For markers: How to use this blog/pile of paper

I use my blog to store documentation of my work, information about exhibitions I’m involved in, my writing on art and non-art subjects and quotes or images I find relevant to what I’m doing. Posts are separated into categories Work, Exhibition, Quote and Other, and this printout is organised into these sections. Blogs present the most recent information first, so please be aware that posts are in reverse date order.

I find the blog useful, it allows me to always have access to the information I store here (if I’m near a computer) and gives me a place I can direct people to to showcase the various things I do and some very important context for my work. It is also useful for other people to have access to the things I post such as exhibition information and installation shots.

I try also to engage with the materiality of the blog and the political implications of blogging, with my writings and my interactions with the infamous ‘blogosphere‘.

Obviously, the online blog is far richer than this printout, with access to important external links, larger images (in colour), videos and comments, as well as a much prettier interface. If you have time please do visit http://johnsartblog.wordpress.com.

Palestine

I have lots to do at the moment so am putting it all off by writing emails of complaint to the BBC. First, one about their coverage of the 60th anniversary of the founding of the state of Israel and below, one about the coverage of the autonomy referendum in the Santa Cruz region of Bolivia. I was at the yet-to-be mentioned rally in Trafalgar Sq. and it re-affirmed to me the importance of countering the media’s Israeli bias. The Bolivia complaint is a bit self-censored, what I really wanted to say is “You’re all a bunch of fascist, pro-establishment, washington-consensus, anti-Chavez-conspiracy capitalist pig-dogs.” At least in the Palestine complaint I called them racists.

—-

Re: 1948: The State of Israel is founded

Dear Ms Boaden,

“Thousands of Palestinians had fled or had been driven out.”

This is a shocking and despicable statement. The writer or writers of this potted history of Israel (though how you can be narrow minded enough to begin a history or the modern sate of Israel in 1948, I do not know) must know full well that this type of misinformation verges on the racist lies that have made up the Zionist narrative of Israel’s history, and are an affront to the honest and balanced journalism that the BBC should be delivering.

The ethnic cleansing of Palestine that was a requirement for the founding of the State of Israel caused 750 000 people to be displaced, 400 000 before Israel declared its foundation, 95% of whom left because of violence or violent intimidation. (Kapeliouk, Amnon (1987): New Light on the Israeli-Arab Conflict and the Refugee Problem and Its Origins, p.21. Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 16, No. 3. (Spring, 1987). Over 400 villages (Abu Sitta, Salman (2001): From Refugees to Citizens at Home. London: Palestine Land Society and Palestinian Return Centre) and possibly 70 000 homes were destroyed. (Saleh, Abdul Jawad and Walid Mustafa (1987): Palestine: The Collective Destruction of Palestinian Villages and Zionist Colonisation 1882-1982. London: Jerusalem Centre for Development Studies)

But of course you know all this. Anyone writing a history of Israel will know this. Consider the following statement:

“Palestinians, in turn, designate the 15 May as the Day of al-Nakba, “the catastrophe”, and they use it to commemorate the dispossession of hundreds of thousands of their people who were made homeless as Israel was born.”

This is a quote from, of course, the BBC News online, Tuesday, 15 May, 2001

“Thousands of Palestinians had fled or had been driven out.” 750 000 is “thousands”, 6.5 billion is “thousands”. To say “thousands” is to misinform your readers. To say “thousands” is to deny the history of the Palestinian people.

The catastrophe befell the Palestinian people, which was commemorated by “thousands” (perhaps five thousand) rallying today in central London, was the dispossession and massacres, the theft and destruction of homes, lands, belongings, livelihoods and lives, not “the declaration” as your article states, in a faint nod to balance.

Why, on the 60th anniversary of the founding of the state of Israel, does the BBC now choose to blatantly ignore the crimes committed by Zionism in Israel’s name?

The article doesn’t even mention Zionism. To say 1948 was “the culmination of nearly 2,000 years of hopes by Jewish people that they would one day return to the land from which the Romans expelled them” is surely a slur on the Jewish people, branding them all with Zionism’s racist ideology. As a statement of fact it is dubious, but it is an important part of the Zionist narrative, which this article seems content to present as fact.

History is history, but racist lies and misinformation and killing people today, killing Palestinian and killing Israelis. Killing fathers in Qassam rockets attacks and killing mothers in childbirth. Peace is not possible without justice, justice is not possible without truth. The BBC must be impartial, but this is only possible by a singular commitment to the truth. Lies, half-truths and misinformation are acts of violence, most of all against your readers.

Yours,

John Hill

Bolivia

Re: Bolivia vote shows depth of divisions

Dear Ms Boaden,

This story is now a few days old, but after re-reading it I felt the need to complain.

This story is very misleading, and shows heavy bias in favour of the Santa Cruz autonomy movement.

Please consider the following section:

“Conscious that the autonomy debate is proving deeply divisive, Mr Morales has called for dialogue even though he declared the vote to be illegal after knowing the results.”

This paragraph contains two untruths. 1, Evo Morales and the government has always stated the the vote would be illegal, before and after the vote. 2, No one knows the results, otherwise you would have published them.

Now take this quote from the corresponding story on the Al Jazeera English website:
“Local authorities say 86 per cent of voters backed autonomy, an unsurprising figure since the president, Evo Morales, had declared the referendum “illegal” and urged citizens not to vote so as to deny it legitimacy.”

This gives a far clearer, truer, representation of the situation.

Your next paragraph states:
“The Organisation of American States and the Catholic Church also called unsuccessfully for dialogue in recent weeks.”

This is also misleading, a half truth.

In his very balanced article for openDemocracy John Crabtree states:
“OAS members have pledged their support to the democratically-elected government of Bolivia. They have noted the government’s willingness to negotiate and how this contrasts with the obduracy of the prefect and the president of the Comité Pro-Santa Cruz [Branko Marinkovic].”

If this is true, then your qualifying quote from Branko Marinkovic:
“We have always been willing to hold dialogue and we will always push for a national pact,” is untrue. Yet his assertions are uncontested presented as fact by your article.

Further to this, your article contains quotes from the leader of Santa Cruz’s pro-autonomy movement, and the leader of the national opposition, but has no place for a quote from president Morales.

Al Jazeera’s quote from Morales shows clearly the Government’s position and sheds greater light on the situation:
“”The referendum failed completely,” he said in a nationally televised address. But he ended his remarks with an invitation for more talks with autonomy leaders. “Let’s work together tomorrow for a true autonomy,” he added. “For the people, and not just certain groups – an autonomy that permits the people to decide their destiny.”

Your article contains instead an almost irrelevant, decontextualised semi-quote from Venezuelan President Chavez. Why?

I hope you will agree that this article is completely unbefitting of an impartial news organisation and will endeavour to offer more complete, balanced reportage on this story as it continues through the coming weeks and months,

Yours,

John Hill

Discussion

There is a fairly interesting discussion about all manner of things going on in the comments to my 2 month old post 500 words of intenet pseudo-politics. Why not come on over and consume some participation?