This is the first I have heard about us.indymedia.org and I share many of the concerns raised below.
I feel that the international imc community has not been adaquately consulted about the creation of this 'nationalist' site.
It seems to me that US indymedia volunteers have used their position of privalege to 'push through' a project that they wanted without due care or attention paid to the rest of the network.
I feel that the international imc community has not been adaquately consulted about the creation of this 'nationalist' site.
It seems to me that US indymedia volunteers have used their position of privalege to 'push through' a project that they wanted without due care or attention paid to the rest of the network.
Given the obviously contentious nature of this webiste a global discussion should have been initiated by at the very least letting each existant imc know of the proposal. Even this very basic level of courtesy has not occured.
Even the concerns raised have not been properly documented!
http://docs.indymedia.org/view/Local/ImcUs http://docs.indymedia.org/view/Global/NewImcUSProcess concerns
* against any national IMC
o any form of border control against people based on their "nationality" is simply racism
o Most of the concerns are concerns about racism and nationalism. While people in the network trust individuals participating in the project, the problem is one of structure - if well-meaning individuals form a structure based on racism, it's difficult for them, as a group, to avoid unintended racist assumptions.
o borders of "States" (in the sense of international law, the United Nations), are usually based on past and present violence, and especially among the rich countries, function to keep out people from poor countries.
o the names of States function as symbols which are used by dependent media as powerful propaganda tools to distract people from thinking about social reality
* Can national IMCs be temporarily compatible with rejection of racism?
o many IMCs have started out as "national" sites, this is usually meant to be a temporary starting point until enough people are active for local collectives to become sustainable and autonomous.
+ this does not apply to the US, which chooses to group together already functioning IMCs according to a racist reality
* obvious alternatives to national IMCs
o city and regional IMCs on smaller and bigger scales than States, and deliberately crossing people-filtering national borders
+ in the US case:
# 5-10 cross-border regional IMCs (like NENA
http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-nena) # an America-wide (North+Latin America) IMC.
* other arguments specifically against the IMC US
o the US, as it presently functions, is the biggest terrorist threat to world security, and any legitimation of its present way of functioning is collaboration with a criminal system
+ In particular, the controlled media in the USA (also in other States) constantly present information as if "Americans" (US nationals) have much higher moral value than other people. By syndicating reports from the US, the racist idea that people in Maine and California should care more for each other than for people 100km away in Eastern Canada or Mexico (respectively) is reinforced.
o linguistic diversity and autonomy
+ the imc-us mailing list
http://lists.cu.groogroo.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/imc-us shows no sign of reflecting the linguistic reality of the current USA, where Spanish is a major language # counterargument - hypothetically, this is easy to change
Comments
Display the following comment