‘decolonize oakland’ is a good method of comparison towards decolonial movements – decolonization forces self-interrogation of thought and recognition that land is more than a place to occupy

Occupy, no there there what was the use of my having come from Oakland it was not natural to have come from there yes write about it if I like or anything if I like but not there, there is no there. (Stein 1993, 298) There was an occupation. (Stein 1997, 32) Settler environmentalism describes efforts to redeem the settler as ecological, often focusing on settler identity and belonging through tropes of Indigenous appropriations – returning to the wildman or demigoddess, claiming of one’s natural or ‘native’ self and thus the land, again. For example, ‘off the grid’ does not describe a place, but a set of redemptive behaviors – it is a terra nullius imaginary of a somewhere, nowhere, neverplace where one is no longer a settler. In using the term settler environmentalism, I am deliberately ambiguous about critical environmentalisms, such as movements in eco-feminism, deep ecology, and antiracist environmental justice. These are important trajectories in critical scholarship and activism around environmental justice, and ought to inform any decolonizing framework. However, antiracist, feminist, and environmental justice work are not automatically the opposite of settler colonialism. Decolonization might be incommensurable with projects more generally thought as social justice (see Tuck and Yang 2012). In the previous ethnographic example, greening the ghetto can mask a neoliberal curriculum of whitening9 the ghetto with ‘better-educated,’ ecologically ‘responsible,’ global citizens. More radical environmentalisms can also uphold the settler fantasy of sacred ‘wilderness’ – another form of unpeopled land – that must be restored or preserved. Even the progressive concept of land as Commons to be occupied, collectively shared and stewarded, may require the negation of Indigenous sovereignty. ‘The people still speak of the sacredness of places now claimed by the parks services for instance’ (Goeman 2008, 32). Occupying land for the Commons assumes that all prior, indeed current as well as future relations between people and land are null and void. ‘In other words,’ writes Sandy Grande, ‘both Marxists and capitalists view land and natural resources as commodities to be exploited, in the first instance, by capitalists for personal gain, and in the second by Marxists for the good of all’ (2004, 27). Social justice endeavors all take place on Native land. In this vein, I now turn to the Occupy movement. Environmental Education Research 121 Behind every great American city is a great crime. Oakland was founded on occupation and land theft. In 1850, a coterie of Yankee businessmen began building a port in what would become Oakland’s Jack London Square, developing and selling land unbeknownst to landlord Luis Peralta, who was granted 48,000 acres for his service to the Spanish army. Indeed, the Native Ohlone still lived in the land ‘owned’ by the Peraltas, as well as Miwok and other Indigenous people who had migrated as a result of historic relationships between tribes and efforts to escape the Mission system. The Peraltas sued, and in 1856, the US Supreme Court upheld their claim, but maintained that it was too late to reverse – as deeds and titles had exchanged hands so many times that there was no undoing – and because Oakland was now occupied. Occupy Oakland, which began in October of 2011, was an active part of the movements that began with Occupy Wall Street. Occupy itself was a diverse set of movements and dialogues not reducible to a single name or a campaign. Various queer, people of color and Indigenous groups participated in or sympathized with Occupy and recognized its importance as a meeting space, a node, for struggle. However, many of these groups had serious points of difference, most notably in the problematic name, ‘Occupy.’ On 28 October 2011, a group of Indigenous and non-Native intellectuals/activists introduced ‘The Memorandum of Solidarity with Indigenous Peoples’ at the General Assembly of Occupy Oakland. WHEREAS, those participating in ‘Occupy Oakland’ acknowledge that Oakland is already occupied land; Oakland being the historical territory of the Chochenyo Ohlone people; and … RESOLVED, that those participating in ‘Occupy Oakland’ seek the genuine and respectful involvement of indigenous peoples in the rebuilding of a new society on their ancestral lands; and As a signal to the national ‘Occupy Wall Street’ movement and the indigenous peoples here and there who have felt excluded by the colonialist language of occupation used to name this movement, it shall be declared that ‘Occupy Oakland’ aspires to ‘Decolonize Oakland’ – to ‘Decolonize Wall Street’ – with the guidance and participation of indigenous peoples; The memorandum points to difference as a modality of organizing, a source of strength and political possibility rather than as simply a curtailment of common struggle. Most importantly, the memorandum makes explicit the moral and political leadership of Indigenous peoples in any decolonial effort in North America. Significantly, the first signature of memorandum is by Chochenyo Ohlone educator Corrina Gould. The memorandum was passed, but not without controversy. One of the signers, Joanne Barker (Lenape) posted in her blog, Tequila Sovereign, that several people approached the group with serious anxieties about decolonization. Ultimately, what they were asking is whether or not we were asking them, as nonindigenous people, the impossible? Would their solidarity with us require them to give up their lands, their resources, their ways of life, so that we – who numbered so few, after all – could have more? Could have it all? 122 L. Paperson And this is the rub about decolonization: it forces people to confront their complicity in settler colonialism and the ongoing violence of empire. It immediately unsettles the utopian vision of wealth redistribution and collectively owned Commons. It exposes how numerical the conceptualization of social justice remains – the 99% is a ‘deserving’ supermajority that renders Indigenous peoples (a super-minority) completely illegible. Barker goes on to write, I have a dream that the people of ‘Occupy Oakland’ will not see the affirmation of indigenous peoples’ rights to self-government, territorial restoration, and cultural autonomy as a threat to their own; that they will see solidarity with indigenous peoples as an affirmation of their humanity and justice. Barker’s assertion reflects how ‘sovereignty’ as an Indigenous word is spoken with a different inflection than its cousin in the settler nation’s lexicon. It echoes the questions posed by Watson, writing from an aboriginal Australian perspective: Is aboriginal sovereignty to be feared by Australia in the same way as Aboriginal people fear white sovereignty and its patriarchal model of the state – one which is backed by power or force? Or is aboriginal sovereignty different … for there is not just one sovereign state body but hundreds of different sovereign aboriginal peoples. Aboriginal sovereignty is different from state sovereignty because it embraces diversity, and focuses on inclusivity rather than exclusivity. (Watson 2007, 20) A little over a month later, another proposal came before the General Assembly – to change the movement’s name to Decolonize Oakland. This time, the proposal did not pass. Christine Cordero (who does not identify as Native) posted on Facebook a few of her responses to the arguments made against the name change, including ‘Decolonize is divisive.’ To which she responded, ‘Occupy is divisive already and not including whole swaths of people. Decolonize and liberate are TRANSFORMATIVE. Difference, diversity, and change aren’t divisive.’ Occupy Oakland means to Occupy Ohlone. Because Ohlone is both people and land/place simultaneously, you cannot occupy Oakland without also trespassing on the bodies and spirits of those who live/d there. Land is ‘more than a site upon which humans make history or as a location that accumulates history’ (Goeman 2008, 24), more than a site to occupy.