From:   Richard S. <chardsinger@yahoo.com>
Sent time:   Friday, September 16, 2011 1:36:14 PM
To:   september17 <september17@googlegroups.com>
Subject:   [september17discuss] Re: can someone tell whoever spoke to the Village Voice
 

I've been debating with myself re. whether to add my opinion on this

matter. I've moved a bit to the periphery of this group (as I call

it) because of my own ambivalent feelings about the core organizing

and process (though don't take it personally - I like most of you) as

well as my own, shall we say, burnout with all this kind of stuff.

(No, being "around" for 10+ years isn't always a good thing, even with

extended breaks...) And I moved to digest to avoid temptation to over-

participate on the list as I may have done before (and notice, I

finally figured out how to abbreviate my name here - though a bit

late, I guess).. And then there's the matter that I don't wish to get

into an argument with someone I may have argued with a long time ago.

LOL But the issue is too compelling for me now, so here I go...

 

Given the interview that appeared, I agree for the most part with Drew

and with Gail. The interview presented was fair and accurate, there

was nothing overly negative and certainly no one was slandered. I

think that Will was criticized unnecessarily harshly and certainly

people who have positive opinions about this interview shouldn't be

criticized for "defending."

 

At the same time, I wouldn't be talking to the Voice in the first

place. Actually, I refused to talk to someone from the Voice

regarding a benefit that I helped to organize nine years ago. I am

very ambivalent about the idea of talking to the press period.

Additionally, I already have taken the position that I am not someone

who should be talking about this group to media outlets, because it

would be better if someone who is less ambivalent did. (I already

mentioned that to someone; you know who you are.) This is in addition

to any question that may arise regarding whether I have any skills or

competence in doing so. :) But, regardless of what I would have done,

once again, this is not so bad and certainly not a big deal. Who

takes the Voice seriously anyway? Please...

 

Regarding some tangential conversation that occurred on this

thread... If people do have complaints about other activists, they

should take it to some public forum, one in which the person or people

being criticized has/have a fair chance to answer or debate. (And

people should pay attention to content rather than someone's

popularity, prestige, or debating skills.) The problem with just

telling a friend privately (as one person suggested in one place), at

least on principle, is that some people end up telling lots of

"friends" in private, and sneaky campaigns can start that way. (Yes,

I voice some criticisms to friends, but usually not anything that I

don't also express on some public forum where I hope the person being

criticized can answer as well. That is, unless it is some really big,

famous person who is talked about in the general population, but I

don't think anyone here qualifies as such. And, by the way, yes,

since I've been around with this stuff for a while, I have learned

some lessons myself. I would like to think that all of us who are

"seasoned" have :) ...)

 

Anyway, I just had to write this. I hope I don't regret it. I, too,

am not interested in dragging this on...

 

Richard

 

On Sep 16, 2:00 pm, Jon Good <therealjong...@gmail.com> wrote:

> David, I know.  I don't believe that Drew was "defending" the dissing of

> activists.  That was what I meant by the imposition of a false dichotomy.

>

> But I do share your overall concern that the police and the media can set up

> situations where well-meaning folks with genuine concerns can be tricked

> into "spilling the beans" by giving them an inappropriate outlet to voice

> these concerns.

>

> Solidarity,

>

> Jon

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 1:51 PM, Drew Hornbein <dhornb...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > It was an honest account by someone who isn't a PR person. I didn't mean

> > anything by it.

>

> > On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 1:47 PM, David Graeber <da...@anarchisms.org>wrote:

>

> >> I was responding not to the person who gave the interview but to Drew

> >> Hornbeim who said he thought the interview was fine.

>

> >> On Sep 16, 2011, at 1:12 PM, Jon Good wrote:

>

> >> David, I don't think he was defending anybody.  To me, attacking/defending

> >> anybody is a false dichotomy for this issue, and indeed, the whole

> >> completely cutting off anyone who has anything to do with "dissing other

> >> activists" conjures up associations with thuggish mafiossi.

>

> >> The person who gave the interview had their inexperience

> >> and naivete exploited by the press.  Same story happens all the time.  It's

> >> a minor setback (oh gawd, the *Village Voice*).  Let's move forward and

> >> get back to focusing on changing the world.

>

> >> Solidarity,

>

> >> Jon

>

> >> On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 12:46 PM, David Graeber <da...@anarchisms.org>wrote:

>

> >>> wait a minute - you're *defending* someone dissing other activists to

> >>> the press?

>

> >>> what's next, turning in fellow activists to the cops?

>

> >>> you do realize that such behavior only confirms in the minds of the

> >>> anti-authoritarian elements denounced so aggressively in the interview that

> >>> had the minority that tried to create a "police liaison" and "marshall"

> >>> system actually succeeded, this is exactly the sort of thing they'd have

> >>> started doing. If there's anything that confirms the suspicions of those who

> >>> shot down the marshall proposal, it's this.

>

> >>> The basic question is one of solidarity. Are your ultimate loyalties to

> >>> fellow activists, to the members of one's coalition, regardless of how you

> >>> might differ from them on specific issues, over and against the mechanisms

> >>> of power like the corporate media, or police, or are they to one's own

> >>> particular faction or sect, so much so that the mechanisms of power can be

> >>> seen as potential allies to be used against them on behalf of one's own

> >>> faction?

>

> >>> And why on earth do you think anyone would trust you to behave any

> >>> differently on the streets?

> >>> David

>

> >>> On Sep 16, 2011, at 8:46 AM, Drew Hornbein wrote:

>

> >>> It might not be the most flattering article but it feels about right. I

> >>> don't think Will said anything untrue, nor did he speak FOR the GA. imho.

>

> >>> On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 4:39 AM, Lorenzo Serna <lorenzo.se...@gmail.com>wrote:

>

> >>>> +alot to all

>

> >>>> On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 1:59 AM, jason ahmadi <jason.ahm...@gmail.com>wrote:

>

> >>>>> Dear all,

>

> >>>>> its best not to answer the questions that press pose.  always always

> >>>>> always stick to talking points.  acknowledge questions, but then always go

> >>>>> back to the talking points.  there is a reason politicians do this and we

> >>>>> should filter what we say to the media so our words can no be twisted or

> >>>>> used against us.

>

> >>>>> also, its valid that you hold your opinions but do not share these with

> >>>>> the press.  the people you should share these opinions with are YOUR FELLOW

> >>>>> ORGANIZERS.  if you do not feel safe telling us who are your friends, then

> >>>>> tell confide with a close friend that you trust but never the press.

>

> >>>>> Peace and Love,

> >>>>> Jason

>

> >>>>> On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 1:45 AM, David Graeber <da...@anarchisms.org>wrote:

>

> >>>>>> though to be honest the comments weren't all that insulting

> >>>>>> still, best to just put in the positive parts

> >>>>>>         David

>

> >>>>>> On Sep 16, 2011, at 1:30 AM, David Graeber wrote:

>

> >>>>>> > yes, I would strongly second that part about the insulting comments.

> >>>>>> Not badmouthing other activists

> >>>>>> > in the press includes in the comment section!

>

> >>>>>> > On Sep 16, 2011, at 12:21 AM, Will wrote:

>

> >>>>>> >> Hey all, I just posted the comment below in response to the article

> >>>>>> >> that came out earlier today.  I just want to add to this that while

> >>>>>> I

> >>>>>> >> was having this conversation with the reporter I did not realize

> >>>>>> that

> >>>>>> >> she was going to transcribe everything I said at that part.  I

> >>>>>> thought

> >>>>>> >> it was going to be a column article and not an interview until

> >>>>>> after

> >>>>>> >> it was done.  Also, she began the conversation with 'I hear there

> >>>>>> are

> >>>>>> >> a lot of anarchists involved,' which doesn't show in the article

> >>>>>> and

> >>>>>> >> makes it look like I brought up the topic myself.  I'd like to

> >>>>>> point

> >>>>>> >> out that I didn't name any names.  That being said this was my

> >>>>>> first

> >>>>>> >> time talking to the press and I pretty well botched it.

>

> >>>>>> >> The insulting comments about me posted to the article are not

> >>>>>> >> helpful.  If you have anything else negative you'd like to add I

> >>>>>> would

> >>>>>> >> appreciate it if you posted it here, rather than making this any

> >>>>>> worse

> >>>>>> >> than it already was.  I will see it.

>

> >>>>>> >> I'll let the post speak for itself, but again if you have any more

> >>>>>> >> comments please let me know.

>

> >>>>>> >> Hey People, especially those from the GA,

>

> >>>>>> >> I just wanted to clarify a few things from the article which came

> >>>>>> out

> >>>>>> >> earlier today.  After reading it, I think the tone of it came out

> >>>>>> way

> >>>>>> >> too pessimistic regarding the GA and S17.  More importantly, I

> >>>>>> didn't

> >>>>>> >> mean or expect for things to sound so much against certain

> >>>>>> tendencies

> >>>>>> >> within the GA, especially since nearly everyone involved has been

> >>>>>> such

> >>>>>> >> a pleasure to organize with.  I have an enormous amount of respect

> >>>>>> for

> >>>>>> >> these individuals from the GA both as people and as organizers,

> >>>>>> even

> >>>>>> >> if there are some political differences between us.  In the end I

> >>>>>> >> believe we share common goals, which is why I value our

> >>>>>> relationships

> >>>>>> >> and the importance of us working together.

>

> >>>>>> >> While I do stand by arguments I made, I recognize that the Voice

> >>>>>> was

> >>>>>> >> not the best place to air some of these differences, particularly

> >>>>>> the

> >>>>>> >> one about liaisons, which was inappropriate for me to talk about

> >>>>>> with

> >>>>>> >> a reporter.  If I had fully understood the format of the article

> >>>>>> which

> >>>>>> >> was to be written, I would have refrained from discussing several

> >>>>>> of

> >>>>>> >> these issues and instead have focused on the more logistical issues

> >>>>>> >> around S17 and its promotion.

>

> >>>>>> >> I would also like to clarify that New Yorkers Against the Budget

> >>>>>> Cuts

> >>>>>> >> operates as a separate group from the GA.

>

> >>>>>> >> As an individual I fully stand with the GA, which we have all

> >>>>>> worked

> >>>>>> >> so hard together to build, in the expectation that S17 will be a

> >>>>>> step

> >>>>>> >> forward in the fight against budget cuts and the war on the working

> >>>>>> >> class in the United States and internationally.

>

> >>>>>> >> In solidarity,

>

> >>>>>> >> Will Russell

>

> >>>>>> >> On Sep 15, 8:44 pm, David Graeber <da...@anarchisms.org> wrote:

> >>>>>> >>> rule #1 of all activist media work is you don't badmouth other

> >>>>>> activists to the press.

>

> >>>>>> >>> I mean I know a lot of you guys are inexperienced but this is

> >>>>>> beyond obnoxious.

> >>>>>> >>>        David

>

> >>>>>> > -------------------------------------------------------

> >>>>>> > Property is Theft - Proudhon

> >>>>>> > Property is Freedom - Proudhon

> >>>>>> > Property is Impossible - Proudhon

> >>>>>> > A Foolish Consistency is the Hobgoblin of Little Minds - Emerson

>

> >>>>>> -------------------------------------------------------

> >>>>>> Property is Theft - Proudhon

> >>>>>> Property is Freedom - Proudhon

> >>>>>> Property is Impossible - Proudhon

> >>>>>> A Foolish Consistency is the Hobgoblin of Little Minds - Emerson

>

> >>>  -------------------------------------------------------

> >>> Property is Theft - Proudhon

> >>> Property is Freedom - Proudhon

> >>> Property is Impossible - Proudhon

> >>> A Foolish Consistency is the Hobgoblin of Little Minds - Emerson

>

> >>  -------------------------------------------------------

> >> Property is Theft - Proudhon

> >> Property is Freedom - Proudhon

> >> Property is Impossible - Proudhon

> >> A Foolish Consistency is the Hobgoblin of Little Minds - Emerson

< PREV INDEX SEARCH NEXT >