article on race and OWS

[Kadir Ateş]

Interesting article, check it out (bold words are mine):

>>>>>>
Occupy Wall Street's Race Problem

Kenyon Farrow (http://prospect.org/authors/kenyon-farrow)
October 24, 2011


White protesters need to rethink their rhetoric.

[/URL]http://ox-d.prospect.org/w/1.0/ri?ts=0c2lkPTg0OTh8YXVpZD05MjY3OHxwaWQ9MTAwNDJ8YWl kPTEyMzU0M3xwdWI9MTE2MTN8bGlkPTczOTcwfHQ9MXxyaWQ9M DBjNmViYzAtYjJiMi00MzdhLWEzZjEtZDg4NTk4YWZiOGJmfG9 pZD0yNjY1MHxibT1CVVlJTkcuR1VBUkFOVEVFRFNIQVJFT0ZWT 0lDRXxwPTEwMDAwfHBjPVVTRHxhYz1VU0R8cG09UFJJQ0lORy5 DUE18c3NpZD04ODc3fHJ0PTEzMjE4MzEyNzJ8cHI9MTAwMDB8Y WR2PTE4OTEx&cb=86332931










The economic crisis has disproportionately affected people of color, in particular African Americans. Given the stark economic realities in communities of color, many people have wondered why the Occupy Wall Street movement hasn’t become a major site for mobilizing African Americans. For me, it's not about the diversity of the protests. It's about the rhetoric used by the white left that makes OWS unable to articulate, much less achieve, a transformative racial-justice agenda.



But while carrying massive amounts of debt, whether in student loans, medical bills, or predatory balloon-payment mortgages is clearly a mark of a society that exploits poor and working-class people, it is not tantamount to chattel slavery.


One of the first photos I saw from the Occupy Wall Street protests was of a white person carrying a flag that read “Debt=Slavery.” White progressive media venues often compare corporate greed or exploitation to some form of modern-day slavery. But while carrying massive amounts of debt, whether in student loans, medical bills, or predatory balloon-payment mortgages is clearly a mark of a society that exploits poor and working-class people, it is not tantamount to chattel slavery. In fact, slaves, who were the property of others by law, for centuries symbolized wealth. A slave, as property, could be sold as a commodity to clear debt. Currently, [URL="http://www.alternet.org/story/146966/massive_race_divide%3A_blacks_will_never_gain_weal th_equality_with_whites_under_the_current_system/"]black households carry about $5,000 in wealth compared to $100,000 for white households (http://ox-d.prospect.org/w/1.0/rc?ts=0c2lkPTg0OTh8YXVpZD05MjY3OHxwaWQ9MTAwNDJ8YWl kPTEyMzU0M3xwdWI9MTE2MTN8bGlkPTczOTcwfHQ9MXxyaWQ9M DBjNmViYzAtYjJiMi00MzdhLWEzZjEtZDg4NTk4YWZiOGJmfG9 pZD0yNjY1MHxibT1CVVlJTkcuR1VBUkFOVEVFRFNIQVJFT0ZWT 0lDRXxwPTEwMDAwfHBjPVVTRHxhYz1VU0R8cG09UFJJQ0lORy5 DUE18c3NpZD04ODc3fHJ0PTEzMjE4MzEyNzJ8cHI9MTAwMDB8Y WR2PTE4OTEx), according to a recent Brandeis University study. Arguing that white working- and middle-class people are slaves to debt or corporations undermines not only the centrality of the African slave trade to the birth of the modern corporation but the distinct ways in which debt prevents many blacks from achieving middle-class status.
In this way, white progressives subscribe to the same “slavery” line conservatives use to incite white fears of economic and political subjugation. Rush Limbaugh, according to Media Matters, equated the 2009 health-care law to slavery, noting, “It's not going to be a matter of whether you can or cannot pay. It won't be a matter of whether you have coverage or don't have coverage. What'll matter is that all of us will be slaves."


Pundits have observed that many black people may be staying away from the Wall Street protests to avoid (additional) direct contact with police. Last year, New York City carried out 600,000 random stop-and-frisks, half of which were conducted on black citizens (http://www.nyclu.org/issues/racial-justice/stop-and-frisk-practices), according to the New York Civil Liberties Union; it makes sense that blacks, who are often in daily contact with police, would stay away from an event where interaction with law-enforcement officers would be inevitable. In fact, on October 22, scores of OWS protesters joined a Harlem demonstration against the practice of stop-and-frisk, during which several people were arrested.



But when the New York Police Department began to act violently against the mostly white protesters on Wall Street, many of the videos posted by OWS attendees on YouTube made the point that protesters were arrested, beaten, or pepper-sprayed “just for asking the police a question” or for “just exercising their right to protest.”


In contrast, many nonwhites assume the worst in any interaction with police, and if the worst doesn't occur, we often consider that the exception, not the rule.


In a London Guardian op-ed, white feminist writer and Democratic strategist Naomi Wolf wrote that she was arrested at an OWS demonstration (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/oct/19/naomi-wolf-arrest-occupy-wall-street)while “standing lawfully on the sidewalk in an evening gown,” as if to connote that nice white ladies on the way to high-society gatherings wouldn't or shouldn't be treated as criminal by the police. She went on to detail the ways in which police lied or broke the law in handling the protest. Though blacks and Latinos are never mentioned directly, statements that accuse police of misconduct when they clash with ostensibly law-abiding activists highlight how much white occupiers take for granted that only “criminals” will be the target of police violence and harassment.


Another fundamental flaw of white progressives (like many participating in the OWS movement) is the “take back our country and/or democracy” framework. In order to be invested in that idea, you have to see and believe that you had some stake in it to begin with. If you've been stopped and frisked 50 different times with as many fines to pay, or you're HIV-positive and your welfare benefits were cut off because you were too ill to keep an appointment with a case manager, it's hard to believe that the government is just broken—it seems pretty insistent and hell-bent on your demise.


Comparing debt to slavery, believing police won't hurt you, or wanting to take back the America you see as rightfully yours are things that suggest OWS is actually appealing to an imagined white (re)public. Rather than trying to figure out how to diversify the Occupy Wall Street movement, white progressives need to think long and hard about their use of frameworks and rhetoric that situate blacks at the margins of the movement.

[RED DAVE]

Frankly, I think that the article, while making good points, ignores the context of OWS and uses it, instead, to complain about rhetoric. I would make the following responses:

(1) Was the author involved in OWS? Did he make these criticisms public?

(2) There were/are African-Americans involved in OWS, including in the de facto leadership. (I was present at a GA in which two of the five facilitators were Black.) Why didn't they make these criticisms public?

(3) Can the absence of a significant African-American presence really be attributed to the existing rhetoric of OWS or is this absence primarily one more result of racism in the US?

RED DAVE

[Ocean Seal]

One thing that I didn't understand is how the gap can possibly be that large. How can blacks only earn $5,000 a year. That would mean that more than 50% of blacks are living in dire poverty. Whereas whites having 100,000 seems like a lot. Actually, if its wealth then that would mean money left over, but I still don't understand how it could possibly be so. I knew that the gap was large but since the income gap is generally something like 53k for whites to 22k for blacks I still wouldn't expect it to be that large. I guess when you have more money you can afford to save it I suppose. Wow this is really fucked up. I suppose that the reason that there are less blacks at OWS is because its centered in primarily white areas. IIIRC Wall St. is in a predominately white neighborhood.

[Jimmie Higgins]

One thing that I didn't understand is how the gap can possibly be that large. How can blacks only earn $5,000 a year. That would mean that more than 50% of blacks are living in dire poverty. Whereas whites having 100,000 seems like a lot. Actually, if its wealth then that would mean money left over, but I still don't understand how it could possibly be so. I knew that the gap was large but since the income gap is generally something like 53k for whites to 22k for blacks I still wouldn't expect it to be that large. I guess when you have more money you can afford to save it I suppose. Wow this is really fucked up. I suppose that the reason that there are less blacks at OWS is because its centered in primarily white areas. IIIRC Wall St. is in a predominately white neighborhood.

Of the 1% in the US I'd be surprised if 1% were black. So if you are looking at white incomes across all income levels, there are lots of poor people and a handful of incredibly rich people - so the average is probably higher than what most white workers make. On the other hand, the total black population is under-represented at the high-end and over-represented at the low-end with people who do live in absolute poverty making up more of the total black population compared to the total population in society - so the average is much lower. On top of that even if you compared white workers to black workers, the average wage would probably still be less but it would probably be more like a ratio $50K vs. $30K a year (these are numbers I pulled out of thin air, so don't quote me on that). Also complicating things would be if home equity was added in since after WWII workers who were not black or Latino were given favorable deals on home-loans whereas blacks specifically were singled out for worse deals or prevented from moving into new developments because of red-lining etc. So even within the class there is racially-based economic inequality.

And as a side note, participation among blacks in Occupy Oakland has been high though not in the informal leadership. Latinos seem to be surprisingly under-represented though. Additionally, to the charge that white participants in the movement are universally naive about police treatment of people in this society, the camp in Oakland was named Oscar Grant Plaza after the innocent man was killed by police on the BART platform in 2009.

I think the occupy movement has got to take outreach to the working class communities (which have a pretty good degree of identification with the complaints of the moment) - specifically this means rank and file labor and oppressed groups such as blacks and immigrants - much more seriously and work on it in concrete ways. I think one of the weaknesses of the movement in general is too much reliance on things working themselves out rather than us figuring things out. So, for example, in Oakland before the first raid, the organizers refused to come up with real plans for what to do in case of a raid - they wanted a diversity of tactics, but people who had problems with the police, were poor, or had immigration issues wanted a more concrete plan. The defense committee said: "we can not figure out a plan for you". I know that organizers here take racism and oppression seriously, but that kind of thing doesn't actually put that understanding of this society into any meaningful practice. People should argue that if we want a movement that will draw in a broad section of the non-ruling classes, then we have to concretely make the understanding that the state will target certain members (most likely: homeless, immigrants, blacks, trans, and radicals for that matter) of our camps for harsher repression.

[RED DAVE]

In the end, it's going to come down to a question of leadership - Black and White. The period when the occupations could function in a leaderless way and make a virtue of it is rapidly coming to an end. It has been demonstrated over and over again that this leaderlessness makes the movement as a whole unable to give a coherent and effective response to aggressive organizations that have leadership, whether they are unions or the oinks.

Same thing with politics. Until the occupations begin to put forth politics, we will get a soup that contains within it some pretty foul elements. But to criticize without taking responsibility for one's criticism is a weak approach at best.

RED DAVE

[black magick hustla]

In the end, it's going to come down to a question of leadership
RED DAVE

the trotsky in you is reeking comrade

[RED DAVE]

In the end, it's going to come down to a question of leadership.

the trotsky in you is reeking comradAnd how would you deal with the above-mentioned situation?

Given the heavy tendencies among Americans towards racism, how would you deal with it?

RED DAVE

[black magick hustla]

Given the heavy tendencies among Americans towards racism, how would you deal with it?

RED DAVE

"shrugs" i think the article is garbage really. i mean no black dude barring a very specific and ideological demographic will burn ulcers about " “Debt=Slavery" really. the author is a tool.

anyway, i dont think the problem is a problem of "leadership". i dont think it is as simple as that.

[RED DAVE]

"shrugs" i think the article is garbage really. i mean no black dude barring a very specific and ideological demographic will burn ulcers about " “Debt=Slavery" really. the author is a tool.I wouldn't use the word "tool." But as far as I'm concerned, to criticize a movement as large and vital as OWS without participation is armchair politics.


"anyway, i dont think the problem is a problem of "leadership". i dont think it is as simple as that.It isn't as simple as that. But a leadership would enable the movement to address its short-comings.

RED DAVE

[bricolage]

I sort of agree with the bit about the cops though.
The left is very keen on police brutality, that's not to say that it likes being on the end of it (although it does seem to help it in certain circumstances) but that it likes to talk about it, often inflating events to something more than they were (I've seen worse policing at football matches than I have at a lot of protests branded 'brutalised'). The thing is lots of the working class, especially the non-white parts, experience police brutality on a daily basis not for provoking the state but for just walking down the street or going about their daily business. When the left, having put itself in a certain situation via a protest or whatever, cries to the high heavens about the police abusing them and not respecting their 'democratic rights' a lot of the opinion of those who are always on the end of the cops is 'so? happens to us all the time and we don't go on about it'. What seems to happen is that focus is then taken away from the issue at hand and placed on leftist ideas of vicitmisation, diluting what was meant to be the point of the protest or demonstration or whatever in the first place. If just quick statements were made such as 'the police hit us because they are police and thats what they do but we are going to keep on fighting...' then I imagine it would come across a lot better. To go on about how shocking it is that the noble defenders of order would be so horrible as to push around peaceful demonstrators just illustrates a detachment from how a vast amount of the fabled 99% actually live.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I sort of agree with the bit about the cops though.
The left is very keen on police brutality, that's not to say that it likes being on the end of it (although it does seem to help it in certain circumstances) but that it likes to talk about it, often inflating events to something more than they were (I've seen worse policing at football matches than I have at a lot of protests branded 'brutalised'). The thing is lots of the working class, especially the non-white parts, experience police brutality on a daily basis not for provoking the state but for just walking down the street or going about their daily business. When the left, having put itself in a certain situation via a protest or whatever, cries to the high heavens about the police abusing them and not respecting their 'democratic rights' a lot of the opinion of those who are always on the end of the cops is 'so? happens to us all the time and we don't go on about it'. What seems to happen is that focus is then taken away from the issue at hand and placed on leftist ideas of vicitmisation, diluting what was meant to be the point of the protest or demonstration or whatever in the first place. If just quick statements were made such as 'the police hit us because they are police and thats what they do but we are going to keep on fighting...' then I imagine it would come across a lot better. To go on about how shocking it is that the noble defenders of order would be so horrible as to push around peaceful demonstrators just illustrates a detachment from how a vast amount of the fabled 99% actually live.

I agree to a certain extent, but there's also a side of that "well police are brutal, what's new" that's a pessimistic and accommodationist response. Many of the liberal NGOs in Oakland, for example, make the same argument, but they aren't really making a anti-police argument, they are just making an anti-OWS argument that is race-baiting a bit.

I think on the movement's side though, this is also why they need to take concrete steps to broaden the movement. Fight for your camp, yes, but broaden it by doing eviction defense or fighting sit-lie laws and gang-injunctions. Not being able to occupy a public park needs to be connected to how young Oakland latino youth aren't allowed to occupy their own corners due to gang injunctions, working-poor black families can't occupy their own fucking homes because of gentrification or foreclosures and homeless youth can't occupy a stoop or sidewalk to rest on due to sit-lie laws.

[Luís Henrique]

white left

Why do I think such a thing doesn't exist?

Luís Henrique

[black magick hustla]

I sort of agree with the bit about the cops though.
The left is very keen on police brutality, that's not to say that it likes being on the end of it (although it does seem to help it in certain circumstances) but that it likes to talk about it, often inflating events to something more than they were (I've seen worse policing at football matches than I have at a lot of protests branded 'brutalised'). The thing is lots of the working class, especially the non-white parts, experience police brutality on a daily basis not for provoking the state but for just walking down the street or going about their daily business. When the left, having put itself in a certain situation via a protest or whatever, cries to the high heavens about the police abusing them and not respecting their 'democratic rights' a lot of the opinion of those who are always on the end of the cops is 'so? happens to us all the time and we don't go on about it'. What seems to happen is that focus is then taken away from the issue at hand and placed on leftist ideas of vicitmisation, diluting what was meant to be the point of the protest or demonstration or whatever in the first place. If just quick statements were made such as 'the police hit us because they are police and thats what they do but we are going to keep on fighting...' then I imagine it would come across a lot better. To go on about how shocking it is that the noble defenders of order would be so horrible as to push around peaceful demonstrators just illustrates a detachment from how a vast amount of the fabled 99% actually live.

i agree 100% with this actually. i mean it blows that to get pepper spray in the face. but the way the discourse is framed is more along the lines of "poor me i got pepper sprayed my rights were violated" when people at hand where breaking the law. i mean for many people in the united states and the planet in general pig violence are the bread and butter of the everyday and the way middle class white students frame it sounds a bit self absorbed, because its all about victimization.

but then again there is the other side of the discourse where internet warriors are like "hah why should i care about this when black youth drop dead everyday" which surely is bad too. i never been too kin about the demagogic hyperbole used by huge chunks of the pro rev millieu, and i always associated the victimization hyperbole with moonbattery and activist ghettos.

[A Marxist Historian]

Frankly, I think that the article, while making good points, ignores the context of OWS and uses it, instead, to complain about rhetoric. I would make the following responses:

(1) Was the author involved in OWS? Did he make these criticisms public?

(2) There were/are African-Americans involved in OWS, including in the de facto leadership. (I was present at a GA in which two of the five facilitators were Black.) Why didn't they make these criticisms public?

(3) Can the absence of a significant African-American presence really be attributed to the existing rhetoric of OWS or is this absence primarily one more result of racism in the US?

RED DAVE

Oakland OWS has had significant black involvement, because Oakland OWS is closely connected to the movement against police brutality against black people, and indeed stems to some degree from the Oscar Grant movement.

This is true essentially nowhere else, and especially not in New York, where despite occasional gestures, OWS has paid remarkably little attention to the Gestapo-like mistreatment of black people by the New York police.

The NYPD murders and brutalizes black people on a systematic basis, and for New York OWS that's just another issue for the laundry list of demands, less important than worrying about corporate personhood or campaign finance reform.

However, now that the New York police are treating OWS protestors like black people, hopefully that will change.

-M.H.-

[bricolage]

I agree to a certain extent, but there's also a side of that "well police are brutal, what's new" that's a pessimistic and accommodationist response.
I don't think there is necessarily anything wrong with accomodating yourself to the fact that police are gonna fuck you up if you try and mess with capital. The alternative seems to be believing the police can be reformed.


Many of the liberal NGOs in Oakland, for example, make the same argument, but they aren't really making a anti-police argument, they are just making an anti-OWS argument that is race-baiting a bit.Sorry I don't quite get this, what do you mean by it?


I think on the movement's side though, this is also why they need to take concrete steps to broaden the movement. Fight for your camp, yes, but broaden it by doing eviction defense or fighting sit-lie laws and gang-injunctions. Not being able to occupy a public park needs to be connected to how young Oakland latino youth aren't allowed to occupy their own corners due to gang injunctions, working-poor black families can't occupy their own fucking homes because of gentrification or foreclosures and homeless youth can't occupy a stoop or sidewalk to rest on due to sit-lie laws.Yeah I agree with this. There was a high profile semi-celibrity campaign in the UK recently called 'defend the right to peaceful protest' or something like that, what about the right to walk down the street without getting stopped and searched? I think the thing is if you are doing something illegal (and lets be honest what is going on is illegal, and I've got nothing against that in fact I think it's great but it's not legal and its not your 'right') you are gonna encounter the long arm of the law. Those who get shocked and appalled by this just indicate that either their social situation is one where they have no experience of dealing with the police or even if that is their social situation they are completely blind to what happens to the rest of America/UK/wherever. If the police fight your movement I'm not saying take it lying down and I'm not saying it's nice but I am saying deal with it tactically and don't act like its a violation of some sacred principle that you can reform or ammend. It's the state, that's what happens when you mess with it.

[bricolage]

However, now that the New York police are treating OWS protestors like black people, hopefully that will change.
This is quite an interesting point actually. In the Miners Strike when they were getting systematically abused by the full force of the state a lot began to make connections with the way groups were treated by the same state in the north of ireland and in the inner cities that had recently erupted in riots. But to clarify I'm definitely not in favour of seeing getting beaten up as the only way to establish a sense of commonality with other human beings and its pretty depressing if that is the case.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I spent a lot of time in the Oscar Grant movement and so I damn well know how brutal the police are, but I'm still amazed at the ferocity of the police attacks on this movement and I don't think we should fall into trying to rank repression. Repression is repression and the racism that the state whipped up against poor blacks and latinos is what gave the police all this freedom and all their weaponry to put down uprisings and popular movements - on the flip side, their ability to repress movements and uprisings is what allowed them to build up, unopposed, all their attacks on poor and oppressed communities in the first place.

Think about this argument that protesters aren't treated that bad in this way: I work a non-union job, I don't get benefits and half my pay goes to rent in my apartment. Why are all these entitled union workers whining about loosing some pay or having to pay more for their health coverage. They make much more than me and get better benefits. We're all suffering and have been for a long time, so why should they cry and make a fuss about all their entitlements.

Everything there is technically true, but working-class politics means we see how these things are connected and the more the unionists are able to fight for their rights, the more it will actually end up helping the non-unionized workers - or if the unionists loose, then it's a race to the bottom for all wages and we all loose, not just the unionized workers.

Same goes for fighting repression. One of the main reasons Occupy Oakland is a little more diverse and also more militant than some of the other Occupations is because of the Oscar Grant movement of two years ago. Oscar Grant's godfather led one of the marches to shut down the port. So that struggle made the occupy movement stronger and have more organic connections workers here and people successfully standing up to police violence against the protests will, in turn, make it easier and more possible to fight against the more random but systematic repression of youth that goes on on a daily basis.

[bricolage]

Think about this argument that protesters aren't treated that bad in this way: I work a non-union job, I don't get benefits and half my pay goes to rent in my apartment. Why are all these entitled union workers whining about loosing some pay or having to pay more for their health coverage. They make much more than me and get better benefits. We're all suffering and have been for a long time, so why should they cry and make a fuss about all their entitlements.

Everything there is technically true, but working-class politics means we see how these things are connected and the more the unionists are able to fight for their rights, the more it will actually end up helping the non-unionized workers - or if the unionists loose, then it's a race to the bottom for all wages and we all loose, not just the unionized workers.
Yeah this is a good point but if I could just add that I do think commonality can be established by the way seemingly disparate groups are treated by the state but not if one of those groups acts like they are an exceptional case divorced from the normality of social order. In my experience activists involved around 'police brutality' often fall into this tra[.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I don't think there is necessarily anything wrong with accomodating yourself to the fact that police are gonna fuck you up if you try and mess with capital. The alternative seems to be believing the police can be reformed.Ok, let me be specific. The "it could be worse" argument was made by the Black Student Union at UC Berkeley after the police nudged (as Stephen Colbert called it) students in the ribs with nightsticks on that campus. The person who had the most severe treatment and was not cited and released was a young black student from another campus. Rather than defend that student and demand that the UC Berkeley occupation do the same, the BSU said, "why protest, we need to focus on the student elections - that's chess, protesting is checkers".

So rather than seeing this as an opportunity to highlight anti-black attacks by the police that happen regularly in the community and how the campus and protesters are also not immune to this, they accept that there is nothing that people can do about it, so it's important to try and change things by working within the system and making friends in high-places instead.

As radicals we should size any opportunity where the police expose themselves like this and draw the connections and show how this is their role in society. Police beat up and murder people all the time, the difference here is that people are actually rallying and standing up to it. That needs to be encouraged and broadened out from just the movement itself.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

This is true essentially nowhere else, and especially not in New York, where despite occasional gestures, OWS has paid remarkably little attention to the Gestapo-like mistreatment of black people by the New York police.Whoops! Someone doesn't know what the fuck they're talking about!

There must be something blocking the view from your armchair.

There are people trying to organize against "stop and frisk" -- and especially its disproportionate use against dark skinned people -- at nearly all levels of Occupy. Heard about it at the encampment in Zuccotti, heard about it at GAs, heard about it at student meetings at two different universities, heard about it at a Brooklyn GA, heard about it in Harlem, etc., etc., etc. Racism has come up countless times in the last two months, at nearly every occupy related event I've been to (more often than not prompted by white college kids and leftists).

In the end this is all another sociological exercise by a bunch of political dinosaurs and petty-bourgeois intellectuals that try to fit the world into the reality they've created from academic texts and college lectures.

From the author of the OP's about page (in between paragraph after paragraph about heading up non-profits, "coalitions," mainstream activist fronts, etc.): "Kenyon has been a panelist, lecturer and keynote speaker at many conferences and universities including New York University, Columbia University, University of Pennsylvania, University of Wisconsin/Madison, and Hampshire College, University of California/Berkeley, Antioch College, University of Texas at Austin, and Macalester College."

There's a big surprise.

http://media.salon.com/2011/11/occupy-wall-street8-460x307.jpg

[A Marxist Historian]

One thing that I didn't understand is how the gap can possibly be that large. How can blacks only earn $5,000 a year. That would mean that more than 50% of blacks are living in dire poverty. Whereas whites having 100,000 seems like a lot. Actually, if its wealth then that would mean money left over, but I still don't understand how it could possibly be so. I knew that the gap was large but since the income gap is generally something like 53k for whites to 22k for blacks I still wouldn't expect it to be that large. I guess when you have more money you can afford to save it I suppose. Wow this is really fucked up. I suppose that the reason that there are less blacks at OWS is because its centered in primarily white areas. IIIRC Wall St. is in a predominately white neighborhood.

RedBrother, you're confusing capital with income, a basic economic mistake, especially being as this is a capitalist society after all.

Black people *who are working* have lesser incomes than white people, but not to the extreme degree of the differential in net worth. But of course black unemployment is much higher than white unemployment.

When black people were released from slavery, they got nothing except the shirts on their backs. This situation has essentially not changed since then, due to the systematic racism of American society. Whereas white families usually own homes that are assets, not mortgage traps, and often have stocks and bonds and other financial assets--little membership tickets into the capitalist class.

And this situation got vastly worse due to the 2008 financial crisis and housing disaster, which disproportionately affected black people and Latins. Average net worth of black families now is *one fifth* of what it was when Obama was elected President. That sounds like a typo but it is not. From an AP story:

"Economists say the Great Recession lasted from 2007 to 2009. In 2004, the median net worth of white households was $134,280, compared with $13,450 for black households, according to an analysis of Federal Reserve data by the Economic Policy Institute. By 2009, the median net worth for white households had fallen 24 percent to $97,860; the median black net worth had fallen 83 percent to $2,170, according to the EPI."

http://articles.boston.com/2011-07-10/news/29758686_1_black-households-unemployment-rate-white-households

In pure economic terms, Obama is the worst president in American history since the end of Reconstruction, from the standpoint of black people.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

Why do I think such a thing doesn't exist?

Luís Henrique

Ah, perhaps because you don't live in the US.

There are left wing groups that are racially integrated, but there are also quite a few that are lily-white, and several black left organizations.

One of your whiter left groups in America, be it noted, is Revleft.

This is a historical problem of the Left in America, stemming back to the Socialist Party, the great ancestor of most left wing organizations, which was overwhelmingly white, had several explicit white racists in its leadership, and deliberately ignored racial oppression. Even Eugene Debs, the leader of the left wing and a consistent anti-racist, famously stated that "the Socialist Party has nothing special to offer the Negro people." In the South the SP actually had Jim Crow local organizations, with separate white locals and black locals. The black locals being much smaller of course.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

This is quite an interesting point actually. In the Miners Strike when they were getting systematically abused by the full force of the state a lot began to make connections with the way groups were treated by the same state in the north of ireland and in the inner cities that had recently erupted in riots. But to clarify I'm definitely not in favour of seeing getting beaten up as the only way to establish a sense of commonality with other human beings and its pretty depressing if that is the case.

Yeah, this whole damn capitalist system and the values it generates in the population is depressing as hell. We should get rid of it.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

Ok, let me be specific. The "it could be worse" argument was made by the Black Student Union at UC Berkeley after the police nudged (as Stephen Colbert called it) students in the ribs with nightsticks on that campus. The person who had the most severe treatment and was not cited and released was a young black student from another campus. Rather than defend that student and demand that the UC Berkeley occupation do the same, the BSU said, "why protest, we need to focus on the student elections - that's chess, protesting is checkers".

So rather than seeing this as an opportunity to highlight anti-black attacks by the police that happen regularly in the community and how the campus and protesters are also not immune to this, they accept that there is nothing that people can do about it, so it's important to try and change things by working within the system and making friends in high-places instead.

As radicals we should size any opportunity where the police expose themselves like this and draw the connections and show how this is their role in society. Police beat up and murder people all the time, the difference here is that people are actually rallying and standing up to it. That needs to be encouraged and broadened out from just the movement itself.

Very true, and that's the other side of the coin.

The Berkeley BSU by the way has traditionally been very right wing, bourgeois nationalists at best and up and coming Buppies at worst. A black student with a degree from Berkeley has made it a considerable way up the greasy pole out of the oppression most black people face, though he still has a long long way to get to Obama and Oprahland.

-M.H.-