From:   Will <william.russell.v@gmail.com>
Sent time:   Friday, September 16, 2011 2:06:52 PM
To:   september17 <september17@googlegroups.com>
Subject:   [september17discuss] Re: can someone tell whoever spoke to the Village Voice
 

I just wanted to emphasize that I was not taking the ISO line or

speaking for the ISO during the interview, nor did I even consult with

anyone in the ISO about how to do the interview or what to say in it.

In fact, the majority of what I said in the interview would be

contentious to other comrades in the ISO. Doug explained the

relationship with the interviewer correctly, and I can definitely

attest to the fact that she is not an ISO member, nor had I ever met

her before. While I will restate that I didn't understand the format

the article would be written in, I can't say that that was deliberate

on the part of the reporter.

 

Will

 

On Sep 16, 3:36 pm, "Richard S." <chardsin...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> 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

>

> ...

>

> read more »

< PREV INDEX SEARCH NEXT >