[matilda] Re: Defining Matilda

[gavin at cyber-rights.net]

"I fear that one of the main
reasons why some people might want to ratify the PGA halmarks at 
this
stage is so that they can fly the black flag from the top of the
building."

">Yeah, well why not, we could also have a red flag, a green
>flag, a rainbow flag, a white flag with a dove on it and a
>skull and cross bones also... ;-)"

I think there's a bit of a misapprehension about the PGA hallmarks 
here...they're not the doctrine of some political sect, so much as 
they're quite like what MATILDA already is, only MORE SO!...they 
were argued out by people from all over the world, from a huge 
variety of political and social backgrounds, much wider than we 
have here - in order to work out just what their common ground was 
in fighting for global justice in the anti-globalisation movement. 
So, the hallmarks ARE a black flag, AND a green flag, AND a pink 
one, and a flag with stars...that's why they're relevant to us. But 
they're not JUST a black flag, because that would be pretty 
limiting and unrepresentative.

And - while we're on that - I think it'd be a nice proposal, and a 
fun art project, to ACTUALLY have all those flags on the roof, to 
remind ourselves what we're about, and show other people in a 
friendly, fun way.

xxx



On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 18:08:43 -0700 Chris <chris at aktivix.org> wrote:
>Hi
>
>On Tue 20-Sep-2005 at 05:13:55PM -0700,
>cuthbert at riseup.net wrote:
>> I dont want to sound too hedonistic about all this
>> 'deciding our future' stuff but from what i gather this
>> whole 'defining matilda' debate came about because of
>> opposition to parties and what types of events we should
>> have. 
>
>Ah, I didn't realise that, I missed that discussion...
>
>But the PGA Hallmarks have been on the agenda for 3
>months...
>
>> From what i gather this opinion is based on the idea
>> that if we have too many parties then that will suck
>> energy out of all the other stuff that is happening in
>> the building.  My personal opinion is that parties are
>> good because the money raised can pay for electricity
>> bills, broadband and the infrastructure of the builing.
>> The only other thing in the building that has come close
>> to raising that kind of money is the cafe and that isnt
>> exactly a 100% political activity.
>
>Yes, I tend to agree...
>
>> I dont see what the problem with having lots of gigs or
>> parties is, providing it is cleaned up afterwards and
>> there is a sensible maxmimum (e.g. 2 per month).  Not
>> everyone has to be involved or even go to a party at
>> matilda and if there is trouble from the authorities,
>> neighbours or the party collective isnt fulfilling its
>> responsibilities then we stop having them.  It is a case
>> of learning self control.
>
>Sure...
>
>> What i don't like about this debate is the way defining
>> matilda has been used to restrict, exclude or devalue
>> other people's activities, someone said to me that "i
>> dont mind parties as long as they are for a political
>> cause".  Does this extend itself to other activities in
>> matilda e.g. the art space.  Currently a banner is being
>> made for pitsmoor against the war but it is inevitable
>> that non-political banners and backdrops will be made.
>> I would love there to be a hedonistic fundraiser for the
>> art space, maybe then we can fix the windows and
>> lighting.
>
>I doubt anyone would object to having a party for the art
>space...
>
>> Not everything, or everyone fits into nice boxes marked
>> "anarchist" or "anti-capitalist".  
>
>Sure...
>
>> The first alot of people will have heard about the PGA
>> hallmarks will have been in a matilda meeting
>
>Yeah, perhaps, but this shouldn't matter, also many people
>will have heard of them from when they were raised in the
>SSF and the G8 group...
>
>> I would argue that most people at matilda do not belong
>> to a political group that is part of the PGA 
>
>Well I don't think anyone does really... 
>
>What is being suggested is adopting the PGA Hallmarks like
>disent did...
>
>Nobody is suggesting that we should join the PGA and in
>any case we can't:
>
>  "PGA is not an organisation and has no members."
>
>  
>http://www.nadir.org/nadir/initiativ/agp/gender/desire/nutshell.htm

>
>
>> so in this case i do not believe that the PGA halmarks
>> adequetly represents the vast melee of social groupings
>> we come from, ideas we have or our visions of the
>> future.
>
>But nobody is saying that *all* we need is the PGA
>Hallmarks... Of course we need a texts that do describe
>what we are for and our vision, texts like the ones that
>Helen and Ben wrote:
>
>  https://wiki.sheffieldsocialforum.org.uk/Matilda_vision
>  https://wiki.sheffieldsocialforum.org.uk/Matilda_introduction
>
>But I also don't see why the PGA Hallmarks can't be an
>appendix to our own vision...
>
>> I dont think that a stark choice has to be made about
>> the definitive future of the building.  In my opinion
>> our unique and numerous visions of what goes into
>> matilda can co-exsist.  I fear that one of the main
>> reasons why some people might want to ratify the PGA
>> halmarks at this stage is so that they can fly the black
>> flag from the top of the building.  If that is the case
>> then why not add to the vast melee of banners and flags
>> already hanging from the building
>

>
>> however if this is a debate about the content and use of
>> matilda why dont we talk specificly about what types of
>> stuff we want to see more of and make it happen.
>
>Well why can't we do both...?
>
>Chris
>
>-- 
>Aktivix -- Free Software for a Free World
>_______________________________________________
>matilda mailing list
>matilda at lists.aktivix.org
>http://lists.aktivix.org/mailman/listinfo/matilda



Get your free encrypted email at http://www.cyber-rights.net