This diary was born out of a comment I made to a diary written by a Daily Kos front page writer that rightfully takes issue with some of the unfortunate reactions to John Lewis' endorsement of Hillary Clinton for president. In regard to the criticism, I agree completely that some of the comments made to Lewis are simply disgusting, and this element that feels to be in a position to lecture Lewis about MLK are appallingly arrogant and just plain ignorant to an astonishing degree.
But the diarist mentioned a related peripheral issue, pertaining to the Atlanta Occupy movement back in 2011, and the way that group treated John Lewis who had appeared at the Atlanta Occupy General Assembly.
The impression some people seem to have of that incident is a group of white-privileged Occupiers in Atlanta arrogantly dismissed an iconic civil rights leader. I've read numerous comments on Daily Kos since that event that allude to a common misconception, to which I will attempt to provide a more complete historical record.
Many people have characterized the way Lewis was treated at Occupy Atlanta as a group of white privileged kids who insulted and disrespected Lewis from out of their white perspective. While I would never claim that racially privileged white people (some of whom were decidedly not privileged in terms of economic class) were not a majority of Occupy participants -- since most, but not all, of the participants were white -- this story about Atlanta is a bit off the mark as to what really happened.
In Atlanta, at an Occupy General Assembly in 2011, John Lewis made an unexpected appearance, and wanted to make a few comments to the attendees of the meeting. A discussion ensued among the attendees about whether to interrupt the meeting and the scheduled agenda to let Lewis say a few words. The result was Lewis was asked to come at a later time, which would seem, admittedly, an extremely rude way to treat this amazingly humble, very classy and highly respected and revered civil rights leader.
But a closer look reveals a different scenario, that can only be understood by looking at the organizational basis of OWS, and what it was trying to accomplish, not perceiving the organization from the outside peering in, but from the inside, and how it looked to participants involved in this movement.
As it turns out, according to news reports, the person who blocked John Lewis from speaking (which actually resulted in scheduling Lewis at a later time that day, but Lewis couldn't make it at the later time) was self-identified as an African American. His name is Joe Diaz. He mostly identifies as African, being 1/4 Black. He is also Latino and Italian. It was factually an Afro/Latino/Italian who blocked Lewis, while the white attendees were mostly supportive of Lewis and would have let him speak. Most of them, at some point, were okay with Lewis speaking.
The framework in which this event took place was one of a social experiment in which people set up a structure of self-governance, or self-management, and this structure had community agreements in place that the group had adopted, and was based on equality for every participant, with rules of how to get speaking time, each waiting for their turn, everyone having equal right to speak. It's a leaderless approach, meaning that in theory no single elite person or group of elites gets to have unequal access to speaking to and directing the entire group. There was a process in place to make sure no one took over as a dominant personality. Of course, the attendees were people unaccustomed to this and application of this in some occupy groups was anything but perfect. These were humans, after all, and they were humans who were raised in a hierarchical, capitalistic environment where people are amply rewarded for winning by defeating their associates in mutual competition, so there was a learning curve that many were experiencing and adjusting to.
The point is, no one can just walk up and have special treatment. At Portland, Oregon, where I live, many tried to do this and were angry and disappointed when it wasn't allowed by the group. Joe Diaz felt strongly about keeping to these ideals and wanted to uphold the agreement to have a completely horizontal organizational structure as opposed to the typical vertical, top down structure dominated by a few at the top. And in this, his tenacity was something to admire, since that was supposed to be the organizational structure.
OWS was an alternative form of "government", in which hierarchy was being abolished. When a person walked into an Occupy General Assembly, that person was walking into a meeting not unlike a congressional meeting, or a Senate meeting, or any other form of gathering for the purpose of self-management of society. People took this seriously. One didn't just throw the entire principle out the window because an important person showed up.
There is a Youtube video which reveals what happened the day John Lewis showed up to the General Assembly that was in session.
The white crowd in the video seems to lean to allowing Lewis to speak, having been asked for a show of hands in support of this, but Diaz used a procedure in the OWS consensus model known as a "block" maneuver, saying no one is more important than any other, that they had already set the schedule, and he didn't want to set a precedent by giving unequal, higher status to anyone, even well known personages. This was their fourth meeting, and everyone was quite likely jazzed up and committed to this social experiment in equality (if they were like the people at Portland Occupy in which I participated).
The other particpants at Occupy Atlanta either had to support Diaz in his procedural block, or simply abandon their organizational agreements, thus compromising the entire basis to their organizational structure. It's interesting that people accuse OWS on one hand of being completely unorganized, but when OWS organizational frameworks became inconvenient to critics, they were criticized for actually sticking to their organizational principles and accords!
John Lewis was a guest who came to Atlanta without knowing of these OWS organizational structures, and thus, understandably, had no way of knowing about speaking schedules at a General Assembly, no doubt thinking of the event as a protest open to spontaneous interruptions, and Lewis was there to witness first hand the votes to let him speak, and then saw the block, and the entire ensuing discussion, and he quite graciously understood the decision, and was okay with it. He understood rules of order as a member of the United States House of Representatives. I was impressed with his understanding, because not everyone in his position was so generous and calmly agreeable and civil. Some had stomped off in disgust.
Now, if I had been there, I would have voted to let Lewis speak, and it seems most were ready to do that, until the block maneuver. And they had all agreed to uphold the consensus model.
The key point is Lewis was at their event, and they had rules and a process they agreed on, just like the Senate, or the House. You can't go to the House and just walk up and speak. At OWS, they were trying a social experiment of making everyone equal. Despite an imperfect record of implementing this, many attendees, like Joe Diaz, did take this seriously.
Here's the interview where the interviewer asks Joe Diaz about his ethnicity:
Interviewer:
The moment where Congressman Lewis wasn’t allowed to speak to Occupy Atlanta has become racially charged. It looks like a predominantly white crowd turning away a black civil rights hero. So I hate to try to put you in a bubble, but how do you characterize your own ethnicity?
Joe Diaz:
No, it’s OK, I think the move to pretend to “color-blindness” is very dangerous. My four grandparents come from Italy, Africa and Spain. I’m a quarter black. In terms of “bubbles,” when I’m filling out forms, I bubble in Latino, black and white. Growing up in Pearl River, my friends were Irish Catholic, and being of mixed race, I was the minority. I’ve never been white enough for the whites, or Latino enough for the Latinos; it’s actually the black community that I’ve felt most at home with. So it’s ironic, the John Lewis thing.
7:50 PM PT: An update, in the form of a response to a comment:
See, the thing you miss is this: no one had authority over the rest of the group to force the group to override the egalitarian organizational structure. And if anyone did have that power, then it becomes immediately just another authoritarian model controlled by a few elitist, big egos who want to be in charge.
And that kind of central authority, which is how the banks operate and how they can manipulate entire governments, is exactly part of what OWS was speaking out against: the control of a majority by small minority known as the 1%.
So what you're advocating is that Occupy accept rule by a tiny minority, thus compromising the entire message.
Yes, some people may see that as more important than one single person, even well known personages.
I would have allowed him to speak, but had I been there, the solidarity to the people would have been more important to me than getting in a huff over power and authority.