Still Clearing Up Some Rumors

Posted on December 4, 2011

0


Though I’ve written several letters of correction to the author of the blog I’ve mentioned in recent posts, Tequila Sovereign, she’s inexplicably elected not to publish them. Rather, she published her own correction in her letters section, which gets even more things wrong. Now she says I’m not in the media committee at all, but that I still wrote the OO Forum post in question. The existence of this Forum post is also up for some debate–its not linked. Anyone on the web team can corroborate that I’ve never created a user account to post there. Again, even if I had, using the Forum to air an opinion is not an abuse of the power of privilege at OO. Its rather the opposite, because that’s a forum made for public use! Indeed, one of the proposal bringers just published something there yesterday.

Of course, all this is about the Decolonize proposal, which I’ve been quite clear about elsewhere; I think its a bad idea in many regards. There’s no evidence presented that changing the name can do any of the things the proposal writers claim. There’s no evidence or argument that the name itself is a barrier to working class and poor people of color from joining the group [as evidenced by the fact of the recent formation of a committee called "Occupy the Hood" that will be involved in Tuesday's foreclosure actions]. There IS a great and proud tradition of the oppressed and labor, Occupying, spaces associated with their dispossession, including the inspiring occupation of Alcatraz Island by indigenous people.In the case of Alcatraz, occupiers used the word Occupy, and did so proudly.

Despite the fact that anyone with even a passing knowledge of how OO works, and the details of events over the past couple of weeks, would find Tequila Sovereign’s account absurd in the extreme, at least one of the people who’ve brought the Decolonize proposal linked to the post on a social media platform.

While I can’t say for sure what’s motivating this blog post and the author’s resistance to correcting it–it could indeed be a staggering ignorance of OO based on a lack of involvement–not posting my correction is just bad faith advocacy. As anyone can see, I allow all rebuttals here in my blog. The fact that I’m referred to [weirdly] as “the Palestinian Man” on the media team makes my identity quite clear, since I’ve brought up my ethnicity in relationship to my opinion of the word Occupy [it would obviously be hard not to]. So this is really inexcusable.

As I’ve said, my efforts in the public sphere have been focused on discussing the merits of the proposal. Nothing else. Word of the existence of the original proposal began to circulate long before the first form of it–which was based narrowly as an argument strictly about some Ohlone people’s response to the word Occupy–and I was happy to argue about the merits. I’ve been a little shocked at how offended some people are that they are actually required to use logic, evidence and reason in a debate. Seriously, I’ve been around the block, but I’ve never seen anything like it from people claiming to be progressive.

Note: Author has now inexplicably removed her own correction as well. I’m here, Tequila Sovereign, contact me either at the email account I used to post my corrections, which uses my real name, or here.

About these ads