An #occupyoakland General Assembly of 308 people voted down a contentious proposal that would have changed the name of the movement to “Decolonize Oakland,” with only 68 percent of the people there supporting the change.
Occupy Oakland isn’t the only place where I’ve heard criticism of the occupy terminology that has become a national household name. I’ve talked with a number of my friends with Central American ancestory who have raised objections over the terminology because, in essence, indigenous peoples and lands have been occupied by Europeans for hundreds of years.
In fact, it appeared that nixing the Occupy terminology has much to do with that, particularly for the Ohlone people whose lands were taken in the European settlement of the Bay Area. It also appears to be a power play by the radicals of the Oakland movement to reframe the debate from grievances of Wall Street’s practices and a political system run amok with corruption, to that of an economic and political system that has occupied everything it has touched oppressively, be it land, people or minds.
The name change would seek to be more inclusive, inviting communities of color to the debate by bringing up the issues relevant to them. But that name change could, as some suggested, alienate Oakland from the wider movement by taking a completely different direction, the brand recognition if you will. Also, as much as there are some who are trying to make the privileged uncomfortable by talking about these valid issues, make them too uncomfortable and you risk losing allies as you gain new ones.
Also, some were irked that this emergency proposal prevented two timely proposals from coming up for a vote: whether to protest the American Israel Public Affairs Committee meeting in Oakland tonight at the Mariott at 5 p.m. and one about funding for Occupied Oakland Tribune.
The name of a movement is not the measure of its validity or its worth; what it does for its community is the real judge of its character. And as much as some name change supporters want to criticize those who want to keep occupy for branding purposes, they fail to realize that the point of a name is to brand, and that is why this has become such a contentious issue.
Of course, I’m a poor straight white male, so I get three privilege dings for these statements, right? :p
What does Decolonize mean anyway? From the proposal:
Decolonization means connecting to the land and each other by growing and sharing food. It means connecting to the traditions of our ancestors and creating new forms of authentic human connection. Decolonization is a practice of healing from violence in forms such as slavery, occupation, and poverty. It is about raising our children to find beauty and meaning in their cultural identities. Decolonization means telling stories that emancipate our minds and dreams. It is education as a practice of freedom, not a lucrative career path.
While we know that “Occupy” is the terminology used around the country to explain and unify this movement, it does not address the real issues of colonization that happened in this country and particularly to Oakland and the Chochenyo Ohlone residents of this city. For years the Bay Area and Oakland have been the birthplace of revolutionary movements and innovations in movement work.
Changing the name to “DeColonize” is an innovation that would also speak to the brilliance and community of OO to address the current issues of gentrification in Oakland and the social problems that gentrification have perpetuated as well as pay homage to our revolutionary ancestors who fought for a better, more inclusive and respectful Oakland.
