File spoon-archives/anarchy-list.archive/anarchy-list_2000/anarchy-list.0008, message 252


Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 15:12:05 -0400
From: mat catastrophe <tmpeery-AT-sdf.lonestar.org>
Subject: Re: Anarcho domains?


Larry Bekich wrote:

> on 8/22/00 11:14 AM, mat catastrophe wrote:
>
> > Oh, and besides, most internet users (in my experience) aren't the type to
> > randomly type in phrases, and the appropriate TLD and hit enter. They use
> > search
> > engines, and that's where the info needs to go.
>
> But if these searches hit on sites with what appear to be activist-oriented
> domain names...and they turn out to be commercial, it just worsens the
> signal-to-noise ratio, no?
>

Well, again that's why the maintainers of sites need to do with regard to the search
engines. Carefully constructed metatags will help a great deal. And registering with
large numbers of sites is a plus (there are literally hundreds of little search
engines located here and there - do a search for "link submission services" and see
how many of those you find).


> What bothers me about all these sites is that they are cheapening and
> degrading the power of effective, activist terminology through association
> with corporate or commercial messages.  Nothing new in all that of course.
>
> What next?  Nike using a raised-fist logo to signify independence and power?
> i.e. a deliberately vague notion of "being your own person."  Or
> bastardization of the Circle-A by linking it with the word "Awesome?"  Could
> happen.
>

Well, to some degree, alot of leftist ideology has already been co-opted into pop
culture. Che Guevara is on t-shirts, the Taco Bell "Revolutionary Taco" campaign
flew a rather communist looking flag, etc, etc.
Now, *anarchist* ideals are, I would think, a little harder to co-opt. For one
thing, they are usually a little less clean and pretty (I mean, the red and black
flag is not as visually stunning and pleasing as the red/olive green/gold communist
stuff). And the Circle-A has already been sold out as a sign that the kids aren't
alright.

By your logic, then, if they shouldn't be allowed to grab our symbols, should we
grab theirs? Do we look silly taking Nike's Swoosh(tm :-) and adding the words,
"Class War: Just Do It" to it? Or the McDeath/Mc Libel logos? Are we cheapening the
ideals if we do that? Are people confused by these displays? I doubt that many
people take a closer look at those slogans, unless they are large and prominent. The
power of the corporate logo is that it becomes pervasive. It no longer even matters
that the Swoosh says "Class War." What most people see is Nike. Can we fix that? Do
we need new logos that we can make prominent and recognizable?


> Maybe we shouldn't care, but having to always explain yourself and the
> changing meaning of images and words is a real effort.
>

I think I covered a bit of this above. Back to your original point about comercial
interests using anarchist logos; we can't very well copyright them - so then we have
to tolerate the usage. What we can, and should do, is make sure that we can find and
make public the differences between activist sites and crap. And that alone is a
task that boggles the mind.....

mat


   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005