I would say that the list isn't about stuff like that so it isn't brought up. I blog about it, and see a lot of stuff in the NYTimes instead - editorials, opinion pieces, pictures and articles about thousands of marchers. So no, it's not on AIR, but it's out there, a lot of it is. And I get email, like one today to a good Michael Moore piece. I mean, there are a lot of other outlets, so it's not like I myself am not talking about it, I'm just not doing so absolutely everywhere. Perhaps the net has allowed for so many different methods of communication that we don't need to use every way we have to talk about it, sometimes respite is good. ndp...
Begin forwarded message:
From: david silver <dsilver@u.washington.edu> Date: Wed Mar 19, 2003 5:19:47 PM US/Eastern To: air-l@aoir.org Subject: [Air-l] peace Reply-To: air-l@aoir.org
i attach a few preemptive apologies to this post: apologies if the topic strays from what some believe to be appropriate discussion areas for the list, apologies for leaping to a soapbox to exclaim a personal position.
i am writing to inquire why there is so much silence regarding a topic that deserves a bit more than silence. the historian in me wonders what future historians will think when they look back into the archives of lists like air-l and notice that while the world is on fire, there were only a handful of posts about it. why is this?
i run a resource center which puts me in communication with a ton of international scholars, most of whom like us focus their academic interests on the internet and digital culture. over the last few weeks, i've received a few dozen emails asking me about americans' positions about the impending war with iraq. i'm very nervous about being some kind of spokesperson for a country as large and diverse as the US but i'm equally nervous about some of the ideas they are getting from the press. (example: today's washington post reports a poll saying 7 out of 10 americans support a war with iraq, with or without UN support.) i think it's important to say that i live and thrive in seattle, a particularly progressive (in some ways) city that has a history of political action -- in the last few years along: the anti-WTO protests; indymedia.org, which started in part (please: if i'm wrong here someone correct me) in seattle; curbside recycling, which has spread to much of the country -- and cultural creation: jimi hendrix; grunge bands like nirvana and pearl jam; and in nearby olympia, the riot grrl movement. so perhaps my reality is tweaked (*always* a possibility, i freely and proudly admit), but here in seattle there is a massive anti-war movement: seen in the streets, on campuses, on storefronts and homes, and with furious and earnest INTERNET USE to organize, education, mobilize, and give counsel. while the mainstream media may portray americans as standing firmly behind their president select, there are massive numbers that think this war (and the series of wars that many of us fear will follow), the way in which it has been developing unilaterally, and the global disarray it will produce are insane, dangerous, undemocratic, and, well, suicidal. through talking with friends and colleagues -- via interpersonally, through the phone and letters, and especially OVER THE INTERNET -- i have come to believe that it is not only in seattle. such beliefs can be found throughout the country, as well as of course throughout the world. with HELP FROM THE INTERNET i have learned that many global protestors understand this: recent protests seem to me to be more anti-bush than anti-american but i could be wrong. i would love to hear more about this from anyone who cares to post.
if some believe this has little to do with internet research, i offer, again, my preemptive apologies. but i think we are missing a massively important topic here: as my friend jay babcock has taught me, this war -- if and when it happens -- will be the first (or one of the first, that can certainly be debated) INTERNET WAR. by the phrase, jay means and i agree the first major war that will be conducted since a critical mass has gone online. what are the repercussions? it's possible -- i say possible; please save the "you technological determinist!" flames -- that the net's distributive nature and massive user base will allow a more free flow of information from the front lines. if and when the war begins, will we see gifs and jpegs of killed civilians, bombed out cities and villages, and general horror that will not be shown on CNN and fox news? will we read -- in the form of emails, list postings, and blogs, to name a few -- first hand accounts of what's going down rather than the canned press releases being fed to american (and others?) media outlets? perhaps an early example of this -- one that i, as a jew who has grave reservations about israeli imperialism, am a bit nervous to post in fear of fostering misguided anti-semitism -- can be found here: <http://www.palsolidarity.org/rachel.htm>. any interest in discussing this?
peace,
david
_______________________________________________ Air-l mailing list Air-l@aoir.org http://www.aoir.org/mailman/listinfo/air-l
-------------------------------------------------------------------- Nathaniel D. Poor Ph.D. Candidate Dept. of Communication Studies http://www.umich.edu/~natpoor