Real Risks

From Facebook

An Open Letter to the White Student Movement by Queer Black Revolutionary

Response to a Critic of the "white" Student Movement by The Invisible Women Committee

Why Did the March onto the 980 Freeway Happen? by Nico Dacumos

Rebuttal to "Why Did the March onto the 980 Freeway Happen" by Melissa Merin (MM)

The Raider Nation Collective Statement on the M4 Highway Takeover, by The Raider Nation (RNC)

The Dawn of The Crisis Generation, by The Crisis Generation

This letter is meant as a contribution to the larger conversation, represented by the letters linked above, happening around the public education movements. And is specifically in response to Melissa’s letter and the raider nation collective's statement. And to be clear, I am not putting this letter in context w/a continued debate around the Oscar Grant movement- based upon an understanding that the rebellions around Oscar Grant’s execution and the actions to defend public education are not comparable. Meaning, the Oscar Grant rebellions (specifically Jan 7th, 2009), was an uprising of primarily communities of color responding to vicious state violence and were spontaneous collective actions; whereas the March 4th freeway takeover, the "Berkeley riot”, and some of the other occupationist incidents were planned actions by higher ed. student communities and networks.

I wanna begin with a point on privilege, since “privilege” seems to be the hot topic, and the entry point for this conversation. Let’s talk about how the small group of folks who planned the freeway takeover were privileged- and not just because of their skin colors, but even regardless of their skin colors. That this action was planned well in advance in an intentional and thorough decision-making process, is not a question. That these planners relied on and instigated the participation of a much larger group of people who were not included in that decision making process, arguably even intentionally excluded from, is also true. And so in this way those few who did the planning privileged themselves with information of the risks involved, the details of the plan, and most importantly privileged themselves with access and opportunity for a decision making process.

Now I’ve heard the arguments, that people can make up their own minds in the street to join the action or not, that as MM said, the danger of walking onto a freeway is obvious and only “babies” would need to be told this. But I think this misses the point completely. It’s not as simple as either you have agency or you don’t, either you’re making a decision or you’re just following someone else (“led blindly” to quote RNC) There are degrees of agency, and there is such a thing as an informed decision. Imagine for a moment that you showed up to the march/rally knowing full well that by the end of it you were going to be strolling your ass onto a freeway, and you knew exactly your role and plan of action, because you’d been engaged in a decision making process for weeks in advance. Now imagine that you are someone who saw the march and decided to join up- you had no idea it was headed onto a freeway and you had to consider in that instant the potential consequences and decide in a mere moment if you’d continue or not. Seriously, imagine. Now tell me, who gets to make the more informed decisions? Who has a greater degree of agency over their situation? And even, who is more in control of what’s happening? Cause this is the part that’s get me, why as anti-authoritarians do we continuously and intentionally plot these actions that are based/dependent on a hierarchy of information, with ourselves up top.

And considering this strategy, is it not surprising that folks have been quick to attribute the planners as having a race/class-privileged mentality? Doesn’t acting within a community with no real regard for that community, reflect a mentality of entitlement? Let me point to Melissa’s letter here:

“An action which aims to stop traffic on a freeway doesn't always need to be rooted in the community… everyone who is able and/or willing should join in whatever actions they see fit to join in order to call attention, raise awareness, and disrupt business as usual, regardless of their speculated status in a presumed community.”

Yes, these types of action should take place where ever necessary/relevant. But when they depend on the participation of the communities in which they take place, then the planners should make efforts to bring those folks into the decision making process- not just handing out obscure fliers the day-of, encouraging them to “follow” and “listen to the music.” The production of those fliers seems to evidence further that the planners were primarily concerned with simply garnering bodies as numbers and not disseminating/sharing real info with potential participants.

And this gets at my main critique. The smaller group of folks who actually planned the freeway-takeover made no concerted effort to outreach to, organize in coalition with, or communicate with the organizing communities in Oakland that made up/were responsible for mobilizing the mass of folks in Oakland that day. This reflects a continued strategy of the direct action groups that I think is only serving to impede greater movement building in this context. To be clear I’m referring to the strategy of having clandestine action-planning meetings behind closed doors, removed and isolated from the larger group of people that will be effected, and not being transparent around that organizing.

And it is this, the way in which the direct-action planners have intentionally isolated themselves, that’s causing such strife. Let me point to a place in Nico’s letter here

“One of my friends, is convinced that most black bloc-ers are hired narcs for the likes of the FBI, starting shit up… I don't know about that, but I certainly know that people at the protests didn't recognize many of these white folks from any of the activist circles they frequent”

And let me emphasize that this is a concern I’ve heard echoed many times over- not the bit about being narcs specifically, but more generally about having no certainty of who these people are and what their intentions are. It’s the culture of secrecy that’s the problem- That you plan in secret, act in disguises, and then communicate only after the fact in less-than-lucid communiques usually under collective pseudonyms.* Meanwhile there’s more then ample opportunity to reach out and connect with folks on a real basis- specifically people have been doing m4 planning/organizing all over Oakland for a ridiculous amount of time and there’s been no visibility of these direct-action planners as such in those spaces, why(?) So how can you fault people for making assumptions about who you are and what your intentions are? To this extreme even, how are people supposed to know you’re not provocateurs- especially given the very real legacy of state violence against communities of color thru such programs as cointelpro?** I hear people getting very defensive about being lumped up as all “white” and “middle-class,” and that if we simply ‘scrutinized online video footage, seeing the bodies of color would prove that was wrong’ (to paraphrase RNC) But why should people be left to do that, why can’t folx step up, represent themselves and communicate in actuality?

To plan actions that specifically privilege yourselves in the ways I already discussed and to act and (not)communicate in such anonymous terms, then get so defensive- to me it all begs to question Where is the sense of community and mutual respect?- that’s what I really want to know. If you folks are actually interested in contributing to the movement building that’s happening (maybe that’s the real question), then there needs to be an understanding of how we all are in community with each other, that our actions and decisions effect one another, and that communication cannot be left as a mere afterthought.

And I’m aware of the rationale that discourages this kind of openness and transparency- security culture. Obviously there’s the concern that planning direct-actions, especially a freeway-takeover, requires utmost discretion with only people you know and trust. But I wanna suggest that the real risk worth taking in this particular moment, is to reach out beyond the safety of our insulated networks and work in coalition with the much larger number of folks mobilized/organizing right now. Imagine the potential for more powerful and stronger actions, if folks are actually supporting each other in the process.

What also concerns me here, is how the rationale of security culture may be used as cover for more dangerous underlining assumptions. It seems to me that despite their willingness to use the legacy of militancy in poc struggles as theoretical validation in the post-scripts of their actions, these planners actually harbor a basic distrust of people outside their own networks to commit with intentional forethought to taking part in direct action. Or in other words, that the willingness/ability to plan these actions is unique to them. And if this is the assumption at root, then y’all have not being paying attention.

As my final connecting piece I wanna include this bit of information. On m4 different groups of highschool students had planned to march on UCOP after the rally in Oakland. Upon seeing the folks amassing for the snake march- covering and hiding their faces in preparation- it was decided not to continue with this plan. Not knowing who these people were or any idea of their intentions, beyond what could be assumed, the group of highschool students didn’t want to be made further vulnerable to violent police repression by the “wildcard” presence of this unknown group. And on that same day, fifteen-year-old student Francois Zimany fell from the freeway sustaining serious injuries. In their communiqué released today, ‘the crisis generation’ (another anonymous entity somehow connected to the takeover) tells Francois “we don’t know you, but we love you. We are comrades for life.” So I say, where’s the love really? Where’s the solidarity, really? Love and solidarity, to me, look like stepping from behind the masks/isolation- not continuing to be so “unknown” to each other –it means talking, communicating, planning, and struggling together.

With love, respect, and solidarity
-alette kendrick
.former uc student.
.pissed off person of color.
.revolutionist.

*who are the raider nation collective, the crisis generation, the absent future, et al?? “don’t you recognize me?” –says the voice from the other side of the wall.
**as a friend pointed out it’s rather easy to be a pig provocateur in this situation, just cover yourself in black clothing join the crowd and shout enthusiastically!

---------------------------------------------
please comment, repost, etc.

You're an idiot, there are

You're an idiot, there are many answers to your final question but because you asked them you choose to ignore them.

Whatever

HEY COLLEGE KIDS YOU MUST

HEY COLLEGE KIDS YOU MUST HAVE IT SO BAD

SHUT THE FUCK UP

ALTHOUGH, IF YOU PAY ME SOME

ALTHOUGH, IF YOU PAY ME SOME OF YOUR TUITION MONEY, I'LL PRETEND TO TAKE YOU SERIOUSLY AND WALK YOU THROUGH THE LAST TIME THIS DEBATE HAPPENED.

if i give you some tuition

if i give you some tuition money will you stop writing in all caps?

SHOW ME THE MONEY! ALL CAPS

SHOW ME THE MONEY!

ALL CAPS IS THE NEW NO CAPS.

>> ALL CAPS IS THE NEW NO

>> ALL CAPS IS THE NEW NO CAPS

lol!

We ponder about when people

We ponder about when people will try to take things into their own hands, and when they do, complain that they have it better off than we?
That's just silly and tactically stupid.

NO I HAVE A JOB AND DON'T

NO I HAVE A JOB AND DON'T LIVE IN FILTH

NO YOU HAVE A JOB AND DO

NO YOU HAVE A JOB AND DO LIVE IN FILTH

"occupationist"? *retch*...

"occupationist"? *retch*... you gotta be kidding me... anyway.. what did you think of "pushed by the violence of our desires"?

1 day action, 3 months of

1 day action, 3 months of complaining about said action. Which is, of course, the best way to create a viable, productive movement. /sarcasm

Agreed. It's also just so

Agreed. It's also just so fucking Bay Area...
It is trendy to be "radical" there, and there are a lot of young "self-identified" anarchists who will drop out of the movement within a year or two and later tell their suburban rugrats about the glory days when momma used to fight the cops...what's worse is they know next to nothing about anarchist theory or practice, but think it's cool to call themselves that.
I've seen this cycle repeat a few times now.
Kudos to the ones that stick it out, but very few do. And of course there is great work being done there--but mostly the ratio of self-righteous hot air to concrete activity is about 90:1

I'm really glad someone

I'm really glad someone posted this, because I think it's the best analysis so far, and brings up the best question: When we organize in a mass context (ie, marches, public protests, etc), should we organize as a small group of militants attempting to incite the crowd in the direction we want? Or do we operate openly, publicly, and do proper outreach, and work to convince those who have doubts of our plans?

The first may be more effective in the short term, but the result can be a lot of resentment if people go into a protest and find themselves being arrested for something they feel they didn't fully sign up for.

The second may be more difficult, but it provides us good practice for how to build a movement long term, and provides a wider network of people to turn to when people are arrested.

I'm not a big fan of the secretive, lead-the-crowd-at-the-last-minute approach. I think it comes off as privileged and vanguardist, to use activist terms, but most of all, it's something we wouldn't appreciate a group doing at our demonstrations, we shouldn't do it at others. It's also just plain dangerous, because it does point to us as agitators, and not organizers, in which we become isolated, and the second we can get identified (those masks we wear are far from foolproof), we have much less of a base of support necessary to keep us safe and/or out of prison.

If you want to do clandestine work, then you can't do that as an out anarchist, it's best to ditch the patches, put on normal clothes, pretend to vote Republican, and never go to another infoshop or convergence again. If you want to do public, mass work, you can't do that as a secretive cabal, it's best to be open about your politics, have a presence at all coalition meetings, and make yourself and your intentions known. Each approach has major pitfalls, but if you try and manage both, you end up with the worst of both worlds.

tell that to the FAI retard.

tell that to the FAI retard.

The Federación Anarquista

The Federación Anarquista Ibérica?

Yeah. Their actions in the

Yeah. Their actions in the spring of 1992 showed how a group could and should have public and clandestine actions.

Most successful

Most successful organizations have both open and closed wings (ira/sinn fein for instance), which focus on different goals and actions. But that doesn't disprove what's being said.

Can you post a link to what happened in spring of 1992? Googling isn't coming up with anything.

If this were organized

If this were organized openly, if, for instance, people told the crowd gathered in the intersection, "hey, we're going to the freeway. . ." what do you think the chances of making it there would be? (%0? %1?). . .

What do you think of the fact that conspiracy to commit a misdemeanor is a felony, that people who plan an action can be held responsible for anything that happens during that action (Francois Zimani's fall, for instance). . .

Your ideals about openness and transparency are nice and all. I share them, for sure. But when you join us in the real world, perhaps you'll consider sacrificing them so that people don't end up in prison, k?

I wish people would take like two seconds to step back and think through the consequences of their positions.

i agree 100%. Actions like

i agree 100%. Actions like this need to be more spontaneous (and happen more often). And they need to occur around the world, not just in Greece and California (though i'm sure similar things are happening in other places, i'm simply not aware of them).

I've heard anarchists say

I've heard anarchists say more and more about being "spontaneous" ever since Seattle, but the result is that we've gotten away with a lot less in the streets, and we've taken a lot more arrests. Instead of planning less, maybe we need to just be planning better. Also, to go on what the other person is saying about being out in the open, it's one thing to try and push the crowd to do what you want (I think that's a bad plan and I agree it breeds resentment) and it's another thing to operate as an autonomous unit within the crowd. The black bloc has worked best when it was large enough so that the rest of the protestors acted as cover, but the bloc didn't require the participation of the rest of the protest in their specific activity. Trying to co-opt marches, and lead them into an occupation of a bridge just doesn't seem like a very good plan, and I can understand why people have issues with it.

This wasn't a cooptation of

This wasn't a cooptation of a march. It was a separate march that happened after the rally -- people were warned that it was unpermitted and that they should participate at their own risk. They were also informed 3 blocks b4 reaching the freeway that people would attempt to take it and they should take a quick turn if they were not into that. . .

This paranoia is always the

This paranoia is always the argument for attempting to mix clandestine and public organizing, but it's a false argument. People still got arrested, conspiracy charges could still be laid, and nobody is particularly any safer for it. The reason people may get off with lighter charges has nothing to do with masks and secrecy (I bet any determined fed or cop could find out who to charge within 24 hours), and the result is that their social disconnection from the group that comes with that secrecy makes them more at risk, not less.

Plenty of movements have operated in the open, and managed to pull off civil disobedience (which is what this was, it wasn't direct action, it was symbolic, which is fine), and not been given 100 year sentences for treason.

to be honest, "march on the

to be honest, "march on the freeway" doesn't really seem to be the type of action that requires a high level of security or clandestinity. i mean hey wow, guess what, if the police didn't know who were planning on going onto the freeway beforehand, they sure know who did!

on the other hand, given the shady backstabbing Bay Area leftist groups, it makes sense that folks who wanted to do something different wouldn't want to share their plans with certain others.

all i've learned from M4 is the Bay Area is activist hell.

Activism IS hell. Fuck

Activism IS hell. Fuck activism, fuck activists, fuck scenesters.

I'm damn glad they're stabbing you in the back. The whole "let's ask for permission to protest from the ones we're protesting! YEAH! WE'RE RADICALS!!!!!!!!!1!!1!1!!1" scene needs to be doused with gasoline and set on fire. And that applies to the anti-war movement the same as it does the "student movement" or any "movement" for that matter.

less talk, more rock.

less talk, more rock.

some pretty sad shit, at the

some pretty sad shit, at the beginning of the march from my campus, the fuckwad student activist group that organized the rally wanted us all to thank the police for "protecting us"

And then we should ask the

And then we should ask the very obvious question: why do we need protection?

Or perhaps more accurately: why do the "leaders" of this "movement" need protection?

Perhaps we should demonstrate an answer to that question for them the next time they have a rally.

Whether you organize

Whether you organize publicly or clandestinely, whether you do a good job "outreaching," or not, marching a couple hundred people onto a freeway where you're sure to get arrested is a bad idea. Maybe the debate needs to shift a little.

What would you suggest for a

What would you suggest for a good action? I'm not being sarcastic or hostile, just asking an honest question because a lot of people can say "this was a bad idea" but have none of their own, so i'm curious to see if you do.

Home demos at the Regents'

Home demos at the Regents' houses. That freeway isn't raising tuition, the people who run the universities are.

.....to pay for more

.....to pay for more freeways.

Which new freeway

Which new freeway construction projects are you referring to?

the Highhhhhhhhway to

the Highhhhhhhhway to hell.

your tuition also goes to pay for my massages, Dairy Queen for my kids' baseball team, and for leprechauns surgery.

Why was arrest certain?

Why was arrest certain? There are plenty of instances of freeway takeovers where people didn't get caught. The reason people got popped is that they were too slow, and being followed by riot police. They were abt. 100 yrds from the exit. In 1991 people took over the Bay Bridge, fought the police (somebody even burned a police car) and many got away.

So, please explain yourself. Why was arrest inevitable? Or are you just talking out your ass?

Trying to draw conclusions

Trying to draw conclusions based on an inaccurate portrayal of history is dangerous. The Bay Bridge was not taken over in 1991. The eastbound (San Francisco) entrance was temporarily blocked, and one Highway Patrol car was torched. An attempted repeat of this action (always a problem because the police always try to learn from their mistakes, while activists can't even figure out if they've had a victory) occurred in 2003 when the current war in Iraq began; folks from Direct Action to Stop the War marched folks up to the same entrance and did a count-down dash through the police lines. As was to be expected, this action failed. There were several dozen people who got through, but the police line held, which meant that everyone who made it through was now completely isolated, surrounded and outnumbered by cops. Protest organizers who have some kind of occupation as a goal (however temporary or symbolic) need to understand how the cops deal with property take-overs. Public thoroughfares can never be held effectively for longer than a few hours, but if that's all you want to accomplish, then fine.
=Mister Grumpy

there were almost a thousand

there were almost a thousand people on the bay bridge in 1991.

faggot liberals = roadblock

faggot liberals = roadblock to social war

Obviously it requires more

Obviously it requires more than a thousand people to occupy an 8.4 mile long structure with more than two points of vehicular entry.
=Mister Grumpy

it takes like 50 people if

it takes like 50 people if they are determined. (i.e.-lockboxes, tripods, etc...)

You must think that

You must think that occupation is just some goof that happens when there's someone around to piss off (cops, property owners, politicians), otherwise lock boxes and tripods would not be part of it. Occupations, at least in the way that people have been talking about reclaiming space and resources, requires more than 50 people creating an inconvenient nuisance for the status quo -- like the antics on the freeway last Thursday were a nuisance. Such pranks have nothing in common with reclaiming and reusing the social wealth that we help to produce. That kind of occupation requires more than 50 (and usually more than 1000) people. Apples and oranges my friend.
=Mister Grumpy

yes, thank you. that is what

yes, thank you. that is what i've been trying to say about this crap.

i'll be the apple. you be

i'll be the apple. you be the orange.

betw/ the reality of the

betw/ the reality of the continuing dominance of the state and capital and the resistance to it in the u.s., comes minor actions like a small, very brief freeway stoppage. and then a month of discussion. BORING. INSIPID.

have a little perspective, please. this is almost certainly a crisis from which capitalism, at least in this country, will not fully recover. decades of tax cuts and deregulation have resulted in massive redistribution of wealth upward. that means cutting the public sector. the only thing a minor action like this might be good for is broadening out resistance to a widespread anti-capitalist movement.

for that, what is necessary is some decent, understandable propaganda and some much more radical action that lights up people in our communities. what i see from this article and others like it is, basically, whining. show people how the banks, the state, the university and foreclosure of their homes is all connected. then do something real against any of those institutions, and, in these circumstances, a mass resistance might occur. if not, at least you will still have some self-respect rather than sounding like kids fighting over a toy.

kudos

kudos

101001

101001 010110101111101010001010101010101100000101101110 DOES0101001NOT10111010100101COMPUTE10100001010101

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.