[IMC-US] The "USA" Label for the New Site

[Sascha Meinrath]

Hi Andy,

After our discussions about using USA -- it was agreed to go with the
simpler "US" monicker.  Another main point that was discussed is that any
IMC that wished to opt out of being a part of the IMC-US collaboration
could do so.  This would allow for local decision-making in terms of
whether to be a part of a national IMC collective.  As to your example
concerning Hawai'i IMC -- I think it's a decision best left up to the
Hawai'i IMC collective; if they wish to opt out of joining a US project no
one is going to be angry with them.

In terms of what the US IMC would be, I think the way it's being set up
addresses the very question of self-determination you rightfully raise.
It would be a collective of collectives -- where decisions about whether
(and how) to be involved are left to local IMCs.  It would be more of a
_resource_ that's made available to interested IMC -- an information
dissemination point for stories, and a communications network for
IMC-istas.

Hope this alleviates your concerns,

In solidarity,

--Sascha Meinrath
Urbana-Champaign IMC

On Tue, 17 Jun 2003, Andy Pyle wrote:

> I raised an objection to the USA title at the IMC caucus meeting at the AMC that was more
> of a gut reaction than an analysis, and there was also objection from my fellow
> Clevelander Kris.
>
> My somewhat existential objection was based simply on the fact that I was tired of hearing
> USA! USA! USA!.
>
> Actually my objections run far deeper and I want to apologize for not being more
> thought-out and political during the caucus, I was kind of taken by surprise.
>
> The question is a POLITICAL question and not a question of technique and I think we have
> to put the politics in command of the tech aspect.
>
> The Question is "What is the USA and Who Gets To Decide?"
>
> As the US Gov't occupied and incorporated by force various pieces of territory it took
> into itself various nationalities  which became oppressed nations.... some would say
> internal colonies.  I believe in the right of self-determination for these nations and
> don't think the US gov't should have the right to tell Indymedia that "what it says goes"
> as far as determining what is "The USA"
>
> I am not going to try to rank in order of importance or validity of analysis the national
> territories occupied by the US: Hawai'i, Puerto Rico, Occupied Mexico (California, Texas,
> Arizona.......), the lands of the Navajo, Dakota, Iroquois, Cherokee....., and what some
> call New Afrika, the former slave states containing the "Black Belt",  known for its rich
> productive soil (North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and
> Louisiana.  I am simply going to use Hawai'i as an example.
>
> Would Hawai'i belong under a "USA.Indymedia" site?  Here is an occupied country of its own
> nationality which was forcefully seized by the US military and incorporated as one of the
> 50 States.  Even the US Congress has apologized for this act, although they have not
> offered to give it back.  Would you include a Hawai'i Indymedia under "USA Indymedia"??
> To do so would be to ratify the seizure and occupation.  Under the present schema which
> just includes cities and regions, the question doesn't come up.  But under the USA (!)
> schema, it does.
>
> And how about Los Angeles, Houston, Atlanta.......  Its a can of worms.
>
> Let us contrast ourselves to the evil French political theorist Chauvin who made his mark
> as a rabid nationalist and gave rise to the epithet "Chauvinist".
>
> This question of self-determination is not for Indymedia to decide. It is a question of
> principle. It is for the peoples of the oppressed nationalities to decide. We are living
> in a prisonhouse of nations-the phrase is from Lenin- and should stay away from the
> great-nation chauvinism that the USA.Indymedia title implies.
>
> Pick another title.