The original Occupy movement reimagined how people engaged with a space that represented an elite group that became a symbol of capitalism gone wrong. However, Occupy the Farm — a grassroots movement that began in April to protest development around UC-owned land in Albany — lacks the same ideological strength. Though protesters disagree with the university’s plans for the land, known as the Gill Tract, their concerns are not comparable to the corruption and greed on Wall Street, where the larger Occupy movement first began.
While Occupy the Farm’s intent to create an urban garden at the Gill Tract is admirable, the movement must be willing to cooperate with the campus. A garden at the tract would be a useful addition to the community and would provide worthwhile educational opportunities for UC Berkeley students and others.
But community forums about the future of the tract, which Occupy the Farm organizers initiated last week, should focus on how the space can be used in conjuction with the campus. Further occupations of the tract would not be beneficial; breaking into the tract and interfering with research there would continue to cause contention between protesters and campus officials.
Though Occupy the Farm previously refused to end its encampment in order to engage in discussions with campus officials, it must be more open moving forward. Occupy the Farm, the campus and Albany community members should work together to craft a vision for the tract that benefits all stakeholders — not only the interests of a small group of protesters.
The campus already indicated that it is still receptive to suggestions from Occupy the Farm members — Keith Gilless, dean of the College of Natural Resources who was given administrative authority over the tract, said that “broad consultation is important for what the future of the Gill Tract will be.”
Yet while the campus and Occupy the Farm protesters should collaborate as much as possible regarding the Gill Tract, both parties should also take care not to allow the tract to become what People’s Park is today. Similar to protesters at the Gill Tract, activists in the 1960s and ‘70s wanted the park to be accessible to everyone. Now, though the park remains true to that principle in theory, in practice it is only used by a select group. The Gill Tract can avoid a similar fate if those who are trying to determine its future produce a sustainable solution that all groups can respect.
Comment Policy
Comments should remain on topic, concerning the article or blog post to which they are connected. Brevity is encouraged. Posting under a pseudonym is discouraged, but permitted. The Daily Cal encourages readers to voice their opinions respectfully in regard to the readers, writers and contributors of The Daily Californian. Comments are not pre-moderated, but may be removed if deemed to be in violation of this policy. Click here to read the full comment policy.
Senior Editorial Staff:
The movement toward securing land for food in urban centers is a social and environmental action to recreate oppressive and colonizing political economies. This movement has been around long before Occupy began and has been an international one. When you write, “Lacks ideological strength” it makes your thinking sound completely absurd. Whose ideology are you even writing about? Certainly not from an international historical perspective. Journalism would be much better if you actually said something. Piecing good sounding words together is for poetry.
I see someone attended college recently. When someone throws around phrases like “international historical perspective”, reach for your wallet. “International historical perspective” means I’m going to rip you off and explain how exploitation of poor people somewhere far away a long time ago somehow justifies it. The movement to which you refer to is Marxism, a pseudoscience whose abuse has lead to the death of millions over the past century and yet still manages to attract naive believers. The fact that poor people are exploited has nothing to do with the stupidity displayed by people who claim to want to help them. No one wants your “help”.
“The movement toward securing land for food in urban centers is a social
and environmental action to recreate oppressive and colonizing political
economies.”
Psychobabble at its finest.
Or Politicobabble. I love the irony of the fact that she says she wants to “recreate oppressive and colonizing political economies”, since that is exactly what was done in Communist countries around the world. Sounds like someone got an “A” in professor Altieri’s political indoctrination course here at Berkeley. Given that a bunch of the organizers of the occupation did as well, it wouldn’t be that surprising. Ah, the sweet fruits of tenure…
The members of Occupy the Farm have no intention of cooperating with the University. They want power, pure and simple, and the fact that the University has done nothing to stop them has convinced them that everything they have done is justified and successful. They won’t stop until someone stops them, and they have no reason to compromise, since they are convinced that the University will just lie anyway and they can get what they want by force. How can you have a dialogue with a group of people that believes nothing that you say? The occupiers live in a fantasy world in which they are pure and good and everyone that questions their belief system are tools and liars, which lets them justify their own foolishness and lies. Pathetic.
Why do more people not see this? This is a group of people who wanted to spend their free time growing things, saw some UC-owned land on the other side of a fence, and said “we are claiming this publicly owned property as our own.” It’s ridiculous. They should all be arrested for trespassing. Their actions do not have the smallest potential to do good.