[New-imc] on the issue of the statement on darwin and arafura, usage of the word "split"
john at johnmilton.ca
Thu Sep 14 03:37:04 PDT 2006
First I agree that I don't think we need to find a "complete" way of
describing the Darwin history, because there is no such complete
description to find. Like all history it very much depends on who you
ask as to what events get included in the narrative, and what meanings
are attached to them. And certainly no such narrative can be put into as
few words as we contemplate this proposal being.
I think we do need to deal with the question around "affiliation
status", if I can put it that way, in what we propose to "imc process",
because I think only "imc process" can finally decide affiliation, and
if we don't have something in hand that speaks to that and has been
consensus through process I predict the further work that we anticipate
doing with the two collectives will not come to fruition.
I say this because unless we proceed on the basis that, at this time,
both of the collectives are of equal status it seems to me unlikly that
we can expect the Arafura folks, amongst others, to "buy in"
Also, I suspect that there are many in the Darwin collective who would
be more than happy if they could just "get their domain back" i.e. get
it pointed to their new website, and carry on. That would require
instructions to that effect from "imc process" to the DNS Group, and
right now any attempt to elicit such instructions is going to get
blocked on "imc process", I suspect. Even if it were not to be blocked
it would leave Darwin "technically functional" but with a badly
fractured web of affinity to the rest of the IMCN.
The ability of any collective to work sucessfully over the long term,
and the "tough times" as part of the IMCN is only likly, in my opinion,
to the extent that its place in our web of affinity is strong. The work
of going through the new imc -> imc process sequence again is another
step in doing that rebuilding of affinity with the network.
Are we "imposing" that on some folks against their will? well sadly,
yes. Thats bad, but not near as bad as the alternative, which is that
neither collective gets to the point of full membership with all that
Petros Evdokas wrote:
> boud at riseup.net wrote:
>>Well, i have no idea whether the SF split was mostly due to local
>>factors or external pressures. i still don't understand how "split"
>>is a worldview, except as what seems to me to be an objective way
>>of describing what happened. It's not a *complete* way of describing
>>the events - which is maybe what you are uncomfortable with?
> Thanks for addressing this Boud. I don't seek to convince anyone, but
> only to add transparency to the dialogue. What I wrote earlier was one
> way for me to be extending more about my orientation, so that our work
> can be more easily placed on the landscape among the many and various
> views on the issues.
> Also, there's no real need to go into details, or to discuss finding a
> complete way of describing what happened in and around Darwin, but if
> you think it's necessary, I'm open to it. Perhaps after we finish with
> this leg of statement building, so as to avoid more tensions.
> New-imc mailing list. Lista de correo New-imc
> New-imc at lists.indymedia.org
Peace: John Milton
email: john at johnmilton.ca
mobile (Canada): 905-537-8472
Encrypted email welcome. PGP key on my website
Fingerprint: 40D8 5835 7230 8EE1 E968 1E7A 5CF1 68A6 C0E2 F9DC
Koan for our times: "Are we smarter than yeast?"
More information about the New-imc