[IMC-US] Re: [New-imc] Re: Proposed New IMC -- IMC-US

[Ana]

Hey Boud,

You are right about the name and I apologize. Wherever I say Americans, 
please substitute with "people living within the United States." 

Again, I think having an American site (i.e North and South) would be 
great. But from the content you are describing it seems like it would be 
more of a history lesson site, which is definately needed and might be 
another important project. 

To me, imc-us would be more about current news, tying in all our colonial 
history for context, but the focus is much more about the fascist state of 
affairs today that direcly effects people living in the u.s its own unique 
way. I think it would also serve to help people in the US make connections 
to and take responsibilites for our actions abroad not just years ago but 
now.

I dont know how else to articulate the difference between regional and 
national sites. The 'impact' im talking about is just that it is much 
easier in terms of information architecture and access flow to go to one 
page to read all the stories that are national in scope, rather than having 
to surf even 10 sites to see how one region might be impacted by a national 
issue. Both are great angles, but distinct in purpose. 

When I think of people visiting a us-imc site, I think about people who 
dont know the first thing about indymedia or radical politics. I think of 
all the peopel whose only source of news is, as I said, Fox news or the NY 
Post or NY Times. If we could get one site with national news content on 
news search engines, I think we would have a profound IMPACT. That content 
would link to all the dozens of local IMCs because all the news would come 
off of their pages. But right now 45 IMCs seems overwhelming even to the 
most obsessed IMC news surfer. that is the impact I am talking about. We at 
Democracy Now worked really hard to develop a great website that gets out 
far and wide, and its a great feeling to see stories with a progressive/
radical perspective out there mixed in with the neo-con right shit. But we 
need many more radical sources, and that is why I am pushing so hard for 
indymedia to have that hub effect. 

On process: We did finish our membership criteria, but maybe we havent sent 
it along yet. My bad, I thought that already happened. Im sure it will 
soon. But I think you might be right that we need to spend more time 
detailing and translating our editorial and decision-making processes 
before we continue with new-imc. I think people wanted to get the process 
going while all that happened. And I think peopel are also working on 
having some templated webpages so people can see more clearly what the 
vision is. So that is all good. We'll see how it goes. 

peace
ana


Quoting boud <boud1 at wp.pl>:

> hi everyone,
> 
> On Sun, 7 Sep 2003, Ana wrote:
> 
> > I agree with everyone that a us imc and smaller regional ones are  
> > compatible.
> 
> Agree.
>  
> > But they are not the same thing by any means. We are talking about two 
> 
> > entirely different projects, each with their own merits, but they are 
> 
> > not interchangeable. 
> 
> Agree.
> 
> > Having 5-10 regional IMCs would not lessen the  
> > need in my opinion for a us-based IMC.
> > 
> > Plus there is the not-so-small matter that having 5-10 regional sites 
> 
> > means a lot more work on the part of many more people to not achieve 
> 
> > the same media activist impact that one us-site would.
> 
> 
> i don't understand this. There would be more linguistic work due to
> using, e.g., either English-French or English-Spanish in the different
> regions, but many people living in the US are mainly Spanish speaking
> anyway. In fact, this could be a danger of having a regional IMC with
> the notion of "USA" - that US people who have difficulties with
> English and prefer Spanish would have more difficulties participating.
> 
> As for the media activist impact - indymedia style - IMHO it depends
> on participation. More participation - *especially* including 
> coordination work 
> http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coordinatorism
> is surely important, isn't it?
>  
> > I have been involved in NENA since it started two years ago. My  
> > impression is that we are all too busy with our own local IMCs to  
> > create another IMC that for the most part would have material that is 
> 
> > redundant to our own local sites, 
> 
> The US IMC site would also have material mostly redundant to the local
> sites.
> 
> > while not achieving the impact we all  
> > imagine with a us-imc. 
> 
> i'm getting the impression that the imagined impact is a big factor
> here. Why would the impact be stronger with "IMC US" than NENA?
> 
> Is the symbolism of the name "US" or "USA" what's most important
> here? 
> 
> If yes, then maybe it's also why many people are uncomfortable -
> because that same symbol is associated with so much violence.  To
> exaggerate the argument, this would be a bit like having IMC 3rd Reich
> (3rd-reich.indymedia.org) to group together people in the all the
> regions that have overtly fascist governments.
> 
> 
> > As it is, all the websites in the NE USA have  
> > articles and features about our region, including parts of eastern  
> > Canada, so I really dont see any need to create another website to  
> > repeat all that information.
> 
> The same arguments apply on a larger scale.
> 
> If it is enough for local IMCs to independently prepare regional
> syntheses (articles, syndicated articles, features) for the NENA
> region, then surely it's also enough for the USA region.
> 
> Alternatively, if there is an advantage in having syndication 
> as well as human-coordinated syntheses at the USA level, then there
> is the same advantage at the NENA level.
> 
> > The difference with a us-imc is that there are people all over the  
> > country who feel a real void in coverage of news in the US from a  
> > radical perspective, for good reason. There are issues that are so  
> > broad in scope that addressing them on a regional IMC feels  
> > insufficient.  Many emails to this list have given examples of the kind
>  
> > of news a us-imc would feature, so I wont go over that again. But I  
> > will reiterate that these issues tie an american public together,  
> > affecting all the regions of the US, not just one or two. And that is 
> 
> 
> You seem to forget how arrogant it is to assume that the word
> "american" only applies to people in the USA. Try reading Pablo
> Neruda's autobiography, for example.
> 
> > the point.  We are simply trying to create a webspace where those  
> > issues can be addressed in a manner easily accessible to the entire  
> > american public, where issues and movements can be connected from coast
>  
> > to coast.
> 
> The entire american public stretches all the way down to Argentina
> and Chile. You could have:
> 
> - one regional level which is smaller than the USA and which is
> deliberately and genuinely cross-border
> 
> - one regional level which is much larger - why not the whole of
> America - South + central + North ? Much of the colonial history of
> invasion by British, French, Spanish and Portuguese, genocides,
> immigration and hopes by settlers for new lives free of the religious
> and political intolerance in Europe, experiments with democracy,
> exploitation, slavery, etc etc, the positive aspects of the mix of
> people of diverse geographic origins and skin colours, are very
> similar throughout the whole of America. 
> 
> The freedom in breaking from old traditions and the hope to build a 
> better society - even if often naive - are also common to the whole
> of America. Just look at Argentina where people are experimenting
> with a bottom-up political system of grassroots local assemblies.
> 
> > There is a core group of 30 people from IMCs all over this country who 
> 
> > see this need and are willing to work on this project. that is a good 
> 
> > number of people to make it happen. I believe we have already laid out 
> 
> > our decision-making processes. We have established four working groups 
> 
> 
> OK, back to the new-imc process. How about writing something clear
> about what your decision-making processes are? What is your general
> decision-making process? Quite often, people in a new local IMC 
> are surprised at the idea of having to explicitly document and 
> understand their decision-making process, and just expect that "it'll
> happen OK because we're all cool and know each other". The problem
> with this is both for participants and new people and for when 
> conflicts happen. An open collective should make it easy for new
> people to participate. If new people have to guess the decision-making
> procedure by instinct, it's much harder to participate.
> 
> > to handle various aspects of the site and have said we will use the  
> > same process for features that www-features uses, perhaps even building
>  
> > and improving upon it. I believe we have also consensed on the  
> 
> So how about putting an explicit document on the TWiki with your 
> - general decision-making method
> - a URL to the process www-feature uses saying the above
> 
> > principles of unity and filled out all the paperwork required by  
> > new-imc. 
> 
> Wrong. Please try reading again:
> http://docs.indymedia.org/view/Global/NewImcHowTo
> 
> Just think how hard it is for non-native English speakers to go
> through this - native speakers can surely make the effort!
> 
> > If there is something we are missing, please point it out  
> > specifically.
> 
> http://docs.indymedia.org/view/Global/NewImcHowTo
> 
> : 7. # When you're really ready, and only when you're ready, reply to
> : each of the MembershipCriteria points one by one, and send to
> : new-imc at indymedia.org .
>  
> http://docs.indymedia.org/view/Global/MembershipCriteria
> 
> US IMC has not submited responses to the MembershipCriteria
> 
> 
> : a. Agree in spirit to the NIMC Mission Statement and Principles of
> : Unity, (PrinciplesOfUnity)
> 
> http://docs.indymedia.org/view/Global/PrinciplesOfUnity
> 
> 
> :  6. All IMC's recognize the importance of process to social change
> and
> : are committed to the development of non-hierarchical and
> : anti-authoritarian relationships, from interpersonal relationships to
> : group dynamics.
> 
> The symbolism of "US" is strong - which is a reason why you feel
> the impact of "US IMC" would be stronger than "NENA IMC" or "IMC
> America"
> (in the sense of America = all of N+C+S America).
> 
> But the USA is one of the most authoritarian organisations in
> existence,
> based on blood, theft and violence. 
> 
> For some people, accepting the use of the symbol "US" for an Indymedia
> collective would be symbolically accepting that violence.
> 
> : 10. All IMC's shall be committed to the principle of human equality,
> : and shall not discriminate, ...
> 
> In the sense that IMC US accepts the notion of the US borders, at least
> symbolically, it discriminates.
> 
> Of course, both of these arguments also apply to nearly every other
> "national" IMC, including IMC Poland.
> 
> > I also want to clarify the syndication issue. I am hearing over and  
> > over again that syndication makes it irrelevent how you group areas  
> > together. I want to stress that this is not simply a syndication site. 
> 
> > It will not look like oceania.indymedia. the point is not simply to  
> > repeat the millions of posts that come through imcs in the us everyday 
> 
> > on five different websites that have regional distinctions. The point 
> 
> > is rather to provide a space where a) features of local imcs in the us 
> 
> > are syndicated on one newswire and b) highlight those stories that have
>  
> > national impact on a center column with *unified context*. That takes a
>  
> > lot of dedicated, human work. It not simply a technical matter. But  
> > personally I am looking forward to working with those interested all 
> 
> > over the country to create that critical context and get the  
> > information out to a larger, non-choir american audience. Each day that
>  
> > goes by that we let Fox news or the New York Times do that for us, the 
> 
> > more work we have to do to catch up.
> 
> OK, thanks for the clarification :) - in this case it's reasonable that
> IMC US goes through the new-imc process, while "oceania.indymedia"
> does not.
>  
> > To address concerns of nationalism, I think we can make a very clear 
> 
> > statement regarding that on the us imc front page, possibly even having
>  
> > a prominent area of the page that deals specificlaly with  
> > cross-border/no-border issues. Immigration, deportation, natural  
> > resources, native americans, even issues of patriotism, etc certainly 
> 
> > are issues that effect the US in an anti-US kind of way, and we should 
> 
> > highlight those issues with a clear politik of counter-nationalism.
> 
> i don't understand "an anti-US kind of way". If you're trying to
> "reconquer" the sense of "US" to symbolise freedom and human rights
> rather than genocide and world terrorism, then you maybe should at
> least be explicit about the ambiguity of the symbol.
> 
> In any case, having a clear anti-nationalistic area on the front
> page is probably a good idea.
> 
> But a key point of indymedia is participation - it should not be so
> much articles *about* immigration, native americans and what's
> happening in Canada and Mexico, but rather articles and coordination
> work *by* immigrants, native americans, and people living in Canada
> and Mexico.
>  
> 
> > I have rambled on long enough. I want to get moving.
> > in peace and excitement,
> 
> Anyway, if you want to move forward with the new-imc process, i
> suggest that US IMC reads through the NewImcHowTo page, and, e.g.
> provides clear documentation of the following (browse through new-imc
> archives to see how recent new IMCs have done this - if US IMC people
> really have indymedia experience, you should surely be able to do
> *better* than totally new IMCs, in terms of clarity, ease of
> understanding to new collectives and individuals)
> 
> * answers to the Membership Criteria (point by point would be nice,
> it's not really that difficult), in particular,
> 
> * the general decision-making method,
> 
> * and i guess it might help to be a bit clearer about the editorial
> policy
> 
> Someone said that there's a working group for the editorial policy -
> how about being more explicit, like pointing to a URL with the
> editorial working group's mailing list or wiki page, having a few more
> URLs so that local IMCs in the US region who are not yet active can
> easily join in and understand how they can participate.
> 
> A practical question about the decision-making method is language.
> Is this really a proposal for IMC US-English rather than for IMC US? 
> Should every proposal for a serious decision be posted bilingually
> [en]-[es]? 
> 
> The proposal here is just in English, there's no Spanish version AFAIK:
> http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/new-imc/2003-August/004275.html
> 
> Which ever way you decide on decision-making, the point is to make
> this explicit.
> 
> solidarity
> boud
> 
>