in this case, jessica and her ilk, call them the JESSICANS, have zero interest in joining the protest movement. they are simply interested in doing what bloggers do which is find some issue in the news with which they can get pissed, write a post about, obsess about for 17 hours then move on to the next hot new topic.
the JESSICANS are people who have zero intest in anything to do with capitalism. you can see this in the eearly remarks. i'm not against ending capitlism. she writes this as a negative. she doesn't say, "i'm for it." she can only say, "i'm not against it."
this is because she has been taught that it is one grievance among many, that there is no connection between the JESSICANS concerns (racism in this case but it could be queer liberation or disability struggles or femisnim or what have you)
so, the JESSICANS just put this all up front, negatively, never positively. they will never say they, themselves are opposed to capitalism. Because this is kinda scary and they're not really sure what it means but they do know one thing: they kinda have to act like they are not opposed to the particular protest in the first place. they won't say they're FOR it, just that they're not opposed. that way, they can handwave at one of the oppressions everyone is supposed to be against so they can get to the real issue, the one issue that matters to them. it's a rhetorical tactic that works in the short attention span bloglandia
> On Oct 3, 2011, at 6:11 PM, SA wrote (quoting JESSICA):
> <snip happens>
>>> Let me be clear. I’m not against ending capitalism and I’m not
against people organizing to hold big corporations accountable for
the extreme damage they are causing. Yes, we need to end
>>> globalization. What I am saying is that I have all kinds of
>>> problems when to get to “ending capitalism” we step on other
>>> people’s rights – and in this case erode Indigenous rights – to
make the point. I’m not saying people did it intentionally but
that
>>> doesn’t even matter – good intentions are not enough and good
>>> intentions obviously can have adverse affects. This is such a
>>> played out old record too, walking on other people’s backs to get
to a mystical land of equity. Is it really just and equitable when
specific people continue to be oppressed to get there? And it
>>> doesn’t have to be done! We don’t need more occupation – we need
decolonization and it’s everyone’s responsibility to participate
in
>>> that because COLONIALISM AFFECTS EVERYONE. EVERYONE! Colonialism
also leads to capitalism, globalization, and industrialization.
How
>>> can we truly end capitalism without ending colonialism? How does
doing things in the name of “America” which was created by the
imposition of hierarchies of class, race, ability, gender, and
sexuality help that?
>>> I can’t get on board with the nationalism of an “American” (or now
“Canadian!”) revolution – I just can’t. There has been too much
genocide and violence for the United States and Canada to be
>>> founded and to continue to exist as nation states. I think John
Paul Montano, Anishnaabe writer captured it quite well in his
“Open
>>> Letter to Occupy Wall Street Activists”:
>>> I hope you would make mention of the fact that the very land upon
which you are protesting does not belong to you – that you are
guests upon that stolen indigenous land. I had hoped mention would
be made of the indigenous nation whose land that is. I had hoped
that you would address the centuries-long history that we
>>> indigenous peoples of this continent have endured being subject to
the countless ‘-isms’ of do-gooders claiming to be building a
“more
>>> just society,” a “better world,” a “land of freedom” on top of our
indigenous societies, on our indigenous lands, while destroying
and/or ignoring our ways of life. I had hoped that you would
>>> acknowledge that, since you are settlers on indigenous land, you
need and want our indigenous consent to your building anything on
our land – never mind an entire society.
> I find this a tremendous stretch of reasoning. Nobody is stopping
JESSICA and those like her from joining these movements. To fixate
on
> a term (“occupy”) and weave an entire critique around it seems
> contrived. Nobody is getting to “ending capitalism” by “step[ping]
on
> other people’s rights”.
> —ravi
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
-- http://cleandraws.com Wear Clean Draws ('coz there's 5 million ways to kill a CEO)