says. "The numbers don't work. They expressed concerns about what they called shrinkage, volume going out the back door. You can call it redlining, but that's the business decision they made."
When a company as supportive of urban development as Walgreens is unwilling to take a chance on a particular neighborhood, that suggests how far that neighborhood still has to go. Despite the dwindling crime rate and slow upward creep of property values, big retailers still see West Oakland as an impoverished ghetto. For all the noise about gentrification, West Oakland can't even get itself a drugstore.
And make no mistake -- there's been a lot of noise. One of the most prominent critics is Dana Harvey, who decried the plan as an effort to "turn Oakland into South Emeryville." According to Harvey, chain drugstores take profits out of a neighborhood, offer minimum-wage jobs that cost communities more than they're worth, and cripple the self-esteem of low-income shoppers by monitoring them with security cameras. In fact, she says, Bridge and the Oakland Housing Authority are secretly planning to gentrify the neighborhood and make a killing in the process. "OHA and Bridge were determined to create a Pseudo-Emeryville at the foot of a community visioned Mandela Transit Village project," Harvey wrote in a manifesto in November. "We believe that they in fact know that they will make a considerable profit on this space by enticing outside businesses, that cause social and economic degradation in the community."
But as it happens, she has her own plans for the space. Harvey, who is codirector of the West Oakland Food Project Collaborative, has put together a plan to locate a consortium of small businesses and jewelry kiosks at the site, anchored by a grocery and pharmaceutical cooperative modeled on San Francisco's Rainbow Grocery and the old Berkeley Co-op. Although poor people are far more likely to eat fast food than slow food, Harvey thinks she can introduce a new generation of West Oaklanders to healthy produce and recirculate the profits back into the community through a partnership with local credit unions. She has secured the help of Rainbow Grocery, which has offered to train co-op members in food retail, and the People's Grocery, a local nonprofit that grows fresh produce and sells it out of a van that cruises the streets of West Oakland.
Yet there's at least one thing that Harvey doesn't seem to have. She refuses to disclose how much investment capital she has on hand, but judging from all the subsidies she has demanded, it can't be very much. When she wasn't badmouthing the drugstore proposal, she was asking the Oakland Housing Authority to take control of the retail property away from Bridge and give it to her in perpetuity. In return, she promised to assume roughly $600,000 in construction debt. After housing authority officials shot down that plan, she submitted an offer in November to lease the space at a rate of thirty cents a square foot, considerably less than the two-dollars-a-square-foot asking price.
Harvey's goal is certainly noble enough, and third-party observers claim that officials with Bridge and the housing authority strung her along for months rather than deal straight with her. So she is understandably frustrated. But campaigning to keep a desperately needed drugstore out of West Oakland just because it's a chain speaks volumes about how well she knows the needs of her would-be customers. And since poor, inner-city residents aren't exactly known for their devotion to healthy food, there are plenty of other reasons to be wary of her business plan. Finally, according to Galante, Harvey's written proposal was unprofessional and incomplete. "We have to see a business operation that works -- we have to see you can pay your operating expenses," she says. "We just don't have an analysis from Dana's group, we don't have something that even comes close. ... We've asked for financial statements of the entity that's going to operate and sign the lease. We've asked who is the entity that's going to sign the lease, but I don't know who that is."
Harvey insists her proposal was perfectly fine, and that even if this operation seems risky, Bridge should subsidize it anyway. "Here is a golden opportunity to say we really want to invest in this community, we want to see true economic growth for the residents of West Oakland," she says. "Why don't we step outside the old model that says I want to see twenty years of business experience, I want to see proof that you can afford two dollars a square foot rent?"
Bridge officials are awaiting an updated application from Harvey, after which they say they will consider her proposal. But her demands seem clear enough: Instead of a drugstore, Bridge and the housing authority should give virtually free rent to a business whose failure would send yet another message that West Oakland can't support retail, and thus guarantee that no anchor store would ever move into that site. It may be naive, unprofessional, and irresponsibly risky. But at least it's not gentrification.
eastbayexpress.com | originally published: January 5, 2005
Take Two Buses and Call Me in the Morning
In pursuit of an unrealistic and improbable retail fantasy, activists are opposing plans for tangible improvement in West Oakland.
BY CHRIS THOMPSON
chris.thompson [at] eastbayexpress.com
Craig La Rotonda
Stop! Chain pharmacists bad!
Printer friendly version of this story
Email Chris Thompson
More stories by Chris Thompson
Send a letter to the editor
From the Week of Wednesday, January 5, 2005
Feature
The O Word
Kristie and Rick Knoll were early pioneers of organic farming. So why are they now rebelling against organic?
Cityside
The Designer Foot
The latest trend in cosmetic surgery is elective procedures to beautify women's feet.
Letters
Letters for the week of January 5-11, 2005
Response to the Perata package, more letters about UC Berkeley's African American Studies Department, and reflections on college sports.
Gentrification. People often throw that word around without really understanding what it means. Usually, it means the long process by which young middle-class professionals buy up homes in working-class neighborhoods and gradually drive up property values and rents so that indigenous residents are forced to move elsewhere. But to activists in West Oakland, gentrification is a drugstore.
Some people are laboring under the delusion that not having to spend two hours on the bus to shop at the nearest drugstore would be a good thing for West Oakland. These poor, deluded souls include officials with the Oakland Housing Authority and Bridge Housing, a nonprofit developer hired to build and lease a new housing and retail project at the corner of Mandela Parkway and 7th Street. The project is part of the grandiose Mandela Gateway "transit village," a constellation of condos and storefronts designed to transform several blighted blocks around 7th Street into a thriving promenade. The transit village, they believe, is the best chance to begin replacing West Oakland's liquor stores and decrepit factories with shops that provide area residents with cheap consumer staples and maybe even jobs.
After holding a series of public meetings about what the neighborhood needs, officials concluded that a chain pharmacy such as Walgreens could serve as their perfect anchor tenant. That's when self-styled community activists began denouncing the proposal as gentrification. Ever since they learned that Bridge was trying to attract a drugstore, activists have jammed into public meetings and denounced the proposal. A few even argued that Bridge and the housing authority should offer the site to a theoretical African-American pharmaceutical collective. After all, they argued, Walgreens represented a sinister plot to undermine the health and dignity of West Oakland's residents.
They needn't have bothered. Walgreens had indeed agreed to look into opening a store at the site, and Bridge president Carol Galante figured the company would take one look at the numbers and get on board. Instead, it walked away from the proposal -- and so did every other drugstore chain she contacted. They looked at the neighborhood's income level and decided that it was still too low for them to make any money. "They haven't been able to take what for them is a leap and a risk," she says. "The numbers don't work. They expressed concerns about what they called shrinkage, volume going out the back door. You can call it redlining, but that's the business decision they made."
When a company as supportive of urban development as Walgreens is unwilling to take a chance on a particular neighborhood, that suggests how far that neighborhood still has to go. Despite the dwindling crime rate and slow upward creep of property values, big retailers still see West Oakland as an impoverished ghetto. For all the noise about gentrification, West Oakland can't even get itself a drugstore.
And make no mistake -- there's been a lot of noise. One of the most prominent critics is Dana Harvey, who decried the plan as an effort to "turn Oakland into South Emeryville." According to Harvey, chain drugstores take profits out of a neighborhood, offer minimum-wage jobs that cost communities more than they're worth, and cripple the self-esteem of low-income shoppers by monitoring them with security cameras. In fact, she says, Bridge and the Oakland Housing Authority are secretly planning to gentrify the neighborhood and make a killing in the process. "OHA and Bridge were determined to create a Pseudo-Emeryville at the foot of a community visioned Mandela Transit Village project," Harvey wrote in a manifesto in November. "We believe that they in fact know that they will make a considerable profit on this space by enticing outside businesses, that cause social and economic degradation in the community."
But as it happens, she has her own plans for the space. Harvey, who is codirector of the West Oakland Food Project Collaborative, has put together a plan to locate a consortium of small businesses and jewelry kiosks at the site, anchored by a grocery and pharmaceutical cooperative modeled on San Francisco's Rainbow Grocery and the old Berkeley Co-op. Although poor people are far more likely to eat fast food than slow food, Harvey thinks she can introduce a new generation of West Oaklanders to healthy produce and recirculate the profits back into the community through a partnership with local credit unions. She has secured the help of Rainbow Grocery, which has offered to train co-op members in food retail, and the People's Grocery, a local nonprofit that grows fresh produce and sells it out of a van that cruises the streets of West Oakland.
Yet there's at least one thing that Harvey doesn't seem to have. She refuses to disclose how much investment capital she has on hand, but judging from all the subsidies she has demanded, it can't be very much. When she wasn't badmouthing the drugstore proposal, she was asking the Oakland Housing Authority to take control of the retail property away from Bridge and give it to her in perpetuity. In return, she promised to assume roughly $600,000 in construction debt. After housing authority officials shot down that plan, she submitted an offer in November to lease the space at a rate of thirty cents a square foot, considerably less than the two-dollars-a-square-foot asking price.
Harvey's goal is certainly noble enough, and third-party observers claim that officials with Bridge and the housing authority strung her along for months rather than deal straight with her. So she is understandably frustrated. But campaigning to keep a desperately needed drugstore out of West Oakland just because it's a chain speaks volumes about how well she knows the needs of her would-be customers. And since poor, inner-city residents aren't exactly known for their devotion to healthy food, there are plenty of other reasons to be wary of her business plan. Finally, according to Galante, Harvey's written proposal was unprofessional and incomplete. "We have to see a business operation that works -- we have to see you can pay your operating expenses," she says. "We just don't have an analysis from Dana's group, we don't have something that even comes close. ... We've asked for financial statements of the entity that's going to operate and sign the lease. We've asked who is the entity that's going to sign the lease, but I don't know who that is."
Harvey insists her proposal was perfectly fine, and that even if this operation seems risky, Bridge should subsidize it anyway. "Here is a golden opportunity to say we really want to invest in this community, we want to see true economic growth for the residents of West Oakland," she says. "Why don't we step outside the old model that says I want to see twenty years of business experience, I want to see proof that you can afford two dollars a square foot rent?"
Bridge officials are awaiting an updated application from Harvey, after which they say they will consider her proposal. But her demands seem clear enough: Instead of a drugstore, Bridge and the housing authority should give virtually free rent to a business whose failure would send yet another message that West Oakland can't support retail, and thus guarantee that no anchor store would ever move into that site. It may be naive, unprofessional, and irresponsibly risky. But at least it's not gentrification.
eastbayexpress.com | originally published: January 5, 2005
Ok, my above comments probably sound confused but I think that kinda sums up what Im trying to say. I may actually agree with what the article says about gentrification but the way it goes about its denunciation of an almost unknown activist group just strikes me as another example of a unfortunately common Anarchist form of authoritarianism that uses public denuncations as a form of bullying to force views others (ie a tendecny to refrain from public dialogue over disagreement and go straight to an attack on other activists when differences emerge). Since most of the article seems aimed at an in-corwd that already knows about the groups involved its weird that this is on the front page of a website that claims to be aimed at a broader activist community; it almost has the feel of "don't cross us or we will write something bad about you and post it all over the place"
To the person posting as "thoughts",
Thanks for offering that. It would help to be less wordy, but what you are putting out is the kind of contructive criticism/dialogue gives me a little hope that "comments" aren't just a place to talk shit.
Thanks for offering that. It would help to be less wordy, but what you are putting out is the kind of contructive criticism/dialogue gives me a little hope that "comments" aren't just a place to talk shit.
Gentrification seems to occur in many different forms.
One is the Emeryville model were big box stores move in to a poor community and people are displaced to make way for the store but the area becomes mainly lower middle-class as rich people find buig box stores gauche and dont want to live in an area with that much traffic.
The other is the Valencia St /Haight St model where punks, actvists and artists living bellow their original social-economic value move into a community because its cheep due to violence, deteriorating infrastructure etc... Small botique busineses pop up to support the alternative communities ( from coffee houses for the activists to record stores for the punks). Next a few up scale artsy sortof restaurants open up since the area is edgy and cheap. The usual next wave are more mainstream clubs and then more restaurants followed by expensive hipster clothing stores. As prices rise it and becomes a gourmet ghetto more mainstream commerical businesses move in and this is usually the stage that complaints are made that gentrification has occured (but the complaints often come because mainstream businesses are not as classy as the smaller artsy businesses that took hold during the early stages of "gentrification")
Stopping big box stores is something thats not that difficult to do if you can organize the community, but attempts stop the second form of gentrification tends to backfire. If housing prices ina community are low because the community is considreed too dangerous for the middle-class to live in any form of organization is likely to decrease the danger and thus result in higher prices. You can try to counteract this by encouraging crime against the "yuppies" but that hardly helps since the crime that keeps prices low tends to hit poor people hardest (if there are a lot of shootings or a community is unclean and looks unsanitary prices are going to be low...) If communities could control prices more directly (through things like rent control) that probably would help things but most activist activity around controlling prices tends to come from the very community that starts the gentrification process.... (when the book stores and coffee shops moved onto Valencia St prices were guaranteed to rise and the yuppie businesses people hate so much are in some ways just an outgrowth of a countercultural community that outgrew pretending to be from poor backgrounds).
One is the Emeryville model were big box stores move in to a poor community and people are displaced to make way for the store but the area becomes mainly lower middle-class as rich people find buig box stores gauche and dont want to live in an area with that much traffic.
The other is the Valencia St /Haight St model where punks, actvists and artists living bellow their original social-economic value move into a community because its cheep due to violence, deteriorating infrastructure etc... Small botique busineses pop up to support the alternative communities ( from coffee houses for the activists to record stores for the punks). Next a few up scale artsy sortof restaurants open up since the area is edgy and cheap. The usual next wave are more mainstream clubs and then more restaurants followed by expensive hipster clothing stores. As prices rise it and becomes a gourmet ghetto more mainstream commerical businesses move in and this is usually the stage that complaints are made that gentrification has occured (but the complaints often come because mainstream businesses are not as classy as the smaller artsy businesses that took hold during the early stages of "gentrification")
Stopping big box stores is something thats not that difficult to do if you can organize the community, but attempts stop the second form of gentrification tends to backfire. If housing prices ina community are low because the community is considreed too dangerous for the middle-class to live in any form of organization is likely to decrease the danger and thus result in higher prices. You can try to counteract this by encouraging crime against the "yuppies" but that hardly helps since the crime that keeps prices low tends to hit poor people hardest (if there are a lot of shootings or a community is unclean and looks unsanitary prices are going to be low...) If communities could control prices more directly (through things like rent control) that probably would help things but most activist activity around controlling prices tends to come from the very community that starts the gentrification process.... (when the book stores and coffee shops moved onto Valencia St prices were guaranteed to rise and the yuppie businesses people hate so much are in some ways just an outgrowth of a countercultural community that outgrew pretending to be from poor backgrounds).
>You can try to counteract this by encouraging crime against the "yuppies" but that hardly helps since the crime that keeps prices low tends to hit poor people hardest (if there are a lot of shootings or a community is unclean and looks unsanitary prices are going to be low...) If communities could control prices more directly (through things like rent control) that probably would help things but most activist activity around controlling prices tends to come from the very community that starts the gentrification process.... (when the book stores and coffee shops moved onto Valencia St prices were guaranteed to rise and the yuppie businesses people hate so much are in some ways just an outgrowth of a countercultural community that outgrew pretending to be from poor backgrounds).<
See, this is where the article that was posted hits home the most -- it's addressing the problems in organizing around the whole non-profit activist/NGO model. Further, the organizing that happens inevitably ends up being watered down, either by decisions that the group makes voluntarily, or by pressure from where the funding comes from (city government, foundations, etc.) I think this is where *both* authoritarian and radical anti-authoritarian groups tend to fail -- the former because of the above, the latter because organization tends not to happen at all. (Keep in mind I'm saying this as an anarchist.)
See, this is where the article that was posted hits home the most -- it's addressing the problems in organizing around the whole non-profit activist/NGO model. Further, the organizing that happens inevitably ends up being watered down, either by decisions that the group makes voluntarily, or by pressure from where the funding comes from (city government, foundations, etc.) I think this is where *both* authoritarian and radical anti-authoritarian groups tend to fail -- the former because of the above, the latter because organization tends not to happen at all. (Keep in mind I'm saying this as an anarchist.)
>anarchists, power cliques, etc
I agree that it happens, and for most of the reasons being stated. I would like to point out that this also goes on in radical authoritarian groups -- it just typically takes getting past the recruitment phase for it to happen. For examples, ask just about any former vanguard cadre member or newspaper peddler. It's also, as noted earlier, something that tends to happen in counter-cultural groups in general, although in my experience it can be even worse than normal in anarchist groups in the US at this point.
I like what was more or less said earlier by a comrade about anarchism suffering from this *as it is presently manifest* -- in my opinion, a lot of what gets called "anarchism" is mostly some form of subcultural identification and/or hedonism. Not that there's anything inherently wrong with either of those things, but in and of themselves, they're pretty much bound to promise much and accomplish little. We need to learn to critique ourselves and to receive criticism from others if we are to grow as a "movement" (or whatever).
I agree that it happens, and for most of the reasons being stated. I would like to point out that this also goes on in radical authoritarian groups -- it just typically takes getting past the recruitment phase for it to happen. For examples, ask just about any former vanguard cadre member or newspaper peddler. It's also, as noted earlier, something that tends to happen in counter-cultural groups in general, although in my experience it can be even worse than normal in anarchist groups in the US at this point.
I like what was more or less said earlier by a comrade about anarchism suffering from this *as it is presently manifest* -- in my opinion, a lot of what gets called "anarchism" is mostly some form of subcultural identification and/or hedonism. Not that there's anything inherently wrong with either of those things, but in and of themselves, they're pretty much bound to promise much and accomplish little. We need to learn to critique ourselves and to receive criticism from others if we are to grow as a "movement" (or whatever).
If you look at all the faults attributed to anarchists, above, then look around, at your television, your neighbourhood, your nation, you will see exactly the same faults.
American anarchists are authoritarian and whatever else, not because they are anarchists, but because they are American.
American anarchists are authoritarian and whatever else, not because they are anarchists, but because they are American.
Thanks Inez, Ralowe, Eric, Xan, Kentaro, and Liz for your thoughtful article. It's interesting, and does not look to me at all like a "denunciation," which 'thoughts' seems to think is the most authoritarian thing possible, rather than control of decision-making in organizing, along with his or her vague comments about how "most anarchists" or "most authoritarians" behave.
Figuring out how to organize against capitalism and authoritarianism and their specific manifestations and how to develop the kind of communities we would like to live in, whether in economic development or community organizing models, is difficult. Thanks for your contribution to this vital discussion.
Figuring out how to organize against capitalism and authoritarianism and their specific manifestations and how to develop the kind of communities we would like to live in, whether in economic development or community organizing models, is difficult. Thanks for your contribution to this vital discussion.
As a point of clarity,
the group this piece is written about at the time of the incidents being written about, does not identify as anarchist. Neither does Siafu.
However, it is true that anarchist groups are capable of authoritarianism, obviously.
Speaking from experience, neither Gay Shame nor Anarchist People of Color are not structured as authoritarian, being that they implement many of the processes explained toward the end of the letter. However, this does not mean that either group is exempt from authoritarian tendencies on some level or another.
The update is that participants in creating the letter attempted to open up the discussion of opening up the discussion at this last meeting of Queers and Friends Against Gentrification (QFAG?) yesterday Sunday at the Mandela Parkway in West Oakland. Inez' friend brought a videocamera and there was a huge discussion about whether or not people should be recorded or not, or how accessible what the group does will be to the wider world... or even the folks who live in the Eastlake... being as the meeting was in West Oakland.
There was then a huge discussion about decision-making structure. Not many had read the letter. The portion at the end of the letter was distributed. It completely derailed the pre-established agenda, and we ran out of time.
Two of us took on the task of trying to find some place in the Eastlake to host the next meeting which would be openly advertised and hopefully involve those targetted for gentrification in that area in the discussion. IWe got the crazy idea of trying restaurants. Here's the dope part: we discovered completely by accident that at the Pho Anh Dao Vietnamese Noodle Shop on East 18th across the street from the exciting new remodelled Albertson's on the 1st Thursday of every month at 12 noon Danny Wan holds a meeting with the local business proprietors about the Gay BID. I plan to go and disrupt it. I encourage others to also.
the group this piece is written about at the time of the incidents being written about, does not identify as anarchist. Neither does Siafu.
However, it is true that anarchist groups are capable of authoritarianism, obviously.
Speaking from experience, neither Gay Shame nor Anarchist People of Color are not structured as authoritarian, being that they implement many of the processes explained toward the end of the letter. However, this does not mean that either group is exempt from authoritarian tendencies on some level or another.
The update is that participants in creating the letter attempted to open up the discussion of opening up the discussion at this last meeting of Queers and Friends Against Gentrification (QFAG?) yesterday Sunday at the Mandela Parkway in West Oakland. Inez' friend brought a videocamera and there was a huge discussion about whether or not people should be recorded or not, or how accessible what the group does will be to the wider world... or even the folks who live in the Eastlake... being as the meeting was in West Oakland.
There was then a huge discussion about decision-making structure. Not many had read the letter. The portion at the end of the letter was distributed. It completely derailed the pre-established agenda, and we ran out of time.
Two of us took on the task of trying to find some place in the Eastlake to host the next meeting which would be openly advertised and hopefully involve those targetted for gentrification in that area in the discussion. IWe got the crazy idea of trying restaurants. Here's the dope part: we discovered completely by accident that at the Pho Anh Dao Vietnamese Noodle Shop on East 18th across the street from the exciting new remodelled Albertson's on the 1st Thursday of every month at 12 noon Danny Wan holds a meeting with the local business proprietors about the Gay BID. I plan to go and disrupt it. I encourage others to also.
YO!
this is intended to be the beginning of a conversation about authoritarianism. there were others who wanted to come forward and write. COME FORWARD AND WRITE!!!
the purpose of writing this
had two objectives:
1) to create dialogue where it was not happening
so that we all could focus on attempting to empower
those standing in the path of gentrification in the Eastlake
district.
2) to create a larger dialogue with activists everywhere that was
grounded in specific experiences of authoritarianism which would
not be abstract or vague or theoretical.
"Thoughts," "thoughts," "thoughts"... Let's go back a few decades. Silence = Death, dog. For real. I was told by an old friend who referred to me as comrade, and told me to sort it out amongst comrades. My feeling is you can't change people. Some people are born socialist and die socialist. And I'm not saying that Huey P. was a bad guy. But he hated swishy fags and loud women and would throw people off of balconies. If I get thrown off a balcony should I go back to Huey all bloody and be all "What's up? Let's go patrolcar-tipping?" or go to the hospital? Okay, okay bad analogy. But authoritarianism is a real phenomenon. It's not theoretical. I can't figure out why you don't want people to come out of the closet about it. Are we supposed to wait until the authoritarian foundation has been set up before speaking up about it? What about the people in the Eastlake in the meantime? Because the activists had in effect gentrified them from their own state of emergency. Nobody wanted to talk about it. Nobody. I wanted to put up fliers to let people know about our meetings, and I was told that we needed to first let the NGO's that do their work there know before contacting their constituents. What kind of a world do we live in.
I'm angry because this probably makes absolutely no sense to any of you. I'm tired of trying to explain to people about inherently problematic institutions of power that operate out of good intentions, and how it needs to stop immediately. Maybe this is not the forum for this discussion...
It is also evident that things were not made clear enough in this writing and I look forward to some discussion growing and growing so that people understand that these power structures are ineffective. Please contact us with your experiences!!!
theregoestheneighborhood [at] gay.com
this is intended to be the beginning of a conversation about authoritarianism. there were others who wanted to come forward and write. COME FORWARD AND WRITE!!!
the purpose of writing this
had two objectives:
1) to create dialogue where it was not happening
so that we all could focus on attempting to empower
those standing in the path of gentrification in the Eastlake
district.
2) to create a larger dialogue with activists everywhere that was
grounded in specific experiences of authoritarianism which would
not be abstract or vague or theoretical.
"Thoughts," "thoughts," "thoughts"... Let's go back a few decades. Silence = Death, dog. For real. I was told by an old friend who referred to me as comrade, and told me to sort it out amongst comrades. My feeling is you can't change people. Some people are born socialist and die socialist. And I'm not saying that Huey P. was a bad guy. But he hated swishy fags and loud women and would throw people off of balconies. If I get thrown off a balcony should I go back to Huey all bloody and be all "What's up? Let's go patrolcar-tipping?" or go to the hospital? Okay, okay bad analogy. But authoritarianism is a real phenomenon. It's not theoretical. I can't figure out why you don't want people to come out of the closet about it. Are we supposed to wait until the authoritarian foundation has been set up before speaking up about it? What about the people in the Eastlake in the meantime? Because the activists had in effect gentrified them from their own state of emergency. Nobody wanted to talk about it. Nobody. I wanted to put up fliers to let people know about our meetings, and I was told that we needed to first let the NGO's that do their work there know before contacting their constituents. What kind of a world do we live in.
I'm angry because this probably makes absolutely no sense to any of you. I'm tired of trying to explain to people about inherently problematic institutions of power that operate out of good intentions, and how it needs to stop immediately. Maybe this is not the forum for this discussion...
It is also evident that things were not made clear enough in this writing and I look forward to some discussion growing and growing so that people understand that these power structures are ineffective. Please contact us with your experiences!!!
theregoestheneighborhood [at] gay.com
" I'm angry because this probably makes absolutely no sense to any of you."
I think most of the specific problems you address do make sense to most readers but the original post dealt with too many things at once to make sense. Gentrification, authoritarianism in activist groups, NGO groups not respecting class related issues, specific problems with siafu are all related but when you put them all together at once it just comes off as confused (especially when many of the groups mentioned are not known to most readers). I think its ok to use specific examples to prove a general point about activist groups but the article is so focused on siafu that comes across as the primary point of the article rather than it just being an example.
Your last comment just adds to the confusion since its sortof a seperate issue. Authoritarianism and homophobia in the Black Panthers was real and not theoretical but seem of a fundamentally different sort than the modern examples of authoritarianism being attacked. One example is of bullying behavior within groups that seems to be a result of both individual bigotries and machismo attempts to be more militant than thow, whereas the NGO examples are almost the opposite (a beurocratic tendency to focus on one goal and appease the mainstream for support) Its the difference between authoritarianism that comes from people constantly denouncing people and silencing dissent since people are afraid of being denounced and authoritianism that comes from groups pretending to listen to what you are saying and moving forward with decissions irregardless of the arguments presented (agressive vs passive-aggressive authoritarianism.) NGOs, liberals and groups that play to hippe countercultral ideals are pretty good at recognizing agressive abusive behavior but often completely fail to recognize passive agressive abuse of authority. Radical and militant groups tend to focus more on the dangers of passive agressive abuse of authority but often completely ignore abusive behavior that results in authoritarianism by those who are loudest or can come up with the most pointed denunciations of those they disagree with.
You shouldnt keep problems you have with groups "in the closet" but you should also recognize that contant denunciations of those you diagaree with is itself a form of authoritarianism that can result in one being surrounded solely by those who agree with you since most people are conflict averse and wont engage in dialogue if the tone is such that they feel attacked.
I think most of the specific problems you address do make sense to most readers but the original post dealt with too many things at once to make sense. Gentrification, authoritarianism in activist groups, NGO groups not respecting class related issues, specific problems with siafu are all related but when you put them all together at once it just comes off as confused (especially when many of the groups mentioned are not known to most readers). I think its ok to use specific examples to prove a general point about activist groups but the article is so focused on siafu that comes across as the primary point of the article rather than it just being an example.
Your last comment just adds to the confusion since its sortof a seperate issue. Authoritarianism and homophobia in the Black Panthers was real and not theoretical but seem of a fundamentally different sort than the modern examples of authoritarianism being attacked. One example is of bullying behavior within groups that seems to be a result of both individual bigotries and machismo attempts to be more militant than thow, whereas the NGO examples are almost the opposite (a beurocratic tendency to focus on one goal and appease the mainstream for support) Its the difference between authoritarianism that comes from people constantly denouncing people and silencing dissent since people are afraid of being denounced and authoritianism that comes from groups pretending to listen to what you are saying and moving forward with decissions irregardless of the arguments presented (agressive vs passive-aggressive authoritarianism.) NGOs, liberals and groups that play to hippe countercultral ideals are pretty good at recognizing agressive abusive behavior but often completely fail to recognize passive agressive abuse of authority. Radical and militant groups tend to focus more on the dangers of passive agressive abuse of authority but often completely ignore abusive behavior that results in authoritarianism by those who are loudest or can come up with the most pointed denunciations of those they disagree with.
You shouldnt keep problems you have with groups "in the closet" but you should also recognize that contant denunciations of those you diagaree with is itself a form of authoritarianism that can result in one being surrounded solely by those who agree with you since most people are conflict averse and wont engage in dialogue if the tone is such that they feel attacked.
Thouest est maoist, Thoughts. I will agree with you,
that screaming for help does turn the tables. That's kind of the point. Reversal from death into life through the firm application a load of non-silence. What do you not understand? I'm not interested in perpetuating the voicelessness of the voiceless, and yes, I think people should realize that there are ways to resist power. I don't expect to resolve jack between my comrades, because I don't identify as comrade. Having placed this posting, we are in no ways in a better position in the group than before. This group is still piloted by NGO's and NGO lovers and folks who think that the way to organize is in this top-down format. And posting this whole thing to indybay still is not empowering the people in the Eastlake district, because a lot of them probably aren't even aware that this site resists. So tell me, what power do I have?
Secondly (I know this will obliterate whatever democratic pornographic holywood liberal heroism kick your on, but) NGO's do in fact disempower people. Teach a man to fish... What happened to neighborhood-run drama? What's with the ivy league handouts? Hi, my name is Susan Sarandon and I have a PHD in being down. NGO's further themselves and the unvoiced assumption that you need to be an NGO to affect change! What happened to do for self? There's a lot of history that you need to study on how we came from Huey P. to NGO. Furthermore, NGO's violently snatch away the self-determination of their "constituents." Their will is very firmly repressed, their agency is destroyed: One person at yesterday's meeting said that immigrants don't like to be video'd. On whose authority? There were no immigrants there!! None! What needs to be done so that we aren't permanently stuck on this supportive dynamic, and that people can have access to the resources to empower themselves. Have you been payrolled by or volunteered at an NGO, Thoughts? To be honest, I have not (but I'm in the extreme minority of the people i know) been ever paid, but I've volunteered and I've seen people who are sick come into the Tenderloin AIDS Resource Center to get year-old halloween candies from the foodbank. This has got to stop.
I said the analogy is a stretch myself, but I'm pretty clear that there are many ways to throw somebody out of a window, and people need to check the humbled benevolence of NGO's or these authoritarian ways of organizing because it gratifies naught but the hippie ego.
that screaming for help does turn the tables. That's kind of the point. Reversal from death into life through the firm application a load of non-silence. What do you not understand? I'm not interested in perpetuating the voicelessness of the voiceless, and yes, I think people should realize that there are ways to resist power. I don't expect to resolve jack between my comrades, because I don't identify as comrade. Having placed this posting, we are in no ways in a better position in the group than before. This group is still piloted by NGO's and NGO lovers and folks who think that the way to organize is in this top-down format. And posting this whole thing to indybay still is not empowering the people in the Eastlake district, because a lot of them probably aren't even aware that this site resists. So tell me, what power do I have?
Secondly (I know this will obliterate whatever democratic pornographic holywood liberal heroism kick your on, but) NGO's do in fact disempower people. Teach a man to fish... What happened to neighborhood-run drama? What's with the ivy league handouts? Hi, my name is Susan Sarandon and I have a PHD in being down. NGO's further themselves and the unvoiced assumption that you need to be an NGO to affect change! What happened to do for self? There's a lot of history that you need to study on how we came from Huey P. to NGO. Furthermore, NGO's violently snatch away the self-determination of their "constituents." Their will is very firmly repressed, their agency is destroyed: One person at yesterday's meeting said that immigrants don't like to be video'd. On whose authority? There were no immigrants there!! None! What needs to be done so that we aren't permanently stuck on this supportive dynamic, and that people can have access to the resources to empower themselves. Have you been payrolled by or volunteered at an NGO, Thoughts? To be honest, I have not (but I'm in the extreme minority of the people i know) been ever paid, but I've volunteered and I've seen people who are sick come into the Tenderloin AIDS Resource Center to get year-old halloween candies from the foodbank. This has got to stop.
I said the analogy is a stretch myself, but I'm pretty clear that there are many ways to throw somebody out of a window, and people need to check the humbled benevolence of NGO's or these authoritarian ways of organizing because it gratifies naught but the hippie ego.
part of the problem is overarching, part of the problem is specifics.
a specific: buddhism is not a religion as those of us who have grown up in a christian or islamic context understand religion--except in a few places on the fringes of the buddhist-influenced world. there are not many buddhist fundamentalists (although there are some to be sure, in sri lanka and thailand mostly), nor are there many buddhist schools where the subjects taught are all taught through the lens of a buddhist worldview. it is true that "buddhism" starts with the same letter as "bush," but that's a poor excuse for singling out what is for the most part a fairly innocuous philosophy.
something overarching: any fool can call herself or himself an anarchist and get away with it for a very long time before anyone else starts to call her/him on their obvious authoritarianism (and other not-very-anarchist behaviors). most of the people who have been attracted to the idea of APOC sound and act an awful lot like maoists-without-mao, which is truly unfortunate because anarchists desperately need a more sophisticated and useful analysis of race and racism. what sucks is that virtually no APOC person can accomplish this important task. and despite what bill said above, it's not because they are americans, but because they are part of a euro-american-christian culture of arrogance and entitlement. americans didn't invent that (it goes way back to the first slave-owning civilizations--at least!), but have certainly taken it to new heights (or depths depending on your point of view).
oh yeah, fuck chris thompson.
a specific: buddhism is not a religion as those of us who have grown up in a christian or islamic context understand religion--except in a few places on the fringes of the buddhist-influenced world. there are not many buddhist fundamentalists (although there are some to be sure, in sri lanka and thailand mostly), nor are there many buddhist schools where the subjects taught are all taught through the lens of a buddhist worldview. it is true that "buddhism" starts with the same letter as "bush," but that's a poor excuse for singling out what is for the most part a fairly innocuous philosophy.
something overarching: any fool can call herself or himself an anarchist and get away with it for a very long time before anyone else starts to call her/him on their obvious authoritarianism (and other not-very-anarchist behaviors). most of the people who have been attracted to the idea of APOC sound and act an awful lot like maoists-without-mao, which is truly unfortunate because anarchists desperately need a more sophisticated and useful analysis of race and racism. what sucks is that virtually no APOC person can accomplish this important task. and despite what bill said above, it's not because they are americans, but because they are part of a euro-american-christian culture of arrogance and entitlement. americans didn't invent that (it goes way back to the first slave-owning civilizations--at least!), but have certainly taken it to new heights (or depths depending on your point of view).
oh yeah, fuck chris thompson.
But at least he's readable/coherent unlike most of this thread. And actually I think his criticism of "anti-gentrification" activists is more or less accurate.
"Keep Walgreens out of West Oakland so we can develop the area with homemade jewelry boutiques and fantasy food coops".
A simple question for the Eastlake anti -gentrification activists (who have meetings in West Oakland????) Are you opposed to a business like Walgreens in West Oakland?
"Keep Walgreens out of West Oakland so we can develop the area with homemade jewelry boutiques and fantasy food coops".
A simple question for the Eastlake anti -gentrification activists (who have meetings in West Oakland????) Are you opposed to a business like Walgreens in West Oakland?
i don't know a great deal about buddhism. i read some t.d. suzuki stuff once. but i got this impression: t.d. (or is it d.t.?) was a very learned fellow. if you wanted to acquire insight, you might listen to t.d. i'm really bad. i'm not on the whole spirituality thing. but is krishnamurti buddhist? anyway, it seems like in a lot of spiritual worlds there are teachers, guides, elders, blah blah blah. and people listen to what they have to say and it's useful, and they're respected because they know a lot. i don't think i'll pick up t.d. ever again. i look back and some of the things he said... i feel i can pull of the same thing when i offer advice to friends. you just sort of bullshit. but these cats were revered. t.d. has tons and tons of booooks, and people buy them. it's kind of like the self-help books. the whole "giant within" thing, and the deepak chopra. i used to work at cody's. these hippies would come in clamoring for the new deepak. it's a scam, i think. i mean whatever you need to work out whatever you need to work out. but it seems like a con game to me. i think the notion of expertise can be an illusion at times. i honestly can't imagine what kind of prometheus routine that krishnamurti could pull to make me think he has all the answers. all this is highly subjective. i think realizing that is very empowering. that you don't need buddha. i know there's some part of buddha (or at least they mention it in the fine Bertolucci film starring Keanu Reeves with asian makeup) something about no-mind and killing your master. those ideas rock. but even that kind of reminds me of the way in which capitalism tries to commodify its own destruction. you can get your ripped jeans that look like they been through a war with little buddha silkscreens on them fresh from the sweatshop at Urban Outfitters. i don't understand why buddhism or any sort of authoritarian ideology that involves having some sort of figure who's been meditating in a cave and comes back to you and bring the truth. sorry, you didn't know you were a buddha until you read it in a book. that's pretty top-down.
hey can i ask a favor? what anarchists are you talking about? you keep saying that anarachists are authoritarian. let's make specific examples. i don't find either gay shame or APOC to be authoritiarian. take gay shame. we use consensus. not modified consensus: CONSENSUS. that means that everything we've ever done has been completely approved by every member at the meeting. and we meet every week. 5:30 saturdays at modern times bookstore 888 valencia at 20th in san fran. come by and call us authoritarian. sure, we're cliquey. i mean... we're all still here. doing this. it's us. it seems to be we attract a particular type of person. i really don't know what to do about that. if you can show me how to undo that, i'll give you $100 cash. but where is that not the case? at a mcdonalds, because everyone gets fired? at an AA meeting? on star trek? give me examples of models that we can use to overcome our cliquishness. i'm not a very friendly person some time. sometimes i'm not feeling it. i'm moody. anyway. i can see that there might be the dynamic that someone who has been involved with the group for a long time could be seen as having pull. is that what you're suggesting? but i can't make any decisions for the group. it's not my group. if people want to do something they can come and do it as part of the group. or do it elsewhere. wherever. i don't really want to own the group. i'm greatly invested in the group. but if the group decides to take some weird turn, i would leave and the group would keep going. i've wanted to leave before. true i have a lot of knowledge about the group in particular and its history, but i am not an expert. i can't predict the future. i don't know if an action would be effective or not. i can say what my feelings are from what i've seen.. but... HEY! this is crazy. maybe someone would like to out themselves as having some involvement with either APOC or gay shame, because there seems to be some confusion. and i hate walgreens. the people there are nuts. i mean, do they get a fucking commission for catcthing a shoplifter? they will follow me around the store seeing if i'll shoplift, but they won't approach me and help me find what i'm looking for. fuckers. i think all forms of capitalism are disgusting. all my music is for free online.
about anarchists and race: are you stupid? anarchism in this country is primarily a white phenomenon. it's annoying. true, there is no place which exists wholly outside of white supremacy, but there are things that you can do to at least resist it, and sometimes that includes trying to create spaces outside of white folks. is the person posting this white? im ralowe, and i'm black. authoritarian? for me anarchism means trying to dismantle systems of oppression. being around all white people can feel very oppressive sometimes. i'm fortunate that in most of my relationships with white people this is not the case. i think i have it very rare. if one is an anarchist and a person of color and wants to not organize with people who don't have a clue of how to check their privilege, what other alternative do you offer? i am by no means saying that an APOC space is completely devoid of oppression, because there are tons of other ways that fucked-up power dynamics can play out across race, class and gender in an APOC space. but it's ridiculous having to put up with shit in the bay area where white folks don't understand how annoying they can be to work with for a variety of reasons, and after a while you get tired of having to check and check and check people. so i don't know what you're talking about. APOC in the bay area is one of the most exciting things to ever happen for a lot of people, and i'm a proud participant in APOC.
i'm also a little annoyed that with the responses so far that nobody seems interested in talking about the queer content of what was written. i'm guessing your all either straight or gay and hate yourselves. not that what the subject dealt with was specifically queer, but there were very specific things which are apparenlty beyond either the scope or the interest of the posters. is anyone interested in the fact that danny wan is a gay man and an immigrant and is in effect galvanizing or bolstering his citizenship by prioritizing his gay property-owner businessman persona with this project over any ties he may have to his immigrant self by displacing other asian immigrants? how about the way in which patriarchy is reinscribed by queers? hmm. i think i know why all of you think the other piece reads better. there's nothing dealing with sexuality or gender identity. that's another annoying aspect of anarchists in the bay area. all of them clamor to work on anti-racism workshops, but when it's time to discuss sexuality or gender identity they all draw a blank. and no, a discussion on male supremacy is NOT the same as a discussion of sexuality or gender identity. suckas.
hey can i ask a favor? what anarchists are you talking about? you keep saying that anarachists are authoritarian. let's make specific examples. i don't find either gay shame or APOC to be authoritiarian. take gay shame. we use consensus. not modified consensus: CONSENSUS. that means that everything we've ever done has been completely approved by every member at the meeting. and we meet every week. 5:30 saturdays at modern times bookstore 888 valencia at 20th in san fran. come by and call us authoritarian. sure, we're cliquey. i mean... we're all still here. doing this. it's us. it seems to be we attract a particular type of person. i really don't know what to do about that. if you can show me how to undo that, i'll give you $100 cash. but where is that not the case? at a mcdonalds, because everyone gets fired? at an AA meeting? on star trek? give me examples of models that we can use to overcome our cliquishness. i'm not a very friendly person some time. sometimes i'm not feeling it. i'm moody. anyway. i can see that there might be the dynamic that someone who has been involved with the group for a long time could be seen as having pull. is that what you're suggesting? but i can't make any decisions for the group. it's not my group. if people want to do something they can come and do it as part of the group. or do it elsewhere. wherever. i don't really want to own the group. i'm greatly invested in the group. but if the group decides to take some weird turn, i would leave and the group would keep going. i've wanted to leave before. true i have a lot of knowledge about the group in particular and its history, but i am not an expert. i can't predict the future. i don't know if an action would be effective or not. i can say what my feelings are from what i've seen.. but... HEY! this is crazy. maybe someone would like to out themselves as having some involvement with either APOC or gay shame, because there seems to be some confusion. and i hate walgreens. the people there are nuts. i mean, do they get a fucking commission for catcthing a shoplifter? they will follow me around the store seeing if i'll shoplift, but they won't approach me and help me find what i'm looking for. fuckers. i think all forms of capitalism are disgusting. all my music is for free online.
about anarchists and race: are you stupid? anarchism in this country is primarily a white phenomenon. it's annoying. true, there is no place which exists wholly outside of white supremacy, but there are things that you can do to at least resist it, and sometimes that includes trying to create spaces outside of white folks. is the person posting this white? im ralowe, and i'm black. authoritarian? for me anarchism means trying to dismantle systems of oppression. being around all white people can feel very oppressive sometimes. i'm fortunate that in most of my relationships with white people this is not the case. i think i have it very rare. if one is an anarchist and a person of color and wants to not organize with people who don't have a clue of how to check their privilege, what other alternative do you offer? i am by no means saying that an APOC space is completely devoid of oppression, because there are tons of other ways that fucked-up power dynamics can play out across race, class and gender in an APOC space. but it's ridiculous having to put up with shit in the bay area where white folks don't understand how annoying they can be to work with for a variety of reasons, and after a while you get tired of having to check and check and check people. so i don't know what you're talking about. APOC in the bay area is one of the most exciting things to ever happen for a lot of people, and i'm a proud participant in APOC.
i'm also a little annoyed that with the responses so far that nobody seems interested in talking about the queer content of what was written. i'm guessing your all either straight or gay and hate yourselves. not that what the subject dealt with was specifically queer, but there were very specific things which are apparenlty beyond either the scope or the interest of the posters. is anyone interested in the fact that danny wan is a gay man and an immigrant and is in effect galvanizing or bolstering his citizenship by prioritizing his gay property-owner businessman persona with this project over any ties he may have to his immigrant self by displacing other asian immigrants? how about the way in which patriarchy is reinscribed by queers? hmm. i think i know why all of you think the other piece reads better. there's nothing dealing with sexuality or gender identity. that's another annoying aspect of anarchists in the bay area. all of them clamor to work on anti-racism workshops, but when it's time to discuss sexuality or gender identity they all draw a blank. and no, a discussion on male supremacy is NOT the same as a discussion of sexuality or gender identity. suckas.
For more information:
http://www.ralowesconfusedsuburbanlaughter...
Why Buddhism you ask? Well, in the largely white-heterosexual world of “progressive” culture in the Bay Area and throughout the US, Buddhism, unlike say Christianity is understood as an “outlaw” spiritual path. Because it is not read as a “dominant” religion the structure of it often goes without analysis or interrogation. As a highly dogmatic and structured religion (way more than Christianity) it is, for sure, authoritarian.
Was it “Land of 1000 Buddhas” up north that told my roommate (when he was living there) that AIDS was God’s wrath? Sure was. Does the DL have a Rolex? Sure does.
This is, of course, not even going into the racial and class issues bound up in these practices.
I agree, …..queer????
Was it “Land of 1000 Buddhas” up north that told my roommate (when he was living there) that AIDS was God’s wrath? Sure was. Does the DL have a Rolex? Sure does.
This is, of course, not even going into the racial and class issues bound up in these practices.
I agree, …..queer????
OK, first things first -- as far as outing myself: on this site? you can forget that. if you want to out yourself, that's cool, i respect that -- but for myself, i don't really dig putting my mug/name/whatever up where "they" (you know, blah blah) can ID me. it's just the way i travel. whatever. cryptic? yup. so it goes. ps: if you think you know who i am, you're probably wrong. maybe. but maybe not.
now that that's out of the way: ralowe sweetie, look. if you want to set some shit off, that's great -- but why even bother getting into it here? you know that most of the people who post here you're not gonna agree with, so while i commend you for trying and all that...seems to me by getting into it with some of the folks here, you're just playing with something that's ultimately gonna frustrate you -- especially Mr. Walgreen's and mister buddhist, who seem to be determined to get into it with you over side topics from your main point. they're just trying to frame the debate. focus on what you want to talk about, and they'll go find some forum about the price of cheese, or the anniversary of the harmonic convergence, or whatever. by responding, they eat up your time, which means... they win, you lose, although it helps to keep in mind the people who read this and agree with what you're saying, but will never say a word. get it?
that all being said, there are some things said that i agree with, which i'll get to in next response.
now that that's out of the way: ralowe sweetie, look. if you want to set some shit off, that's great -- but why even bother getting into it here? you know that most of the people who post here you're not gonna agree with, so while i commend you for trying and all that...seems to me by getting into it with some of the folks here, you're just playing with something that's ultimately gonna frustrate you -- especially Mr. Walgreen's and mister buddhist, who seem to be determined to get into it with you over side topics from your main point. they're just trying to frame the debate. focus on what you want to talk about, and they'll go find some forum about the price of cheese, or the anniversary of the harmonic convergence, or whatever. by responding, they eat up your time, which means... they win, you lose, although it helps to keep in mind the people who read this and agree with what you're saying, but will never say a word. get it?
that all being said, there are some things said that i agree with, which i'll get to in next response.
so...ok.
first off, none of what i'm about to say has shit to do with gentrification in eastlake. i'm responding to the high plains topic drifters here. if you actually care about what was originally posted, bear with, or ignore, if you don't mind.
i don't necessarily disagree with the sentiment that anarchists (not just apoc) can be "maoist without mao" -- but given that one interpretation of that is "effecting fundamental change at a cultural level without apology or kings," i'm not sure that's always a bad thing.
however...there is a tendency (*MUCH* more among *some* white, middle class anarchists of color) to be holier than thou right off the bat, while not always (ahem) living up to their santimoniousness. but ya know, that's definitely a white, middle class dropout kinda thing. hippies do it, they just take their time getting there. marxist/leninist/maoists cadre/vanguard groups do it, they'll just keep trying to recruit you until you question your line. to hold up anarchists to this standard without looking at the whole picture is just silly.
besides, what the hell does this have to do with apoc, let alone working class and poor peeps in eastlake, class-based queer power struggles, and so on?
ok, now onto what was actually posted...
first off, none of what i'm about to say has shit to do with gentrification in eastlake. i'm responding to the high plains topic drifters here. if you actually care about what was originally posted, bear with, or ignore, if you don't mind.
i don't necessarily disagree with the sentiment that anarchists (not just apoc) can be "maoist without mao" -- but given that one interpretation of that is "effecting fundamental change at a cultural level without apology or kings," i'm not sure that's always a bad thing.
however...there is a tendency (*MUCH* more among *some* white, middle class anarchists of color) to be holier than thou right off the bat, while not always (ahem) living up to their santimoniousness. but ya know, that's definitely a white, middle class dropout kinda thing. hippies do it, they just take their time getting there. marxist/leninist/maoists cadre/vanguard groups do it, they'll just keep trying to recruit you until you question your line. to hold up anarchists to this standard without looking at the whole picture is just silly.
besides, what the hell does this have to do with apoc, let alone working class and poor peeps in eastlake, class-based queer power struggles, and so on?
ok, now onto what was actually posted...
(semi-disclosure: while i'm not into the whole naming myself for the whole wide lunatic "zionazis vs. holocaust revisionist" fringe world to see, i have been involved with both gay shame and apoc at times. if someone tries to out me on the basis of this, keep in mind that i may or may not be who you're thinking, and you may have to deal with an earful from me if you decide to *not* respect my privacy. ok, that's done and out of the way.)
first things first. i think it's safe to say that this is a draft, written to address a specific topic while it was fresh -- as such, it's kinda long and rambles a bit. however, it doesn't lose focus (unlike the response thread) and is pretty true to its topic, which is anti-gentrification efforts in eastlake, and how one grouping of people are taking on strategies that have been implemented before, typically with disasterous results. that being said, it shouldn't shock anybody that this particular letter is going to raise questions, as well as being occasionally unclear to someone who isn't involved in the group(s) being critiqued. my suggestion for what it's worth is that folks read it as a draft, rather than something you would read in a magazine or journal.
onto the content. as i said before, what i think is this letter's greatest strength is in its critique of a very common approach to community-based organizing in the Bay Area. any time there is a situation where people's needs on a neighborhood or city-wide level are being compromised by developers, city bureaucrats, corporate nationals and multinationals, and so on, you can count on some "grass roots" group becoming involved. sound good? well..not necessarily, given that the group is typically:
1. full of mostly empty oh-so-radical rhetoric from self-appointed leadership;
2. structured as a non-profit or NGO, or dominated by people who work for a np or NGO;
3. utilizing a somewhat elaborate form of poverty pimpism, usually in the following format:
- lots of people power sloganeering and coalition-building, followed up by rallies at city hall and possibly the occasional civil disobedience action, which gives the group a degree of credibility;
- shortly afterward, a delibrate attempt at passive-agressive authoritarian control is enacted. for example, those folks from the community in question who are unfortunate enough to ask what the group is actually doing to meet the need of the community in question are ignored. If they persist, are ignored or accused of "being too radical for the masses" or whatever. (um, hello! they *are* "the masses");
- this is quickly followed by appeasement, deal-brokering, and as much control of all actions around the issue as possible, presumably in order to keep their "base" (a small cadre of folks that exists prior to the forming the group, and will exist afterwards) intact;
- after this critical phase of silencing the rabble is accomplished, they vanish from public view, to move onto, if they're "lucky," city planning and further deal-cutting -- and eventually, to start another group around another crisis in city planning and start the above process all over again.
all in all, it's basically an attempt to control a population through a means that would make Emmanuel Goldstein proud -- make up a group that attracts those who may pose a political threat, then steal away all their thunder and brio so they will think twice before they decide to get active again. i've seen it happen several times now, and it appears to be a standard practice.
to be fair, sometimes the process outlined above happens because the people who start the group are hog-tied by their bosses into backing down. but you know, if they're that compromised, they should probably be skill-sharing with folks who *aren't* compromised, and standing out of the way. i mean, could you imagine if the founders of the EZLN had said "Sorry about the siding with the PRI and all -- I *would* have your back, but our respective tenure committees are up in arms about all of our rhetoric and gun-waving. I hope you understand -- these things take time, you need to understand that the indigenous population just isn't ready for land reform yet"?
I do think it's important to note that some anti-war groups in the bay area follow a similar approach, with less deal-brokering and far more appeasement and hollow rhetoric. the difference is that the ngo-like groups decide to interfere in the lives of working class and poor people in this country, rather than funnel off of a liberal-based peace movement. both stink, but not exactly in the same way.
All in all, most grass-roots efforts in the Bay Area are far more farce than furfillment (oooh, alliteration) and as such, the writers of this letter deserve praise far more than obfuscation.
so...my question is: since the model(s) described above pretty much bankrupt (or at least of questionable effectiveness), what are groups such as apoc or gay shame going to do instead that's better than the gradual forms of pushing from within (aka liberalism) that these groups seem to be founded upon, if the "pudding" is any proof? i don't mean this as just some kind of radical version of news anchor banter ("what *do* these protestors want, Janie?" "I have no idea, Tom"), i'm serious. in my experience, *no* body has half a clue in the bay area -- which is why this letter is so important. it's not so much we "need leadership" (gag), it's more that we need to cease this hollowed-out cadre-building horseshit (from *all* corners), if we're ever going to be something other than a minority in visible numbers in all times but the ones that are perceived as the most crisis-laden and/or volatile.
first things first. i think it's safe to say that this is a draft, written to address a specific topic while it was fresh -- as such, it's kinda long and rambles a bit. however, it doesn't lose focus (unlike the response thread) and is pretty true to its topic, which is anti-gentrification efforts in eastlake, and how one grouping of people are taking on strategies that have been implemented before, typically with disasterous results. that being said, it shouldn't shock anybody that this particular letter is going to raise questions, as well as being occasionally unclear to someone who isn't involved in the group(s) being critiqued. my suggestion for what it's worth is that folks read it as a draft, rather than something you would read in a magazine or journal.
onto the content. as i said before, what i think is this letter's greatest strength is in its critique of a very common approach to community-based organizing in the Bay Area. any time there is a situation where people's needs on a neighborhood or city-wide level are being compromised by developers, city bureaucrats, corporate nationals and multinationals, and so on, you can count on some "grass roots" group becoming involved. sound good? well..not necessarily, given that the group is typically:
1. full of mostly empty oh-so-radical rhetoric from self-appointed leadership;
2. structured as a non-profit or NGO, or dominated by people who work for a np or NGO;
3. utilizing a somewhat elaborate form of poverty pimpism, usually in the following format:
- lots of people power sloganeering and coalition-building, followed up by rallies at city hall and possibly the occasional civil disobedience action, which gives the group a degree of credibility;
- shortly afterward, a delibrate attempt at passive-agressive authoritarian control is enacted. for example, those folks from the community in question who are unfortunate enough to ask what the group is actually doing to meet the need of the community in question are ignored. If they persist, are ignored or accused of "being too radical for the masses" or whatever. (um, hello! they *are* "the masses");
- this is quickly followed by appeasement, deal-brokering, and as much control of all actions around the issue as possible, presumably in order to keep their "base" (a small cadre of folks that exists prior to the forming the group, and will exist afterwards) intact;
- after this critical phase of silencing the rabble is accomplished, they vanish from public view, to move onto, if they're "lucky," city planning and further deal-cutting -- and eventually, to start another group around another crisis in city planning and start the above process all over again.
all in all, it's basically an attempt to control a population through a means that would make Emmanuel Goldstein proud -- make up a group that attracts those who may pose a political threat, then steal away all their thunder and brio so they will think twice before they decide to get active again. i've seen it happen several times now, and it appears to be a standard practice.
to be fair, sometimes the process outlined above happens because the people who start the group are hog-tied by their bosses into backing down. but you know, if they're that compromised, they should probably be skill-sharing with folks who *aren't* compromised, and standing out of the way. i mean, could you imagine if the founders of the EZLN had said "Sorry about the siding with the PRI and all -- I *would* have your back, but our respective tenure committees are up in arms about all of our rhetoric and gun-waving. I hope you understand -- these things take time, you need to understand that the indigenous population just isn't ready for land reform yet"?
I do think it's important to note that some anti-war groups in the bay area follow a similar approach, with less deal-brokering and far more appeasement and hollow rhetoric. the difference is that the ngo-like groups decide to interfere in the lives of working class and poor people in this country, rather than funnel off of a liberal-based peace movement. both stink, but not exactly in the same way.
All in all, most grass-roots efforts in the Bay Area are far more farce than furfillment (oooh, alliteration) and as such, the writers of this letter deserve praise far more than obfuscation.
so...my question is: since the model(s) described above pretty much bankrupt (or at least of questionable effectiveness), what are groups such as apoc or gay shame going to do instead that's better than the gradual forms of pushing from within (aka liberalism) that these groups seem to be founded upon, if the "pudding" is any proof? i don't mean this as just some kind of radical version of news anchor banter ("what *do* these protestors want, Janie?" "I have no idea, Tom"), i'm serious. in my experience, *no* body has half a clue in the bay area -- which is why this letter is so important. it's not so much we "need leadership" (gag), it's more that we need to cease this hollowed-out cadre-building horseshit (from *all* corners), if we're ever going to be something other than a minority in visible numbers in all times but the ones that are perceived as the most crisis-laden and/or volatile.
it's cool, ca. i don't think i had a problem with anything you said.
actually, ca, i'm not personally feeling abused by the lack of empathy on this here message board. i have a meanstreak sometimes, and i just like to... well... you know. feel me?
since this is a discussion and at the very best what gets posted here kind of skirts the perimeter of discussion, it is good to get all these old arguments out of the open, so we can add them to this righteous and most boss burgeoning and specialized anti-authoritarian bassline.
since this is a discussion and at the very best what gets posted here kind of skirts the perimeter of discussion, it is good to get all these old arguments out of the open, so we can add them to this righteous and most boss burgeoning and specialized anti-authoritarian bassline.
>actually, ca, i'm not personally feeling abused by the lack of empathy on this here message board. i have a meanstreak sometimes, and i just like to... well... you know. feel me?
(laughs) yah...
>since this is a discussion and at the very best what gets posted here kind of skirts the perimeter of discussion, it is good to get all these old arguments out of the open, so we can add them to this righteous and most boss burgeoning and specialized anti-authoritarian bassline.
cool, cool. just checkin'. thanks.
(laughs) yah...
>since this is a discussion and at the very best what gets posted here kind of skirts the perimeter of discussion, it is good to get all these old arguments out of the open, so we can add them to this righteous and most boss burgeoning and specialized anti-authoritarian bassline.
cool, cool. just checkin'. thanks.
, and i just like to... well... you know. feel me?
ya got to be kidding, right? what is this the dating game?
(line formes to the left)
ya got to be kidding, right? what is this the dating game?
(line formes to the left)
I'm just saying that sometimes i'm on here
and i'm just here. I'm all in it. I don't know if you've
been keeping track of my movements. don't be
scandalized. it ain't nothing special. i'm just up
here. i'm all over here, due to circumstances i'm
not really wanting to further disclose and yet still
even further own. that's all it is. that's all of what the why
i'm in the mix somehow. it's an accident on purpose,
like art school music that sounds like blectum from
blechdom.
but now we're just talking about personal problems, so i
guess that this is officially a dead issue. nobody has anything
else to say in return to what i or others have said in return
to what they were coming out on here saying. surprise surprise.
and i'm just here. I'm all in it. I don't know if you've
been keeping track of my movements. don't be
scandalized. it ain't nothing special. i'm just up
here. i'm all over here, due to circumstances i'm
not really wanting to further disclose and yet still
even further own. that's all it is. that's all of what the why
i'm in the mix somehow. it's an accident on purpose,
like art school music that sounds like blectum from
blechdom.
but now we're just talking about personal problems, so i
guess that this is officially a dead issue. nobody has anything
else to say in return to what i or others have said in return
to what they were coming out on here saying. surprise surprise.
"I do think it's important to note that some anti-war groups in the bay area follow a similar approach, with less deal-brokering and far more appeasement and hollow rhetoric. the difference is that the ngo-like groups decide to interfere in the lives of working class and poor people in this country, rather than funnel off of a liberal-based peace movement. both stink, but not exactly in the same way...all in all, it's basically an attempt to control a population through a means that would make Emmanuel Goldstein proud -- make up a group that attracts those who may pose a political threat, then steal away all their thunder and brio so they will think twice before they decide to get active again. i've seen it happen several times now, and it appears to be a standard practice."
So here I'm a little confused. One the one side most activist groups are being portrayed as white hippie groups full of self-righteous types but on the other the same groups are being accused of coopting potential revolutionaries. The radical left (outside of a few specifically nationalist groups that are usually Maoist or Stalinist) is very white and middle class. The motivation is one of fight for others (in almost a paternalistic fashion) rather than fighting for ones own rights. Activist NGOs are just as bad but community service organizations (which are often NGOs) are much more diverse. Perhaps the radical community and liberal NGOs are alienating potential revolutionaries but they are mnot coopting the struggles because visibility and participation in many communities is nonexistant.
So here I'm a little confused. One the one side most activist groups are being portrayed as white hippie groups full of self-righteous types but on the other the same groups are being accused of coopting potential revolutionaries. The radical left (outside of a few specifically nationalist groups that are usually Maoist or Stalinist) is very white and middle class. The motivation is one of fight for others (in almost a paternalistic fashion) rather than fighting for ones own rights. Activist NGOs are just as bad but community service organizations (which are often NGOs) are much more diverse. Perhaps the radical community and liberal NGOs are alienating potential revolutionaries but they are mnot coopting the struggles because visibility and participation in many communities is nonexistant.
Of course you're confused. Are you writing a thesis?
Stop talking in abstracts.
There is no grand universal theory of social organizing, so stop. If you keep thinking in terms of that you're always going to be frustrated, lost and confused.
Let's be specific.
Non-Governmental Organizations do provide necessary services for a certain set of people, but the tradeoff is that these same people don't have access to resources to serve themselves. It's almost like paying for tap water, but worse because people probably think less about it. How would people of many economic backgrounds benefit from self-managed access to safe drinking water? Someone told me that San Francisco, for example, is built on a river and all the water sort of goes off into the ocean because of greed. Should Bechtel have full control of the water in Bolivia? Whoops. Did I just compare Bechtel to an NGO? Take it personal.
The Notogentrification group, or Queers and Friend Against Gentrification (Q-FAG?) could be best described as a bunch of folks
who work at NGO's who were the first to respond when an email was sent out regarding the LGBT Roundtable where Danny Wan's Gay BID was going to be discussed. Somehow I don't suspect that this email ever made it to the people who live in the Eastlake. I only found out because of an email of the SF Bay APOC listserve that I got > Sent: 09 Nov 2004 21:48:47 from Inez that "came down the wire today from dawn at just cause." I have no clue when the original email went out, so maybe there was no time to contact people from that area. The meeting took place:
LGBT Roundtable Meeting
Friday
November 12, 2004
11:30 A.M. - 1:00 P.M.
Hearing Room 3
Oakland City Hall
One Frank Ogawa Plaza
In the original email it was specified: "i am encouraging all of you who
are:
1. queer
2. residents of Danny Wan's district (lake merrit, chinatown, san antonio
etc - let me know if you need confirmation about which district you live
in)
3. concerned oakland residents who have a perspective and want to weigh in
on this plan to attend the meeting (details in the attached email below)"
I can't really say how long the original email author had access to the information, or why being a queer person was prioritized on an issue involving development. However, the centralization of this information amongst the small group that had begun organizing has not changed until this day.
Hopefully tonight some people will be flyering in the Eastlake to let people know about the "Q-FAG" meetings. Please email us at theregoestheneighborhood [at] gay.com if you are interested in helping make the flier, translate the flier (cantonese, spanish, vietnamese?), or want to help put it out.
It will be this Sunday February 6th
4-6PM at the suigetsukan dojo
(1st and
>103 International Boulevard Oakland, CA...
to answer your questions, confused:
at the meeting which met Sunday January 3rd 2005
at the Mandela Pkwy in West Oakland 1-3PM,
from what i could guesstimate, 12 of the 19 people total were people of color, and of this total, only 3 appeared to me as "male" and/or fellow fags...
i dissociated during the check-ins, but my impression was that most of them came from some background of organizing with NGO's based on their responses over the course of the meeting. i don't believe that the Q-FAG group, nor Gay Shame, nor APOC or SIAFU would identify as maoist, stalinist, nationalist, revolutionary or as hippies... maybe SIAFU thinks they're revolutionary...
i'm annoyed by this thing you said:
"Perhaps the radical community and liberal NGOs are alienating potential revolutionaries but they are mnot coopting the struggles because visibility and participation in many communities is nonexistant."
I'm concerned that you might be saying that the self-determination of people living in the Eastlake in regards to the issue of being displaced is "non-existant" and not visible, without looking at the process which I have detailed above showing how people are excluded from the decisions that affect them. This particular problem might be solved at any time by disseminating information effectively.
Stop talking in abstracts.
There is no grand universal theory of social organizing, so stop. If you keep thinking in terms of that you're always going to be frustrated, lost and confused.
Let's be specific.
Non-Governmental Organizations do provide necessary services for a certain set of people, but the tradeoff is that these same people don't have access to resources to serve themselves. It's almost like paying for tap water, but worse because people probably think less about it. How would people of many economic backgrounds benefit from self-managed access to safe drinking water? Someone told me that San Francisco, for example, is built on a river and all the water sort of goes off into the ocean because of greed. Should Bechtel have full control of the water in Bolivia? Whoops. Did I just compare Bechtel to an NGO? Take it personal.
The Notogentrification group, or Queers and Friend Against Gentrification (Q-FAG?) could be best described as a bunch of folks
who work at NGO's who were the first to respond when an email was sent out regarding the LGBT Roundtable where Danny Wan's Gay BID was going to be discussed. Somehow I don't suspect that this email ever made it to the people who live in the Eastlake. I only found out because of an email of the SF Bay APOC listserve that I got > Sent: 09 Nov 2004 21:48:47 from Inez that "came down the wire today from dawn at just cause." I have no clue when the original email went out, so maybe there was no time to contact people from that area. The meeting took place:
LGBT Roundtable Meeting
Friday
November 12, 2004
11:30 A.M. - 1:00 P.M.
Hearing Room 3
Oakland City Hall
One Frank Ogawa Plaza
In the original email it was specified: "i am encouraging all of you who
are:
1. queer
2. residents of Danny Wan's district (lake merrit, chinatown, san antonio
etc - let me know if you need confirmation about which district you live
in)
3. concerned oakland residents who have a perspective and want to weigh in
on this plan to attend the meeting (details in the attached email below)"
I can't really say how long the original email author had access to the information, or why being a queer person was prioritized on an issue involving development. However, the centralization of this information amongst the small group that had begun organizing has not changed until this day.
Hopefully tonight some people will be flyering in the Eastlake to let people know about the "Q-FAG" meetings. Please email us at theregoestheneighborhood [at] gay.com if you are interested in helping make the flier, translate the flier (cantonese, spanish, vietnamese?), or want to help put it out.
It will be this Sunday February 6th
4-6PM at the suigetsukan dojo
(1st and
>103 International Boulevard Oakland, CA...
to answer your questions, confused:
at the meeting which met Sunday January 3rd 2005
at the Mandela Pkwy in West Oakland 1-3PM,
from what i could guesstimate, 12 of the 19 people total were people of color, and of this total, only 3 appeared to me as "male" and/or fellow fags...
i dissociated during the check-ins, but my impression was that most of them came from some background of organizing with NGO's based on their responses over the course of the meeting. i don't believe that the Q-FAG group, nor Gay Shame, nor APOC or SIAFU would identify as maoist, stalinist, nationalist, revolutionary or as hippies... maybe SIAFU thinks they're revolutionary...
i'm annoyed by this thing you said:
"Perhaps the radical community and liberal NGOs are alienating potential revolutionaries but they are mnot coopting the struggles because visibility and participation in many communities is nonexistant."
I'm concerned that you might be saying that the self-determination of people living in the Eastlake in regards to the issue of being displaced is "non-existant" and not visible, without looking at the process which I have detailed above showing how people are excluded from the decisions that affect them. This particular problem might be solved at any time by disseminating information effectively.
"I'm concerned that you might be saying that the self-determination of people living in the Eastlake in regards to the issue of being displaced is "non-existant" and not visible"
I dont know about that case but I was responding to antiwar groups and other activists being accused of cooption of struggles in minority communities when one sees very little involvement of the activist community in such communities. There are exceptions like those who work on police brutality and gentrification but I was more concerned that the overall message of the previous few comments in the thread (rather than the original post) was one of telling activists to be less involved in community organizing since such actvity would be by its very nature a cooption of local struggles. I dont think ca or you directly said this but it was the feeling I got from your comments. I guess the concern is thjat criticism of most activists as seen in those comments is not really constructive criticism since it isnt presenting alternatives but just dismissing potential allies who could change tact if given constructive criticism. I can understand the constant complaints that mainstream activism is doomed to never become too radical because of its economic composition (although Ive found that if you dig, most ultraradical types are more often from well off backgrounds than more mainstream types even though few poeple will directly admit to this) The problem is that a small ultra-radical cult is likely to never actually achieve any of its demands whereas groups that aim for building a mass movement that can actually achive gains usually requires some compromises. When something is going to directly hurt you (like gentrification) there isnt much room to compromise on the issue, but that doesnt mean one shouldnt reach out with ones demands to the broader community rather than just directing ones demands within a small subset of the radical actvisit community. I think the original post had somewhat of a problem with this in that its makes a lot of assumptions of previous knowledge of the activist community (and the ties between the atacks on siafu and the talk about gentrification are a little confusing).
I dont know about that case but I was responding to antiwar groups and other activists being accused of cooption of struggles in minority communities when one sees very little involvement of the activist community in such communities. There are exceptions like those who work on police brutality and gentrification but I was more concerned that the overall message of the previous few comments in the thread (rather than the original post) was one of telling activists to be less involved in community organizing since such actvity would be by its very nature a cooption of local struggles. I dont think ca or you directly said this but it was the feeling I got from your comments. I guess the concern is thjat criticism of most activists as seen in those comments is not really constructive criticism since it isnt presenting alternatives but just dismissing potential allies who could change tact if given constructive criticism. I can understand the constant complaints that mainstream activism is doomed to never become too radical because of its economic composition (although Ive found that if you dig, most ultraradical types are more often from well off backgrounds than more mainstream types even though few poeple will directly admit to this) The problem is that a small ultra-radical cult is likely to never actually achieve any of its demands whereas groups that aim for building a mass movement that can actually achive gains usually requires some compromises. When something is going to directly hurt you (like gentrification) there isnt much room to compromise on the issue, but that doesnt mean one shouldnt reach out with ones demands to the broader community rather than just directing ones demands within a small subset of the radical actvisit community. I think the original post had somewhat of a problem with this in that its makes a lot of assumptions of previous knowledge of the activist community (and the ties between the atacks on siafu and the talk about gentrification are a little confusing).
Be cautious of the activist and "people in the community" division. This is a dangerous notion. Sure there are people who organize around issues and a group, and there are people who are and are not part of these groups. However, these (the words "activist" and "constituents") are constructions of liberal ideology that reinforce class dynamics. to me, it's very important to resist the divisions among people and their problems that these ideas impose.
One thing that we mention in the writing is the idea of what is "radical." indeed, there is evidence that people who are not part of what is considered an activist background tend to be more radical than the activists. it is those who identify as activist who should take a lesson from them, and use what resources and privilege they may have in this activist industrial complex to support the growth of those efforts. It is with that understanding that it becomes difficult to marginalize what is considered by a lot very apprehensively as "radical."
one way that resistance to the war might manifest is in work around counter-recruitment. there's a lot to be considered in the ways that certain groups of people are targetted for the military. the larger liberal antiwar protests seem to ignore this. it requires a bit more than holding a protest at a recruitment office. antiwar messaging is not nearly as aggressive in addressing the predatory recruitment practices of the armed forces as it is in having huge san francisco permitted tourist attractions in front of city hall.
you're right though, and your comments are appreciated in regards to how the thing we put together does not supply a reader with full context into why we spoke about who we chose to spoke about and who we are and so on. however, there should be no confusion in terms of the city's gentrification plans and the top-down organizing of some activist groups. it was my intent, personally, in writing this letter to show how, using very specific examples, that SIAFU, Danny Wan and Q-FAG participate in the perpetuation of the same structures of domination through race, class and gender. They all function to dispossess people of their power through ingenuous acts of benevolence. How can SIAFU claim to represent the dissent of people of color against the Republican Party if meetings are closed, their structure is top-down and travel is not economically possible to all? How can Danny Wan claim to create a space for queer people of color living if the decision is to be made only amongst local merchants and select representatives from NGO's sitting at the LGBT Roundtable? Likewise, if Q-FAG, which as we've try to explain in our letter, basically reproduces these processes, how are they going to be effective at stopping gentrification?
One thing that we mention in the writing is the idea of what is "radical." indeed, there is evidence that people who are not part of what is considered an activist background tend to be more radical than the activists. it is those who identify as activist who should take a lesson from them, and use what resources and privilege they may have in this activist industrial complex to support the growth of those efforts. It is with that understanding that it becomes difficult to marginalize what is considered by a lot very apprehensively as "radical."
one way that resistance to the war might manifest is in work around counter-recruitment. there's a lot to be considered in the ways that certain groups of people are targetted for the military. the larger liberal antiwar protests seem to ignore this. it requires a bit more than holding a protest at a recruitment office. antiwar messaging is not nearly as aggressive in addressing the predatory recruitment practices of the armed forces as it is in having huge san francisco permitted tourist attractions in front of city hall.
you're right though, and your comments are appreciated in regards to how the thing we put together does not supply a reader with full context into why we spoke about who we chose to spoke about and who we are and so on. however, there should be no confusion in terms of the city's gentrification plans and the top-down organizing of some activist groups. it was my intent, personally, in writing this letter to show how, using very specific examples, that SIAFU, Danny Wan and Q-FAG participate in the perpetuation of the same structures of domination through race, class and gender. They all function to dispossess people of their power through ingenuous acts of benevolence. How can SIAFU claim to represent the dissent of people of color against the Republican Party if meetings are closed, their structure is top-down and travel is not economically possible to all? How can Danny Wan claim to create a space for queer people of color living if the decision is to be made only amongst local merchants and select representatives from NGO's sitting at the LGBT Roundtable? Likewise, if Q-FAG, which as we've try to explain in our letter, basically reproduces these processes, how are they going to be effective at stopping gentrification?
...remains gender and sexuality, because still nobody on this site has commmented on these things. Hmm. Yay male supremacy workshops! I feel fairly confident then that I could scream: "ALL QUEERS DESERVE TO DIE!!!" and not have any of our merry lurkers comment on it or raise on issue. Go Left!
Also, in the thing that I wrote before, I did not mean to imply that queer people of color working together with businesses and Danny Wan to "make a gay community," would be a desirable thing, as there is still the little matter of people getting evicted from the homes, which always happens. Responsible development is a myth.
"Be cautious of the activist and "people in the community" division. This is a dangerous notion."
Its not a closed community of people and there isnt a real division but when organizing its depressing to see it consists of a seperate community from the mainstream community in all cultures and subcultures. Even with labor activism and other things that dont require free time they do require risk and there are not that many people willing to risk their jobs for a long-term cause (and in many cases if people are supporting famillies and are barely getting by its not even a question of personal risk). Activists are therefore for the most part composed of people with free time and some sort of safety net (or nothing to lose ) who are idealistic (or stupid ) enough to think its possible to change things. I wouldnt include NGO workers in this category since if you get paid to be an actvist you may be very priveledged (to have such a job) but one doesnt have to have the same safetynet or even idealism (burnout doesnt really matter when one has to work some job to survive anyways). I personally dislike the politics of most NGOs but I think they do tend to represent communities better diversitywise for the same reason one gets a more diverse community of postal workers or census takers than one gets at a demo organized in the middle of a workday.
"remains gender and sexuality, because still nobody on this site has commmented on these things. Hmm. Yay male supremacy workshops"
Many radical activist communities that even openly claim to denounce homophobia and sexism dont deal with gender well because femininity is somehow seen as weak whereas even doing stupid things as a result of testosterone is seen as radical or militant. Sexuality is even more complicated since when people's social and political lives overlap one ends up both with sexism due to inappropriate sexual attention as well as homophobia due to fear of sexual attention. There is a scary tendency among some radicals to set aside some ideals when looking up to certain "opressed communities"; homophobia in some islamic communities, sexism and homophobia in some radical hip hop, racism against other minority groups by some ethnic nationalist groups etc.... In terms of queer politics the Bay Area I think the biggest problem is that people dont see the open discrimination one sees almost everywhere else (even though it exists) so people assume that most queer folk in the Bay Area are the elite few who could move to Bay Area as an escape and live in the Castro rather than the larger majority that is less well off economically than the general population and not as open about their sexuality (due to greater risks).
Its not a closed community of people and there isnt a real division but when organizing its depressing to see it consists of a seperate community from the mainstream community in all cultures and subcultures. Even with labor activism and other things that dont require free time they do require risk and there are not that many people willing to risk their jobs for a long-term cause (and in many cases if people are supporting famillies and are barely getting by its not even a question of personal risk). Activists are therefore for the most part composed of people with free time and some sort of safety net (or nothing to lose ) who are idealistic (or stupid ) enough to think its possible to change things. I wouldnt include NGO workers in this category since if you get paid to be an actvist you may be very priveledged (to have such a job) but one doesnt have to have the same safetynet or even idealism (burnout doesnt really matter when one has to work some job to survive anyways). I personally dislike the politics of most NGOs but I think they do tend to represent communities better diversitywise for the same reason one gets a more diverse community of postal workers or census takers than one gets at a demo organized in the middle of a workday.
"remains gender and sexuality, because still nobody on this site has commmented on these things. Hmm. Yay male supremacy workshops"
Many radical activist communities that even openly claim to denounce homophobia and sexism dont deal with gender well because femininity is somehow seen as weak whereas even doing stupid things as a result of testosterone is seen as radical or militant. Sexuality is even more complicated since when people's social and political lives overlap one ends up both with sexism due to inappropriate sexual attention as well as homophobia due to fear of sexual attention. There is a scary tendency among some radicals to set aside some ideals when looking up to certain "opressed communities"; homophobia in some islamic communities, sexism and homophobia in some radical hip hop, racism against other minority groups by some ethnic nationalist groups etc.... In terms of queer politics the Bay Area I think the biggest problem is that people dont see the open discrimination one sees almost everywhere else (even though it exists) so people assume that most queer folk in the Bay Area are the elite few who could move to Bay Area as an escape and live in the Castro rather than the larger majority that is less well off economically than the general population and not as open about their sexuality (due to greater risks).
the game; make up a group that attracts those who may pose a political threat, then steal away all their thunder and brio so they will think twice before they decide to get active again. i've seen it happen several times now, and it appears to be a standard practice." "I do think it's important to note that some anti-war groups in the bay area follow a similar approach, with less deal-brokering and far more appeasement and hollow rhetoric. the difference is that the ngo-like groups decide to interfere in the lives of working class and poor people in this country, rather than funnel off of a liberal-based peace movement. both stink, but not exactly in the same way...all in all, it's basically an attempt to control a population
"make up a group that attracts those who may pose a political threat"
This is usually an accusation directed at ANSWER, the ISO and NION despite their lack of support from the beginning by those who claim these groups coopt struggles. I can see it perhaps as a more accurate description of Act Up SF, Antiwar Action, RTS and a few other groups that imploded for personality reasons. But, as in the case of the accusation against Gay Shame in the previous comment, knowing those involved leads me to see this as a probelm with conflicting personalities and not as a result of some conspiratorial intent.
This is usually an accusation directed at ANSWER, the ISO and NION despite their lack of support from the beginning by those who claim these groups coopt struggles. I can see it perhaps as a more accurate description of Act Up SF, Antiwar Action, RTS and a few other groups that imploded for personality reasons. But, as in the case of the accusation against Gay Shame in the previous comment, knowing those involved leads me to see this as a probelm with conflicting personalities and not as a result of some conspiratorial intent.
This happens in all kinds of voluntary political groups. There are always some authoritarian people, and there are those who rebel against it. It's not just on the Left either.
actually, lamentably, i know that for myself, and i think
also others working on this, wanted to point out that it isn't just about
group dynamics and personality conflicts.
the way in which society is structured as
a whole tends to lean towards heirarchies, and the things that happened here is an example of patterns that repeat throughout a vast variety of social arrangements and various ways.
the nature of authoritarianism is common and extensive.
this is probably hard for most to deal with, but i myself personally am not interested in always trying to
make things simple for people-- particularly when my freedom
is tied to getting as many people as possible exposed to more
complicated ways of seeing the world... honestly, i don't think i
really know what "simple" means...
also others working on this, wanted to point out that it isn't just about
group dynamics and personality conflicts.
the way in which society is structured as
a whole tends to lean towards heirarchies, and the things that happened here is an example of patterns that repeat throughout a vast variety of social arrangements and various ways.
the nature of authoritarianism is common and extensive.
this is probably hard for most to deal with, but i myself personally am not interested in always trying to
make things simple for people-- particularly when my freedom
is tied to getting as many people as possible exposed to more
complicated ways of seeing the world... honestly, i don't think i
really know what "simple" means...
People--
Sorry for spacing it...
So yeah...
This last Thursday, that is the First Thursday of February, the 3rd,
at noon at Pho Anh Dao Vietnamese Noodle House
(280 East 18th Street in Oakland, across from Merritt Bakery, at the site of Danny Wan's proposed Gay BID plans) I dropped
by to see if Danny and her cronies were going to show up for the meeting that they've been holding there for a year about the Business Improvement District (BID)...
I went alone and arrived on time. There was nothing there this time.
I spoke with the hostperson and they indicated that Danny has been meeting there for the last year to have this meeting.
I know that Danny is no longer a city council member, but during the last LGBT Roundtable, Danny indicated that despite stepping out of office to "take care of his sick parents," that they would still be involved in the LGBT Roundtable... still present to conduct some leadership with regards to the direction of the Gay BID.
It is also very important to know that Danny Wan is still employed in his old job as a lawyer for the Port of Oakland, which will put him in a better position of political clout, especially with anything involving the economy of Oakland.
The host at Pho Anh Dao said that the next Thursday they might try to meet again, but that would also be New Years, and their noodle house will be closed the next Thursday (the 10th of February).
We wagered that it is most likely that Danny's meeting will probably happen on the 17th, the third Thursday, if they would try to continue having it at Pho Anh Dao. She explained to me that Danny's office would usually call at 11 or 11:30 that morning to let them know that they wanted to make a reservation at their restaurant.
The General Manager at Merritt Bakery confirmed that their business had received phone calls for the last year now from Danny Wan's office inviting them to attend, and that they would receive emails reminding them. I asked to see if they had a printout of the email, but they were too busy in the restaurant at that moment. I tried to ask if someone had in fact attended Danny Wan's meeting on behalf of Merritt Bakery, and the GM seemed to me to express some irritation around the whole issue, and I can't recall precisely what the answer was; my inference was that they had not, but I'm not for certain. (I noticed a color photocopy of the blueprint for the new Albertson's taped to the cash register's podium. I asked them about it and they said that it had been since from the first day the old Albertson's had been torn down.)
The host from Pho Anh Dao said that 15 people would attend the meetings, representing local businesses around the area.
I intend to see what's goin on there at these meetings with local Eastlake businesses. I want to see what plans there are. I'm posting this to let other folks know about it, if they'd also would be interested in going.
What's interesting, or that I was wondering, is if that now that Danny Wan is no longer a public figure-- if Danny's office or whatever that's in charge of pulling together the plans is now not part of official city business-- is if these plans are now private, and not available for public scrutiny or not...?
Also, folks from Gay Shame and Anarchist People of Color met to put together a basic informational flier about the development being proposed to their neighborhood, because it's believed to still be not broadly known by most folks. The people at Casa Vallarta didn't seem to know exactly what I was talking about. There are plans to translate the flier. Does anybody know Cantonese or Vietnamese? Please contact us at theregoestheneighborhood [at] gay.com
Sorry for spacing it...
So yeah...
This last Thursday, that is the First Thursday of February, the 3rd,
at noon at Pho Anh Dao Vietnamese Noodle House
(280 East 18th Street in Oakland, across from Merritt Bakery, at the site of Danny Wan's proposed Gay BID plans) I dropped
by to see if Danny and her cronies were going to show up for the meeting that they've been holding there for a year about the Business Improvement District (BID)...
I went alone and arrived on time. There was nothing there this time.
I spoke with the hostperson and they indicated that Danny has been meeting there for the last year to have this meeting.
I know that Danny is no longer a city council member, but during the last LGBT Roundtable, Danny indicated that despite stepping out of office to "take care of his sick parents," that they would still be involved in the LGBT Roundtable... still present to conduct some leadership with regards to the direction of the Gay BID.
It is also very important to know that Danny Wan is still employed in his old job as a lawyer for the Port of Oakland, which will put him in a better position of political clout, especially with anything involving the economy of Oakland.
The host at Pho Anh Dao said that the next Thursday they might try to meet again, but that would also be New Years, and their noodle house will be closed the next Thursday (the 10th of February).
We wagered that it is most likely that Danny's meeting will probably happen on the 17th, the third Thursday, if they would try to continue having it at Pho Anh Dao. She explained to me that Danny's office would usually call at 11 or 11:30 that morning to let them know that they wanted to make a reservation at their restaurant.
The General Manager at Merritt Bakery confirmed that their business had received phone calls for the last year now from Danny Wan's office inviting them to attend, and that they would receive emails reminding them. I asked to see if they had a printout of the email, but they were too busy in the restaurant at that moment. I tried to ask if someone had in fact attended Danny Wan's meeting on behalf of Merritt Bakery, and the GM seemed to me to express some irritation around the whole issue, and I can't recall precisely what the answer was; my inference was that they had not, but I'm not for certain. (I noticed a color photocopy of the blueprint for the new Albertson's taped to the cash register's podium. I asked them about it and they said that it had been since from the first day the old Albertson's had been torn down.)
The host from Pho Anh Dao said that 15 people would attend the meetings, representing local businesses around the area.
I intend to see what's goin on there at these meetings with local Eastlake businesses. I want to see what plans there are. I'm posting this to let other folks know about it, if they'd also would be interested in going.
What's interesting, or that I was wondering, is if that now that Danny Wan is no longer a public figure-- if Danny's office or whatever that's in charge of pulling together the plans is now not part of official city business-- is if these plans are now private, and not available for public scrutiny or not...?
Also, folks from Gay Shame and Anarchist People of Color met to put together a basic informational flier about the development being proposed to their neighborhood, because it's believed to still be not broadly known by most folks. The people at Casa Vallarta didn't seem to know exactly what I was talking about. There are plans to translate the flier. Does anybody know Cantonese or Vietnamese? Please contact us at theregoestheneighborhood [at] gay.com
People--
Sorry for spacing it...
So yeah...
This last Thursday, that is the First Thursday of February, the 3rd,
at noon at Pho Anh Dao Vietnamese Noodle House
(280 East 18th Street in Oakland, across from Merritt Bakery, at the site of Danny Wan's proposed Gay BID plans) I dropped
by to see if Danny and her cronies were going to show up for the meeting that they've been holding there for a year about the Business Improvement District (BID)...
I went alone and arrived on time. There was nothing there this time.
I spoke with the hostperson and they indicated that Danny has been meeting there for the last year to have this meeting.
I know that Danny is no longer a city council member, but during the last LGBT Roundtable, Danny indicated that despite stepping out of office to "take care of his sick parents," that they would still be involved in the LGBT Roundtable... still present to conduct some leadership with regards to the direction of the Gay BID.
It is also very important to know that Danny Wan is still employed in his old job as a lawyer for the Port of Oakland, which will put him in a better position of political clout, especially with anything involving the economy of Oakland.
The host at Pho Anh Dao said that the next Thursday they might try to meet again, but that would also be New Years, and their noodle house will be closed the next Thursday (the 10th of February).
We wagered that it is most likely that Danny's meeting will probably happen on the 17th, the third Thursday, if they would try to continue having it at Pho Anh Dao. She explained to me that Danny's office would usually call at 11 or 11:30 that morning to let them know that they wanted to make a reservation at their restaurant.
The General Manager at Merritt Bakery confirmed that their business had received phone calls for the last year now from Danny Wan's office inviting them to attend, and that they would receive emails reminding them. I asked to see if they had a printout of the email, but they were too busy in the restaurant at that moment. I tried to ask if someone had in fact attended Danny Wan's meeting on behalf of Merritt Bakery, and the GM seemed to me to express some irritation around the whole issue, and I can't recall precisely what the answer was; my inference was that they had not, but I'm not for certain. (I noticed a color photocopy of the blueprint for the new Albertson's taped to the cash register's podium. I asked them about it and they said that it had been since from the first day the old Albertson's had been torn down.)
The host from Pho Anh Dao said that 15 people would attend the meetings, representing local businesses around the area.
I intend to see what's goin on there at these meetings with local Eastlake businesses. I want to see what plans there are. I'm posting this to let other folks know about it, if they'd also would be interested in going.
What's interesting, or that I was wondering, is if that now that Danny Wan is no longer a public figure-- if Danny's office or whatever that's in charge of pulling together the plans is now not part of official city business-- is if these plans are now private, and not available for public scrutiny or not...?
Also, folks from Gay Shame and Anarchist People of Color met to put together a basic informational flier about the development being proposed to their neighborhood, because it's believed to still be not broadly known by most folks. The people at Casa Vallarta didn't seem to know exactly what I was talking about. There are plans to translate the flier. Does anybody know Cantonese or Vietnamese? Please contact us at theregoestheneighborhood [at] gay.com
Sorry for spacing it...
So yeah...
This last Thursday, that is the First Thursday of February, the 3rd,
at noon at Pho Anh Dao Vietnamese Noodle House
(280 East 18th Street in Oakland, across from Merritt Bakery, at the site of Danny Wan's proposed Gay BID plans) I dropped
by to see if Danny and her cronies were going to show up for the meeting that they've been holding there for a year about the Business Improvement District (BID)...
I went alone and arrived on time. There was nothing there this time.
I spoke with the hostperson and they indicated that Danny has been meeting there for the last year to have this meeting.
I know that Danny is no longer a city council member, but during the last LGBT Roundtable, Danny indicated that despite stepping out of office to "take care of his sick parents," that they would still be involved in the LGBT Roundtable... still present to conduct some leadership with regards to the direction of the Gay BID.
It is also very important to know that Danny Wan is still employed in his old job as a lawyer for the Port of Oakland, which will put him in a better position of political clout, especially with anything involving the economy of Oakland.
The host at Pho Anh Dao said that the next Thursday they might try to meet again, but that would also be New Years, and their noodle house will be closed the next Thursday (the 10th of February).
We wagered that it is most likely that Danny's meeting will probably happen on the 17th, the third Thursday, if they would try to continue having it at Pho Anh Dao. She explained to me that Danny's office would usually call at 11 or 11:30 that morning to let them know that they wanted to make a reservation at their restaurant.
The General Manager at Merritt Bakery confirmed that their business had received phone calls for the last year now from Danny Wan's office inviting them to attend, and that they would receive emails reminding them. I asked to see if they had a printout of the email, but they were too busy in the restaurant at that moment. I tried to ask if someone had in fact attended Danny Wan's meeting on behalf of Merritt Bakery, and the GM seemed to me to express some irritation around the whole issue, and I can't recall precisely what the answer was; my inference was that they had not, but I'm not for certain. (I noticed a color photocopy of the blueprint for the new Albertson's taped to the cash register's podium. I asked them about it and they said that it had been since from the first day the old Albertson's had been torn down.)
The host from Pho Anh Dao said that 15 people would attend the meetings, representing local businesses around the area.
I intend to see what's goin on there at these meetings with local Eastlake businesses. I want to see what plans there are. I'm posting this to let other folks know about it, if they'd also would be interested in going.
What's interesting, or that I was wondering, is if that now that Danny Wan is no longer a public figure-- if Danny's office or whatever that's in charge of pulling together the plans is now not part of official city business-- is if these plans are now private, and not available for public scrutiny or not...?
Also, folks from Gay Shame and Anarchist People of Color met to put together a basic informational flier about the development being proposed to their neighborhood, because it's believed to still be not broadly known by most folks. The people at Casa Vallarta didn't seem to know exactly what I was talking about. There are plans to translate the flier. Does anybody know Cantonese or Vietnamese? Please contact us at theregoestheneighborhood [at] gay.com
So I went with another new person from Anarchist People of Color
to try to intercept the Lake Merrit Business Association meetings where I had been told by other restaurants in the area that Danny Wan had been attending, and that they were planning the development.
The group had been meeting in the last year at Pho Anh Dao since the Albertson's had been first under-going remodelling. The meeting for the month of February was cancelled, according to Sue Sotelo at Merritt Bakery. She was told this by someone named Judy. She became annoyed when I asked to interview either her or someone from Merritt Bakery about what was going on. She did tell me that Woody's Cleaners, the Parkway Theatre and the Communication Workers of America had been also at the meetings.
On the way to talk to the other businesses in the area, we noticed a Peggy Moore placard endorsing her candidacy for Danny Wan's seat in the window of a salon that specialized in African-style braids. I remember Peggy Moore from the LGBT Roundtable. She was one of the two black people at the Roundtable who would immediately snap back at any questions (from the groups of queers which would later organize to stop the gentrification) which might be somehow challenging the plans of Danny Wan. I learned later that she had been quoted in the BAR as saying something to the effect of "I'm against gentrification" and "I want to help make a queer community in Oakland." I think people should be on the look-out for more rhetoric attempting to disguise the displacement of asian immigrants in the area with such phrases as "creating a space for the queer community in Oakland." This is keeping in line with what Danny Wan was pitching before. From merely a strategic politically correct public relations standpoint, the idea of a black lesbian might seem more marketable to liberal voters in Oakland.
At Woody's Cleaners, we ended up speaking with Woody, who said he was the President of the Lake Merritt Business Association. Woody claimed that the meetings were just to talk about local problems in the neighborhood like crime and street sweepers. In retrospect, we were pretty certain that Woody was making that up. Woody gave us a lot of other useful information, which I will now share with the rest of the world.
Woody told us Bob Pittman, from the LGBT Roundtable, would know the most about plans. Bob, a new face on the Oakland Housing Authority Board of Commissioners, owns a company called American International Mortgagors/Title America Search Company. Sounds nice. And we all know how much Oakland cares about low income housing don't we? Call and ask Bob "Hi, I'm (either queer or an ally (that is, if you are, in fact, either a queer or an ally)), and I was wondering why are you using gay people as the first line of gentrification in a predominately asian immigrant neighborhood?" (Don't trust him to be honest and open about it.)
Bob's Cell Phone (510) 251-2708
Here are the office lines of other exciting development types in Danny Wan's office. These were written in Woody's binder:
Jeanie Godwin (510) 238-7246
Eva (510) 238-7021
Woody also helped developed Out in Oakland, and is a business man himself. Here's a random phone number from Woody's binder. If you still have energy left after the previous exciting bureaucratic phone calls, you can also ask the Oakland Commerce Corporation "Hi, I'm (either queer or an ally (that is, if you are, in fact, either a queer or an ally)), and I was wondering what do you feel about the City of Oakland using gay people as the first line of gentrification in a predominately asian immigrant neighborhood?":
Oakland Commerce Corporation (510) 632-1238
In another amusing side-note, it looks that the No To Gentrification group that is critique in our piece for it's authoritarian tendencies is deciding to abandon all pretenses of challenging power by inviting the green party's own Aimee Allison to sit in on the meetings "as another member of the meeting who lives in District 2," according to an email sent out to the notogentrification list February 20th. This smells like ISO. Aimee Allison wrote "Blood Makes the Grass Grow," which is about her being a conscientious objector to the Gulf War and so forth. The email goes on: "Over the years, Aimee has been able to stay centered in values/beliefs that many of us share and has regularly demonstrated the kind of backbone we wish more politicians could."
Oh wait, did I also mention that Aimee is running for Danny Wan's seat? It's nice to see the group has decided to abandon any pretense of being opposed to taking action outside of the system (or even in the interests of those still unapproached residents of the area to be gentrified) and has been reduced to playing electoral politics. Okay, okay, nothing's happened just yet. Let's see what comes out of this innocent activist-cred-trading session for the future District 2 hopeful. Ha ha ha.
to try to intercept the Lake Merrit Business Association meetings where I had been told by other restaurants in the area that Danny Wan had been attending, and that they were planning the development.
The group had been meeting in the last year at Pho Anh Dao since the Albertson's had been first under-going remodelling. The meeting for the month of February was cancelled, according to Sue Sotelo at Merritt Bakery. She was told this by someone named Judy. She became annoyed when I asked to interview either her or someone from Merritt Bakery about what was going on. She did tell me that Woody's Cleaners, the Parkway Theatre and the Communication Workers of America had been also at the meetings.
On the way to talk to the other businesses in the area, we noticed a Peggy Moore placard endorsing her candidacy for Danny Wan's seat in the window of a salon that specialized in African-style braids. I remember Peggy Moore from the LGBT Roundtable. She was one of the two black people at the Roundtable who would immediately snap back at any questions (from the groups of queers which would later organize to stop the gentrification) which might be somehow challenging the plans of Danny Wan. I learned later that she had been quoted in the BAR as saying something to the effect of "I'm against gentrification" and "I want to help make a queer community in Oakland." I think people should be on the look-out for more rhetoric attempting to disguise the displacement of asian immigrants in the area with such phrases as "creating a space for the queer community in Oakland." This is keeping in line with what Danny Wan was pitching before. From merely a strategic politically correct public relations standpoint, the idea of a black lesbian might seem more marketable to liberal voters in Oakland.
At Woody's Cleaners, we ended up speaking with Woody, who said he was the President of the Lake Merritt Business Association. Woody claimed that the meetings were just to talk about local problems in the neighborhood like crime and street sweepers. In retrospect, we were pretty certain that Woody was making that up. Woody gave us a lot of other useful information, which I will now share with the rest of the world.
Woody told us Bob Pittman, from the LGBT Roundtable, would know the most about plans. Bob, a new face on the Oakland Housing Authority Board of Commissioners, owns a company called American International Mortgagors/Title America Search Company. Sounds nice. And we all know how much Oakland cares about low income housing don't we? Call and ask Bob "Hi, I'm (either queer or an ally (that is, if you are, in fact, either a queer or an ally)), and I was wondering why are you using gay people as the first line of gentrification in a predominately asian immigrant neighborhood?" (Don't trust him to be honest and open about it.)
Bob's Cell Phone (510) 251-2708
Here are the office lines of other exciting development types in Danny Wan's office. These were written in Woody's binder:
Jeanie Godwin (510) 238-7246
Eva (510) 238-7021
Woody also helped developed Out in Oakland, and is a business man himself. Here's a random phone number from Woody's binder. If you still have energy left after the previous exciting bureaucratic phone calls, you can also ask the Oakland Commerce Corporation "Hi, I'm (either queer or an ally (that is, if you are, in fact, either a queer or an ally)), and I was wondering what do you feel about the City of Oakland using gay people as the first line of gentrification in a predominately asian immigrant neighborhood?":
Oakland Commerce Corporation (510) 632-1238
In another amusing side-note, it looks that the No To Gentrification group that is critique in our piece for it's authoritarian tendencies is deciding to abandon all pretenses of challenging power by inviting the green party's own Aimee Allison to sit in on the meetings "as another member of the meeting who lives in District 2," according to an email sent out to the notogentrification list February 20th. This smells like ISO. Aimee Allison wrote "Blood Makes the Grass Grow," which is about her being a conscientious objector to the Gulf War and so forth. The email goes on: "Over the years, Aimee has been able to stay centered in values/beliefs that many of us share and has regularly demonstrated the kind of backbone we wish more politicians could."
Oh wait, did I also mention that Aimee is running for Danny Wan's seat? It's nice to see the group has decided to abandon any pretense of being opposed to taking action outside of the system (or even in the interests of those still unapproached residents of the area to be gentrified) and has been reduced to playing electoral politics. Okay, okay, nothing's happened just yet. Let's see what comes out of this innocent activist-cred-trading session for the future District 2 hopeful. Ha ha ha.
this is a thoughtful, articulate article and i thank the people who took the time to write it as well as those with enough time on their hands to read and respond to it. i just wish that this critique and the following reactions could serve to nurture something beyond the same self-defeating activist masochism/nihilism that is so common among urban queer activists challenging capitalist superstructures. it's interesting to use this whole "gay redevelopment" hoopla as a starting point to discuss larger issues of organizing and the thousands of conflict that emerge within our attempts to raise any sort of revolutionary collective voice. too bad this conversation doesn't more often move beyond "activist academia." too bad consensus-based decision making is also totally susceptible to fucked up power dynamics. too bad so many of us have difficulty dealing with our own hypocrisy, bias, and hyper-judgmental tendencies in a healthy way. really too bad in general. i'm taking an ambien.
Yesterday 500 immigrants, many many from Eastlake, marched on the Oakland school board to protest against the proposed closure of Oakland adult education program. I hope you don't find this off topic.
read this:
http://www.insidebayarea.com/ci_2583705
read this:
http://www.insidebayarea.com/ci_2583705
THE OPENING:
Shit just keeps getting funnier on this list. Reading this email inspired me to call up Condoleeza Rice and ask the US to get out of Iraq. She hasn't gotten back to me yet.
THE REPOSTED EMAIL:
Hi All!
I personally called Peggy Moore to clarify her position on Danny
Wan's plan to develop a "Gay district" in the Eastlake, Parkway
Theater neighborhood and the issue of gentrification in District 2.
Peggy told me that she has always been against Danny Wan's
plan to develop the Eastlake neighborhood into a Castro-like
"Gay business district and neighborhood". As a lesbian of color
who lives in the neighborhood she wants to preserve the
Eastlake neighborhood and only redevelop it in sustainable
ways that would not "gentrify" or displace any of the current
working class and poor immigrant and people of color
communities. She is against the development of a "Gay District"
anywhere in District 2 where she is running for county council to
replace Danny Wan.
Peggy Moore is for developing a "Gay Business District" in
downtown Oakland "in the area of 21st Street and Franklin Street
near the "Bench and Bar" gay club where there are already empty
storefronts and room for redevelopment", she says.
I thought I would clarify her position straight from her lips, since
inquiring minds want to know!
<signature suppressed>
MY COMMENTARY:
Well, it's good to see that Peggy Moore can think on her feet and know not to tell random people on the phone what her re-development plans are; I mean, whoops, it's good to see that she knows how to be a perfectly honest politician. What is going on at QFAG? I'm glad that the anti-gentrification activists are willing to engage in dialogue with those running for Danny Wan's seat without including anyone else who lives in the Parkway District. I wonder if the group next plans to hold conversations for those in the path of the bulldozer with other District 2 Councilmember hopefuls. That's radical change! Maybe we can have a meeting with Peggy Moore in San Francisco when she wins 2005 SF Gay Pride Marshall so we can talk about the re-development in Oakland at Zuni. They have great tartare. She's using the wrong word: "sustainable development." I think she means "responsible development." It doesn't matter, because neither are nothing more than figments of the spin doctor's imagination. "Sustainable" makes me think of a penitentiary. The guard system at a penitentiary is "sustainable," but that doesn't mean that the guards will be "responsible." I'm glad that QFAG supports the redevelopment of another part of the city of Oakland. Ha ha ha.
Shit just keeps getting funnier on this list. Reading this email inspired me to call up Condoleeza Rice and ask the US to get out of Iraq. She hasn't gotten back to me yet.
THE REPOSTED EMAIL:
Hi All!
I personally called Peggy Moore to clarify her position on Danny
Wan's plan to develop a "Gay district" in the Eastlake, Parkway
Theater neighborhood and the issue of gentrification in District 2.
Peggy told me that she has always been against Danny Wan's
plan to develop the Eastlake neighborhood into a Castro-like
"Gay business district and neighborhood". As a lesbian of color
who lives in the neighborhood she wants to preserve the
Eastlake neighborhood and only redevelop it in sustainable
ways that would not "gentrify" or displace any of the current
working class and poor immigrant and people of color
communities. She is against the development of a "Gay District"
anywhere in District 2 where she is running for county council to
replace Danny Wan.
Peggy Moore is for developing a "Gay Business District" in
downtown Oakland "in the area of 21st Street and Franklin Street
near the "Bench and Bar" gay club where there are already empty
storefronts and room for redevelopment", she says.
I thought I would clarify her position straight from her lips, since
inquiring minds want to know!
<signature suppressed>
MY COMMENTARY:
Well, it's good to see that Peggy Moore can think on her feet and know not to tell random people on the phone what her re-development plans are; I mean, whoops, it's good to see that she knows how to be a perfectly honest politician. What is going on at QFAG? I'm glad that the anti-gentrification activists are willing to engage in dialogue with those running for Danny Wan's seat without including anyone else who lives in the Parkway District. I wonder if the group next plans to hold conversations for those in the path of the bulldozer with other District 2 Councilmember hopefuls. That's radical change! Maybe we can have a meeting with Peggy Moore in San Francisco when she wins 2005 SF Gay Pride Marshall so we can talk about the re-development in Oakland at Zuni. They have great tartare. She's using the wrong word: "sustainable development." I think she means "responsible development." It doesn't matter, because neither are nothing more than figments of the spin doctor's imagination. "Sustainable" makes me think of a penitentiary. The guard system at a penitentiary is "sustainable," but that doesn't mean that the guards will be "responsible." I'm glad that QFAG supports the redevelopment of another part of the city of Oakland. Ha ha ha.
Folks--
Whatever. You guys are not having conversations with Peggy Moore and Aimee Allison about gentrification. You guys are trying to gain political clout. It is very frustrating that this is the kind of thing that "activism" is reduced to. The people who left you guys because of your enamourings to bureaucratic lobbying instead of direct action have lacked a good target, but still having no target at all is better than weird backroom deal-making by non-profit paid activists on behalf of the community. True, to this date, neither you nor those who left this group has been successful in messaging those living in the area with regards to the development-- well, actually, you may have seen some of our stencils. I've been monitoring the progression of the notogentrification list-serve with a mixture of amusement and repulsion. FYI, on the subject of authoritarianism, select conversations with government officials is not a process through which the distribution of power is made more accessible for more people, least of all those who live within the neighborhood targetted for gentrification. It all seems like some sort of weird photo op endorsement of electoral politics, and the usual top-down transfer of jurisdictional authority. Can you guys come up with anything else better than that? What size grant for the group are you are trying to get one of these future possible councilmembers to commit to upon their appointment? This move only confirms the assertions we laid out in our letter. Are you guys willing to discuss the issues we raised? Do you have any idea of where to even start from?
ralowe
-------Original Message-------
> From: Thomas Markham <thomasrmarkham [at] earthlink.net>
> Subject: Re: [notogentrification] Digest Number 52
> Sent: 06 Mar 2005 06:59:36
>
> The meeting with Peggy Moore and Rebecca Kaplan sounds good. Unfortunately,
> I have another commitment that night and can't make it. But then I talked
> with Peggy by phone about her position on Gentrification in Eastlake as I
> posted to this list, so I pretty much know where she is coming from. I know
> Rebecca also.
>
> Aimee Allison is coming to our meeting on the 13th out of her concern with
> Danny Wan¹s plan for developing and gentrifying the neighborhood. She is
> also running for Danny Wan's seat on the City Council.
>
> Peace,
>
> Thomas
> --
>
> "Any revolutionary movement cannot succeed if the power of that movement is
> not in the hands of the poor."
>
> James Forman
>
>
>
> on 3/5/05 12:59 PM, notogentrification [at] yahoogroups.com at
> notogentrification [at] yahoogroups.com wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > There are 2 messages in this issue.
> >
> > Topics in this digest:
> >
> > 1. peggy moore chat
> > From: SAilor J <captainsailorpants [at] yahoo.com>
> > 2. LGBT Roundtable this Friday
> > From: ja <mishmisha18 [at] yahoo.com>
> >
> >
> > ________________________________________________________________________
> > ________________________________________________________________________
> >
> > Message: 1
> > Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2005 18:10:22 -0800 (PST)
> > From: SAilor J <captainsailorpants [at] yahoo.com>
> > Subject: peggy moore chat
> >
> > hello folks,
> >
> > below is an email from rebekka kaplan, peggy moore's campaign manager. i
> > don't know who all it got sent to, but she sent it to me b/c i emailed her
> > personally to ask her where she stands on all this (she's a friend of a
> > friend).
> >
> > i am going to try to go to this meeting march 10--i think it's a really great
> > idea, and really rad that they're reaching out to folks to talk about it.
> >
> > anyone else want to attend?
> >
> > sailor
> > 510 594 1960
> >
> > Peggy has asked me to invite everyone over for an open & honest
> > conversation about gentrification and how to protect and enhance our
> > community.
> >
> > She was feeling pretty unhappy about seeing her own name associated with
> > something she opposes, and not sure how this rumor started. But, regardless
> > of why this discussion was sparked, it is an important one for our
> > community to discuss together.
> >
> > How do we unite around what kind of future we want for our community? How
> > can we heal from a history in which nearly every "Urban renewal" project in
> > our nation was used to evict, displace, and tear apart existing vibrant
> > neighborhoods, almost always of people of color? What would it look like
> > to have an approach that values the people who live in Oakland right now?
> >
> > Let's talk! The schedule is almost full of official campaign debates every
> > night, but we did find a free night, that we've held free to have this
> > conversation. We'd love to have as many people there as possible, with our
> > hearts and minds as open to each other as possible, and see what we can
> > come up with together.
> >
> > **********
> > Thursday, March 10th
> > 6pm
> > 3217 Lakeshore Ave (under Monkey Yoga)
> > *********
> >
> > Thanks,
> > -Rebecca
> >
> >
Whatever. You guys are not having conversations with Peggy Moore and Aimee Allison about gentrification. You guys are trying to gain political clout. It is very frustrating that this is the kind of thing that "activism" is reduced to. The people who left you guys because of your enamourings to bureaucratic lobbying instead of direct action have lacked a good target, but still having no target at all is better than weird backroom deal-making by non-profit paid activists on behalf of the community. True, to this date, neither you nor those who left this group has been successful in messaging those living in the area with regards to the development-- well, actually, you may have seen some of our stencils. I've been monitoring the progression of the notogentrification list-serve with a mixture of amusement and repulsion. FYI, on the subject of authoritarianism, select conversations with government officials is not a process through which the distribution of power is made more accessible for more people, least of all those who live within the neighborhood targetted for gentrification. It all seems like some sort of weird photo op endorsement of electoral politics, and the usual top-down transfer of jurisdictional authority. Can you guys come up with anything else better than that? What size grant for the group are you are trying to get one of these future possible councilmembers to commit to upon their appointment? This move only confirms the assertions we laid out in our letter. Are you guys willing to discuss the issues we raised? Do you have any idea of where to even start from?
ralowe
-------Original Message-------
> From: Thomas Markham <thomasrmarkham [at] earthlink.net>
> Subject: Re: [notogentrification] Digest Number 52
> Sent: 06 Mar 2005 06:59:36
>
> The meeting with Peggy Moore and Rebecca Kaplan sounds good. Unfortunately,
> I have another commitment that night and can't make it. But then I talked
> with Peggy by phone about her position on Gentrification in Eastlake as I
> posted to this list, so I pretty much know where she is coming from. I know
> Rebecca also.
>
> Aimee Allison is coming to our meeting on the 13th out of her concern with
> Danny Wan¹s plan for developing and gentrifying the neighborhood. She is
> also running for Danny Wan's seat on the City Council.
>
> Peace,
>
> Thomas
> --
>
> "Any revolutionary movement cannot succeed if the power of that movement is
> not in the hands of the poor."
>
> James Forman
>
>
>
> on 3/5/05 12:59 PM, notogentrification [at] yahoogroups.com at
> notogentrification [at] yahoogroups.com wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > There are 2 messages in this issue.
> >
> > Topics in this digest:
> >
> > 1. peggy moore chat
> > From: SAilor J <captainsailorpants [at] yahoo.com>
> > 2. LGBT Roundtable this Friday
> > From: ja <mishmisha18 [at] yahoo.com>
> >
> >
> > ________________________________________________________________________
> > ________________________________________________________________________
> >
> > Message: 1
> > Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2005 18:10:22 -0800 (PST)
> > From: SAilor J <captainsailorpants [at] yahoo.com>
> > Subject: peggy moore chat
> >
> > hello folks,
> >
> > below is an email from rebekka kaplan, peggy moore's campaign manager. i
> > don't know who all it got sent to, but she sent it to me b/c i emailed her
> > personally to ask her where she stands on all this (she's a friend of a
> > friend).
> >
> > i am going to try to go to this meeting march 10--i think it's a really great
> > idea, and really rad that they're reaching out to folks to talk about it.
> >
> > anyone else want to attend?
> >
> > sailor
> > 510 594 1960
> >
> > Peggy has asked me to invite everyone over for an open & honest
> > conversation about gentrification and how to protect and enhance our
> > community.
> >
> > She was feeling pretty unhappy about seeing her own name associated with
> > something she opposes, and not sure how this rumor started. But, regardless
> > of why this discussion was sparked, it is an important one for our
> > community to discuss together.
> >
> > How do we unite around what kind of future we want for our community? How
> > can we heal from a history in which nearly every "Urban renewal" project in
> > our nation was used to evict, displace, and tear apart existing vibrant
> > neighborhoods, almost always of people of color? What would it look like
> > to have an approach that values the people who live in Oakland right now?
> >
> > Let's talk! The schedule is almost full of official campaign debates every
> > night, but we did find a free night, that we've held free to have this
> > conversation. We'd love to have as many people there as possible, with our
> > hearts and minds as open to each other as possible, and see what we can
> > come up with together.
> >
> > **********
> > Thursday, March 10th
> > 6pm
> > 3217 Lakeshore Ave (under Monkey Yoga)
> > *********
> >
> > Thanks,
> > -Rebecca
> >
> >
You analysis is interesting and its good to have stuff like this available but your phrasing of your comment as a question is strange since I really doubt the people you are directly talking to read this site or will ever find the comment.
oh i'm sorry.
the previous email was something that i posted to the QFAG listserve.
the previous email was something that i posted to the QFAG listserve.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$75.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network