[New-imc] Re: (1) hurt feelings (2) fast website vs people process

[blue.pi]

boud writes: 

> hi blue pi, petros, everyone,
>    Rule (1) Make love, not war.
>    Rule (2) When all else fails, go to Rule (1).
>    Rule (3) If really desperate, say sorry, and then try Rule (1) anyway. 
> 

Thank you, boud. I am really glad for the constructive and straight forward 
way you are approaching the subject. You are taking a very balanced approach 
which is good, maybe you are right and some of Petro’s criticism could be 
interpreted as constructive. While I e.g. think that taking something to 
imc-communication is quite an extreme meassure and means: “You are so wrong, 
that we have to bring this in front of a judge now”, maybe Petros is not 
aware of this meaning, it does seem like he is, what I would call, quite 
careless with crossposting, while I am very careful in keeping discussions 
where they belong (sometimes maybe too careful, because in germany we had 
several discussions about keeping traffic low). 

However, there are some things where I disagree not just gradually. 

 

> On Mon, 3 Mar 2003, blue.pi wrote: 
> 
>> >It is *our* responsibility that our colleagues
>> >in Beirut are still being told by imc sources,
>> >erroneously, that having an imc group and having a 
>> >website is the same thing. We need to give relief to
>> >our Beirut colleagues from this terrible dilemma which
>> >has been placed on them.  
>> 
>> I guess Petros could claim that he is not talking about me, when he writes 
>> “imc sources”. But who else could he be talking about? Himself? Concerning 
> 
> blue pi: i agree that some of petros' statements, especially the ones
> you quoted earlier risk hurting your feelings. Whether or not the
> claim of "interfering westerners" is valid or not, i think that petros
> has the right to make the comment, but that of course it would be
> better if it can be stated in a less accusatory style. 
> 
> But here, i don't think you should infer that you are being personally
> attacked when petros talks about "imc sources". In this case, petros
> is clearly trying to depersonalise the issue. 
> 

depersonalizing or just *veiling* an accusation? Who could the imc sources 
be, that are telling things? The IMC Beirut group has met Manolo from IMC 
Italy, who came here to do a video film with us, but that was a while ago. 
They know me and one has met Petros. Petros has also given them advice via 
email. 

I find it very unlikely that Petros means Manolo or himself with “imc 
sources”. I am sorry, but you just can’t convince me that this is not 
directed towards me. On the contrary, I find this veiling language even more 
offensive, than when some one addresses me personally. It seems to be 
implying that it is not worth it to talk to me, but that I am a 
depersonalized *problem* that needs to be solved. 

Just imagine: you sit in a meeting, and maybe you are the only techie, or 
the only man, or whatever, and then some one, instead of saying, “boud, I 
don’t like that you do this and this..” she says: “the men in this group do 
this and this, we need to do something about it.” Would that be very 
condescending? 

BTW, everyone here in Beirut, interpreted Petros emails as directed towards 
me, and I did not *tell* them to do so, but just forwarded this one, asking 
if we could talk about the issue. 

>> the content of the accusation: I ve already stated before: The people here 
>> wanted a website badly when I arrived here and they were quite disappointed 
>> when I told them that it would take a while to go through the process. 
> 
> Here i'm confused, sorry. i think both petros and i argued in favour
> of process, but i don't think anyone tried to *block* IMC Beirut starting
> a website quickly. 

And I, too, argued for process - maybe to a different extent, I don’t know. 
I think e.g. that a group that has gone through the process for over half a 
year can very well have a website after that. I also believe that a group 
while going through the process can already work on the website. 

I can see why you are confused, as I am interpreting a bit here. I read 
Petros emails quite carefully, trying to find out what exactly his problem 
is, where he gets his ideas from etc., because, as I said before, on first 
sight they don’t seem to fit the situation (and this is a main problem that 
you ignore further up: Petros may have a valid point in warning of 
Westerners setting up websites, but it has absolutely *nothing* to do with 
the situation in Beirut, he has been told so by me and others and even 
before he should have known better and even though he has been told he 
stated again his opinion that this is happening) 

This: 

>> >It is *our* responsibility that our colleagues
>> >in Beirut are still being told by imc sources,
>> >erroneously, that having an imc group and having a 
>> >website is the same thing. 

was written just two weeks ago, as a reply to Imad’s and Lana’s emails, in 
which Imad states that we are making good progress with the website. So I 
interpret: Petros must have a problem, with that, as I can not find any 
other hint that would justify his reply. And more generally I interpret: 
Petros must have a problem with IMC’s (in this region?) to have a website 
even one year after the group found itself for the first time and more than 
half a year after they started the process and after they have been 
approved. 

Only like this it makes sense to me. I agree, it could mean something else, 
but unfortunatly Petros never clearifies his accusations. 

As for people being disappointed, if they were already
> well organised, in the sense of having non-hierarchical decision-making,
> doing outreach to various grassroots groups, etc etc, then the process
> could have been quicker. It just happens to be the reality that most
> groups, even if they're already organised as some sort of activist group,
> have not yet been through this sort of opening up and dehierarchisation.
> Anyway, we're getting off the point...
>  

I think there is no disagreement between us. I was just trying to “prove” 
that I am not doing anything like what I think you and Petros might have in 
mind: I understand that there have been people who went to e.g. Latinamerica 
for a couple months and set up websites in countries sort of while passing 
by. But here we have a different situation: There already was a group before 
I arrived, and I am not passing by but have a job here, that I hope to keep 
for the next couple years. 

>> This was the first attack in November:  
>> 
>> >I see that as group, you may think that if you make a
>> >website ready, that your application to new-imc might
>> >go through more easily. Itís true that unfortunately
>> >this happens with some imc groups,  because some of our
>> >colleagues are not clear in what they do.
>> >Irresponsibly, they encourage imc groups to form
>> >quickly and to develop technically (create a website
>> >and apply for membership), without any attention to
>> >group process, or with only a shallow attention to
>> >politics. We keep having disasters when we follow that
>> >policy. For that reason, I assure you that wherever my
>> >opinion has any weight, I will continue to oppose that
>> >policy - it is nothing more than a leftist/ progressive
>> >version of missionaries ("soft crucades" to
>> >proselytize), married to techno- philanthropy (instead
>> >of money, donating access to the net for selected
>> >allies and colonised communties), both of which have
>> >done humanity a *lot* of damage, especially to us who
>> >live in the global colonies.  
>> 
>> >And for those of us who live in the Middle East, we
>> >know directly that if we ignore political realities,
>> >and just allow the missionaries, crucaders, and
>> >philanthropists to shape the forms of our struggle for
>> >liberation, our communities suffer death and
>> >destruction. 
>> 
>> Like the “imc sources”, I wouldn’t know who else could be addressed here as 
>> “missionaries, crusaders and philanthropists”. I also assume that if he 
>> didn’t mean me, he would have clearified that after I protested. 
> 
> blue pi: relax! You're not alone amongst the accused ;), and you're
> probably not even among them at all! IMHO, this is a valid comment. At
> least in the part you quoted, there is nothing trying to attack any
> individual. Inferring that you're included is not going to help in
> constructive communication.
>  
>> I do find these terms highly offensive and anyone living here would. Of 
>> course, I don’t know if people who are not that familiar with the Middle 
>> East (and after all Cyprus does seem today much more part of Europe than 
>> part of this region) can understand what a great insult they are. 
> 
> IMHO the whole idea of Indymedia is to help local groups speak for
> themselves - so opposing the dominance of missionaries, crusaders and
> philanthropists seems to me an extremely valid comment, in general. In
> a particular context, it could hurt someone's feelings - such as
> yours, because you feel it devalues all the work you've contributed to
> IMC Beirut. i agree that petros should be more careful in his 
> criticisms, but i don't think you can complain about his comment
> as a general comment. 
> 

sorry, boud, but this is not a general comment that was given out on a 
random basis, like: “listen guys, what I always wanted to tell you and what 
we tell all imc’s in the third world: be aware of missionaries...” 

No, this had a context. I have stated above why I and everyone here are 
pretty sure that this is directed to me and only me. I have written in a 
previous email: if I was not meant why didn’t Petros clearify this, when I 
protested back in November. Wouldn’t that be the most natural thing to do 
when you made a general statement but some one took it personally??? 

 


>> I acctually think, this needs to be discussed, because I don’t think it is 
>> right to artificially slow people down in this region when they want to set 
>> up a website, especially not when we think it is completely normal that 
>> imc’s in Europe and Northamerica have their website immidiatly. 
> 
> blue pi: i think you are upset now, but please don't be upset by 
> my saying i think you're confused here. Maybe this is the *substantive*
> part of disagreement between petros and you.

It might be and it might not. As I said before I am interpreting here. I 
find his remarks very strange in our situation. To be more clear: If he 
really think that the fact that we are working on the website now is a 
problem, *then* this should be discussed. 

> 
> * petros favours the people approach, process as priority.
> * i personally also favour this approach.
> * Some people feel that starting a website quickly should not be
> opposed.
> * As you say above, Beirut people hoped to get a web site up
> quickly and were disappointed that it required more organising work. 
> 
> * i thought there was something like consensus that a group should
> feel OK to start a website quickly if it wishes, but that it should
> also understand why we, as a network, think that the people side,
> the political side, the process, whatever you want to call it,
> is really important, and that the website risks being a ghost site,
> or collapsing, or becoming sectarian, or whatever, if there is no
> people process. So AFAIR we've never said to a new group: we oppose
> you starting a website until you've gone through the process. 
> 
> * Even if someone from new-imc working group tried to tell a new group
> that they should not create a web site immediately, i don't see how we
> could stop them. 

Well, kind of. I don’t know if this is true, but when I came here people in 
the group told me that they had been told that they couldn’t have a website 
until in a long time, one said they were told that it could take years. You 
may understand that I tend to believe my comrades here more, than some 
people I have never met, but again, I know I should be careful with things I 
only know second hand. 

Anyhow, people here did not know, how to go about getting a website. I 
think, after having been in the network for a while, you know that there are 
lots of ways to get a website, but if you are new, the network is really 
confusing. So yes, we can’t really prevent people from having a website, but 
by telling them some thing we can certainly hinder them. Or wouldn’t you say 
it it hindering when you keep certain information from some one? 

>> up a website, especially not when we think it is completely normal that 
>> imc’s in Europe and Northamerica have their website immidiatly. 
> 
> i'm confused. 
> 
> The same new-imc approach to people self-organising as a priority
> applies in Europe and N.America just as much as in colonised countries. 

I am just saying this, because Petros *only* focusses on Third World IMC’s, 
and he mixes the two issues “Westerners in this region” and “slowing down 
with the website”. 


> but noone (even petros, AFAIK) tried to *block* them starting a website 
> early on. 
> 

Hey, I never said “block,” I said “artificially slow down”, didn’t I? 

> 
> OK, here's my summary: 
> 
> = petros - maybe should accept that a criticism may be perceived as
> an accusation or as a personal attack, and maybe should remember that
> even when a criticism is valid, it can be done in a way that 
> minimises people's feelings being hurt  
> 
> = blue pi - understandably upset, but maybe should accept that a
> criticism may be made without intending to hurt people's feelings, and
> maybe not take a general comment on "missionaryism" too personally.
> And this applies both ways: when criticising petros' comments, it
> would be best to try doing this in a way which avoids hurting *his*
> feelings. (Yes, men have feelings too...) 
> 
> 
> = substantive issues (apart from diplomacy, people's feelings, etc.) -  
> 
> Does anybody oppose the following (seems an old consensus IMHO)? :
> - that any new group should be encouraged to focus on people process etc
> (http://docs.indymedia.org/view/Global/NewImcHowTo) 
> rather than immediately starting a web site
> - that, however, any new group should feel OK to start a web site
> running an Indymedia engine immediately if they wish to, and that
> new-imc working group not only does not *want* to but also *cannot* stop 
> them starting a website. All the same, we would hope the group understands
> why we think Indymedia is much more than an open publishing website. 
> 
> blue pi, petros: Maybe if we could consense on the above substantive
> issue, we could put the misunderstandings and hurt feelings into 
> "the past is the past" and get back to making love, not war. 
> 

I don’t know. It’s not that easy: as I said before, this is not a flame war 
over a political issue, but a conflict, that doesn’t make sense to me at 
all. 

So as long as I don’t fully understand what’s behind it, I have decided to 
stay out of Petros way and I hope he does the same in future. 

soldidarity
blue