|
Comment on this article |
View comments |
Email this Article
|
|
News :: Miscellaneous |
|
UC-IMC, time for a reality check? |
Current rating: 0 |
by Auntie Beeb
(No verified email address) |
04 Mar 2002
Modified: 05 Mar 2002 |
|
Your letter of "support" to IMC Switzerland regarding its current closure pending possible charges over Latuff's final cartoon was a travesty. If that's support, I'd hate to be your enemy. |
How big do the letters have to be before you see that Latuff is using the word "Palestinian" as a euphemism for the oppressed? That's consistent, throughout the series. He's not saying that Palestinians are being oppressed by the Klan, the Chinese, cowboys OR Nazi's. Rather, that black people, Tibetans, Native Americans, Jews and Palestinians have been or are victims of oppression.
How does showing a jewish child in a Polish ghetto stating "I am Palestinian" equate Nazism with the Israeli government?
If he's equating Israeli policy with Nazism, as you bizarely maintain, then the rest of the series must be saying Ariel Sharon is Chinese, a Klansman, and a cowboy. Or does your twisted logic only apply to the final cartoon? If so, you should explicitly tell us why.
To seriously equate the (reprehensible) Sharon administration with the Nazi regime is absurd. Equally absurd is your ability to perceive this view expressed in Latuff's cartoons.
He is simply using historically well known injustices to highlight a contemporary one. |
Comments
|
Reality Check: Try Reading (And Comprehending) the Letter |
by ML
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
04 Mar 2002
|
I have to wonder at the level of reading comprehension among the critics of the letter. This comment is yet another example of this troubling lack of political and social sophistication.
The letter solely addressed the right of the Swiss IMC to decide on and practice their own editorial policy. Among the editorial policies that we supported was the Swiss IMC decision to allow Latuff's controversial cartoons to stay on Swiss IMC, whic is what led to their ongoing closure. Yet Latuff chose to attack us. The dude is shallow, politically naive, over-simplistic (but cartoons often are), and fixated on his own ego, but we still thought that the Swiss IMC decision to allow the cartoons to stay and be open to criticsm (or support) was the correct one. The letter does not take a position on the disputes in the Middle East, but this important fact somehow escapes our critics, who somehow expect that we should take such a position, just as Latuff expected the letter to support HIM, rather than the Swiss IMC.
Then these same crtitics jump to the conclusion that we SHOULD have taken the position that they favor. You all are welcome to your views, but I have yet to see a flood of similar statements expressed in print from other IMCs. There was even someone claiming to be with the Houston IMC who insisted that we we not speaking for him (no duh, once again; no such claim was made in the letter, but he felt free to jump to that conclusion also.) It should be noted that, AFAIK, Houston IMC has issued no letter of ANY kind of support for Swiss IMC.
Considering the diverse nature of the IMC movement and the specific threat to the Swiss IMC, I would have expected a flood of supporting letters, taking various viewpoints, from many IMCs by now. Yet what we see is a flood of "I'm more radical than you" missives that seem more akin to the discourse on a junior high school playground. But this is not surprising, because the level of ability displayed by these critics to deal with facts and reasoning seems to reflect the critics ability to use critical reasoning skills at that low level.
The U-C IMC never intended to take a position one way or the other on the situation in the Middle East. The letter does NOT do so, despite the efforts to misrepresent it. We have too many differing viewpoints internally to be able to do that. Are the critics suggesting we conduct some sort of political purge until we are able to issue such a letter of support? This kind of Stalinist crap is surprising from the claimed adherents of a diverse movement which claims to be largely based on anarchist principles. But that is why I tend to not take what I've seen so far too seriously, in addition to the lack of clearly articulated arguments about why what was STATED in the letter is somehow incorrect.
I don't believe that the comments that I've seen represent those who are active particpants in IMCs. Rather, they seem to represent a vocal minority who oppose any viewpoint except those exactly like their own. The IMC movement would not be where it is if it was truly organized by such people; it would merely represent a variant on the dominant media, excluding those viewpoints they disagree with. I hope that those who are in the global Newswire collective are noting the identities of our critics so that they take a long look at ever allowing any of these folks to be Newswire clerks. These critics do not possess the objective, critical reasoning skills to be allowed to decide what others should be allowed to express in line with IMC editiorial policy. |
|
This letter does not speak for U-C IMC |
by Paul, a U-C IMC volunteer
paul (nospam) mediageek.org (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
04 Mar 2002
|
It amazes me how people selectively read and understand. The letter does not speak for U-C IMC, period. Nobody seems to want to hear this fact, because it is easier (and more fun?) to simply lambast the U-C IMC for something that was written by one person and posted without the consent of the U-C IMC. It was a mistake that it was posted in the name of the U-C IMC, but does anyone actually care about this simple little fact?
Auntie Beeb, what if someone posted a letter that purported to speak for you, but without your consent? Should you then have to run around defending yourself for things that you did not say and did not agree to? Critique the damn letter all you want, I don't care. But recognize that IT DOES NOT represent the views of the U-C IMC in any way.
Read this statement and recognize what did and did not happen:
(posted earlier at http://www.ucimc.org/display.php3?article_id=4271&group=webcast )
This letter does not speak for the U-C IMC, as I will explain.
At the Feb. 24 meeting of the U-C IMC Steering Group we consented to write a letter of support for the Switzerland IMC as the Steering Group. In the course of the week the person who had brought the issue to the group and who agreed to write the letter asked another person, gehrig, to do it. That is the letter you see above.
The Steering Group was not informed about this change, and a draft of the letter was not circulated before it was posted. When I saw it here I was surprised.
At today's Steering Meeting we addressed the fact that the letter does not speak in the name of the entire U-C IMC and that the Steering Group did not indeed actually consent to the entirety of this letter, since it carries more commentary than simple solidarity with the Swiss IMC.
However, it is also true that the cat is out of the bag, so to speak. The letter now lives on the Internet and cannot be recalled or edited to suit our actual lack of consensus. While several of us on the Steering Group (and who knows how many of our 200+ members) are uncomfortable with the letter--all for varying reasons--those of us present at today's meeting also seemed to agree that there was little to be gained in trying to change it or issue a clarification, retraction or rewrite. It would be an exercise in futility and our energies would be better spent on many other activities.
It is my hope that the U-C IMC, its working groups and its members will be known for their actions and not just one letter that really wasn't written with full consent in the first place. As a founding member of the U-C IMC I would prefer look forward to what we can do to further the cause of independent progressive media and how we can help extend the power of media to the oppressed peoples of the world rather than worry over this letter.
There is no full consensus of political position at the U-C IMC, as there is none in the IMC mov't as a whole. Its diversity, transparency and openness to dissent and debate are its strengths. In the end this letter expresses the opinion of one member.
The U-C IMC is open to everyone, and anyone may come in and take part in any meeting. Consensus includes everyone in attendance, not just members. If you wish a new or different statement to be written, please join us and help us write it. Steering Meetings happen Sundays, Noon, 218 W. Main ST., Urbana, IL. Until then, I've got work to do. |
|
A reply to the above |
by Auntie Beeb
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
04 Mar 2002
|
My post was meant for the author(s) of the letter and those who endorsed and allowed it to be issued in UC-IMC's name. After all, it does start with the words "We, the Urbana-Champaign IMC, ...." and continues in that vein. That's a very clear expression of who the letter was from and I (wrongly) took it at face value.
ML (from the UC-IMC?) asserts that the letter "solely addressed the right of the Swiss IMC to decide on and practice their own editorial policy". Yet the letter explicitly makes a judgement on the cartoon, similar to one voiced by ADKH. For example,
"It is only the final panel, which by implication equated the Israelis with the Nazis, which triggered the ADKH protest."
and,
"...we must explicitly reject as repugnant the rhetorical device of equating Israeli policy with Nazism....."
The letter clearly takes the view that Latuff's cartoon equates Nazism with the Israeli government, to the advantage of AKDH. My original post pointed out the absurdity of this view, and in none of the replies have those points been addressed.
I've no doubt the letter was sent with the best of motives, but its contents were ill-judged and inaccurate. As for ML's verbal attacks on Latuff - "..fixated on his own ego" - and his suggestion that the identities of critical contributers to IMC be "noted", they are both unnecessary and extremely disturbing. |
|
just an observation |
by Occasional reader
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
04 Mar 2002
|
UC-IMC says:
"...we must explicitly reject as repugnant the rhetorical device of EQUAT(E)ing (emphasis mine) Israeli policy with Nazism....."
Auntie Beeb says:
"He's not saying that Palestinians are being oppressed by the Klan, the Chinese, cowboys OR Nazi's. Rather, that black people, Tibetans, Native Americans, Jews and Palestinians have been or are victims of oppression.
...
How does showing a jewish child in a Polish ghetto stating `I am Palestinian' EQUATE (emphasis mine) Nazism with the Israeli government?"
EQAUTE: Equalize, comparable, liken, parallel, (rel. associate, relate, similarize, consider)
Klan ---> Oppressor
Black people ---> Oppressed
Chinese ---> Oppressor
Tibetans ---> Oppressed
Cowboys ---> Oppressor
Native Americans ---> Oppressed
Nazis ---> Oppressor
Jews ---> Oppressed
These are panels as drawn, with these groups of people, except the obvious group, which is
Israelis ---> Oppressor
Palestinians ---> Oppressed
which puts Israelis EQUATEd to the other Oppressors.
Which is the whole point of the cartoons in the first place I thought. To help people understand Mr. Latuff's POV. Right? The brain stop value is supposed to help drive the point home.
Auntie Beeb says:
"The letter clearly takes the view that Latuff's cartoon EQUATEs (emphasis mine) Nazism with the Israeli government, to the advantage of AKDH. My original post pointed out the absurdity of this view, and in none of the replies have those points been addressed."
Now a someone has. Stating the obvious, logical parallel in the cartoons has no bearing on the intent of the letter, which seems to say that regardless of the ideology of the cartoon that is being debated, imc's should determine their own editorial policies, rather than outside interests. |
|
ML - Talk about selective reading... |
by imc reader
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
04 Mar 2002
|
Please find a better place for the condescending assertions that critics have not read the letter and are incapable of lucid critical thinking. You are the one who has not taken time to read the letter or its weak defenses, not the letter's critics. It is clear you should re-read it, as well as your own replies.
As has been noted by several others, the letter says "We, the Urbana-Champaign IMC." Nowhere in the letter does it mention the "steering committee" that is noted later in the explanations regarding why the UC-IMC should not be held accountable for a letter issued in its name.
Though little more is left to say about this issue, it would be novel if you took the opportunity to admit your errors and apologize for a misplaced lack of respect toward IMC readers that, considering your own lop-eared reasoning, is ironic. The letter, regardless of who penned and published it, clearly takes a stance on Latuff personally (your comments just reinforce that), the validity of the comparison of repression in general with repression of the Jews ("...we must explicitly reject as repugnant the rhetorical device of equating Israeli policy with Nazism.....") and definitely does NOT "solely address[] the right of the Swiss IMC to decide on and practice their own editorial policy." You clearly feel you can simply insist on something, and it becomes true.
You suggest that your critics have suggested censorship of views not their own, and I see no such request. Is that your idea of selective, subjective reading? If so, excellent illustration. It appears you're simply lashing out blindly, accusing those who don't agree with you of mental insipidity, non-involvement with IMC, lying about their status as IMC contributors ... and I'm sure I've missed a few.
Take a good look inward, ML. Maybe you need a time out. |
|
Hard to know what to say here... |
by
JW
(unverified) |
Current rating: 0
05 Mar 2002
|
...but a few comments.
As a participant in the UC-IMC, I've watched ML and Paul
and various other members of the steering group agonize
over what if anything should be "censored". I've had a
couple of discussions with them myself about it. Their
solution has been to hide a few posts that were determined
by the steering group to be "spam", but only after a lot
of discussion and warnings to the spammer. For the most
part they're wholeheartedly committed to freedom of
expression, particularly for those who are denied the
opportunity to express themselves in the dominant media.
I've observed that it requires a great deal of maturity
and tolerance to run a successful IMC. While most of us
at the UC-IMC seem to be basically on the same page in
terms of our commitment to "progressive values" and "social
justice", whatever exactly those terms mean, if we all had
to be in total agreement or pass some sort of arbitrary,
subjective ideological litmus test, there would assuredly
be no IMC left here in Urbana-Champaign.
Finally, I would argue that there is great value in learning
to live amicably with those who at times "rub you the wrong
way". There is also great educational value in exposure
to a diversity of viewpoints. Quite candidly, when I first
became involved in the UC-IMC my perspective with regard to
the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was pretty unabashedly
pro-Israel, because that is the perspective to which I had
been exposed. Getting involved with the IMC made me much
more aware of the Palestinian point of view, and I am
grateful for that. If they had thrown me out the first time
I uttered a pro-Israeli word, both I and they would be
the poorer.
If we are ever going to create a better world (which we all
profess to be trying to do), we are going to have to learn
to be tolerant of, at the very least, those who share
our basic values but may differ with us on certain points
of doctrine. Doctrinal purity has never worked, or been
achieved, in human history, and I'm not sure it's even
desirable. What IS desirable is listening to one another
with respect, and utilizing the power of communication to
educate. |
|
