When a telecenter can cure AIDs... then maybe I'll see where you're coming from. Right now I see the only connection as people, and I don't see how computers - in churches or not - will help with the AIDs. So I don't understand why you keep bringing up AIDs.
Maybe churches can help with AIDs. But if that help requires people to change their cultural identity to suit the church with the ability to feed people so that they do not have to resort to other means of income, then I see the murder of a culture - something that the West does almost automatically, it seems. Africa and the Asian continent are where, historically and through the perspective of religion, mankind started from. To subjugate them by not sending them food, then providing food through avenues of cultural change disgusts me. To subjugate them by not allowing them to use technology outside of the avenues of cultural change toward Western ways also disgusts me. Feel free to criticize Rand's works. I don't buy into them wholesale. I just take what I think works and move on. And Rand is dead, and he institute with her name on it defied her wishes in more ways than one. Steve Eskow wrote: >Taran, I disagree with almost every one of your statements below--but those >disagreements needn't prevent us from finding a way to work together. > >(Even though I think ATLAS SHRUGGED is grandiose nonsense.) > >Rather than debating your history, philosophy, and sociology, let me ask you >to consider a real-world example. > >Sub-Saharan Africa, where I go next week, has hundreds of thousands of >people dying each week from AIDS. > >Swaziland and Botswana have almost 40 per cent of their people living with >HIV/AIDS. > >Malawi has some 15 per cent of its people living and dying with AIDS. > >Dr. William Rankin, an Episcopal priest, felt called to do something about >this suffering and dying, and created GAIA, The Global Aids Interfaith >Alliance. > >Oversimplifying GAIA's work and approach, the organization organizes >assemblies of clergy and lay leaders in Malawi, does workshops on safe sex >and condom and antiretrovirals as medicine that combats AIDS, and enlists >their help and support in the prevention and the treatment of AIDS. > >Churches become centers of information and treatment and for their >congregations and communities. > >There is still dying in Malawi, but a sharply reduced rate because of the >instruction and the antretrovirals provided by GAIA. > >Bill Rankin has made a difference. > >He did not ask the Christian sects to realize that they worshipped the same >God, and to set aside their differences. He did not ask the Christians and >the Muslims to realize that they were all Children of Abraham, and become as >one people. > >If a church had a pastor and 18 congregants, that church became a classroom >and a clinic for those congregants and their families. > >If that church could be helped to have a computer, training, and an Internet >connection, it could become one bridge across the digital divide. > >Cheers, Taran. > >Steve Eskow > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Taran Rampersad" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: "The Digital Divide Network discussion group" ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2005 7:43 PM >Subject: Re: [DDN] Re: The digital divide and the idea of "public computing" > > >This was a nice lead in, by the way. > >Steve Eskow wrote: > > > >>Taran, you've found and stated all the issues and objections to using >>churches as telecenters. >> >>Just a few comments. >> >>As you point out, religion separates people. >> >>And: >> >>Schooling separates people. Politics separates people. Tradition separates >>people. Income separates people. Geography separates people. >> >>Language separates people: perhaps we should insist that all who want to >>cross that divide learn a common language. English? >> >> >> >> >Now, now. You're putting words in my keyboard. Religion can be traced to >politics (take a look around), is embodied in tradition and has >sometimes been used as an instrument for those in power to remain in >power. Religion has also helped create the geographic borders we're >describing. > >As far as language, I have already mentioned to a few people at the >MISTICA reunion that language, as we know it, will eventually morph into >a new language that is common. It won't be English, but it will be part >English. That's my prediction, and it's already happening. But first, >people must speak their own language. > >Perhaps that would be a better analog for religion. But it's been my >observation that people generally embrace tradition instead of the >philosophy. I don't claim to be a specialist on religion and philosophy, >but I'm fairly well read. > > > >>In brief, all of the aspect of that amorphous stuff we call "culture" >>separates people >> >> >> >> >I think you missed my point. It's the denial of commonality that >separates people. > > > >>So: if we are realists, we begin with the world as it is--separated--and >> >> >not > > >>how we would like to remake it in our own image of what a better world >> >> >would > > >>be like.. >> >> >> >> >That's the funny thing - the world is NOT separated. The separation is >in the eye of the beholder. The world is round, the upper crust >contiguous - but we need a way to describe distance for the purposes of >travel and to avoid the 'Walk On Water' test. Thus we created >measurement of the distance, and in time distance - our tool - ruled our >thinking because it was a limitation for trade, for transport... and >soon, a former tool became a master instead of a servant. Wars have been >fought over measurements. > >Soon measures of distance *separated* people instead of connecting them. >The English were pretty good at this - sending their convicts as far >from England as possible, and accidentally creating the society which is >a great part of Australia. > >Tradition stems from philosophy. Philosophy is the root of religion, >regardless of what one thinks - whether it be the Philosophy of God or >Humankind. Tradition is an enactment of philosophy, and also a lovely >way to assure that philosophy passed from generation to generation - >originally without having been written down. But then people argued over >traditions, and they split. Some traditions wrote books, and within the >later practice of the written traditions schisms happened. Consider the >Torah, Koran and Bible. > >It's questionable how much of the original philosophy is in any of the >derivatives of tradition - but tradition separates. All three have some >of the same people mentioned. Tradition has become a master instead of a >servant. > >Income is an interesting invention. Income is basically the capacity to >trade things, which comes from the old bartering systems. It became a >status symbol, but we just weren't happy with that, so we created an >abstract concept called Credit. > >The Geographic divide. The tradition divide. The income divide. The >Digital Divide. > >Whether the whys and hows are right or wrong, here we are. Now we have a >Digital Divide. And like all of the above situations, we have activists >who want to minimize the divide. You. Me. Thousands of others, and >hundreds of thousands that may not know it yet. > >But the difference here is that - right here on this list - we have >people of all walks of life and different geographic locations, and all >traditions and cultural influence. And the Digital Divide is a >commonality - but is that technology strong enough to broach all these >other divisions? Will propping it up with religion be enough? Isn't a >religion made up of people with common beliefs, and are not the >interpretation of some common beliefs sometimes inflammatory to other >religions? > >I get ahead of myself. > > > >>That is: if those now on the wrong side of the digital divide are already >>separated, and we care about doing something substantial about that divide, >>we can denounce the separation, propose new institutional forms of >>togetherness (which in short order will also separate people), or we can >>begin by recognizing these islands of separation and asking how we can work >>with them so as to make a difference.. >> >> >> >> >I fail to realize how recognizing 'islands of separation' will make us >be able to address the problem better. It makes it *easier*, but it >doesn't always make it better. The second we draw a line between 'us' >and 'them', we define what we expect of them. The reverse is also true. >Perhaps building on commonality is more important. > > > >>That is: we work with schools, although they separate people into those >>groups that can pay tuition and those that can't. We put public computers >> >> >in > > >>libraries, although libraries--and computers--separate people into those >>that can read and those that can't, and tend to put resources like >> >> >computers > > >>where they benefit the readers and leave the nonreaders untouched. >> >>We put computers into churches, and hope (some of us) that we can use those >>computers to begin to encourage interfaith dialog as well as economic >>development. >> >>I do want to challenge your reliance on an Ayn Randian version of the human >>condition: >> >> >> >> >I didn't say it was Randian. I wrote 'this is Randian in a way..'. But >we'll go with this for now. > > > >><<In the end, I really think that the Digital Divide can only be bridged >> >> >> >> >>>by individuals acting in their own interest - taking ownership of their >>>lives. When it comes to infrastructural issues, governments are >>>responsible - but in any democracy, ultimately the individual is >>>responsible. This is actually Randian in a way, but I think it's >>>respectful>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>To be equally direct: it is this crude philosophy of every man or woman for >>himself/herself that is the problem, not the solution. There is much dying >>in Africa from AIDS, to pick one social problem where computers and >> >> >churches > > >>can make a difference, and the dying will not stop by urging a kind of >> >> >crude > > >>capitalist ideal of selfishness. >> >> >> >> >Interesting. I think you interpreted 'Atlas Shrugged' in a different way >than I. :-) > >The core problem of 'Atlas Shrugged' was indeed selfishness - but it was >not selfishness of the person who created. It was the selfishness of >society that thought it could live off of the good will of the >providers. Perhaps you saw the hidden city as a travesty. But in a way, >it was a very healthy thing. Society was completely dependant on a >handful of people in the book - a fictional book - and they got tired of >pulling the weight. So they left. It was a matter of self preservation >for the creators - they lived with less, and within their means. They >never stopped creating simply for profit - all the characters that went >to the inner city continued creating, they never stopped although they >were thwarted by the system. If you do not believe me, please reread the >book. > >In the context of AIDs and Africa - that is a very broad topic which is, >in my opinion, the result of very selfish laws and politics. I won't >claim that I am knowledgeable about Africa - there are better people >than I to discuss it - but here I am. So I'll give it a shot. > >If African countries were to be treated more fairly when it comes to >food and other things, then there would be less of a problem in Africa. >Probably other things as well. Food is a problem. Meanwhile there are >farmers in the United States being paid not to grow things. They are >being paid NOT to create. Now that is selfish. > >Computers and churches making a difference? Computers are tools, they >mean nothing without context - and if computers only become available >under a religious context, then I would feel the same distaste that I >had when it was documented after the tsumani in South East Asia that >some missionaries were found withholding aid unless the people in need >joined their church. > >Sorry, I don't get that. That disgusts me. And because of that, I am >wary of relying on churches alone for resolving the Digital Divide. It >cannot be just churches. Do we want to associate what we are doing with >that? I don't. > > > >>The genius of the computer is that it is the first dialogic medium in >>history, unlike the broadcast media such as television. The computer makes >>it possible for people in Trinidad to converse easily with people in >>California, so that they become a group, a potential collaborative. >> >>You and I are separated: by age, experience, education, nationality, >> >> >perhaps > > >>race and religion, or nonreligion. We can't wait until those cultural >>differences are set aside to begin to search for ways to work together. >> >> >> >> >The only difference that I see between us is one of opinion on the >Digital Divide and religion. And 2 weeks from now, I don't think that it >will matter. But maybe we'll both grow from the experience. > > > >>I appreciate your willingness to take clear and strong positions: that >>willingness makes for good challenge and response.. >> >> >> >> >I'd prefer to think it was good for discussion. There need be no >challenge in discussion. > >My position remains the same. Churches should not be depended upon to >bridge the Digital Divide; I'd prefer that the Digital Divide embrace >racial, cultural and *religious* diversity. I don't think that can be >found in a church. > >It might be found in a school. It *should* be found in a school. >Arguably, it should be found in a church. > > > -- Taran Rampersad [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxgazette.com http://www.a42.com http://www.knowprose.com http://www.easylum.net "Criticize by creating." — Michelangelo _______________________________________________ DIGITALDIVIDE mailing list DIGITALDIVIDE@mailman.edc.org http://mailman.edc.org/mailman/listinfo/digitaldivide To unsubscribe, send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word UNSUBSCRIBE in the body of the message.
