November 12, 2011
As I write this, everyone is just waiting for the next bloodbath to descend on Oakland. The television vans circle the plaza in front of city hall, eager to capture some “riot pornography” shots for the evening news. The police have issued a new ultimatum and stand ready to once again use tear-gas canisters, batons, “rubber” bullets, and flash-bang grenades on the peaceful encampment. Out of hundreds of encampments around the country, it may seem odd that progressive Oakland is the spot where such state violence is on display. But perhaps Oakland is playing, as it has before, the role of testing ground for tactics of resistance and of repression.
The police have already played their hand once, clearing out the plaza on October 24 and then attacking a demonstration the following night – injuring many, including veteran Scott Olsen who survived two tours in Iraq only to be shot by a teargas canister and put in critical condition by Oakland police. A day later, realizing they could not simply “hold” the plaza indefinitely, the police pulled out and the Occupy camp was back.
On the side of the state government, we see a desperate effort to reframe and demonize the demonstrations. On the side of the Occupy movement, we see a constant improvisation and evolution of strategy.
This confrontation is not new. In fact, only a few blocks from the City Hall is a city park in which Oakland Black activists set up a “Tent City for the Homeless” in 1984, renaming it Uhuru Park. When the police came to arrest people and tear down the tents in the middle of the night, I was a legal observer. For the crime of taking a photograph of an Oakland policeman beating an occupier, I was beaten so badly I had to be taken to Highland Hospital instead of jail. And back in 1932 a “Bonus Army” of veterans set up a tent city in Washington DC, only to be dispersed by the infantry and cavalry, with many wounded and two killed.
The University of California Berkeley’s actions on November 10 are a typical example of the state framing their use of repression. UC Berkeley police captain Margo Bennett (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=%2Fc%2Fa%2F2011%2F11%2F11%2FMNH21LTC4D.DTL ) had this to say as her forces were caught slamming peaceful students with batons: “The individuals who linked arms and actively resisted, that in itself is an act of violence. I understand that many students may not think that, but linking arms in a human chain when ordered to step aside is not a nonviolent protest.” This is certainly a new definition of violence and one we will see more of. Walter Benjamin in the 1930’s remarked that the state is the one institution which claims the “legitimate right to violence,” and indeed it uses violence all the time. But if someone who is not a state employee lifts a finger, the media express shock, shock that anyone would do such terrible things.
Then there is the project to demonize the demonstrators. Oakland City Councilwoman Desley Brooks, preparing the way for the next Oakland bloodbath, sought to label (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/11/12/MNOI1LTP11.DTL ) them as the dreaded “other,” the outsiders that our culture has constructed. She declared, “This is no longer an Occupy Oakland encampment. This is not the original crowd, not the one that was about the principles of Occupy Wall Street. What we have now is a mix: homeless, anarchists, gang members, and maybe a handful left who are really about Occupy.”
Now, in the real world where most of us live, there are homeless people, mentally disturbed people, those who have been thrown off by society and join gangs, people in crisis. They are, and will be, part of the gathering of the marginalized who make those in power uncomfortable. And, you may note, cities like Oakland have upwards of 75%, not 9%, not 20%, but 75% unemployment for black males. It’s a wonder the city has not exploded. You might want a nice, middle-class gathering to petition to right the wrongs of society. But the rabble is calling for the Bastille to be torn down. Get used to it. Putting the traditional label of “others” on many of these people does not justify the impending massacre. Another irony here: media complaints about Occupy Oakland come from both sides at once. It is too white, where are the Black people at Occupy? Oh, oh yes, there are a bunch of African American people here; but they look to be homeless or look like they are gang members. No, Ms. Brooks, these are your constituents; this is the 99%. The massive turnout for the Oakland General Strike on November 2 gives a lie to the idea that the occupiers are isolated. An outpouring estimated from 10,000 to 40,000 people came out. They included Labor, community groups, teachers, children and yes, definitely small businesses!
Then we have Oakland mayor, Jean Quan. She was once in a radical organization. I’m sure she has read Lenin’s “State and Revolution” or Gandhi’s “Satyagraha” in study groups and recognized that the modern state is founded on organized violence. Now she is part of the state and stuck in that contradiction. And the state, we know, does these ugly things. With the cover of one’s “office,” it is permissible to unleash violence. Clint Eastwood’s new film on the FBI’s Hoover, “J. Edgar,” suggests that all the havoc he unleashed was because of his mean mom and repressed homosexuality. Hey, lots of people have mean moms; lots of people are repressed. But they aren’t allowed to hound thousands out of jobs and to jail, set up character assassinations and murder. It was only his office that allowed him to do that.
There is a strange and eerie feeling in the Occupy Oakland camp. No one is happy when they are waiting to be physically attacked. Everyone knows that this expression of public theater is on a collision course. The problem could be easily be solved by issuing a permit and negotiating shared security and public health duties. But the city is not even considering that option. The Occupy Oakland people will not, cannot, simply surrender. The police are preparing another assault that will cost millions in immediate costs and even more in legal settlements over the coming years. But no one, politicians, activists, journalists, or pundits, is willing to take the steps to stop it.
