[New-imc] on the issue of the statement on darwin and arafura, usage of the word "split"

[Petros Evdokas]

I'd like to be honest with you.
I feel uncomfortable with some of the elements of the proposed statement.

My understanding of the usage of the word "split" is that it came among 
us in the following way:
We had recongnized a desire to keep working on the project, but also 
recognized that we can not all find an agreement about what exactly 
happened, who is right and wrong etc. We agreed that to treat it "as a 
split" was an acceptable framework to all of us in new-imc, it provided 
us with a context in which we could do our work. At the time it was the 
best way to deal with the fact that there were two competing 
(quarreling) groups each trying to invalidate the other. Plus it gave us 
a way to keep working together without having to all accept the same 
worldview on the conflict.

But now, the statement seems to be an attempt to legitimize what was a 
working context, into a supposed history. We can't will history into 
existence going backwards, I'm sorry.

We still have different views on what happened in Darwin. My view is 
that there was, and continues to be, outside intervention by other local 
imc groups in the wider region which surrounds Darwin. The intervention 
from outside totally disrupted the imc-darwin group and followed the 
classic motif of "divide and conquer".

I had expressed my views to you throught this whole period, while I was 
under the impression that we were agreeing that the word "split" was 
only a concept to allow our multiple views on the Darwin conflict to 
have enough space and comfort to co-exist as we worked together to solve 
the problem. Here are some of the views I had share with you:

[New-imc] "To tell you the truth, I was disgusted / in relation to the 
Darwin imc and the venom surrounding it" / Part 1:
http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/new-imc/2006-May/0514-ca.html
Part 2:
http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/new-imc/2006-May/0514-va.html


I regret now that I made the mistake of using that phrase 
"split/expulsions" in this letter:
[New-imc] "about Arafura's application ...and a tentative position"
http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/new-imc/2006-June/0621-hc.html

I realize now that I was more trusting of my colleagues than I should 
have been. Within that same letter I wrote my understanding of that word 
usage:
"One important step has been the informal consensus that seems to have
been arrived at within the new-imc group that we'll be viewing the
situation of Arafura's application in the context of a split which at
the moment (in the current period) seems irreconsilable."


Within that same period, I'd also shared with you another letter 
outlining what I had thought was the direction our work was taking:
[New-imc] RE: "please return ourDomain"
http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/new-imc/2006-May/0525-7i.html


Now, I am not trying to convince you of anything. I thought we had 
agreed that we can keep our own opinions (mine is based on the model of 
outside intervention), and still work together to help the two groups 
find peaceful coexistence.

But I can not accept the imposed worldview of a "split". The only usage 
of the concept "split" that I had understood so far among us, was a 
model to describe our work, and to allow for our varied views. We had 
said that the model of the split of the San Fransisco imc was workable 
for us. It was in that context, not in the historical context that we 
used the word "split".

For this and many other reasons, I'd like propose that we minimize the 
statement even more. I'll send another proposed version in a short while.

I think there's nothing wrong (it's positive) to find some small amount 
(even if minimal) of concepts and phrases that we can add together into 
a group statement. We can always add more later if we develop agreement 
on more words and phrases.

Petros
___________