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

[boud]

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