Response to NY Times article on Occupy Oakland & others, by Davey D.
Last week the New York Times published an absurd article about activists in Oakland, CA. It focused on occupy but was a larger attack on the city's activists. The article was BS, but it got a lot of attention. Well, Davey D. (radio personality, hip hop historian, professor) has written a response.
http://www.dominionofnewyork.com/2012/08/10/ny-times-underestimates-oaklands-radicals
Radical politics in Mahlers world are those who like to throw rocks at windows, fight the police for the notoriety and recapture the hey days of the Black Panthers and rowdy rebellious spirit of the Hells Angels who have a chapter here. That in no way describes what people are all about here in Oakland. It diminishes the true grind that organizers put in day-in and day-out to improve their community and better this city. Those who take direct action in the face of oppression do so because they have little or no choice. Its not something to be romanticized, its not a game, even if this writer came across a few individuals who thought it was.
So lets put a couple of things on the table that The New York Times and Mahler omitted, starting with the Movement to win Justice for Oscar Grant. For those who dont know, Grant was a unarmed 22-year-old man who was shot point-blank by a BART police officer on New Years morning 2009, while he lay face down, restrained on the Fruitvale station platform in Oakland.
MLKJrInspired
(17 posts)Thank you, Davey D. Somebody needed to set the record straight.
UnrepentantLiberal
(11,700 posts)Just because someone makes a living as a journalist doesn't mean they're telling the truth.
jade3000
(238 posts)That reporter for the NY Times let his (conservative) personal biases shine through.
He mocks activists that oppose the rich, says they are doomed, argues that the wealthy will continue being wealthy, and basically says nothing can be done about it. That's not reporting. That's some backwards b.s.
Consider when he quoted Jack London criticizing a group of wealthy New Yorkers for letting many people suffer in order to enrich themselves. London said that they "mismanaged the world" and one day "it shall be taken from you." How does the reporter follow that? Does he say London had a point? Does he say that it's a nightmare that activists are hoping to end? No, he says that ending this reign: "Its a dream that still exists in Oakland that the world can be taken from the haves and delivered to the have-nots. Like all dreams that are on the brink of being extinguished, its keepers cling to it with a fierceness that is both moving and an extreme exercise in the denial of the reality that is at their door."
Dude, maybe it's your dream of continuing a pampered life that is near ending. Ever hear of China? The Arab Spring? People ain't taking this U.S. hegemony sitting down.