[IMC-UK-Features] withdrawal of feature proposal about Atzmon-Greenstein

[maqui]

Hi

On Thursday, February 21, 2008, at 02:49  pm, Shiar wrote:

> In light of the several objections and two blocks, and Atzmon's request
> for  all his writings to be removed from the site, and after a lot of
> reflection and exchanges with various people, i would like to withdraw
> 'my' feature proposal about the Atzmon-Greenstein affair. I don't think
> there's much point in trying to 'improve' it or reach a compromise 
> after
> this.

Yes, i see your point but I'd also like to add that I think the thread 
of emails this feature has prompted have been, generally speaking, one 
of the best and more reasoned I've seen in this list for a while. I 
have not participated at all a) coz of time constrains, blah, and b) 
(and much importantly) because i really did not know how to articulate 
any of my objections to the feature, even though I considered it to be 
well written, thoroughly researched and very well put together (as 
Shiar's features normally are :). Its obvious it demanded a LOT of work 
and I can only be grateful for Shiar's contribution in trying to make 
sense of it all in one article.

Without going into detail (mainly because is far too late after 
Atzmon's and Shiar's mails anyway) i guess my main objection is about 
the 'balance'. Ok, I am biased, I don't like Atzmon's writings. I'm not 
an expert at all about his work coz I only know it through this list, 
but as far as I have understood it his stuff is more than 
controversial, and imo often touches on borderline (some say outright) 
anti-semitic positions, in a clever way of "saying without really 
saying it". Also, when I finished reading Shiar's feature my first 
impression was an uneasiness about so much detail (although I can 
understand why he wrote it like this) In a way I felt that the 
'forensic' style of it would probably fly over a lot of imcuk's readers 
and users heads. I'm not saying it in a patronising way at all, but 
because of its detail, the feature demanded quite a bit of effort to go 
through it all, one that i guess many newcomers to the debate would 
probably find it quite demanding, or a bit off-putting if you see what 
i mean. Unless one had really followed the issue thoroughly, the 
feature could possibly feel like a wall, or maybe better, like a mesh 
really difficult to disentangle. I may be totally wrong, but I felt 
that, as a result, it wouldn't help much in making readers to really 
understand the problems we are having with this (as a collective) not 
to appreciate the narrow space the imcuk process has found itself in 
due so much outside interference (articles all over the place calling 
imcuk a platform for anitsemitism and os on)

One thing that bothers me quite a bit though, is that after all these 
years in the 'game' imcuk still finds itself too open to attack, and 
too vulnerable to partisan influences. Yeah, I think we are too 
vulnerable as a network, and without a strong established process to 
deal with this sort of stuff when it arises, and this makes it more 
difficult to try and find a common (or a commonalised if that word 
exists in english) voice and position (as imc-uk network) when 
addressing big political subjects. We don't even seem to be able to 
collectively state that if someone wants to use Indymedia to wage flame 
wars to suit their own battles, then maybe they should go somewhere 
else as there are millions of places out there for that. I don't think 
Indymedia is here for that purpose. And that's why I agree with Shiar 
and many others when they say that a space for more in-depth political 
discussions need to be found within imcuk. But then again, we need to 
find a forum (or forums) for these otherwise the hectic, day to day 
running of the project will always come in between.

Anyhow

> I have just proposed it for the Birmingham site and am planning to tick
> Indymedia and Anti-Racism on it, which's a normal practice for regional
> features. Are there any objections to that?

I obviously have nothing to say about Birmingham as I am not part of 
that kollective. I can also see why you propose it for the Indymedia 
topic as that page somehow goes beyond the straight 'reporting' value 
and into a more like self-reflecting, archive-type functionality (or at 
least this is how i understand that topic) But as for the anti-racist 
page, I think that one is more like the other topics, for reports on 
"Anti-racist and anti-fascist news" as the page states. And this 
article feels to me more like analysis than a report, it is very 
opinionated in the sense that it is all about 'opinions' and 'ideology' 
rather than 'activity'. Ok, it could be argued that it 'reports' about 
an internal disagreement, but not in a 'direct from the streets' way if 
you see what i mean. I would rather not to have it in the anti-racism 
page.

> I have also come to some 'conclusions' that i would like to share with 
> the
> rest of the collective.

Ta :-)

> 1. From this discussion and previous ones as well, i am now convinced 
> that
> some people within Indymedia don't seem to really believe in Open
> Publishing or understand it well. They like it when it suits them or 
> their
> political agendas, but don't like it or even slag it off when it 
> doesn't.

Hmm, i don't know if this is so. I think it is a bit of an 
overstatement. What I know is that some people (including myself) think 
that OP needs to be re-evaluated, mainly because the model we are using 
now is still exactly the same as during Seattle, when the availability 
of web platforms such blogs, forums and so on didn't exist, and when in 
order to able to become 'visible and heard' in the web you needed to be 
an expert on corporate software (dreamweaver or whatever) and in html. 
OP appeared then as a very revolutionary tool, no doubt about that, and 
it's achievements throughout all this time are obvious imo.

But now it is more that 8 years along the line, and we all know how 
much the web has changed, and how people's use of it has developed into 
a much more active one. I think people engaged in indymdia still 
believe in OP passionately (otherwise what would be the point of doing 
it) but maybe there's also a kind of tiredness with the all-inclusive 
wire where everything fits. It may not be as much about OP as about the 
project in general. Maybe we really need to look again into what imc-uk 
is here for, and what purpose(s) it tries to serve. Then OP would need 
to be adapted to whatever conclusions came out of that debate. Maybe 
the difference in views are not about a belief in OP or not, but about 
it being a tool or almost an 'ideology'(?) ... or possibly both at the 
same time :-)

> Perhaps it is better for the 'movement' to run a semi-closed site where
> only activists with logs can post, and after their posts are approved 
> by
> admins.

There are many like that already. Most of them actually. I think the 
openness and collective nature of Indy is still it's main point.

> To me, OP today has a greater mission than being merely a vehicle
> for the movement; that is, liberating news production from the 
> monopoly of
> professional journalists and corporations. That shouldn't be translated
> into putting it in the monopoly of professional activists!

True, and true! But also in itself (on its own and in its 'purest' 
sense i mean) OP is not much more than an always open letterbox. I've 
mentioned this before, i don't think the trick of the question is so 
much about OP yes or not, nor it is a dichotomy between an 'open' OP 
and a more 'editorialised' one, but more about finding ways of 
presenting / organising all the info continuously coming in through 
that letterbox, and turning that information into a valuable resource 
and a tool. Imo, a single, long, open wire doesn't allow OP to develop 
into a more relevant resource for the 'movement' (if this is more than 
a word nowadays) and beyond. Anyway, I think the design and the 
possibilities presented in Notts for the Uk site, and some of the 
things we try to make sense of in the local collective in London (and 
probably in most imcistas heads too)  could start pushing things 
forward again, imcuk ruling the waves! ... hehe :-))

> 2. We don't seem to have fully embraced openness and transparency 
> either.

Well, I don't know what you exactly mean by 'fully', but afaik 
indymedia is still one of the more transparent and open 'organisations' 
out there, and hence so many headaches :)

> Like all other groups i've seen in my short life, 'conspiracies' and
> people saying one thing in private and another in public are still a
> common practice within Indymedia. This was probably happening in this
> recent affair too, on both sides of the conflict. But perhaps that's
> 'normal', given the world we were brought up and live in.

Well, maybe. I don't really know why you are saying this. But it is 
also a fact that the actual nature of the network (physical distances, 
different set-ups and ways of functioning in different places, 
different political backgrounds, etc...) can cause what i guess you 
call 'conspiracies' (which i don't see as such btw) Unless one is glued 
to a computer screen all day long, every day, it is almost impossible 
to create the same level of interaction that you'd have with a member 
of your local collective, or with and imcista from outside your 
immediate collective during a mass mobilisation for example. I think 
the real (physical) interaction is still very important, hence the 
importance of the network meetings, or the physical media centres in 
mass actions. I may have something of a luddite in me, but i tend to 
find email a very difficult medium.

I think (and I want to think) that there are not hidden conspiracies 
within the network, and that we should push for a more regular network 
meetings, one every six months or something like that innit?

  3. As i said in a previous email, our collective understanding and
> handling of some political issues is not very developed. This is 
> certainly
> true for the bigger political questions (world politics, the ME,
> political-religious discourses etc.). But this problem is probably 
> bigger
> than Indymedia and is to true of the wider leftist/anarchist 
> movement(s)
> in the West.

Yes i agree. For years, it has been about action, action, action and 
not much time to pause and think and reflect. I think people (and that 
'movement(s)' thing in the west at least) have basically focussed on 
being reaction force to global events (namely an almost permanent state 
of global war) as well as to try to adapt to the ever increasing 
precarious existence.

To be honest with you, i am much less enthusiastic now about Indymedia
> than when i first joined. I have also been involved with other (more
> exciting) projects that i think are a better use of my time. But yet, i
> haven't given up hope yet and still believe there are many good things
> about Indymedia.. so this is not a resignation as such :)

uff! .. good to hear :-)

maqui