Fwd: Re: three-tiered vision

[Terra Friedrichs]

thanks, allison,

I'd be happy to walk the streets, after we have something to show.  we can stick something in the doors, call meetings at local churches, hand stuff out...all of that.

maybe neighborhood reps are in order...virtual neighborhood reps...maybe the kids can take that on... we can and should teach them how to do this anyway.

if they mark up comments to docs or call in their comments, i can do the data entry.

but i can't help thinking that there are folks that know people in their communities that can gather comments...and submit them, effectively acting as a "virtual neighborhood rep" to the process...maybe that's you?  preferably the kids...right?  how about the teen leadership/mentor centers?

i know that i'm doing it in my own physical and virtual neighborhoods...

i don't think speed has that much to do with it.  i mean at the current rate, it's going to be weeks before we get anything approved, anyway, including a simple statement of purpose.  that should be enough time to reach 100 people each...unless we spend all of our time email our little group ;-)

has anyone looked at the one that "anonymous-observer" just posted? 

https://occupyboston.wikispaces.com/Workpage%2C+STATEMENT+OF+PURPOSE

start quote:

“This is a non-partisan movement. We want to end corporate and financial influence on our government. Corporations should not have more of a voice and more rights than the American people. We demand greater accountability on Wall Street and greater responsiveness in Washington. We demand REAL change. We stand in solidarity with all the movements around the world protesting against corporate greed.

Let the voice of the 99% be heard!”

end quote

Maybe someone can walk this around the Dorchester march today and get some comments?

Personally, I'll be happy that it's not "too white" if people of color look at it and nod their heads yes. 

Doing things online can be more inclusive, if you/we make sure it is... I've helped hundreds of rural mostly african-american communities get online.  And I'm as white as they get.  We just have to be committed to doing so.  And we'll do it...

The sooner we get something in the hands of people so that they can think, the better.  I mean why not have drafts published as "letters to editors", in church bulletins, posted on grocery stores?  We can do this.  But not if we spend most of our time debating process and wordsmithing. We need something to hit the streets with.

But again, this is just about the statement of purpose of OB, it's not about Occupations in general, or about the world.  It's "just a project", and the sooner, we finish with the statement of purpose, the sooner, we can start on the actual work, which is making up demands and getting them implemented.

Sorry for being so pushy...

i'll shut up now... back to work...

t 978 808 7173

-------- Original Message --------

Subject:	Re: three-tiered vision
Date:	Fri, 21 Oct 2011 11:39:05 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Allison <asne...@gmail.com>
Reply-To:	occupy-b...@googlegroups.com
To:	Occupy Boston: Strategy, Proposals, Positions <occupy-b...@googlegroups.com>

Terra,

The reliance on email and the internet is, in and of itself,
exclusive. In my neighborhood, which is very racially and culturally
mixed, we can't use email or online resources to even coordinate a
neighborhood meeting, because at least half of our neighbors - perhaps
even 75% - do not use the internet on a regular basis. In fact, any
effort done by email guarantees that the associated meeting will be
all white when our neighborhood is only about 60% white. There is also
an income disparity between those who do and don't use the internet.
We need to be really aware of this. Those who don't use the internet
much are going to be much slower to become aware of the Occupy
movement and to gain understanding of it, which was the thrust behind
my "don't rush" input. Those of us who use the internet a lot, have a
different framework about time than those who don't. I'm still talking
to neighbors who have no idea what Occupy Boston is. To get through to
a critical mass of that population - one which has been most
oppressed, historically, and therefore deserves extra effort to make
sure they are represented - we have to think in pre-internet time
frames about building a movement. Moving at our speed will definitely
mean excluding their views. Hence, the nationwide conversation about
resisting the need to define the movement as anything other than
building solidarity within the 99%, for now.

As for how to get a broader swath of participation, I would suggest
working with outreach, direct action and the people of color groups
and asking them what could be done to make sure a plurality voices are
included. I imagine it needs some footwork. Willingness to go into
those communities via organizations who are doing work there. I know
that the community center around the corner from me has some computers
and teaches basics of how to use one. This would be a place to
coordinate an effort to get people in and get them on the computers
there or let them give input in writing. Some of the work of
connecting to these neighborhoods is underway by those groups, but it
would take someone who is focused on this project to ensure that there
is an effort to get people in those neighborhoods to participate in
it.

I am currently starting to talk to the working groups I mentioned and
to form a group who will work with them for the sake of developing
more solidarity statements, such as the one we ratified for the
Indigenous Peoples. It was powerful to have them respond in kind. It
will be a process. We need to go hear from people. Get a sense of what
they need to hear from us in order to believe that we would take their
views and concerns seriously and would make room for them to shape our
work. This can't happen in a week.

I wonder, if you're gathering things electronically, how will you know
whether the ideas collected are from an almost all-white point of view
or not? Are you collecting demographic information? And, if the
General Assembly votes on any resulting writing, but is 90% white
itself, how will we know if the writing sounds to people of color (I
use race as only one example of diversity) like something which speaks
to them?

I will let you know that I'm going to opt out of this google group.
I've given my input and have received hostile responses for doing so
and was then chastised for pointing out what it feels like to have
your words twisted beyond recognition. My views on the definition of
inclusivity, and the need to wait until we have it, are on record. You
all will do with it what you will.

I wish you the best of luck with your project.

On Oct 20, 1:56 pm, Terra Friedrichs <ter...@compuserve.com> wrote:
> Allison,
>
> Please help me understand how to be more inclusive.
>
> Relative to inviting people into the conversation, why not just do it?  
> I mean we're
> working here (online) every day, every hour of every day.
>
> I doubt you are suggesting that we stop work until every person from
> every community
> is here on this list.   And so I want to understand how to be more
> inclusive.
>
> Personally, I'm working to get "my" affinity groups involved.  Right
> now,  on another
> thread, I'm trying to figure
> out the wiki-edit-approval process to get people involved from their
> homes. So they can be part of this online
> discussion.  That's what I'm doing with a goodly part of my day.  I've
> got a number
> of people interested...and we need to sort out the wiki-permissions
> thing before
> you'll see their voices here...or "there" on the wiki.  I'd be happy to
> get them involved
> in this actual mailing group, if we think that's productive.  I help
> with training on how to post, etc.
>
> But I go back to my earlier question of you... if a bunch of people on
> an open
> email group come up with a proposal in a few hours and then post it
> publicly for comment,
> how is that NOT being inclusive?  I just don't get that.  Maybe you mean
> that people
> off-grid can't see it?  If so, I understand that.  And we should
> definitly put up posters of
> the printed versions...for sure.  But beyond that, if we sent an email
> around with the link,
> asking for comments...isn't that inclusive in the most inclusive way?
>
> Please help me understand your concern.
>
> Terra
>
> On 10/20/2011 1:38 PM, Allison wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Eli,
>
> > I think I have confused thread here and may be addressing the wrong
> > thing. Forgive me. I thought we were still talking about the list of
> > demands being gathered and that Anna was still addressing the concern
> > that we haven't had enough voices brought into the movement to reflect
> > the 99%.
>
> > If we're talking about constructing a system, which might be used long-
> > term, to collect voices, I'm all for starting to build that and taking
> > in ideas as to how to construct something effective.
>
> > When I say building the movement, I am not at all thinking "sitting
> > around waiting for people to show up". That's a very misguided
> > treatment of my words. I think we need to go out and contact people.
> > We can't expect them to come to us. In fact, I'm going to talk to some
> > people today about starting a solidarity-building work group, where we
> > go to groups, listen to them and craft a statement of solidarity -
> > similar to the one we adopted for Indigenous Peoples. I believe that
> > if we do that leg work, we will attract and engage a more diverse base
> > of people to help us craft any statements or demands. In conjunction
> > with what you're building online, we ought to be able to build
> > something powerful.
>
> > A month. In the scheme of things, that's nothing. The crises we are
> > facing are at least 40 years in the making - we see the beginning of
> > the decline of the middle class and the growing disparity between
> > wealth and poverty in the 60s. We can take our time to make sure we're
> > building something sustainable. The movement will survive the camping
> > phase.
>
> > On Oct 20, 1:17 pm, Eli Gottlieb<eligottl...@gmail.com>  wrote:
> >> This has got to be the most singularly condescending thing I have ever
> >> read.  How has our attempt to formulate something to say suppressed
> >> anyone else's voice?
>
> >> The wiki is not something that our group just up and decided to use.
> >> It is what the General Assembly decided to require.  Would you like us
> >> to print out a copy and go wave it around on the streets of Mattapan
> >> to see who wants to add something, or is that STILL not "accessible"
> >> and "inclusive" enough for you?
>
> >> They don't have internet access or computers at home in some places?
> >> They can look at the printed copy we are going to bring to the message-
> >> posting wall at the Dewey Square camp.  They don't know about the
> >> camp?  Go find them and bring them!
>
> >> And YOU want to talk about the "Tyranny of Structurelessness" essay?
> >> Seriously?  You're the one telling us to sit down and shut up until
> >> God himself reaches down out of the sky and brings people to the camp
> >> to make its demographics match those of the whole city and metro
> >> area.  Dominant forces?  That sounds like a code-word for "anyone who
> >> isn't of my hand-chosen 'oppressed groups'"... mostly because that is
> >> in fact how it's defined, by Boolean inversion of your set of
> >> marginalized and oppressed citizens.  Apparently anyone not
> >> sufficiently oppressed has no right to speak.
>
> >> You want more people in the movement?  Great, so do I, but that only
> >> demonstrates the necessity for more outreach to parts of the Boston-
> >> Cambridge community that haven't joined yet.  It doesn't mean that all
> >> forward effort is invalid until you get the demographics you want.
>
> >> Need to let time pass?  No, we need more input.  A month has passed
> >> already.  The clock is ticking towards winter.  This movement isn't
> >> going to get larger or more diverse because you sit around waiting for
> >> people to show up; it's going to get larger and more diverse because
> >> we engage people, make them think and ask for their input.
> >> On Oct 20, 12:53 pm, Allison Nevitt<asnev...@gmail.com>  wrote:
>
> >>> Anna,
> >>> Unfortunately, it appears that some members of this group are not open to
> >>> hearing what you're actually saying. Instead of taking concerns and
> >>> validating them and addressing them, they are responding with a defensive
> >>> tone.
> >>> The concept of inclusiveness and building the 99% before we claim to speak
> >>> for them seems to be lost in those responses. Claiming that having something
> >>> on the wiki guarantees inclusivity demonstrates a lack of understanding of
> >>> what we mean. Of all the people in Boston (over 600K residents and over 1
> >>> million in the Boston area) how many have been to the wiki? How many even
> >>> know about it? Do those who have used the wiki even come close to
> >>> representing the demographics of Boston? Are we acknowledging that vast
> >>> communities of people who barely use the internet at all? In communities of
> >>> color, I'm told most people text rather than email or go online at all.
> >>> Computers are a luxury that they don't have in their homes. So, how do we
> >>> ensure that their voices are echoed in our words and not that we're speaking
> >>> for them? This is a complex question which we would be best served to stop
> >>> and find answers to rather than denying it is important.
> >>> The idea that the movement is grounded in a particular approach to working
> >>> together and that we're trying to foster that because in that approach lies
> >>> the very vision of the transformation we seek, is willfully misconstrued as
> >>> a mechanism of trying to control or stifle speech. In fact, we're trying to
> >>> prevent dominant voices from keeping other voices from being heard. The
> >>> structure of consensus and the tenets of collective thinking are for that
> >>> very reason. (See the Tyranny of Sturcturelessness:http://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm) Structure ensures that everyone
> >>> knows there is a place for them and that they will not be sidelined by
> >>> dominant forces.
> >>> Because, indeed, the model of collective thinking honors autonomy, any group
> >>> can go ahead and do whatever it wants. Perhaps, when they are further
> >>> frustrated by the General Assembly not being able to reach consensus, they
> >>> will reconsider outside input.
> >>> Now, all of that said, there are other voices in the group which have been a
> >>> more responsive and far less offensive. That's another beauty of collective
> >>> thinking. Those who yell loudest do not necessarily prevail because all
> >>> voices get to have their say. I think we'll see this effort of SPP's evolve.
> >>> It's intentions are honorable. They are starting something. Trying to build
> >>> some system to collect a lot of thoughts. Coalescing the ideas of the 99%
> >>> into something concise is a monumental task. The need to let time pass and
> >>> wait for a much broader collection of voices to be heard is likely to be
> >>> manifested, de facto, because until we can say that the words reflect the
> >>> words of all the constituents of the 99%, the General Assembly will keep
> >>> tabling any documents. That's okay. We'll keep talking and keep refining.
> >>> I'm sorry that some see the input of voices not in agreement with theirs as
> >>> antagonistic. It slows down the process of solidarity-building. But, we'll
> >>> get there.
> >>>   - Allison
> >>>   <http://BostonLyme.blogspot.com>
> >>> circles knitting<http://www.circlesknitting.com/>
> >>> UnaMuses<http://www.unaspenser.com/>  (still under construction, this is a
> >>> consolidation of my writings. Still migrating work over. Thank you for your
> >>> patience.)
> >>> Roslinhood<http://roslinhood.org>  - for residents of micro-neighborhoods in
> >>> Roslindale
> >>> Jubilee Massachusetts<http://jubileema.org/>- breaking the chains of
> >>> debt<http://www.dailykos.com/user/UnaSpenser>
> >>> Una at DailyKos
> >>> <http://www.dailykos.com/user/UnaSpenser><http://bostonlyme.blogspot.com/>
> >>> <http://kossacksnetworking.ning.com>
> >>> On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 11:04 AM, Anna Aizman<anna.aiz...@gmail.com>  wrote:
> >>>> oops! here is the correct email address for facilitators' google group.
> >>>> Facilitators, read below for the conversation
> >>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> >>>> From: Anna Aizman<anna.aiz...@gmail.com>
> >>>> Date: Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 11:03 AM
> >>>> Subject: Re: three-tiered vision
> >>>> To: occupy-b...@googlegroups.com, occupybostonfacilitat...@gmail.com,
> >>>> transpare...@lists.mayfirst.org,
> >>>> occupy-bosto...@googlegroups.com, eligottl...@gmail.com
> >>>> Eli, Tank,
> >>>> I've specifically written to you from my personal email address, and
> >>>> stated, "I am not speaking for all of Facilitation here, although
> >>>> undoubtedly some Facilitators
>
> ...
>
> read more »

[Eli Gottlieb]

I'm cross-posting this from the wiki discussion on the three-tier
thing...

I think Sage has a decent point about the fact that our framework
currently doesn't have a place to fit matters of civil rights and
liberties.

Where goeth the Patriot Act? Where goeth anti-racism and anti-sexism?
Those things do deserve their place. The tough bit is that once you
create a category called "Human Rights" or "Individual Rights" or
"Civil Rights", or, frankly, anything with the words "rights" or
"liberties" in the title, that tends to turn into a catch-all
category. People just start writing down whatever it is they want in
life as a "right".

This isn't to say that freedom from discrimination isn't important,
but there are plenty of capitalist folks who will come down here and
tell us that they have a right to unlimited accumulation of capital, a
right to move their wealth into a tax haven, a right to limited
liability through incorporating themselves, and a right to give
unlimited campaign contributions. Anything you want can be declared a
"right" if you rationalize it adequately, and probably has been. The
UN Declaration of Human Rights is a good example of how NOT to do it:
a hodge-podge of negative and positive rights thrown in with no regard
to the details or abilities of signatory nations' implementing the
rights for their citizens.

So could we maybe come up with a catchy way of saying "Anti-
Discrimination", and add another pillar for that? It is a very real
problem, and it addresses the whole range of identity-politic issues
that otherwise don't fit into the existing framework.

> >  read more �

[Terra Friedrichs]

I put the rights stuff on the Ideas/Ideals page. Maybe just work on
them there.

And leave the framework for specific strategies?

In other words for commons,
focus on the "stuff" that addresses the rights (and reference back to
the other
doc).

I already started that because in the list of "rights" is internet
access. So I
put a page for that in the Specific Strategies wiki, and made a page for
network neutrality.

That way, the specific strategy is grouped under Commons, and references
a Right.

So to your reference about discrimination, there are many rights which
talk to
equal access, and then those can reference the specific strategies that
address
those.

How's that?

We can reference one of the 3 Tiers in each Specific Strategy, if we
want. Or
we can just leave the 3 Tiers as a way to keep the conversation going...?

T

>>> read more �

--
Terra

*~*~*~*
Terra Friedrichs
978 808 7173 (cell)
978 266 2775 (desk)
978 266 2778 (home/messages)

[Eli Gottlieb]

Right now I consider the three tiers a conversation that could,
someday, turn into something more serious, provided it gets more
people editing it. WAY more.

But I do think we should be talking strategy in the matter of rights.
Think about it: how does someone get their rights enforced in this
country? You sue, in a court. Or perhaps you even get yourself
deliberately arrested/sued to make a court hear your case, and then
lose, and then appeal the case. Or for something like labor rights,
you go to the National Labor Relations Board.

All these methods are slow, laborious (no pun intended there), and
corrupted in reality... but they're also disparate, costly,
obstructionist (our legal system is WAY too clogged), time-consuming,
and (ultimately) life-eating BY THEIR NATURE AND DESIGN. We should be
talking about the need to create a unified institutional
infrastructure for efficiently and effectively dealing with issues
about or infringements of legally-guaranteed rights: one that doesn't
require retaining a lawyer, for a start, and in which (therefore) an
innocent citizen can't simply be worn down and out by their
oppressor's larger bank balance.

> ...
>
> read more »

[Terra Friedrichs]

+1

water is a right. lots follow from that.

t