http://thegrio.com/2012/07/22/confessions-of-an-occupier-racial-tensions-fractured-occupy-wall-street/
It was at around that time that an Occupier had showed up with an “Aryan Brotherhood” sign to “spokescouncil,” which was one of our most controversial decision-making bodies. It was started with promises of greater inclusion, but was in fact attacked for being exclusive, opaque, repressive and oppressive.The individual had been asked to leave spokescouncil, but many members of the body had continued the meeting and suggested that the sign was just a bad joke, and we needed to move on. Needless to say, this was terribly traumatic for many people of color within the movement.The resulting attempt to resolve the sign controversy demonstrated the deep seated and seemingly irreconcilable differences between people of color within the movement and their white counterparts. There was also the constant debate around a desire by many to kick some people out of the movement. Incidentally, the subjects of this heated debate were three black women, complaining that they were particularly disruptive in meetings; some even accused them of being undercover government agents of some sort. The vitriol that these women attracted was as surprising as it was shocking to me, not to mention deeply distressing.
IMO with no real co-ordinated structure as to protocol, that in it's self would, increase the ability to infiltrate, mostly a difference of opinion is really a dismantlement as much as it's a difference of opinion. new movements which i know it did not consider itself early on, there is inevitably a bid for leader but then the human factor morphs into a battle of ideologies, and it seems there is no compatibility between each plan of direction. add the racial component then emotions take over on both sides of the table, when that happens all else goes out the window. people need to understand they have the same issues with others as the other's have with them. failure to acknowledge the other's right to put in their 2 cents as well as if it's a good idea it should be debated honestly with an end to implementing. "no man/woman is an island unto himself", if there is no community there can be no village.
we are who we are, can we be a better or a worse person of course, but if it's just you those consequences only directly hurt you which is bad enough, but trying to assume the ability to speak and be allowed to speak for the masses of virtually unknown people, is a tall order very few can handle. tolerance is one of the first qualifiers if you fly off the handle and like a right wing surrogate try and take over the conversation dismissing others when you never heard them in the first place, trust that you are not leader material. before you can lead you have to know how to see and listen.
