[New-imc] FaceToFaceInDangerousPlaces TWiki discussion

[boud]

########################################
SUMMARY
Development of TWiki page

http://docs.indymedia.org/view/Global/FaceToFaceInDangerousPlaces

The idea is to try to get the logic of arguments and counterarguments
clear. In this email i respond to vally's points, and try to
incorporate them into the TWiki page. Possibly the most original
point which has not come up before (AFAIR) is that vally feels 
that most "expatriates" who apply to start Indymedia collectives
already *were* doing grassroots work before they were forced into
exile.
########################################

hi vally, everyone,
   i think we're getting somewhere here. vally, i've tried to
include your comments on the TWiki - please just improve the
page yourself if you think i've done it unfairly/ unclearly/whatever!
The point is that when other people start deciding to say something or
do something on the issue we don't go around in circles and repeat the
same arguments. Also that if people want to discuss it systematically,
it should at least be translated into Spanish/Portuguese, since there
are many Latin American IMCs who (AFAIK) are somewhere in between a
typical "North" region and a "South" region in terms of the danger of
f2f meetings, and their experience is probably the most realistic we
could count on in the short term (though there are certainly others
who are welcome to help, but see the "bootstrap" problems).

On Tue, 31 Dec 2002, valentine V eben wrote:

>  Boud it's great that you created the Twiki for this discussion. We
> need this discussion going on, to always remind us ALL to not forget
> the tedious task of continuing our outreach efforts, both imcs in
> the South and North. However there are a few points in your mail
> that I wish to give my opinion.

> >This is actually an excellent point. While i'm sure you agree there is 
> >a spectrum of danger between "democracies" and "dictatorships", i think
> >that everyone would agree that there are some places where meeting f2f is
> >much more dangerous than others.  
> >
> >When i got involved in IMC, there was generally the feeling that
> >expatriate IMCs were not what IMC is all about - maybe in countries
> >where you're likely to get arrested (or worse), it may be better to
> >open an open publishing website, but without claiming it's really
> >openly organised, grassroots media, and accepting the risk that the
> >website and the media collective is dominated by elites safe in
> >"democratic" countries.
> 

>  This discussion of expatriate IMCs is the same like the discussion
> of middle-class imcs in the north; both groups are somehow elites
> . The expatriate leaves in countries where they have more online
> time or/and access, while a bulk of the people in their country of
> Origin global South cannot afford the same. It is also true that the
> middle-class in the global North are the onces who can afford
> computers and online access, thus imcers. While a great faction of
> the poor in the global north cannot afford computers and online
> access. So are we going to refuse an IMC from functioning in the
> global north because there are no street children in the IMC, as
> they cannot afford online access?

AFAIK, we have never *refused* a "South" IMC application for this
reason. (On the other hand, as you well know, at least one IMC 
application from the South was ignored for at least two weeks. It
wasn't deliberate, it's simply that noone spoke up, for whatever
reason.)

But i agree that the word "require" in my first draft is probably too
strong.

i've replaced "request" by "recommend" in the first question,
and "require" by "recommend", plus a meta-comment:
   * Should the word _"recommend"_ by replaced by _"suggest"_, ...

On the fact that middle-class "North" people have better computer +
connection access: this is true, of course. But once there is the
*political will* in a "North" IMC group to give access to "street
children", or other local "4th world people", it's much, much easier
to put in practice than in the "South". Homeless people started using
one of the California IMCs some time ago (i forget which).

However, this is a different question to the question of it being
dangerous to meet f2f. 

If people can meet f2f, then once people make and carry out the
political decision to encourage, invite, train homeless people, other
people without internet access, then those people *can* start 
getting involved. This is one of the reasons why f2f is considered 
very important.

Anyway, i've put your comment in the bootstrap section:
      * These same intrinsic problems also happen, though to a lesser degree, in the "global North" regions.



>  We must no forget that both the middle class of global north and
> the expatriate of global South involved in indymedia are VOLUNTEERS,
> hoping that indymedia can help effect a better society. Theír more
> online access makes them to do much of the talking in the various
> list yet it's an issue to CONTEMPLATE and not to TRIVIALIZE.

Agreed, AFAIK, noone trivialises this issue.

>   The idea about an openposting website is good but there are
> hundreds of such websites out there. I think indymedia has an image
> attached to it that these particular groups will be refused.

Sorry, i'm confused about what you're saying here. It's probably 
better that you restate it more clearly rather than my trying to 
guess (i sort of understand, but not quite, sorry...)


> >However, now there are more and more IMCs in places where the risk of
> >arrest (or worse) is high, and at least one IMC has openly stated that
> >f2f meetings were not possible *and* requested official recognition
> >anyway - IMC Ambazonia. Noone objected to this, so in some sense that
> >seems to me an implicit recognition that the f2f meeting question 
> >needs to be rediscussed.
...

> >   * The existing IMCs in "dangerous" places 
> >      * generally have higher priorities than process discussions such
> >as these>      * their members risk being accused of playing on "white man's
> >(sic) guilt complex". 
> 
> I didn't understand. What has f2f meeting got to do with playing with "white man's(sic) guilt complex"

Sorry, i guess it's unclear. It's in the "bootstrap" section, i.e.
not so much about f2f meetings themselves, but about the discussion
process about f2f meetings (one level up of synthesis/generalisation).

i though petros wrote something like this in the Oct/Nov IMC
Nigeria/IMC Finance discussions, but i can't find it. (petros, are you
around ? any comments, on this or more generally on the TWiki page?)

i've rewritten it:
      * if their members argue in favour of "double standards", then
they risk being accused of playing on "white man's (sic) guilt
complex".

This is part of the bootstrap/meta problem - it's meant to be a
warning about likely misunderstandings (inferred connotations) *during
discussion* rather than real differences or intentional accusations.

i can try again if you still find this confusing...

>   
> >      * many of them have expensive/slow internet access, so it's 
> >difficult for them to participate in the discussion.
> >
> >   * These are intrinsic problems making it difficult for the people
> >most affected by process decisions to partake in those decisions.
> >

>  Most of the so-called expatraites were doing grassroot work in the
> countries from which they were forced to go on exile. The reality,
> is people working in the ground in most of those countries work in
> the hiding. Activists know themselves and password arround about new
> political tools. It gives a very horrible feeling to read about this
> expatriate thing. It is as if people who leave out of the country
> kind of like consciously try to exclude the people in the ground
> especially when one read the words "dominate", "control" with
> reference to this topic. Then I ask the question , what does someone
> need an indymedia for if the person does not want the people in the
> ground to participate?.

i can understand that you feel offended, but noone is accusing you of
*wanting* to dominate. [i'm in exile myself, though the reasons are
for much less radical efforts than "grassroot" work, and i did get the
chance to contribute (by mailing lists) to helping my IMC at home
through a major crisis.]

However, it is clearly agreed that Indymedia collectives should be
non-hierarchical.

IMHO, anyone serious about being non-hierarchical should acknowledge
the fact that once he/she becomes active in progressive actions,
he/she risks dominating over others. It's not that the activist
consciously wants to dominate, it's that the risks of domination
happening are big, in spite of being unintended. If your internet
connection is 10, 100, 1000 or more times faster for the same fraction
of your monetary income (according to conventional exchange rates)
than that of activists back at home, how can you not risk dominating
over them?

The other issue is that hypothetically speaking, fascists might apply
to start an Indymedia site, even though openness and free, rational,
debate based on facts are highly lethal to fascist groups. They might
have the idea that they would have a sort of open publishing, and
would specifically include a fascist interpretation of current
events. AFAIK, something like this may have happened when IMC Russia
started, and when a group in Turkey wanted to start a site.

Right now, the IMC India newswire *has* been taken over by fascists
(see following email), though it's clear that IMC India was not
*started* by fascists, and the fascists do not have any password
access for central column features.  It's generally consensed upon
that a major contributing factor to why the world's largest democracy
is presently run by a coalition of parties of which the main party is
an overtly fascist party (the BJP), and why there was a pogrom of
several thousand muslims with the support of the BJP leadership in the
state of Gujarat in 2002, is that people of Indian origin in North
America support the fascist "family" of organisations in India.

Anyway, let's not mix threads...

Back to the point - you *do* have a valid point. i've reworded it
slightly on the TWiki:

      * This question is *not* meant to be insulting to expatriate
activists. Most of the so-called "expatriates" who ask about starting
up an Indymedia collective were doing grassroot work in their
countries before they were forced to go into exile. The reality is
that people working on the ground in most of those countries work in
hiding. Activists know each other and pass the word around about new
political tools. It can give a very horrible feeling to an exiled
activist to be seen as an "elite" person who consciously wishes to
dominate the activists back at home.

In fact, this might be a key argument for this question. AFAIR,
nobody's mentioned this earlier. Just maybe we could have a real
shift in practical policy...?

>  Indymedia according to my understanding is about groups organised
> on CONSENSUS bases doing ALTERNATIVE MEDIA. As Mattew proposed

IMHO, this is simply too vague. 

> before, as soon as a group agrees to work on this two principles
> then they should be enchouraged to immediately start doing
> alternative media work while undergoing their approval process.

This is a different thread (theme). It doesn't relate to the question
of how to do the approval process for an IMC in a place judged
too dangerous for f2f meetings. 

Anyway, i'm glad this conversation has started and that we have
TWiki technology to make it easier to avoid going around in circles.
i'm not sure if we'll get the answers quickly, but asking the right
question can sometimes lead to a big step forward.


solidarity
boud