[imc-pilipinas] Re: [IMC-Process] Re: "Refreeze" of IMC-QC Application, Return to New-IMC Proposed

Thu Dec 25 20:42:02 PST 2003

GOOD DAY PEOPLE!

Sorry for the late reaction of MANILA IMC crew regarding the current naming crisis and organizing methods, due to financial constraints and other factors that hindered us to have and internet access and be updated with the current situation here in the mailing list. In behalf of the collective, I would like to express our decision to raise our formal BLOCK to the process of IMC-QC ergo IMC-PILIPINAS.

First of all, before I would like to give the details of our reason to block imc-qc in the process is that I want to go back again with the FIRST MEETING OF THE TWO COLLECTIVE (manila imc&pilipinas imc) 6 months ago to CLARIFY THE ISSUE. The reason of that meet was to resolve the conflict between the clashing methods of organizing that reflects with the result of two PRINCIPLES OF UNITY. 

MANILA COLLECTIVE stands with DECENTRALISM and CONSENSUS while the PILIPINAS COLLECTIVE obscured the idea of DECENTRALISED ORGANISING but ironically they stand with CONSENSUS.  

DURING THE MEETING, there was no CONSENSUS ATTAINED to resolve the conflict but a temporary solution to move on with the organizing methods in SEPARATE TRACKS. Manila collective resisted the imposition OF AGREE TO DISAGREE SPECTACLE by the pilipinas collective to us, from which they want to conclude such binary opposite option that we don’t like IMC-PILIPINAS because we don’t adhere with their PoU or vice versa. This tactics used by the pilipinas collective IS the TACTIC that was used by MAO-TSE TUNG during the CHINESE COMMUNIST PARTY occupation AGAINST the AUTONOMOUS TIBET and the limited knowledge of Dalai Lama’s diplomatic tactical warfare. And now, this kind of AUTHORITARIANism is being practiced by this collective in a NETWORK who practices DECENTRALISM and NON-HIERARCHY.

I wonder why they want to have an IMC FRANCHISE while they cannot understand fully the GLOBAL PRINCIPLES OF UNITY that adheres decentralism, non-hierarchy and consensus. That IS Why I have this assumption that the PILIPINAS COLLECTIVE is the unit of the Maoist Left Party in the Philippines that aims to conquer the advantage of Indymedia as a propaganda machinery for their AUTHORITARIAN ends. Therefore it’s a PARTY PROJECT. That is why they cannot compromise themselves to practice DECENTRALISM.

Now, for our reasons why we want to block the IMC-QC:

1)      Respect the autonomous organizing of the grass roots people to have their own indymedia by promoting local and regional organizing rather than a sweeping super-centralised IMC.

2)      Promote the concept of ORGANIZING FROM BELOW.

3)      Prevent the authoritarian tendencies of a collective.

4)      Empower the local people by letting them know that they are the media itself

5)      Respect AUTONOMY! 

PLEASE! Philippines is an ARCHIPELAGO. Let us respect the people to organize themselves locally and do not impose CENTRALISM that will crush the peoples will on AUTONOMY and eventually disrespect DIVERSITY.

If the pilipinas collective want to have their OWN MEDIA CENTER, do not USE indymedia as the MEANS of your PARTY. I know, all of the affinity groups that the pilipinas collective composes the main LEGAL FRONTS of the AUTHORITARIAN COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE PHILIPPINES (CPP/NPA). If I am wrong with my ASSUMPTION, compromise yourself with DECENTRALISM and RESPECT AUTONOMY, DIVERSITY, NON-HIERARCHY AND CONSENSUS.

Thank you!

Long Live the Autonomous Indymedia,

Jong

Shayne O'Neill <shayne at guild.murdoch.edu.au> wrote:
Ok.

Thanks for that Alexander :) I just want to quickly clarify that a [block]
does not mean that that we've nixed the application, just that we need to
clarify some issues before we start. This is because experience with the
IMC network has shown that its best to address potential issues before
they become a problem as its harder to do so once the foundations have
been laid in process. I want to assure you boys and girls that we
acknowledge that its a hard road. many of us have gone down it, and
perhaps at times its entirely frusturating.

The answers for the most part answer my personal concerns, and I'm happy
to let it all thru, but I still want to hear from manila first.

If manila dont reply in reasonable time( a day or two ), we'll asume they
have no outstanding issues and I'll drop the block.

Either way, relax folks. The bad days will end. And beers will be all
around.

The passion is noted :)
Shayne.

------------------------------------
"Must not Sleep! Must warn others!"
-Aesop.
Shayne O'Neill. Indymedia. Fun.
http://www.perthimc.asn.au

On Thu, 25 Dec 2003, Alexander Martin Remollino wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> We in the IMC-QC collective would like to react to
> Shayne’s latest arguments raised against our proposal
> for a new IMC and believe the refreeze (or is it
> block?) is uncalled for.
>
> First of all we’d like to give a short background of
> the issue. IMC-Pilipinas was initiated by one of us a
> long time ago. Problems arose in the first half of
> this year with a new member. These problems were
> resolved, however, in August when this person agreed
> to set up his own collective under the name
> IMC-Manila. This new collective likewise agreed that
> we would continue under the name IMC-Pilipinas. When
> our application reached IMC-Process, this very person
> raised objections to our name and was seconded by
> Shayne in spite of the prior agreement. Three
> compromise proposals were worked out by our collective
> member Tonyo, Shayne and Libby yet the IMC-Manila
> collective failed to respond to them. Finally we
> decided to drop the name IMC-Pilipinas and change our
> name to IMC-QC, a decision that, even according to
> Shayne, duly solved the issue and consequently the
> freeze was lifted.
>
> Now Shayne is raising new issues, which we would like
> to answer one by one.
>
> 1. Our site (http://qc.buffaloimc.org) mentions IMC-QC
> (Pilipinas)
>
> It is true that “IMC-QC (Pilipinas)” is mentioned in
> our banner. But that does *not* imply that, as Shayne
> presumes, we call ourselves IMC-Pilipinas on the
> streets and IMC-QC only in the Indymedia network.
> Since the Manila collective has the advantage of name
> recall over us, Manila being relatively more known in
> the international community than Quezon City (QC), we
> thought it fitting to indicate also that the city is
> part of the Philippines (or Pilipinas in Filipino).
> That is the purpose of the “Pilipinas” in parenthesis
> which appears on our banner. It is no different from
> IMC-Sonora for example, which helpfully clarifies on
> their banner that they are located in Mexico.
>
> 2. We “break up” the site into “local categories
> including manila metro, which by implication of the
> naming relationships is the manila gang's “turf.”
>
> It is true we made good use of sf-active’s advanced
> features which enable to assign thematic and
> geographical categories to articles and features. Also
> many IMCs do that, including IMC-Liege for example.
> The local categories in our site are meant to classify
> our news items according to location of events. The
> only purpose is to enhance user-friendliness and
> retrievability of articles. It might interest Shayne
> to know that these categories were originally called
> “local collectives” (as seems to be default in
> sf-active). This was changed at the explicit request
> of IMC-QC member Edwin who was very conscious not to
> project “national” status.
>
> We strongly disagree that Metro Manila is IMC-Manila’s
> “turf.” Anyone who is familiar with Metro Manila knows
> that it is a component city of several cities and
> towns. Actually, both Manila City and Quezon City are
> part of Metro Manila. How can Metro Manila, including
> Quezon City, be IMC-Manila’s turf? Besides, many of
> the organizations in our affinity list have activities
> in Manila City, which we would also like to cover.
>
> Most, if not all, IMCs carry articles about activities
> outside their “territory” and often even have separate
> newswires for local and other news. Moreover, Shayne
> himself assured us just days ago that: “While indeed
> you are covering stories from around the country, so
> are the Manila mob. The name is more about where your
> collective are from. Remember, that the hard work of
> newswire writing is done by the community.”
> (http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-pilipinas/2003-December/000326.html)
> So if Shayne agrees that we can carry articles about
> events throughout the country (or the whole world for
> that matter), why are we not allowed to assign
> categories to them?
>
> 3. Shayne never saw the list of affiliated
> organizations
>
> We’re sorry to say but this seems to be Shayne’s
> problem as the list clearly appears in the documents
> we submitted over a month ago
> (http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-pilipinas/2003-November/000294.html).
> The message that Libby sent to IMC-Process to open our
> application for scrutiny of the global IMCcommunity
> carries a link to these documents. If the implication
> was that we deliberately failed to submit an affinity
> list out of malice or mischief, we categorically
> dismiss it as a blatant canard. We hope that was not
> the intended implication.
>
> We hope that this serves to clarify the latest issue
> confronting our proposal and that the refreeze can be
> re-unfrozen soon.
>
> Also, we would like to point out that the condition
> imposed upon us by Libby is quite arbitrary. She says
> we “will have to show in an indisputable way that (we)
> are not aiming to be a national imc” but how are we
> supposed to do that? Should we ban any mention of
> “Philippines” or “Pilipinas” on the site? Should we
> hide all articles about activities outside Quezon City
> that are submitted to our site? Should we carry a
> “this is not a national imc” disclaimer on our banner?
> Should we boycott ISPs whose headquarters are located
> outside Quezon City? Seriously, we have no clue on how
> we can ever resolve this issue if any of our actions
> is interpreted as an expression of our ambitions to be
> a "national" IMC. If our change of name was not
> enough, what more can we do?
>
> We are likewise in limbo about the procedure.
> According to Libby it is a freeze “that looks like a
> block” and even if the freeze is unfrozen we would
> have to go back to New-IMC “because of the significant
> changes that will have taken place.” We would greatly
> appreciate some more clarifications.
>
> In solidarity,
>
> For the IMC-QC collective,
> Alexander Martin Remollino
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
> http://photos.yahoo.com/
> _______________________________________________
> imc-process mailing list
> imc-process at lists.indymedia.org
> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-process
>

_______________________________________________
imc-pilipinas mailing list
imc-pilipinas at lists.indymedia.org
http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-pilipinas

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Photos - Get your photo on the big screen in Times Square
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-pilipinas/attachments/20031225/7264eea5/attachment-0001.htm