Fortunately, the policy of consensus allowed some people of color to make the Declaration of the Occupation of New York City more broadly inclusive (and more socially sophisticated) than it would otherwise have been.
The original description of what happened attracted a lot of attention: SO REAL IT HURTS: Notes on Occupy Wall Street (two other people also posted reports which are listed below).
Briefly, the Declaration had been written, gone over in a General Assembly and reworked according to the assembly's agreed changes. When it was brought back, some people who hadn't been at the previous meetings objected to the second paragraph which was about racial inequality. It blandly dismissed ethnic/racial divisions as something to be left behind. The newcomers objected. Because of consensus, their objection actually blocked the Declaration. This, of course, distressed many of the people who had thought it was finally done.
Just what people always fear when they hear about doing things by consensus.
For consensus to have any chance of working, people have to be very willing to give way when most of the others seem to disagree with them, to listen a lot more than talk and so on. (Sounds almost like marriage counseling for a group of 300 people, doesn't it?)
Here's a very clear and complete diary about consensus and using it in the Assembly at #OccupyBoston by UnaSpenser. (Sometimes who recs a diary is as important as how many do. :)
And yet there are moments when it can be important to stand up to the group. If these few young people had not stood firm (which was not at all easy for them), the document would have seemed to be oblivious of the many people who like being who they are -- even if the dominant culture devalues their group. The man who had written the original paragraph was totally sincere in wanting to assure everyone that the differences which were the basis of so much inequality were unnecessary and that we could move beyond them. He could not know that those who had lived in (and suffered for being members of) these ethnic groupings for generations actually had their own view about how to get beyond the inequalities.
Normally, people with these two viewpoints would have passed by each other with no contact, but this process forced them to stick to it until they got it hashed out. Had they not, the isolation of caste privilege would have been reinforced (even more?) from within Occupy Wall Street itself.
Two other descriptions of the same event:
Brown Power at Occupy Wall Street! 9/29/11
Desis Take Action At Occupy Wall Street
Here's the change (as per Tomtech's comment):
The line was:
“As one people, formerly divided by the color of our skin, gender, sexual orientation, religion, or lack thereof, political party and cultural background, we acknowledge the reality: that there is only one race, the human race, and our survival requires the cooperation of its members…”
--->>
In the Declaration:
As one people, united, we acknowledge the reality: that the future of the human race requires the cooperation of its members;
UnaSpenser's posts:
Her two previous diaries about her personal experience getting to a point where the #OccupyBoston GA would agree to try consensus:
from #OccupyWallStreet to #OccupyBoston : lessons
and #OccupyBoston: learning together
from #occupywallstreet: a primer on consensus and the General Assembly (cited above):
What's brilliant about this system is that it is about coming up with solutions. It's not about complaining. If you have a concern, develop a proposal. Can't do that yourself? Create a working group.
There was a surprisingly cogent opinion piece posted on the CNN site:
Think Occupy Wall St. is a phase? You don't get it
By Douglas Rushkoff, Special to CNN
October 5, 2011 -- Updated 1709 GMT (0109 HKT)
He quotes MinistryOfTruth (anonymously):
"As far as seeing it end, I wouldn't like to see it end. I would like to see the conversation continue."
and then continues...
this is not a movement with a traditional narrative arc. ...it is less about victory than sustainability. It is not about one-pointedness, but inclusion and groping toward consensus.
. . .
Occupy Wall Street is meant more as a way of life that spreads through contagion, creates as many questions as it answers, aims to force a reconsideration of the way the nation does business and offers hope to those of us who previously felt alone in our belief that the current economic system is broken.
But unlike a traditional protest, which identifies the enemy and fights for a particular solution, Occupy Wall Street just sits there talking with itself, debating its own worth, recognizing its internal inconsistencies and then continuing on as if this were some sort of new normal. It models a new collectivism, picking up on the sustainable protest village of the movement's Egyptian counterparts, with food, first aid, and a library.
And finally:
Keith Olbermann
reads the Declaration as its own Special Comment [begins at 2:30],
and interviews two of the authors on
the making of the Occupy Wall Street Declaration