Work with those that destroyed our camps and murder Black youth? A critique of the NGO model.
Posted by eric ribellarsi on November 26, 2012
Kasama received this debate unfolding within the movement in Atlanta. It mirrors debates happening everywhere: are NGO assumptions about organizing a basis upon which Occupy should continue itself? Are the police part of the 99%? Can collaborating with them help occupy? Take Back the Block offers a thorough and resounding “NO.”
“OOHA’s reliance on this model, most importantly, leaves behind so many people from dispossessed black and brown communities. Narrating these stories perpetuates a culture of victimization – not a culture of collective resistance. The message is always, “I did everything right, I was an upstanding member of society and then extenuating circumstances hit and I am in deep water.” The underlying logic: “good” people deserve housing- it is counter to the society we are fighting for that housing is a privilege, not a basic necessity that we must provide for each other. It is important that OOHA does more than proclaim that housing is a basic human right; w must always demonstrate that in our work as well. The “exceptionalism” of each case doesn’t demonstrate that.
A culture of collective resistance would be one which stresses the agency of communities to actively fight against the banks, the state that bailed them out while our bank accounts hit negative, and the police who enforce their will. When we victimize ourselves and then rely on enemy forces we are immediately weakening our position as active agents against our own oppression.”
OOHA DEFENDS THE COPS; WE DO NOT
The intention of this article is both to clarify our position on the police, and to engage in principled dialogue about tactics and strategy in the anti-eviction movement. Take Back the Block realizes that we have made some of the same mistakes that we now see in the movement. In order to build a strong movement, we must constantly examine ourselves and others, pushing each other forward always.
“Those who do not move, do not notice their chains,” wrote Rosa Luxemburg. The true nature of police, the enforcer of chains, is less clear for the majority of the population during low movement times. This has never been the case for black men, immigrants and homeless people who feel the clarity, the mandate of the cops every day through bruises on their bodies and the threat or experience of imprisonment. This wall was broken for a few months when a mostly white, disillusioned section of the population poured into underused parks that were quickly surrounded by police in cars, on motorcycles, on bikes and horses, with the single intent of crushing peaceful gatherings and encampments. While the police trampled on tents, waving batons and laughing at us for demanding jobs and healthcare, they left shoppers alone who were camped out on sidewalks all day and night to buy discount deals on Black Friday. The police force under the orders of the mayors could not maintain the façade of contradiction: their essential role is to keep us subjugated and intimidated and to protect the rule of the rich (despite the often referenced basic duties of police, like traffic control).
While the newly active people in Occupy were painfully discovering the role of police, the Atlanta area police continued their killing spree of unarmed black youth. This led to frequent marches steaming with rage, pouring into the streets of downtown Atlanta, with chants ranging from “Fuck the police” to “Hey pigs, what do you say, how many kids have you killed today?!”. Joetavius Stafford, a 17-year-old high school student who was gunned down by police officers in a MARTA station on his way home from homecoming, was on everyone’s minds. Then there was Ariston Waiters, another unarmed youth, who was murdered by a police officer behind a shed, out of sight from witnesses. His family began to attend marches and rallies calling for justice, which they continue to do today, unwilling to be forgotten as another casualty of white supremacy. Personal experiences were creating an understanding across racial and class lines, obliging solidarity between the more privileged occupiers who were experiencing police repression for the first time and those that experience police terror daily.
Things in Atlanta exploded even more when news of Trayvon Martin’s murder reached the city. The Atlanta public packed out rallies again, speaking out against racism and police brutality. During these months, many Atlantans were openly disillusioned with the APD and the institution of policing. Though the diagnosis and solutions varied, many people were taking a stand. Some were standing up against police brutality or the racism of individual officers, and others were against police altogether. As the last remnants of the parks were cleaned out by police and the steam evaporated from the national popular demonstrations, most of us were forced to go back to normalized routines. The “moment’ of exposed contradictions–the small rupture of clarity we experienced–is now just a memory and we are still trying to make sense of it. The APD successfully broke up resistance and continues its murderous practice. Even the mildest reforms to humor the public haven’t been taken–APD has not fired its officers who were directly implicated in the high-profile murders, nor stopped their practices of harassing and targeting black and brown people.
How does Occupy Our Homes Atlanta (OOHA) tell a different story?
A couple of weeks ago, national newspapers ran stories of Occupy Atlanta and the Atlanta Police Department repairing their relationship. The press release was sent out by an organization called Occupy Our Homes Atlanta (OOHA), an NGO-style, anti-eviction, activist group that formed from the ashes of Occupy Atlanta. The story was highlighting OOHA’s latest campaign to protect a retired police woman named Jacqueline Barber and her family from eviction. Jacquelyn served the Atlanta Police Department (APD) for 20 years as an undercover narcotics detective. She was injured on the job in 1998, forcing her into early retirement. Years later, she developed cancer and underwent treatment. She lives in Fayetteville, Georgia with her daughter and 4 grandchildren, in a house much larger than those OOHA generally defends.
Most outsiders cannot distinguish between OOHA and the Occupy movement which was a broad tent of resistance. The Occupy movement has disintegrated mostly due to heavy police repression, but groups like OOHA were able to grow. OOHA has participated in various campaigns to keep individuals in their homes, many times successfully. Their usual formula in developing campaigns is as follows: find a foreclosure victim who is relatable and safe; help them sculpt an emotional personal interest story; launch an aggressive media campaign; ask people to donate money and supplies; and work with the bank to agree on a more manageable mortgage. When the threat of eviction arises, OOHA uses tents and activist support in the yards of the houses to stall the police from removing the families from their homes, which are tactics left over from occupying the parks. These campaigns rely heavily on the sympathetic charity of outsiders, the interest of the media, and good faith in banks to work outside of their interests.
OOHA’s choice to defend Jacqueline’s home betrays the experiences of Occupy. One of the most dynamic struggles in Occupy Atlanta was the rejection of police brutality and the police as a force that served and protected the people. This lesson was learned in a multitude of ways from sympathizing with police brutality victims such as Joetavius Stafford, Ariston Waiters, and Troy Davis (Woodruff Park, where OA was based, was actually renamed to Troy Davis Park by the occupants), to actual lived experience of massive, baseless arrests, police scare tactics and the brutality on Occupy activists. Although many claim–namely the mainstream media–that Occupy had no real demands, lessons or aim, many of those that participated in Occupy were bonded together by a rejection of the cruelties of the ruling class. Throughout the process of Occupy, we were reminded that the police were the hired guns of the 1%, who, though often poor and struggling, fight against their own interests in maintenance of the status quo. OOHA’s choice to defend a former undercover cop’s home is not only in opposition to the ideals of many of the Occupy activists, but a betrayal of learned experiences.
The implications of adopting this case reach beyond OOHA. Since the beginning of Occupy Atlanta, many non-activists have understood activism as in relation to Occupy, so when news headlines read “Occupy Atlanta Joins Forces with Police to Save Retired Detective’s Home,” it may as well have read “Atlanta Activists Join Forces with Police.” These outright fabrications and lethal distortions are perpetrated by a group that is fighting for justice. It was not the propaganda of the APD or the ruling class to promote that “cops are here to serve and protect,” but the propaganda of OOHA. This act was committed with good intentions but is nevertheless inexcusable.
OOHA’s organizing model leads them to make bad strategic choices because the success of their campaigns often relies on the conscience of enemy forces and elite public figures. The non-profit like model of OOHA creates the necessity to “sell” to a specific audience the legitimacy of a fight, requiring the sympathy and interest of mass media. Mass media outlets that reported only a year ago on the battles between occupants and cops are now able to weave a tale of redemption in which occupiers admit their previous immaturity and reach out to a cop as a sign of peace and reconciliation–an olive branch. In the meantime, Occupy activists are still undergoing cases from unjust arrests made a year ago (some of which have been stalled because cops have destroyed or withheld evidence).
Some tactics have also been proven unwise. When the stories fail to rally up the public and the police come down heavy handed to enforce the bank’s eviction, Occupy Our Homes often must rely on their bodies to defend the homes. A common tactic used during an attempted eviction, blockading the house, has proved unsustainable and costly to the movement. In one Occupy Our Homes Minnesota case, the group attempted multiple blockades resulting in 23 total arrests.
OOHA’s reliance on this model, most importantly, leaves behind so many people from dispossessed black and brown communities. Narrating these stories perpetuates a culture of victimization – not a culture of collective resistance. The message is always, “I did everything right, I was an upstanding member of society and then extenuating circumstances hit and I am in deep water.” The underlying logic: “good” people deserve housing- it is counter to the society we are fighting for that housing is a privilege, not a basic necessity that we must provide for each other. It is important that OOHA does more than proclaim that housing is a basic human right; w must always demonstrate that in our work as well. The “exceptionalism” of each case doesn’t demonstrate that.
A culture of collective resistance would be one which stresses the agency of communities to actively fight against the banks, the state that bailed them out while our bank accounts hit negative, and the police who enforce their will. When we victimize ourselves and then rely on enemy forces we are immediately weakening our position as active agents against our own oppression. Banks will never be our allies; they concede to small struggles for the sake of PR, not for the sake of progressing humanity. Mass media, which is funded by corporations, cannot be trusted to work for our defense. We must be able to struggle collectively against the forces daily suffocating us, and we cannot do that by having to appeal to those that put us there in the first place. We must be able to at the same time build collective refutation of ruling-class institutions, build alternative community institutions to fill the gap. This “one home, one compelling story” is barring us from actually developing a real praxis of liberation. It may have been the police that physically destroyed the camps and arrested us but it is groups like OOHA that are distracting us and themselves from creating a real movement that we so desperately need. Ultimately, the OOHA model replicates the narrative of appealing to the conscience of our oppressor. Stokely Carmichael, a Black Power leader, hit the nail on the head when he pointedly stated that the oppressor has no conscience, to rely on that is to fight a losing battle.
Kasama 
yoster said
Stafford was 19, not 17. OOHA is working with a ton of residents, many of them are not cops, many of them are renters and in the homeless community, OOHA isn’t an NGO, we didn’t raise money to buy anyone a house, Jacqueline is an OOHA member who was an airport detective over 10 years ago. I’m glad TBTB is writing stuff about home defense, would be great if they were doing more of it themselves instead of hating on another groups work. Folks might be shocked to discover they miss Calhoun, who we strongly support, once worked as an administrate for the FBI in DC. We are not who we work for, no human being in beyond redemption, we are no poleriod pictures, we are all in motion. People change over the course of years. There is room in OOHA for former cops that want to fight banks and resist eviction by force….this article has problems. If TBTB has problems with our work, writing articles before engaging is not the way to move forward.
Otto said
This is interesting to me because I have tried to analyze the present day Occupy Movement and I have found plenty of questions that I hope eventually get answered;
http://ottoswarroom.blogspot.com/2012/11/the-occupy-movement-is-still-activebut.html
Sara said
It is unfortunate if we got a detail wrong. We will attempt to rectify that. However, the issue at hand is not to focus on a minute factual error (so long as they are not so many that they take away from the legitimacy of the claims), the point is to focus on the broad arguments being made. The piece does not say that OOHA is or is not an NGO, it says that OOHA operates as one in many ways. OOHA is a marriage of “radical” tactics borrowed from Occupy and the NGO model. How? Many of the tactics are not NGO status quo (at least in the “activist” era pre-Occupy) i.e. using tents to defend a home–they can actually be considered radical and confrontational. However, the strategy and methodology is that of an NGO. Which is to create a story of sympathy and exceptionality rather than one of resistance, which in turn creates victims rather than fighters. This impedes the overall goal of activists and organizers, which to me is to create strong people who resist daily injustices and also see the commonalities of experience between them and others, so that we can fight together against the powers at large more effectively.
Most importantly, on the issue of defending a former cop’s home, the issue is that OOHA chose to highlight that Jacqueline was a cop. This was not strategic in any progressive sense. The only way that highlighting such a fact would be strategic is if Jacqueline publicly and outspokenly renounced her years as a cop, and/or severely criticized that role and function. Sherry may very well be a former administrate of the FBI, however those that have worked and are working with her, never chose to highlight that fact. OOHA largely operates on media stories and spotlight. If this is one of y’alls main tactics, then it also must be very important to weigh the implications of selling the story as “Jacqueline the cop loses her home”. Whether the media blew it up or it was the doing of OOHA, this turned into a tale, as is said in the piece, of Occupy Atlanta reconciling with the police–this is factually untrue and very destructive.
You say that Jacqueline is a “former cop” and so she has a place in OOHA. Sure, Jacqueline is a former cop, in that she used to be on the force and is now retired. However, the way in which her identity is constructed (whether it be by OOHA, Jacqueline, or the media) is still that of a cop. She may be retired from the payroll, but this story doesn’t indicate that she is retied from her identity as such. This is the fundamental difference. So, we have to ask why was her role as a cop highlighted? Why in interviews with OOHA members was their an agreement with media outlets that this was a new era of relations between occupiers and cops? Is this strategic? Is this even progressive? I don’t think so, and I believe that many people that are systematically harassed, brutalized and imprisoned by cops would say the same. How is this pushing the dialogue further among people? How is this relating to struggling and harassed people? It’s not.
We’re not hating on your work for the sake of hating. We sincerely engage in this debate humbly, but critically. We must be able to engage on what we believe is destructive as organizers. We don’t believe that OOHA went forth with these actions maliciously. However, the effects of it were detrimental.
I hope for OOHA and TBTB to continue engaging on these questions in a polite and honest manner. Writing articles is a process of engagement for us. It is creating a public forum for the two groups as well as bystanders to engage in questions critical to the anti-eviction movement.
yoster said
Jacqueline isn’t just a cop, she’s a human being that has committed to defend her home and defend others. She has shown up to other peoples bank actions, offered her living space to homeless folks that OOHA works with, and she has condemned law enforcement that has cracked down on Occupy nationwide and specifically recent crazy law enforcement actions around evictions in Colorado and Portland. While some on this thread hear the cop word and imagine some devil with horns and claws I’d challenge folks to take a deeper look. Jacqueline is a human being first, one who has gone through a transformation. Ya’ll should take a step back.
I personally am excited at the prospect of cops crossing the line into radical activism, and pushing other cops to question their role in systems of violence and oppression. I say this as someone with a criminal record, I say this as a former prisoner and a forever felon. Jacqueline has had correspondence with inmates who say her story in their jail cells.
Is one case of a former cop crossing the line going to mobilize all law enforcement to do the same, extremely unlikely…but that’s how social change works sometimes, one person at a time crossing a line, or drawing a line they won’t cross.
Most of what was written was speculative, a very high mainstream media Birdseye view. I think that if an engaging conversation was desired it would have come in the form of a phone call or an email first? This article dissing biz feels like more of the same bad vibes that split OA in the first place.
Final thought, “selling” the legitimacy of an action or a campaign is not something to be frowned upon, it’s what organizers should be doing. Our actions, tactics, campaigns, ect are ultimately about starting conversations with the communities we work in, challenging the norms/policies we work against, and moving people toward our position.
Japaridze said
We want to clarify a few things:
The individual, Jacqueline, is not the reason for this critique nor are individuals within OOHA being criticized.
What is being critiqued is:
how this campaign was built around the woman being a former police officer, and how this signified an alliance with police and occupy.
the method of winning homes through advertising the fight as a human interest story
Even in the video, the fact that she was a retired cop comes before the fact that she was a cancer survivor. There was a deliberate attempt at highlighting her profession. The story of why she deserves to keep her house doesn’t highlight that she is a cop who is breaking ranks or organizing other cops to defect from their job.
The story does not focus on what the job of a cop actually is, that of crushing anyone who gets out of line from this oppressive system and regularly using violence to subjugate the most vulnerable sections of our society. Or the fact that cops are the reason most of us were arrested and the camps were broken up.
Explicitly, the story of her being a police woman and subordinately a cancer survivor and an elderly is why she deserves to keep the house.
It is disingenuous to frame your response to this piece by saying that it is simply about someone who deserves redemption just as ex-convicts deserve redemption. It is absurd to project an idea onto us that we are against people who have been imprisoned in this country or that being a cop is the same as being a convict.
People changing and finding redemption is not under discussion or being challenged.
To further reiterate what is being challenged is this:
Crafting the story of Jacqueline being a cop
The corrosive effects of OOHA’s tactics on public perception and lived experiences of occupiers.
If the purported goal was to challenge the police force and the police forces perception of Occupy, the complete failure of that goal. Instead a reversal happened where occupy was discredited and the police force has been redeemed.
The unstrategic activism of OOHA focused on activism without much clear strategy that will advance resistance instead of recuperate and neuter resistance.
The tactics such as focusing on media and begging of mercy from banks and media to “move” the banks to refinance the homes.
Problem I am seeing is that we are not talking about these things instead the responses are focused on getting at our moral consciousness by saying Jacqueline is a friend, a grandmother, and a caner-survivor. The responses also sound like the way her campaign is being framed to the public. We don’t have to be sold on the fact that people, every person deserves a home, in fact, we are trying to steer the conversation towards building a movement that demands homes and fights for homes for everyone.
The other response to our is piece is that Take Back the Block isn’t doing as much as OOHA as far as quantity of work. We are attempting to discuss why we aren’t using the OOHA model. We also think activism for activism’s sake is ineffective as well as activism without strategy is ineffective and in this particular case, this type of activism that OOHA employs is destructive to building a collective struggle that retains the lessons of the movements it came out of such as the nature of cops.
We think these are bigger questions for the movements and organizing everywhere and this is why it is written in this manner. It is not just about OOHA or TBTB, but tactics and strategy everywhere.
amanezca said
I’m not a part of TBTB and don’t know everything about what they’re up to, but I can say a few things:
These are the same debates that went on in Occupy Atlanta when a small handful of people decided that the first home-occupation that the group should take part in was that of a police officer in Snellville out in Gwinnett County. These forces ignored tens of thousands of foreclosed homeowners in the city itself and closer counties, and went 45 minutes out to Snellville to find a cop to defend.
Now some within OOHA, largely the same few individuals responsible for supporting the police within Occupy Atlanta last year, are again putting pigs on a pedestal. It’s not coincidence: there is a deeper, conscious push here to align the movement as a whole with the state and particularly the police — shock troops of the ongoing war against the people.
Yoster: Who are you trying to “sell” this story to, exactly? Who exactly are you trying to sell this movement to? In most communities, police are not respected. This is pretty widespread in society.
Don’t hate on radicals when they call you out; engage on questions of political line (here on Kasama and elsewhere).
yoster said
yeah, I was with the group who worked with the Rorey house in Snellville. What you might not know is that the Rorey’s were the first to reach out to OA around eviction issues, which is why they were the first we worked with. You should also know that folks that ended up starting TBTB we camping on that lawn and stayed in that fight till the very end.
Final thought, “selling” the legitimacy of an action or a campaign is not something to be frowned upon, it’s what organizers should be doing. Our actions, tactics, campaigns, ect are ultimately about starting conversations with the communities we work in, challenging the norms/policies we work against, and moving people toward our position.
kalitramplesshiva said
I wouldn’t be quick to judge this individual because she was once an airport cop and has subsequently been in retirement for over a decade. That seems childish. Even in anti-cop struggles, there are nuances and gray areas, such as the case of Kenneth Chamberlain Sr. in New York state, himself a retired military sergeant and former corrections officer, who was murdered in his home by racist cops who were supposed to be responding to a medical emergency.
HOWEVER –
“I personally am excited at the prospect of cops crossing the line into radical activism, and pushing other cops to question their role in systems of violence and oppression.”
If this sentiment encapsulates the line of OOHA, there is ground for criticism, and criticism can play a constructive role.
Historically, (to my knowledge) the last time that happened in North America – when cops “crossed the line” en masse, was during the 1919 Winnipeg General Strike, when the municipal police joined the strike. Two things happened. 1) The cops were all effectively fired for insubordination, en masse. 2) They, along with the other strikers, were attacked by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police at the orders of the Canadian state.
Note that this was before the formation of police unions that expanded the role of state employment benefits in bribing and ensuring the loyalty of police as an elite labor aristocracy with a certain degree of political and economic privilege.
It’s also worth looking at other historical examples. During the Russian Civil War, the White Army was mostly comprised of Cossacks as well as Tsarist military officers and cadets. Similarly, the groundwork of the KMT’s colonization of Taiwan after the success of the Chinese revolution was mostly done by KMT police and military officers.
This raises an important question, what constitutes “radical activism”? Is it military strategy? If so, any important part of strategy is pragmatic assessment of forces. If not, what’s the point, other than activism for activism’s sake?
kalitramplesshiva said
“Final thought, ‘selling’ the legitimacy of an action or a campaign is not something to be frowned upon, it’s what organizers should be doing. Our actions, tactics, campaigns, ect are ultimately about starting conversations with the communities we work in, challenging the norms/policies we work against, and moving people toward our position.”
True, but towards what goal? Is home foreclosure resistance a tactic in of itself, or part of a larger strategy? If it is part of a larger strategy to serve the people and bring the people over to a broader, revolutionary political movement, then in that case it is a wonderful thing. The strategic criticism being presented here is a valid one.
Japaridze said
Kalitramplesshiva, for calrification purposes she worked as a detective and undercover narcotics agent for the Atlanta Police Department
Natalio Pérez said
Yoster has brought up the point about “selling” the legitimacy of an action on a couple of occasions here, which is a valid point–we can’t expect our actions to somehow speak for themselves. But the way this is presented ignores the main question: on what basis do we sell an action’s legitimacy? There are ways that we can win small victories, or even reforms, that actually hamper the development of more radical politics, and this truth is seemingly being ignored by Yoster, yet pointed out very clearly–and repeatedly–by TBTB comrades.
When we argue for home defense on the basis of individual exceptionalism, on the basis that *this particular person* deserves a home *for these particular reasons*, and especially when these reasons are designed to appeal to institutions of existing economic and political power (banks, media, government), we are reinforcing capitalist ideological conceptions of ‘right’ and ‘privilege’. So if/when radicals attempt to push these things further, we will come up against a brick wall that we ourselves have built: why will people be willing to fight for the universal right to shelter when we have assisted in training them to think that housing is a privilege?
This dovetails into a broader point about having a consistency in our politics, and making sure that our statements at one point are not contradicted by other statements which we may have to make later. What does it mean, for example, to talk about “anti-repression” as some broad human rights issue (as is often the case) when a revolutionary process will, in fact, involve the active repression of counterrevolutionaries? What does it mean to present oneself as anti-war when we support the rights of oppressed people to take up arms for self-determination?
dave dubay said
why help that pig she slept with the goverment not our friend let buy her own donuts apd killed too many people for no good reason