Thanks to Jenny for raising several issues below. 

First, my apologies to the list if my frustrations with some recent postings
have led to my adopting a tone much more sarcastic than reasonable, but my
intent has always been to foster discussion that is "open, engaged,
respectful, yet critical attitude to one another's work," as Jenny so
succinctly put it. That was my intent even when my tone was admittedly a bit
more biting . . .

Second, while the Taliban petition has been around the world several
times-and for several years-and has been relegated to the category of an
Internet "hoax," the intent of the original posting was a good one and the
issues raised in the petition are (unfortunately) still valid today and
while sending that petition will do no good, calling or writing to people
who can do something WILL have an effect. I can't speak for other
organizations, but conventional wisdom has it that a telephone call to a
legislator is considered to reflect the views of 1000 people, a letter
written and sent via s-mail is consider to reflect the views of 100 people,
an e-mail sent is considered to reflect the views of 10 people, and e-mail
petitions are not really considered to be a valid measure of concern at
all-although paper petitions, requiring someone to stand on a street corner
or go door-to-door, are still considered to be a 1-for-1 reflection of
views. It all has to do with the amount of effort and expense required to
express your views, which are then taken (again, depending on effort and
expense) to be representative of the views of others not making such an
effort. An e-mail petition, requiring the least amount of effort and expense
on the part of anyone other than the original poster, is thus relegated to
just barely above silence-which is not fair, but how it is perceived.

That doesn't mean that the Internet can't be used to excellent effect for
social action. There an superb collection of essays entitled "Communities in
Cyberspace," edited by Marc A. Smith and Peter Kollock and published by
Routledge, that just came out this year that contains an entire section of
"collective action," describing the successful online protests against
MarketPlace (a CD-ROM that was to contain personal information about
American consumers) and the Clipper chip, which would have provided a
"backdoor" via encryption technology for government wiretapping of
computers; the community network in Montana called Big Sky Telegraph that
allowed teachers and then an entire rural community to connect to each other
irrespective of physicality; and ending with the inspiring story of Robert
S. Jervay Place, a low-income housing development in Wilmington, North
Carolina, which connected residents of the development, using computers at
the local university library, with planners and architects and lawyers in a
number of other cities, all of whom helped the residents come up with a plan
they could present to the city when it came time to discuss the redesign of
the housing development. None of these are big acts of social change, but
all of them show the power of the Internet to make a difference.

My two-cents' worth . . .

Cheers,
Becky


<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Becky Kennison			
Production Editor		
Blackwell Publishers
350 Main Street			
Malden, Massachusetts 02148
E-mail: [log in to unmask]
Tel.: 781-388-0433
FAX: 781-388-0533
Blackwell homepage:
www.blackwellpublishers.co.uk

	-----Original Message-----
	From:	J.D.Robinson [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
	Sent:	Monday, September 20, 1999 8:02 AM
	To:	[log in to unmask]
	Subject:	Petitions, politeness and the CGF

	Dear All, 

	I recently sent a petition about the situation of Women in
Afghanistan to
	the CGF at the request of a colleague who felt very strongly about
the
	issues raised in the petition. I have since had two private
responses from
	CGF members, both of which raise different, if related, issues. I
would like
	to ask that list members take a little time to read through a couple
of
	comments which I have to make - I ask this because I know that there
have
	been many postings recently which have received the "glance and
delete"
	treatment. It is for this reason also that I want to raise a couple
of
	issues. 

	The first response to my posting was short and (not?) sweet:

	"Why not raise the issue of what happened to the originator of this
	petition:
	she had her email account cut off. There have been serious attempts
to
	censor the petiiton in the academic world: I think it would be
hypocritical
	of you to avoid that issue.
	Pt"

	The second goes into a lot more detail about the fate of the
petition and
	others like it, and I include it at the end of the message for those
who are
	interested.

	In response to the first, I wondered why my fellow critical
geographer (Pt)
	wanted to label me as hypocritical? I was not very pleased to be
thought of
	in that way, or to imagine that my colleagues around the world are
prone to
	such immediately unpleasant thoughts about me, or about one another,
when we
	make postings.

	This brought to mind several spats which have been taking place on
the CGF
	recently, in which one or other person has accused another of some
terrible
	politically insensitive statement. There seems to be a lot of venom
going
	around. For me this is very strange in a generation of Geographers
who have
	specifically cultivated an open, engaged, respectful, yet critical
attitude
	to one another's work. This culture is very valuable, and has taken
a long
	time to emerge, to replace an aggressive and quite vitriolic form of
	engagement which did used to characterise disciplinary interactions.


	I would be interested to read responses on the CGF (please don't
send them
	to me personally) from those people, who, like me, may have felt
silenced
	(or drawn to the delete button) by the tone of the discussions
recently. As
	I understand it, this list draws together people with a broadly
common
	(although not undifferentiated) political and intellectual agenda. I
feel
	that the intellectual debate has been swamped by the accusatory
style of
	many "political" postings. Of course emotions run high when it comes
to
	politics; but then if people join the list because they feel that
they share
	some common goals, why are some people treating others on the list
as the
	enemy? 

	I personally would like to encourage a return to a respectful
assumption of
	a shared project, in which we are all eager to learn from one
another, and
	to specifically use our intellectual training and interests as
geographers
	to advance various progressive political concerns. 

	The second posting raises some interesting political issues about
the use of
	the internet for political purposes. I would be intrigued to hear
responses
	from fellow list members who might have studied, or been involved
with,
	movements which have successfully mobilised virtual political
communities
	through the internet. I feel saddened that sending an email (like
writing a
	letter?) might be a futile political act. Is the internet only
useful for
	the powerful? There is nothing more strengthening for local or
national
	movements facing persecution than to know they have solidarity from
people
	in other parts of the world. It would be such a shame if we were not
able to
	pursue this through the internet.

	Thanks for your time.

	Jenny Robinson



	Dear Jenny,

	This particular petition has received legendary status on the Web...
As is
	pointed out at
http://snopes.simplenet.com/spoons/faxlore/afghani.htm
	<http://snopes.simplenet.com/spoons/faxlore/afghani.htm>  and at
	http://www.hoaxkill.com/afghanistan.html
	<http://www.hoaxkill.com/afghanistan.html> , signing this petition
will do
	no good whatever.
	This is what the simplenet website reported about this particular
petition.
	N.B. also the warnings about sending e-mail chain letters generally
- your
	ISP could bar you from using their service. N.B. also, the futility
of
	e-petitions generally - hopefully this will be the last one posted
here, but
	I have my doubts...:
		>
		>Inquiries prompted the following auto-reply response:
		>
			>>Please read this message carefully, especially the
next
	two sentences. Do not
	reply to this email. Do not forward this email to anyone else.
Anyone who
	needs a copy, already has one. Do not make things worse. Do not
"help" by
	forwarding this message to everyone who has corresponded with you on
this
	subject.
			>>
			>>Due to a flood of hundreds of thousands of
messages in
	response to an
	unauthorized chain letter, all mail to [log in to unmask]
	<mailto:[log in to unmask]>  is being deleted unread. It will
never be a
	valid email address again. If you have a personal message for the
previous
	owner of that address, you will need to find some means other than
email to
	communicate.
			>>
			>>[log in to unmask] was not an organization,
but a
	person who was totally
	unprepared for the inevitable consequences of telling thousands of
people to
	tell fifty of their friends to tell fifty of their friends to send
her
	email.
			>>
			>>It is our sincere hope that the hundreds of
thousands of
	people who continue
	to attempt to reply will find a more productive outlet for their
concerns.
	There are several excellent organizations and individuals doing real
work on
	the issues raised. Some of them were mentioned in sarabande's
letter. None
	of them authorized her actions. We suggest that you contact them
through
	non-virtual channels to help. They all have web sites with
information and
	contact points. Unlike sarabande, they can channel your energy in
useful
	directions. Do not let this incident discourage you.
			>>
			>>Please do not forward unverified chain letters, no
matter
	how compelling they
	might seem. Propagating chain letters is specifically prohibited by
the
	terms of service of most Internet service providers; you could lose
your
	account.
			>>
			>>Any replies to this message will be deleted
unread. The
	issue is closed.
		>
		>
		>And there you have it. Though the petition was real, it
never went
	anywhere.
	Signing it and persuading others to add their names is pointless-the
	signatures aren't being collected. Even if they were, it's not at
all likely
	that an Internet petition would have any appreciable impact on
anyone. It's
	too easy to cook up lists of fake names and phony e-mail addresses
and
	festoon a petition with them for anyone charged with gauging public
reaction
	to give such documents any weight.
		>
		>If you feel strongly enough about this issue (or any other)
to want
	to get
	involved, you should certainly do so.
		>
		>But remember, as with most endeavors, your results are
likely to be
	proportional to your efforts.  Adding your name to an Internet
petition is
	quick, easy, and virtually useless.  If you want to help, make a
real effort
	such as writing or calling your Congressmen or contacting
humanitarian
	groups to find out what you can do to assist their causes.
	Sorry to disappoint you
	Paul


%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%