Hacker News Reader

...but your statement about the longshoremen, that's certainly wrong.

No, it's right. ILWU (the union) leadership has made statements such as

"Organization from outside groups attempting to co-opt our struggle in order to advance a broader agenda is quite another and one that is destructive to our democratic process and jeopardizes our over two year struggle in Longview." [1]

So I may not have been right about them speaking out specifically against the Oakland shut down, but in general the union leadership is against strikes. Although, of course, they take great pains to not alienate potential ideological allies while rejecting calls to shut down ports.

The sentiment is at least mixed, as you can see from other coverage: [2]

"Leaders of the ILWU, which represents thousands of longshoremen, spoke out in recent weeks against the coordinated effort by Occupy protesters to blockade ports from Anchorage to San Diego"

"This is joke. What are they protesting?" Christian Vega, 32, who sat in his truck carrying a load of recycled paper from Pittsburg said Monday morning. He said the delay was costing him $600.

"It only hurts me and the other drivers. We have jobs and families to support and feed. Most of them don't," Vega said.

[1] http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2011/12/occupy-oakland-west-...

[2] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/12/occupy-oakland-port...

"Organization from outside groups attempting to co-opt our struggle in order to advance a broader agenda is quite another and one that is destructive to our democratic process and jeopardizes our over two year struggle in Longview." [1]

Which is why I call the IndyMedia LARPing crowd "independent volunteer agents of Cointelpro."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO

The Longview comment is from the Longview, Washington Union rep, not Oakland. The driver interviewed there is also not a longshoreman, and very likely not repped by a union at all. The Occupy Oakland movement was not a monolithic group of dreadlocked, burning man, trustafarians as you implied, but it's a convenient mis-characterization, as is your implication that the Union was only interested in avoiding alienating their ideological allies out of convenience rather than in actual solidarity with their cause.

EDIT:

I was mistaken regarding the comment coming from the Longview rep, it's actually from the Union President. When viewed in full, his opinion seems to be more nuanced than simply "closing the port is bad."

http://www.ilwu40.org/docs/12-06-11-McEllrath%20Letter.pdf

The port shutdown was about the truckers, though there was some ILWU support - I have personally met ILWU leaders who were in support.

The truckers are not allowed to unionize, are employed as "independent contractors", sometimes have to sit with their engines running, idle, trying to get into the port for hours without being able to pee. They are treated as if they operate a small business while they are in actuality an employee with none of the rights of a typical employee.

The ILWU also doesn't oppose the city or state government interfering with a port shutdown because without the ability to shut down a port, they would not exist.

I don't think you're effectively rebutting my larger point, which is that these protesters represent themselves as being of one population, when they are in fact of another. Certainly, if I change my statement to "some port workers" were economically damaged by the protest, purportedly on their behalf, in which they did not participate or call for, the point remains. Regarding the "convenient mis-characterization" -- my girlfriend worked in a major union for five years, specifically in the communications department; I know very well how to read statements made by, and on behalf of, union leaders. The kind of tension and political tiptoeing I described certainly exists.

The mere fact that we can point to two statements, one expressing support for Occupy, and one denouncing a specific Occupy action, by definition means that there is a conflict in strategy and tactics.

Now, I will grant that this is all based on my opinion and observation -- none of it is empirical or measured. So what? Supply some measurements if you think that my opinion is illegitimate. Tell me what percentage of Occupiers are actually from traditionally poor background -- those who suffer systemic disenfranchisement, a lack of role models, have insufficient access to education -- you know, the people who they claim to represent. If this is such a diverse movement of the working poor, go ahead and let me know how the demographics of self-identified Occupiers compares to that of East Oakland (the poorest neighborhood in Oakland.) Shit, speaking of diversity: I would be surprised to learn if even a single percentage of them were multilingual!

I'm all for advocating on behalf of those who have been systematically locked out of opportunity, who have never been able to access the things we all take for granted, which have made it possible for us to be so successful. The people I see at Occupy events are poor, but it doesn't seem to me that it's for a for lack of access. They are bitching, basically, because the opportunities for very well privileged slackers to get by decently without putting in too much effort have all dried up. The rest of us -- poor and working rich -- are busting our asses off.

Happy to be proven wrong, but these are my observations, and yes my biases too.

If your larger point is that they are representing themselves as being of one population (poor minorities), I would offer this counterargument:

Let's assume that they are all shiftless, white, dreadlocked, trustafarians. They are not representing themselves as being OF that population of poor minorities but rather are advocating FOR the population of underrepresented, poor minorities. How then are they different than wealthy benefactors donating to AIDS relief or anti-malarial programs in Africa? Well, they are donating their time, not their money, but if they do have so much money one wonders why they wouldn't simply donate that... You also make the observation that the individuals that are actually being negatively effected by gentrification in West Oakland are off working on their second or third jobs at that hour of the day, then wouldn't they need someone that is in a more comfortable position to advocate on their behalf?

It's interesting that you ask me for some empirical, measured data on the ethnic and class background of Occupiers. Because of the nature of that movement, it's nearly impossible to pin them down on anything. I was an observer at many Occupy events elsewhere, however, and what I found was very deep suspicion of anyone not directly involved in planning, so I'm afraid that it would be basically impossible to conduct the kind of research you're talking about. I was not involved with Occupy Oakland, but I know a few people who were, and interestingly enough, they had some of the same problems with other activists that you have. I do not think you are entirely wrong there. Certainly, some of the people that got involved just wanted to smoke weed, make idiotic signs, chant slogans and get laid, but it's ludicrous to suggest that the majority of activists involved there were of that ilk. It would also be ludicrous to suggest that there weren't any pseudo-activists. They were certainly there.

Personally, I found the Occupy movement's organizational non-structure to be self-defeating and it's no surprise that it has almost completely fizzled out. I also find the tactics being used by these particular protesters to be somewhat wrong-headed. In your original post though, you showed absolute disgust for these people and and in my own experience, they don't all deserve it. It will be interesting to find out more about what actually happened at this protest.

How then are they different than wealthy benefactors donating to AIDS relief or anti-malarial programs in Africa?

They are using violence (and the threat of violence) and presenting an outrageous sense of righteous indignation.

It seems that one of them committed a violent act here. They're not all doing that.

> "Think of the excellent restaurants, concert venues, boutiques, bars, etc. that exist in Oakland now--that's first wave gentrification. Those people are also historically more aware of their surroundings and the culture that they are moving into and tend to show solidarity with the lower income residents that they are paving the way towards displacement for. On the other hand, the second wave of gentrifiers tends to dramatically increase the cost of living, rate of displacement, and tends to care very little about the plight of their fellow citizens."

First wave? Only if you define "first wave" to coincide with the current discussion. There was a wave of bio-tech (e.g Genentech) shortly before the "tech" (e.g Google) wave.

This goes back all the way to the founding of California, the state. The '49ers were the first wave. Since then there has been a sadly repeating history of picking on a group to blame for any ill in society - usually racist - but it appears this time around it's a soft target.

So the claim here is that wave zero, original inhabitants don't have "excellent restaurants, concert venues, botiques, bars etc.", and their displacement by the first wave is excusable by this fact, and some hand-waving about "solidarity."

On the other hand, the second-wave and later are callous Scrooges who just take what they can get, and thus deserve to be vilified.

This is special pleading at its most naked. I've heard the saying that you pull up the drawbridge just after you enter the castle, but you seem to want to scrape out a privileged little Goldilocks zone on both sides, where first-wavers are each an embodiment of a noble Jake Sully, fighting to save the Na'vi against the invading hordes.

"Why not extend the light rail system into the valley?"

NIMBYs, that's why.