Who is running the board? What is the plan?

I am getting email notifications for every new user sign up, with a link to approve their membership. Some of them get approved when I click on the link, some have already been deleted. Do we have a procedure or protocol?

Maybe a group here is making decisions, and I just haven't been invited to the party. That is fine, but it would be nice to know what is going on.

Who is running the board? What is the plan?

I am getting email notifications for every new user sign up, with a link to approve their membership. Some of them get approved when I click on the link, some have already been deleted. Do we have a procedure or protocol?

Maybe a group here is making decisions, and I just haven't been invited to the party. That is fine, but it would be nice to know what is going on.
Those are automated spam signups, Mike. I try to delete them when they appear. I've mailed Muga about installing a fix to prevent automated signups from succeeding.

You can (fairly) easily detect autospamming signups by looking at the fact that they nearly all have a web site they're promoting, and the names and alleged countries and languages don't match up. The only legitimate signup since the first flurry has been Megan's.

Who is running the board? What is the plan?

I am getting email notifications for every new user sign up, with a link to approve their membership. Some of them get approved when I click on the link, some have already been deleted. Do we have a procedure or protocol?

Maybe a group here is making decisions, and I just haven't been invited to the party. That is fine, but it would be nice to know what is going on.

i don't think there is a group making any decisions.

I do think you should repost your first two questions publicly...

i don't think there is a group making any decisions.

Who is?


I do think you should repost your first two questions publicly...

Not sure what is "public" and what isn't anymore. Apparently different people are seeing different things.

I wonder if we could get some definitions - I understand that "real" members have different permissions that others. What is the definition of "real" members.

Also, I understand that certain forums are reserved for "legitimate" purposes, and other posts go into the trash where they will be available to certain members, and from which they will disappear after a certain period of time. What is the definition of "legitimate" and who is making the decisions about that?

Again, I don't know who these questions should be addressed to, but I am certain that they are worthy and important questions.

i don't think there is a group making any decisions.

Who is?.

Well, i can sya I personally have very much begged off on that account.



I do think you should repost your first two questions publicly...

Not sure what is "public" and what isn't anymore. Apparently different people are seeing different things.

I wonder if we could get some definitions - I understand that "real" members have different permissions that others. What is the definition of "real" members.

Also, I understand that certain forums are reserved for "legitimate" purposes, and other posts go into the trash where they will be available to certain members, and from which they will disappear after a certain period of time. What is the definition of "legitimate" and who is making the decisions about that?

Again, I don't know who these questions should be addressed to, but I am certain that they are worthy and important questions.

Frankly,. if I had had my druthers, I woulda closed this forum's 'private' pages and was dismayed to see Mairead utilize them again.

But then, owing to my thoughts that the arguments vis a vis newswolf were not acceptable to put out there to anyone, and owing to the idea that deleting others' perspectives was antithetical to -my- concept of open discussion, I chose an uncomfortable middle way. Suffice to say, I do not feel that I am in control, nor do I wish to be. And, absolutely, I disagree with the removal of another's content, an absolutist and totalitarian perspective if ever there was one.


fixed your quotes, there PPLE - Mike


you coulda helped out on the typos! :P

Thanks for that PPLE.

So apparently there is no one at the helm.

I was also sorry to see "quiet corner"...

To quote PPLE/IP/Rusty:

"Just sayin'..."

.

I was also sorry to see "quiet corner"...

Not sure what the point of that forum was. Not sure who has access to what, nor who can see what.

People are left hanging, not sure what their status is. Megan for example. Other members report that they don't see the same forums that I see, and who knows, maybe I can't see some?

If I remember, each member is given specific permission to each forum for viewing, posting, starting threads - can't remember exactly, but there is a permissions grid and it is user specific if I remember, cross referenced to each forum and with a bank of options that represent different levels of permissions.

I have been staying clear of admin for quite a while and intend to until we get some clarity as to what we are doing.

I thought I made it clear, but apparently not. So, let me try again.

Every registered member has been made a member of the "insider" group (we can re-name it if that word has bad connotations for anyone). Every new legitimate member (I don't count the spamming signups) will immediately be made a member of that group. That group has mod access to ALL the fora. Which means that EVERY registered member has mod access to ALL the fora. There is NO forum that is visible to fewer than all registered member. There should be NO legitimate member who has less than mod-level access to any of the fora. EVERY legitimate member of the community can ALWAYS see and moderate ALL the fora.

If that's not the case, then someone needs to give me chapter and verse so I can fix it.

Is there anything about the issue of access that remains unclear?


Apropos the division into public and non-public areas, I think that it makes good sense to have both. That meets everyone's needs except those who like one but not the other and who feel uncomfortable with other people having the option of making a different choice.


Apropos my creating the 'trash' forum and moving part of a topic there, I'm happy to entertain the idea that I made a mistake. I've made quite a few mistakes over my 66+ years, being human and not someone who sits quietly with her hands folded.

So: let's have a little vote (for which I've created a poll). I derailed Mike's thread about "infiltrators". All but one response in the portion I hived off was either mine or a response to me. I moved them out of Mike's thread so that he could continue talking about his subject without my muddying the water. The alternative would have been for me to delete all my posts and let other people do whatever they thought best with theirs. Should I have deleted my posts rather than moving everything? If the consensus is yes, then I'll go delete my posts, and everyone else can replace theirs in to the original thread if they're so minded. After everyone has done whatever they want to do, I'll delete the trash forum. How about that? Let's not dilly-dally. I don't see any reason why we can't get this sorted by the end of the day today.

I was also sorry to see "quiet corner"...

Not sure what the point of that forum was. Not sure who has access to what, nor who can see what.

As I said, it was a way to open up the discussion while not deleting old content.

I had set it so that all members who originally had access to the old forum remained with access and that new ones would only see what I had moved to the public area.

People are left hanging, not sure what their status is. Megan for example. Other members report that they don't see the same forums that I see, and who knows, maybe I can't see some?

If I remember, each member is given specific permission to each forum for viewing, posting, starting threads - can't remember exactly, but there is a permissions grid and it is user specific if I remember, cross referenced to each forum and with a bank of options that represent different levels of permissions.

I have been staying clear of admin for quite a while and intend to until we get some clarity as to what we are doing.

Is your memory short? The idea as I recall you rather eloquently describing when pitching Anax to come over, was a ~ 'radical proposition, to run the board in the manner we advocate running society."

Of course that did not play out after we had our little spat over what I saw then as your authoritarianism, a perspective that remains unchanged concerning those matters discussed.

And so, if we are to get some clarity, we should then again take up that radical proposition. To do so would be to employ a participative, deliberative, democratic process. That is what we see in the societies we study and observe in the real world, most recently in the case of Ecuador where over 70 % have embraced the creation of a people's assembly that will trump congress and rewrite the constitution.

It is interesting to contemplate that the remaining 22% who voted 'No' were probably well versed in the issues that illuminated their decision at the polls. All the moreso against the back ground of reportage on NPR this morning that 31% of Americans cannot name the VP, up multiple points since 1988 when Quail, rather than the Shooter, was VP.

So here, as in the real world, we must overcome the cognitively lazy joys of being a sheep and we must also overcome out tendencies to play the shepherd role, and we must learn how to use the damn software...

That seems to me to be a pretty clear project, on I have - incredulous as it may seem to you - been patiently awaiting months now to pursue.

I rather doubt I'll see a direct taking up of this project by you. I rather doubt that was ever anything close to what you have in mind.

Incidentally, your level of suspicion and fear that there are mystery conversations going on behind you back in pms or the now posited hidden threads is really rather telling.

While I am loud, belligerent, given to misplaced anger, and otherwise just kinda a rude fucker, I think you have in the last months demonstrated the nexus of fear, ego, and authoritarianism that social science has described as causal in the malaise we know as 'conservatism.'

This is not to say I think you are one. I suppose, rather like Howard Roark, I can say I just don't think about you. Not that much. Certainly, not as much as I did. Instead, I am currently biting Anax's ankles.

I don't see that he, or anyone else, has shown much interest in doing admin work on this site. It is fine for some in the community, especially those who have the most to teach, to take a lesser role than others in admin. But we, and I mean WE, really do need to deal with the nuts and bolts of admin here so *I* can keep on learning a bunch of stuff.

If we want to vote in dictatorship and just be done with our admin worries, then let's get on with that.

Frankly, I think the project of creating an open project like this, transparent and run/owned/funded by its members will be at least as educational as the things I am reading and otherwise discussing. And I think it will be strong enough, like mentally and physically armed Cubanos, to ward off any infiltrator boogeymen, etc.

If we want to experience the vicissitudes of modeling the pie in the sky societies we dream of, then let's get on with that.

_________

On a lighter note and one that should be of great appreciation to those who've labored under my fractured typing, I upgraded my browser and it now spell checks for me! Lucky y'all! And, lucky me, it does not seem to have the character of the one Code Name D over at PI uses, periodically and hilariously ~correcting a typo with the intend of 'fecund' to 'fecal.'

So you can rest assured if you are reading -shit- it is probably all me! 8)

Is your memory short? The idea as I recall you rather eloquently describing when pitching Anax to come over, was a ~ 'radical proposition, to run the board in the manner we advocate running society."

Of course that did not play out after we had our little spat over what I saw then as your authoritarianism, a perspective that remains unchanged concerning those matters discussed.

Incidentally, your level of suspicion and fear that there are mystery conversations going on behind you back in pms or the now posited hidden threads is really rather telling.

While I am loud, belligerent, given to misplaced anger, and otherwise just kinda a rude fucker, I think you have in the last months demonstrated the nexus of fear, ego, and authoritarianism that social science has described as causal in the malaise we know as 'conservatism.'

I think I would prefer an honest and straightforward "fuck you" to this psychobabble and "social science" analysis and maligning of my character.

I back off from running the show, and you say that I am being authoritarian. Absolute confusion reigns here, so I ask what the Hell is going on and I have a "level of suspicion and fear" that is "telling" of something or the other.

Asking for some clarity when there is total confusion is not paranoia - or, the "nexus of fear, ego, and authoritarianism that social science has described as causal in the malaise we know as 'conservatism' as you would put it.

Having clear expectations and understanding as to who is responsible for what, and who is doing what, and how is not authoritarianism.

People do not do well in this environment, and you are abrogating your responsibility with this approach. You do in fact own the board, and you did in fact start the board. If you intend to throw people into a room and let them just have at it and see what happens that is not deliberative democracy, it is a set up for chaos.

When I offered a "radical proposition, to run the board in the manner we advocate running society" I had no idea that this would cause so much confusion. I was addressing the specific problem that we ran into elsewhere of arbitrary authority and the lack of power on the part of labor - the writers and contributors. I didn't know that we were heading off into a social science experiment - with the writers and contributors being the rats in the maze - or the online equivalent of an avant garde commune - with vague ideas as to who has the right vibes or who may be "demonstrating the nexus of fear, ego, and authoritarianism that social science has described as causal in the malaise we know as 'conservatism'" and therefore a fit target for abuse.

I personally have no interest in running the board - nor society - on principles of psychology or spirituality. I am not interested in reforming human nature, testing and prodding people to see if they are "right" in some or need improvement or correction, and I don't think politics is the appropriate arena for any of that. I am not interested in analyzing and evaluating people and I think that leads to cliques and power grabs and witch hunts dressed up in fancy scientific sounding words or given presumed legitimacy through the application of pseudo-religious tests. I saw this happen in communes and political groups often in the 60's.

Democracy does not mean the absence of structure and order, it means setting up mechanisms to prevent the exercise of arbitrary authority and to give the peasants - on a board that would be the writers and contributors - protections from abuse, a voice in the decisions, and power to implement those decisions.

Egalitarian democracy will not magically spring up when there are no rules, no structure, no one in charge of anything, no responsibilities - quite the opposite. People will take power, but it will not be clear who, when, where, or what is going on. It will be worse than a dictatorship, because at least with a dictatorship you know where you stand. We are left with trying to figure out who is and who isn't acting or speaking in the proper spirit or with the proper intentions. That breeds suspicion and confusion.

I think I would prefer an honest and straightforward "fuck you" to this psychobabble and "social science" analysis and maligning of my character.

If anything, your having escaped being a right winger despite the suspicious nature that marks some of your perspective is a complement to the totality that is you, really.

I back off from running the show, and you say that I am being authoritarian.

I said you were authoritarian because of what happened before you 'backed off' (i.e. when Muga & I changed the admin login), so this sentence makes no sense at all nor do the ones that consequentially follow.

Further, I also apologized to you in another thread for appending to you actions we know now came from Mairead and not you, so I think you should button up your bruised ego and put it away for a while.

I certainly would have no compunction about telling you to get fucked if I thought that was what I wanted to say. It is not, despite how you have taken it and run with it and your subsequent fabrications around my comment.

And, because this is precisely the kind of non-productive conversation I prefer to eschew, please do take the last word on this. Ideally, you'll see fit to discuss some of the structures and responsibilities that indeed do need to be built just as soon as you are through hacking up all those straw men you just piled up...

Cheers,

My premises subvert discussion? WTF? I am not subverting anything. Enough with the insinuations, and then charges of being suspicious when I object to them.

If I did something that you obejct to - subverted in this case - then spell it out. If you disagree with what I said, then disagree and make your case.


I said you were authoritarian because of what happened before you 'backed off' (i.e. when Muga & I changed the admin login), so this sentence makes no sense at all nor do the ones that consequentially follow.

If I actually did something that you objected to, I could respond. “Being” authoritarian is not something I can correct or comment on.


Further, I also apologized to you in another thread for appending to you actions we know now came from Mairead and not you, so I think you should button up your bruised ego and put it away for a while.

If you did that it went over my head, so I don't think I have a bruised ego over that. How about we just never mind about speculation as to what is going on inside my head?


I certainly would have no compunction about telling you to get fucked if I thought that was what I wanted to say. It is not, despite how you have taken it and run with it and your subsequent fabrications around my comment.

Whatever.


And, because this is precisely the kind of non-productive conversation I prefer to eschew, please do take the last word on this. Ideally, you'll see fit to discuss some of the structures and responsibilities that indeed do need to be built just as soon as you are through hacking up all those straw men you just piled up...

This is hilarious. I start a thread, someone drives it a different direction, and then complains about the way it is going.

I agree that is in non-productive to speculate about someone's secret agenda or state of mind, and then complain when they seem suspicious or paranoid. LOL.

How about addressing the bulk of my post, which was very detailed and germane to the topic at hand?

Every registered member has been made a member of the "insider" group (we can re-name it if that word has bad connotations for anyone). Every new legitimate member (I don't count the spamming signups) will immediately be made a member of that group. That group has mod access to ALL the fora. Which means that EVERY registered member has mod access to ALL the fora. There is NO forum that is visible to fewer than all registered member. There should be NO legitimate member who has less than mod-level access to any of the fora. EVERY legitimate member of the community can ALWAYS see and moderate ALL the fora.

Just to be clear with what my personal intent had been, tho I dunno if it actually was ever accomplished, I had conceived of the idea that those who could originally see the private forums would, and those who came along later would see only the public ones.

Frankly I never gave a thought to you or anyone else actually starting to use them again... thus, I never gave a thought to locking them to further content additions. Though that would be bossy and all, I kinda wish I had in retrospect.

Frankly I think it is a fuckup to be posting in an area that is not transparent, even to public passersby and look forward to sometime when you and mike in particular decide you are ready to Seriously take on the topic of running this board or instead decide to instead be watchers on the sideline. As it is, neither of you is doing either thing, and it is disruptive.

As it is, neither of you is doing either thing, and it is disruptive.

WTF? Rusty, how can NOT doing something be disruptive? If you want someone to do something, ask them.


(I) look forward to sometime when you and mike in particular decide you are ready to Seriously take on the topic of running this board or instead decide to instead be watchers on the sideline.

You haven't communicated that to me. In fact, you stopped communicating with me at all well over a month ago after weeks of writing me every day.

You set this board up. You invited me here. You asked me to admin this board, and I did. Then everything changed. You started expressing extreme dissatisfaction with me, and you and Mugga made a number of changes to the board and you declared the direction and purpose of the board as a fait accompli. At the same time, you abruptly stopped communicating with me. I backed off, of course. It is your board. I haven't done any admin work since then, and you haven't even asked me about that. I did not interfere, impede, disrupt, or subvert your management of the board.

Now you say I am "authoritarian" and "subverting" and "disruptive" and "suspicious?"

Every registered member has been made a member of the "insider" group (we can re-name it if that word has bad connotations for anyone). Every new legitimate member (I don't count the spamming signups) will immediately be made a member of that group. That group has mod access to ALL the fora. Which means that EVERY registered member has mod access to ALL the fora. There is NO forum that is visible to fewer than all registered member. There should be NO legitimate member who has less than mod-level access to any of the fora. EVERY legitimate member of the community can ALWAYS see and moderate ALL the fora.

Just to be clear with what my personal intent had been, tho I dunno if it actually was ever accomplished, I had conceived of the idea that those who could originally see the private forums would, and those who came along later would see only the public ones.

Frankly I never gave a thought to you or anyone else actually starting to use them again... thus, I never gave a thought to locking them to further content additions. Though that would be bossy and all, I kinda wish I had in retrospect.

Frankly I think it is a fuckup to be posting in an area that is not transparent, even to public passersby and look forward to sometime when you and mike in particular decide you are ready to Seriously take on the topic of running this board or instead decide to instead be watchers on the sideline. As it is, neither of you is doing either thing, and it is disruptive.

From my political perspective, Rusty, more choices is always better. I feel completely confident that you cannot make a credible case for restricting the number of choices available to fully-functioning adult humans. I'd be quite interested to watch you try, but I don't believe for a moment that you or anyone can do it.

I'm doing as much "running the board" as I think the place needs, which isn't much. I note that you are one of only 2 members who has responded, so far, to my little survey about purging the trash forum. And even you equivocated. That suggests to me that nobody really cares. They might be gratified to have the use of it as a club to beat me up when they need exercise, but they don't really care what happens to it. What does that tell YOU?

Nevertheless, you are certainly entitled to feel however you feel, and I'll leave whenever you tell me I've worn out my welcome. If you're only saying this stuff for the sake of getting some emotional exercise and reducing your spleen pressure, that's fine too.


(oh, and apropos your idea that later members would only see the public fora? That's something to which Raph strongly objected, and I think with reason--as I suspect you'll agree if you think about it for a moment. We can much more easily make a case for making full access a member-only douceur than we can for having what amounts to 2 classes of member.)

and you declared the direction and purpose of the board as a fait accompli.

That's utter bullshit.

Rather, you have scrupulously avoided talking about anything productive in the running of the board. That was true before we made the additional content site and it remains true today.

Put your money where your mouth is and go respond to the public thread I kicked up.

Every registered member has been made a member of the "insider" group (we can re-name it if that word has bad connotations for anyone). Every new legitimate member (I don't count the spamming signups) will immediately be made a member of that group. That group has mod access to ALL the fora. Which means that EVERY registered member has mod access to ALL the fora. There is NO forum that is visible to fewer than all registered member. There should be NO legitimate member who has less than mod-level access to any of the fora. EVERY legitimate member of the community can ALWAYS see and moderate ALL the fora.

Just to be clear with what my personal intent had been, tho I dunno if it actually was ever accomplished, I had conceived of the idea that those who could originally see the private forums would, and those who came along later would see only the public ones.

Frankly I never gave a thought to you or anyone else actually starting to use them again... thus, I never gave a thought to locking them to further content additions. Though that would be bossy and all, I kinda wish I had in retrospect.

Frankly I think it is a fuckup to be posting in an area that is not transparent, even to public passersby and look forward to sometime when you and mike in particular decide you are ready to Seriously take on the topic of running this board or instead decide to instead be watchers on the sideline. As it is, neither of you is doing either thing, and it is disruptive.

From my political perspective, Rusty, more choices is always better. I feel completely confident that you cannot make a credible case for restricting the number of choices available to fully-functioning adult humans. I'd be quite interested to watch you try, but I don't believe for a moment that you or anyone can do it.

I'm doing as much "running the board" as I think the place needs, which isn't much. I note that you are one of only 2 members who has responded, so far, to my little survey about purging the trash forum. And even you equivocated. That suggests to me that nobody really cares. They might be gratified to have the use of it as a club to beat me up when they need exercise, but they don't really care what happens to it. What does that tell YOU?

Nevertheless, you are certainly entitled to feel however you feel, and I'll leave whenever you tell me I've worn out my welcome. If you're only saying this stuff for the sake of getting some emotional exercise and reducing your spleen pressure, that's fine too.


(oh, and apropos your idea that later members would only see the public fora? That's something to which Raph strongly objected, and I think with reason--as I suspect you'll agree if you think about it for a moment. We can much more easily make a case for making full access a member-only douceur than we can for having what amounts to 2 classes of member.)

Then let's talk about it. I tried many times to bring the matter up. The one cogent and hopeful and all-too brief response I got was from Blindpig. I bumped that thread up earlier in hopes of replacing this discussion with one a little more topically useful than all the handwringing, supposing, and Fussing that has instead taken place here in private-land.

With regard to your concern for individual choice, I reject the premise.

That's utter bullshit.

Look, I may well have been wrong in my guesses as to what you were up to, but that doesn't make them bullshit. When you don't communicate with people, they have no choice but to make their best guess. It was not at all clear to me what you wanted and there was no basis upon which to make decisions. Since NOT doing anything was least likely to do harm, I chose that.


Rather, you have scrupulously avoided talking about anything productive in the running of the board. That was true before we made the additional content site and it remains true today.

I am not obligated to figure out how to run the board, nor responsible for it, and I haven't been asked to do that. I have offered my suggestions as the subject has come up. That has led to endless fighting. So which is it? Give my opinions and piss you off, or keep silent and be accused of avoiding the subject? Geez.

I have not talked about running the board out of consideration for you and because it is extremely unpleasant.

That's utter bullshit.

Look, I may well have been wrong in my guesses as to what you were up to, but that doesn't make them bullshit. When you don't communicate with people, they have no choice but to make their best guess. It was not at all clear to me what you wanted and there was no basis upon which to make decisions. Since NOT doing anything was least likely to do harm, I chose that.



and you declared the direction and purpose of the board as a fait accompli.

That's still utter bullshit, but I will give credit where it is due. That was a deft, if wholly insufficient, deflection you just made



Rather, you have scrupulously avoided talking about anything productive in the running of the board. That was true before we made the additional content site and it remains true today.

I am not obligated to figure out how to run the board, nor responsible for it, and I haven't been asked to do that. I have offered my suggestions as the subject has come up. That has led to endless fighting. So which is it? Give my opinions and piss you off, or keep silent and be accused of avoiding the subject? Geez.

I have not talked about running the board out of consideration for you and because it is extremely unpleasant.

No, you just have not talked about it substantively at all.

Nor do you want to or you would take me up on the public discussion on the thread I kicked up earlier.

I am through with this chat in private land. Have fun with it and the kinda 'discussion' that rightly is right at home here...

If you ever get ready to participate in discussing the structure of the board and the drupal page to drive the production of useful living content and productive discussion leading to and about it, I'll be happy to have the conversation...

My God what the hell is this.

Mike, I think Rusty is trying to break up with you..

My God what the hell is this.

Mike, I think Rusty is trying to break up with you..

It is very bizarre and I have no idea. But supposedly I am just imagining that anything is going on. I guess I am slow to take a hint or a glutton for punishment LOL.

We used to call this "gaslighting" - from the 1944 film "Gaslight (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0036855/)" - but younger people don't get the reference. Maybe "snitch jacketing" works better - everything that entails: the reality that it happens, the fear of it happening, the unwillingness to discuss it, the confusion and betrayal and counter-betrayal.

Looking for a link to the term "snitch jacket" I accidentally stumbled out of the world of white intellectuals discussing cerebral matters, and back into the real world, the world that most people live in, the world of heart as well as head, the world where people are tolerant of the nuances and complexity of human life and are not obsessed with rushing to a conclusion and moving on before they feel anything, and I was reminded about why any of this even matters.

Reading real people talking like they were real people - honest, straight talking, letting the discussion and the emotions flow - was like sinking into a warm bath after a long day racing around in a hot gritty noisy city.

Matricide at Pine Ridge: “Anna Mae stood up to men in the AIM leadership who couldn’t handle it, and so they ordered her death.” (http://womensspace.wordpress.com/2006/10/19/matricide-at-pine-ridge-anna-mae-stood-up-to-men-in-the-aim-leadership-who-couldnt-handle-it-and-so-they-ordered-her-death/)


AIM had been targeted by the U.S. government for aggressive, relentless, counter-intelligence activity during the ’70s COINTELPRO era. The goal was to destroy AIM, or at the very least, to render it ineffective. Infiltrators attempted to turn group members against each other, promoted suspicion and disinformation, and targeted visible leaders like Anna Mae in various ways. Anna Mae was the victim of a “bad jacket” or “snitch jacket” operation; FBI operatives started rumors that she was a police informant and security risk to discredit her, to neutralize her effectiveness and influence, to keep the attention off of those who were the actual infiltrators and snitches, and in hopes that she would be eliminated, either via being ousted or by more drastic means, by members of AIM.

The reponses to this post are meaningful and true in a way that we never see on the political sites. Then I came across this exchange that described exactly what I had been feeling as I read through the posts:


# Pony Says:
October 20th, 2006 at 3:55 pm

Don’t idolize native culture. Their history is of a very misogynistic and racist culture. Native men traded women as goods, abandoned wives they didn’t like, had multiple wives, took slaves from other native tribes… The men who killed Anna Mae were not outstanding in any way.

And this response:


# apissedoffojibway Says:
November 27th, 2006 at 1:53 am

pony i take it you most be white let correct there were women leaders in native culture.

im sick of white people making excuses for taking our land calling us savages and primative. when you people were far more savage then us taking over country’s raping there women and and enslaving them you europeans not only took blacks as slaves you took east asians aka the real indians and native americans.and why because you people were too fat and lazy to work yourself.

even today native people are treated badly especially by the police have you white bastards ever been stopped by the cops for walking. i have on many occasions for simply going to the store late at night.

and another thing when a white kid dies from gang violence everone makes a big deal about it but native kids die from it all the time and no one cares. did you see any white person speak out when a young native matthew dumas was shot and killed by police.

yes matthew was being persued by the cops but the only weapon he had with him was a srewdriver and was surrounded a ton of cops and they could have taken him down without shooting him.

And finally this:


womensspace Says:
November 27th, 2006 at 3:29 am

I hate police brutality like no other, I hate the way young men and women of color are harrassed, beaten, jailed and murdered for being young men and women of color (and, for that matter, old men and women of color.)I have spent a lot of time and energy over the past 15 years, especially, fighting for my own adult kids who have experienced police brutality because of their race, fighting for their friends of color, fighting for my own women friends and relatives of color.

I don’t, again, fault you for your anger. I am intimately acquainted with anger. I hope you will take a minute, though, to consider who you are engaging here. We are radical feminist women here, of all races and ethnicities, some of us old, some young, lesbians, disabled, poor, survivors of rape, incest, and battering at the hands of men, including men of color. Most of our women ancestors lived as indentured servants and slaves to men including in this country, the so called “land of the free.” It wasn’t the land of the free for us. We were brought here against our will, taken from our womenfolk in our homelands, we could not vote, be educated, be gainfully employed, we could not own property, land or bank accounts, could not sign contracts, could not serve on juries or run for office, we could not divorce, but if we left husbands, we left with the clothes on our backs, if that, and without rights to children or property. We could be legally beaten and raped by our “husbands” until 50 years ago or less than that in some states– we had no recourse. Most of us *have* been beaten and raped — by husbands, by fathers, relatives, strangers. We didn’t create this horrifying world we all must now live in and with, anymore than you did. We were chattel, property, owned by men, treated like animals, and that includes those of us who are white.

So be careful where you point that thing. If you want to point it somewhere, I suggest you go over to Alas,a blog and point it at all the conservative white men and liberal white men, so-called, there, some of whom fancy themselves to be oh-so-progressive, but who benefit, benefit, benefit from a system which relentlessly targets and violates people like you, and people like those of us here. I suggest you take it over to Daily Kos or to Hugo’s blog or to any of the many sites run by white men who preen and posture as though they have some sort of clue, but who will sell us out, “us” meaning the women here, and you, too, the first chance they get, the first benjamin someone offers to some of them.

It is amazing to watch the very painful emotions being explored and spoken about there, with all of the possibilities for misunderstanding, yet they courageously wade through with grace and tact. What a contrast to what we think of as discussion - where it is taboo to reveal yourself at all, where all emotions and motivations are denied, analyzed and invalidated, where anyone pointing out dangers is "paranoid" and where the goal is to embalm everything and take the life out of it and there is great impatience with anyone dragging their feet in any way.

Then, I came across this:


Q. In December of 1975 were you personally in contact with or receiving information from any known operative of the FBI within the American Indian Movement?

A. No, sir.

Q. Do you know what COINTELPRO is, sir?

A. I have heard the term.

Q. Did you receive any special training while were you a Special Agent with the FBI?

A. Special training in what?

Q. COINTELPRO?

A. No, sir.

Q. Did you ever take active efforts to snitch jacket a person?

A. To do what?

Q. Snitch jacket a person?

A. I don't know how you are using that term, sir.

Q. Did you ever take active efforts to start rumors that people who were not informants were informants?

A. Absolutely not, no.

Q. Were you ever trained in any way to have informants or operatives say that people who weren't really informants were informants to create dissension within the American Indian Movement?

A. As far as I know that wasn't a technique that was used.

Q. Did you ever do that?

A. No, sir.

Q. Now you knew that Ms. Aquash was approached by the FBI and they wanted her to be an informant, did you not know that, sir?

A. No, sir, I did not.

Q. You were not involved in that at all?

A. No, sir, I was not.

Q. Did you have a partner in the FBI?

A. We would partner up from time-to-time. We would ride with various individuals, but to have an assigned partner at that time, no.

Q. Was David Price a person you would ride with from time-to-time?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. He is also an FBI agent?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Were you ever present when he attempted to have Ms. Aquash become an informant?

A. No, sir, I was not.

Q. Were you ever instructed by him to try to recruit Ms. Pictou-Aquash to be an informant?

A. No, sir, I was not.

Q. Did you ever take part in steps to damage the reputation of people who refused to become informants?

A. No, sir. I mean that wasn't a part of what we did.

Q. So back in 1975, as far as you know, there was no effort by the Federal Bureau of Investigation to plant rumors and create dissension within the American Indian Movement, is that your testimony?

A. I never did that, and I don't know of anyone else that was doing that.

excerpts from Testimony of William Wood (http://www.jfamr.org/doc/wood.html) in the Trial of Arlo Looking Cloud February, 2004

To learn more about Anna Mae Pictou go to Indigenous Women for Justice (http://indigenouswomenforjustice.org/)

We are not, so far as we know, in the sort of danger that Anna Mae Pictou was in, and we may not actually be infiltrated by agents who are trying to snitch jacket us. Yet there can be no doubt that the COINTELPRO activities that we do know about are not an aberration, not an isolated anomaly, but rather spring from thought and behavior patterns that are deeply interwoven with the preservation and protection of power and privilege.

We ape the thought patterns and behavior of the ruling class and its agents, refuse to look at that, deny that there are any real consequences anywhere for real people. We bury it all in “on the other hands” and dry and bloodless intellectualization and theorizing. Who do we most resemble among the characters I quoted above?

“No sir I was not aware of anything like that. No I have never heard of anything like that.”

No. Not happening. Doesn't exist.

The agents get paid to do that stuff - many in the dominant community think and act the same way by habit, automatically emulating the "winners" in the society - those with power. At some point, somehwre far away from our expereince and reality, power is not "controlling the media" or "limiting our choices" or whatever else it is that the upscale activists squeal about, it is raw and brutal and very real.

OK, I thought that some might appreciate a short trip to the land of the human beings, now it is time to get back to the real world. We don't have any time to waste. Let's get those theories for the perfect world hammered out, and anyone who won't get on the program we can psychoanalyze, bury in endless distracting intellectual arguments, or raise suspicion that they somehow a traitor to the cause. After all, the likelihood of any white intellectual men being snitch jacketed, betrayed, raped, beaten or murdered - no matter how “radical” they fancy themselves to be – is relatively small. So we can play the game the same way that the agents of the ruling class do with each other without worrying about any real personal consequences.

We hope.


on edit - lots of format issues