Slashdot Mirror
Black Futurists In The Information Age
First of a series on "Technology and the Future."
Every new edition of "Technology and the Future," edited by Albert Teich, Director of Science and Policy Programs at the American Association for the Advancement of Science, is a monumental event.
First conceived more than a generation ago and repeatedly updated, Teich's book - there are eleven new pieces in this edition (Bedford/St. Martin's) - is almost a literary marvel. It collects and reflects more smart and provocative thinking about the future of technology than any given decade's worth of newspapers and newsmagazines.
In the next few columns, I'll select several of the essays and ideas in Teich's brilliant book to talk about. Then I'll start waiting for the next edition.
***
Sooner or later, race surfaces in discussions of almost every social and political issue in America. Because computing is, on the surface at least, a color- blind culture, it's been slow to join in the conversation.
But as Timothy L. Jenkins, (Yale Law School graduate, CEO of Unlimited Vision, Inc., and one of the creators of the first black online forum on the Net) makes clear in his essay, "Black Futurists in the Information Age," the Net means very different things to different people.
Computing is as white an industry as exists in American life, as any high-tech worker can see just from peering around. Although middle-class African-Americans and other minorities are getting online in substantial numbers, there remains an enormous disparity between whites' computer use and blacks', especially among the so-called underclass.
Online culture is too diverse to generalize about in political terms. But if there any universally-shared ethic among the Net generation, it might be the belief that getting online is an individual responsibility. That might fairly be described as the federal government's attitude as well: Here's the tent; anyone who can make it inside is more than welcome. But everybody has to get there on his own.
Given their histories and experiences, this has enormous different connotations for blacks than it does for whites.
"The benefit and the burden of being black in America arise from the ability and the necessity to view the same things the rest of society sees differently," writes Jenkins. African-Americans are historically suspicious of the larger society's ability to interpret or understand the population it has excluded from so many areas for so long.
Jenkins agrees with most philosophers and social historians that, on the surface, there's every reason to celebrate the proliferation of new Information Age technologies. But along with many other blacks, he can't buy the idea that universally -available information leads inexorably towards democracy.
There is, writes Jenkins, "palpable" evidence that without major social intervention, "the utopian predictions of the Information Age for the society as a whole will paradoxically result in a doomsday scenario for the masses of black people."
Black political leaders don't really have a technological agenda, he writes, and most white politicians ignore the issue of technological equality. Blacks need to move from being gatekeepers to gatecrashers when it comes to technology, Jenkins writes, and to set forth an agenda for technology and the future. As it now stands, prophesies Jenkins, many blacks, already suffering economically in the early stages of Information Age, "may be like the canary in a coal mine, forecasting climactic dangers before they become a general manifestation."
In the final analysis, he writes, the essence of technology ought to be service. "Judged from that perspective, it remains to be seen whether the interests of the black community are served or sacrificed. Absent purposeful leadership involvement, either could be true." And there is anything but purposeful leadership. Black politicians have been as muddled in their discussions about technology and the future as members of Congress.
Writes Jenkins: "If its (technology's) prime effect is to reduce the labor force to an absolute minimum in order to maximize profits or to allow jobs to follow tax breaks and the lowest wages wherever they might lead, then technology, while benefiting some, will have failed us all!"
The equitable distribution of technology has never been a mainstream political issue in America, though it might have more impact on shaping the future than any other single social or political development.
The United States has been embroiled for years in a raging, obsessive debate about sexual imagery online. But apart from the techno-millenial blabber that occasionally erupts from Al Gore and Bill Clinton, hardly anyone mentions the whopper moral issue surrounding technology and the future: What will become of the people who can't or won't learn how to use new information technologies?
What kind of education will be available? What kinds of jobs will they have? What kinds of lives can they aspire to lead?
According to the U.S. Department of Commerce, Jenkin's fears are well-grounded. About 42 per cent of all U.S. households now have a PC, says a government report released on July 9, l999 (www.usatoday.com). But they're in about 80 per cent of homes in which families make $75,000 or more a year and in fewer than 16 per cent in which families make less than $20,000.
Income isn't the only variable, found the Commerce Department. The gap in Internet use between whites and blacks expanded to 20.7 percentage points last year (32.4 per cent of white households vs. ll.7 per cent of black) from 13.5 percentage points in l997. The difference between white and Hispanic use in l998 rose to 19.5 percentage points from 12.5.
The recent history of computing is clear enough: technology provides an educational and economic bounty for society's best and brightest. The history of underclass Americans - especially black underclass Americans - strongly suggests that if any group is voluntarily or involuntary excluded, it will be the African-American poor.
If they don't catch up soon, Jenkins persuasively warns, they never will. Yet recent surveys show the techno-gap between haves and have nots widening, not shrinking. Don't look for politicians or the press to make this is a significant political issue in the coming presidential election either. It's much easier to exploit fears about new technology than to focus on its real consequences.
It's clear by now even to rabid Luddites that new information technologies will be critical in shaping economic and employment opportunity, freedom of speech and thought, educational advancement and, increasingly, political knowledge and participation. As such, cautions Jenkins, we stand on the threshold of the invention of what may well become a new worldwide technological caste system.
There is no real political ideology online, other than a vaguely Libertarian wariness of government intrusion and a widespread passion for the free movement of ideas and information. It is not an exclusionary culture.
But Jenkins is right. Hardly anyone has seriously addressed the long-term racial and class implications of the emergence of a new techno-elite in the United States - an educated, affluent, overwhelmingly white, and increasingly dominant group.
Next: Ethics for programmers.
When I was first married and a starving musician
and decided to switch to computer consulting
I had to hustle a loan to by my first CP/M
computer. I had to bust my butt studying as well
as hold down a poorly paying full time job. All
this despite a college degree which was paid for
in part because my parents lived a moral life
(and stayed together) and because my mother
as well as my father spent a life working.
What I think I'm hearing by reading the article
and whom it quotes is that while it's ok for
white people to bust their ass 80 hours a week,
blacks need to be pandered to and helped.
If I was a black I would be insulted by the
cyber poverty pimps. I know self respecting
good black people who would be emarrassed to
hear that they need special help when they
seem to be doing just fine without the handouts.
I guess the new political pandering theme
would be: "A computer (and internet)
in every home" instead of the old "A chicken
in every pot".
Will I have to work 100 hours a week to pay
the extra taxes necessary to "fund" the
cyber silver platter for those unwilling to
put 80 hours a week in for themselves?
""The benefit and the burden of being black in America arise from the ability and the necessity to view the same things the rest of society sees differently," writes Jenkins. African-Americans are historically suspicious of the larger society's ability to interpret or understand the population it has excluded from so many areas for so long. "
As a young science nerd, bullied at school and beaten at home, I learned the 'ability and necessity to see things...differently' and became suspicious of jerks' ability to understand me, all without the 'benefit and burden of being black'.
Why must the discussion of the effects of oppression always devolve to racial semantics, immediately shutting out the common experience of ALL human political groups (i.e., two or more nekkid monkeys )? All can realize that, if one can't overpower the oppressor, the option is to outsmart them. Becoming "educated, affluent" now MEANS "increasingly dominant", able to push any agenda of merit, regardless of color. ( check out Bobby Seale's Page).
Racists have suckered the black kids really well; learning in school is "white", thus uncool, and resisting the establishment's agenda of getting them to study becomes the height of emotional fulfillment. Bingo! Another batch of burger-flippers propelled out the door in a puff of self-fulfilling despair. The alternative is 'submission' to 'the Man', an obvious dead-end, right? Well guess what - the institutions ( and cliques ) are hardly less oppressive for any outcasts! Where's the anger, the determination to OUTLEARN the clueless old biddy, the high-handed ass't-principal, and the smug jock thugs?
Insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly, expecting a different result. Smashing skulls with that jawbone no longer works at the 21st century's watering holes. The choice is to bite down, endure ( or teach yourself ), and learn, or to accept your masochism and let your morale improve with the beatings.
What some dead Klansman did to shatter the nerve of whatever good menschen, now poor, has no bearing on my aptitude as a programmer or the advantages that it merits. I'm refurbishing old junk boxes in my garage; I'll happily give a few to the Mexican family across the street, but will one of them learn enough to admin it themselves? I can only hope to impress them with the stakes involved in that decision - their daughter plays with mine, after all...
- A.Lurker@Hellmouth.Rim
This can't be first post, I previewed it too long.
Anyhow, AAAS publishes Science, one of the long time standing top scientific journals, which has on occasion published bad science. While 90% to 99% of the submissions are top notch, bleading edge, Science is not definitive (Check the frequently quoted thing on global warming Rush L. loves to quote, but was later retracted). And Science has been pushing a lot of internet stuff lately, and my honest opinion is none of it is the quality of research that they publish on biology or environmental issues or other "true" sciences.
Sorry, I don't intend this to be a flame, but is the internet really a "science" like physics, chemistry, biology, and the likes? I do NOT think so. Because you can apply a scientific method to study internet traffic does not make the internet itself a science. In the defence of the internet, something doesn't have to be a science to be important, not much that goes on on Wall Street, or in Washington D.C. is "science" either, but it can be studied with a scientific method.
My opinion is Science (the journal) needs to get the heck out of "internet studies" and leave it to the people who do IT full time. I think a few of the editors are just feeling a little to "empowered" with thier publishing athority and making themselfs look a bit silly now that they figured out how to take a screenshot and get it published to a wide audiance... (So, in other words, I don't care WHAT they say at the AAAS about the net. They are important to the community of science, but they are out of thier element when when it comes to IT)
To apply pure logic, one would think that low income areas would be the places where families needed to cook economical meals, and spend less in restraunts and convenient stores (meaning 24 hour a day corner stores with prices 3x what grocery stores charge). So, you might try to take a logical leap, and say "There are probably less convenient stores and restraunts in low income areas." BBBBBBzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz Wrong answer.
7-11 and McDonalds have known for a long long long time that low income areas are good markets for them to expand into.
While we would all like to sit here "High And Mighty" saying how wonderful internet access is, and how people of a certian income or color need to have it, that's not how the world works.
If they want it, they will get it. Before you say they can't, check if they have cable, and how often they dine in a restraunt. Then look at the $9.95/month internet service ads and $399 computer that are on about every third page of thier local newspapers. Do you truely believe that there are people out there who choose to have internet, but can't get it (but somehow can have cable TV, eat in Burger King or McDonalds daily, have a $800 car stereo, etc...).
Now, I am not saying that people of a ethnic background, or people of an income level all have made a choice to be that way. Not at all. I just think it's a little short sighted to say it's color or income that prevents people from getting on the internet. As for evidence, I think McDonalds and 7-11 have pretty well defined where they can make a profit, why not deal with a basic need like food first?
Why would the internet be any diffrent than dining habits, cable TV, or anything else? I guess maybe I am not seeing this as a color thing, because the only clear thing I can see about the internet is income levels, maybe. But I would agree that the internet isn't for everyone, just like everything else.
Not everyone watches CNN, not everyone reads the Wall Street Journal, not everyone goes to college... Making the government pay for access so that everyone could isn't going to mean everyone will, and that everyone will benifit from it. All it will mean is that you gave the government more control over a part of your life, and another reason to justify taking more money for "taxes" out of your paycheck.
(BTW, I believe in the LP which is my primary reason to object to seeing making another government run program a bad thing, nothing to do with race, color, money, any of that.. We don't live in a free country anymore at all, if you think so, you have confused freedom with democracy. Democracy is just orginized mob rule, which can be as bad or worse as tyrany. What if tomarrow the majority desides that we should all drive Mini-Vans? Because "the people vote for it" or "it will make life safer and more consistant" doesn't mean it has anything to do with freedom. And yes, there isn't a country in the world I would rather be in, I like it here, I just think we're slipping a little bit into "we should be like the EU" Freedom does mean not opressing people of any race, religion, sex, or income. Socialism is a diffrent belief, which intends to insure that everyone be given similar goods and treatment, and calling that fair. Freedom allow one to benifit from thier own hard work, if you want to free the oppressed, give them the chances just like everyone else. If you want socialism, thier are plenty of other countries to choose from.)
I do not think that it is realistic for people to believe that they can make it from the bottom to the top. That rarely ever happens (Steve Jobs is a reasonably good example, Bill Gates is not)
It's really whacked to think that you can make it to the top through the kindness of strangers.
A person living in the conditions you describe is highly unlikely to ever succeed, really. That's unfortunate. However, this should not prevent her from doing as well as possible. Which is a matter of one's own abilities and will more than anything else. Even if she can make her children's opportunities better, it's worthwhile. This does not guarantee the success of later generations however. They have to do the same thing; give their successors enough forward momentum to give them a chance.
The momentum can be financial success, but I don't think that's the only form it need take, and it's probably one of the worst types. A motiviation to succeed, a sense of ethics, a strong will, etc. are all the sorts of things that are frequently rewarded if you're going to use them right. Even if you're poor, giving your kids the drive to better themselves is more important than money. There are ways around money, but there aren't any around drive.
My paternal great-grandfather immigrated to the US from Russia. He eventually ran a scrap metal business in New Hampshire. His son, my grandfather, joined the Army Air Corps during the war, became a teacher, and after that took up various administrative jobs related to teaching. My father put himself through college and law school, and is now a successful lawyer. Upon leaving school, I started working and I've supported myself for some time now. I'm just starting out, but I want to surpass previous generations in being able to give that boost to my kids.
Some people just don't have what it takes, and will pretty likely fail. I know a lot of people like that. Ultimately it happens to everyone's line, and that's natural. When you get to be at the top of the heap there's not always anywhere to go.
The cycle that you speak of can be broken, but I don't think that that's the important issue here. Lots of people who happen to be minorities have the right kind of drive. Starting from a worse position (using wealth to gauge success) just means it'll take longer. The better people will, in time, rise to the top. Some of them have enormous forward momentum, and this can translate into inertia that their descendants can ride on for years.
If Gates gives all his money to his kids, his family will be set for a long time, but unless they have the right kind of spirit to them, sooner or later his descendants will be asking yours if they want space fries with that.
Just try to succeed. If you keep at it, and get your kids to do the same, and so forth, someday there will be rewards for it. Just don't go expecting to reap a thousand times what you sow.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Well, as far as Japanese go, here's my opinion, which is probably not worth a wooden nickel, but what the hell:
During the Shogunate, which is what most people think of when they think medieval Japan, was quite similar to medieval Europe. There was a lot of social stratification, and not much social mobility.
When Perry opened Japan in the 19th century, some groups saw the advantages that access to the west could grant them, and this sparked the Meiji Restoration. During this period, Japan adopted a lot of things from the west, and it became possible for people to actually work hard and increase their, or at least their descendant's chances in life.
It's impressive as hell that the Japanese could go from their medieval culture to one that was a major world power in less than a hundred years. Given that this was happening at the same time as a dynastic cycle was ending in China (exacerbated by similar contact with the west), it doesn't seem likely that it's genetic.
Anyway, the culture hadn't changed _that_ significantly in some ways though. After we thoroughly destroyed Japan during the war, and sent MacArthur to rebuild it in his image, then Japanese culture was massively altered.
Flashing back to Perry, the nobility and samurai began to listen after they kept getting beaten in combat. This was a very basic way of measuring superiority, and new tactics (like adopting some of ours) were a smart plan. To keep trying the same thing would have been futile.
After the war it again became evident that old tactics, like conquering the Pacific Ocean and everything in and near it, were not going to go over well.
During the economic bubble of the 80's was probably Japan's height (so far) as a world power. They're still way the hell up there, but no one is seriously considering that they'll own everything anymore. Oddly enough, this is what people thought about Americans during the 50s and 60s.
I'd say that all of those generations, for whom failure was fresh in their minds, tried new things harder and found success.
Now we face the current generation, which is riding on the success of the prior one and is not actively going forward. IIRC they've got a nasty recession in Asia (and Japan specifically) right now. This should not daunt sufficiently motivated people. The US went from a crippling depression to being the #1 country in the world in less than twenty years. Japan went from rubble to a major world economic power in less than forty.
We, ourselves, may be having trouble, but it's interesting to note that the in charge generation here are the Baby Boomers, who also rode their parent's success and as they took over in the 70's and 80's we started having problems. My generation is up next, but a significant number (it's really stupid to measure these things by birthdate, I know - there will always be people too dumb to achieve anything no matter how rich or poor they are) are pretty hard driven sorts. I am, and my friends are. So this could be good, although it's horribly depressing if the failure that eggs us on to success is internal in origin.
So as for Japan, the 'otaku' generation (which only describes a small number of people, but is the only nickname I've heard) is probably going to screw up, and the one after that may do much better.
YMMV - I'm not a fortune teller, nor do I know very much about the Japanese. Corrections are gladly accepted.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
No I don't. Although the proper American English spelling of the word is 'color' there are a lot of bad spellers in America.
coler, culer, kulur.... you reading this Altus? ;)
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
In every age those in power have used bullshit arguments about why that ordering is the "natural" ordering. Kings and nobelmen invoked the will of god. Rich American families invoked bullshit science (IQ testing, etc. See _The Mismeasure of Man_ by SJ Gould).
./ers are sitting here browsing the web while others sit in the inner city is those in the inner city have poor schools, few resources, and no realistic expectation of good jobs. I promise they can browse the web as well as you can.
Now squid proposes ability and gumption.
I hate to break this to you, but most high paid technology jobs are hardly rocket science. It's almost criminal how easy many of them are. People in the inner cities could and would do these jobs if they had the training and opportunity.
Widespread economic racism in America has been very well documented, even by economists who started out believing racism couldn't exist in a free market. If you need money to get on the net & light skin to get money, the equation is fairly obvious.
The only reason
In response to other posts, a few miracle stories of success are hardly relevant. The issue is bringing the average inner city person into the mainstream, not getting half a dozen geniuses.
And regarding the "nanny state", if you don't support efforts to move these people into the mainstream, you *will* end up supporting them via taxes.
The reality of the modern economy is that more than a third of the population is limited by ability or gumption to working in the low-end service sector. We can't change that, and unless you want to make your own McFries, I humbly submit that we don't really want to.
This comment gives me the creeps. "We need to keep a third of the population uneducated, because we'll need servants."
What if it's your own brother or sister or mother that has to make those fries? How would you feel then? Would you help them improve their situation? If so, then you acknowledge that social connections do help. If not, then that indicates weak family bonds, IMHO.
It's a good thing there is some sort of inequality, as well. ... Do we really want a world in which everyone thinks he should be a sysadmin or a programmer?
You're confusing different meanings of the word "inequality". Of course we need different professions, but that doesn't mean one part of the population has to be controlled by another. Our economy doesn't have to devolve into a caste system, the way it has.
You're essentially saying "The caste system is a good thing, because I'm in the upper caste." (The scary part is that so many people agreed with this post.)
drugs half the time and unable to give you attention, let alone raise you, with a
boyfriend that beats her and sells drugs, where you don't play outside of the house,
and you're lucky to get enough food to eat, let alone nutritional food, that you'd be
able to end up where you are today? If you do, then you're living in a different reality
from the rest of us.
The funny thing is we encourage this type of lifestyle by subsidizing it.
We should be rewarding the poor people for making GOOD decisions, not bad ones
Of all the comments I've ever posted, this is definately one of them
By letting Microsoft donate all this stuff to them. Most of us were first exposed to Microsoft and ran screaming to Linux, do you think they'll be any different? ;-)
If Mexico can do it, why can't the US?Because Mexico is a poor country to whom the idea of free software on inexpensive computers is a Godsend. In contrast, the US is a rich country that has the attitude that if it's free it can't be good.
Of all the comments I've ever posted, this is definately one of them
We should certainly help them, but in the right way. I would gladly give the unused computers and/or parts in my basement to a poor person who wants them.
But I would not want to pay the government more to create a Federal Commission to give computers to a few poor people that happen to meet its requirements, and line the pockets of bueraucrats and lobbyists.
With the governments track record, they probably wouldn't differentiate between a poor person who genuinely wants a computer to improve his/her life, and one who wants to sell it for drug or booze money
Of all the comments I've ever posted, this is definately one of them
I've seen some of that.
The truth is that women just aren't interested in the numbers that men are. For example, I would love for my wife to get into a better paying tech job, but she makes excuses "I'm not smart enough", (yet she's smarter than many people that I work with) "It doesn't interest me" (yet many times she uses my computer more than me, and she's looked at as an expert on PCs where she does work.)
The College that I went to had a higher female enrollment, yet there was only one woman in CS in our graduating class
Of all the comments I've ever posted, this is definately one of them
Well there are certain black "leaders" who profit off discrimination, whenever something doesn't look quite right racially, they will show up and make a big production. They've succeeded in convincing many blacks that they have no chance to succeed, that things are too stacked against them... Their only hope is to support these "leaders". This has done more harm than good for the black population.
The minority groups that seem to do well (Asians for example) don't have such leaders, they just go out and do what needs to be done.
Of all the comments I've ever posted, this is definately one of them
I saw a lawyer once explain that the definition of minority is "someone who is discriminated against".
With such thinking, whites can never be a minority because discrimination against whites is termed "reverse discrimination", and is often deemed acceptable.
Of all the comments I've ever posted, this is definately one of them
I don't know if the UK suffers from the same silly social notions that the US does.
For example, any British Black I've ever seen speaks perfect English, in the US, we have this silly notion that the natural language for blacks is something called "Ebonics". Ebonics is an English subset. An employer would be as likely to hire an ebonics-speaking black for a good job as he or she would be likely to hire a street-slang speaking white kid who uses the word "sh-t" every third word.
Of all the comments I've ever posted, this is definately one of them
Where did he say that? He said that there are some in the black community who criticize other blacks for trying to suceed. This is true. An "Oreo" is a person who is accused of being black on the outside, but white on the inside, the other two terms are different ways of saying the same thing.
But it seems that you can't even try discuss racial problems at any real depth because people like you will automatically jump in and label them a bigot.
Of all the comments I've ever posted, this is definately one of them
a preacher state, actually. I hope you never make a bad decision.
Where in my post do I say that? Bad decisions are usually their own punishment. Do you like the idea of somebody snorting your tax money up their nose? I don't. I'd rather pay for rehab.
Of all the comments I've ever posted, this is definately one of them
Well gee, I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition!
Of all the comments I've ever posted, this is definately one of them
Whether you see it or not, there is an Orwellian, New-Speak type mentality built into that type of thinking.
Of all the comments I've ever posted, this is definately one of them
Um, I think you meant Michael Jordan? ;-)
Of all the comments I've ever posted, this is definately one of them
In recent years there has been a real effort to get rid of male-only educational institutions by integrating them, while leaving female-only institutions intact.
My Wife is a feminist, and she attended a Woman's college. When I asked why this is fair, she tells me it's because in a male-only school, the men bind together and discuss how to oppress women.
Really?
Now my wife is generally an intelligent woman, but she's been brainwashed by this stuff
Of all the comments I've ever posted, this is definately one of them
Yes, the Oakland incident was blown out of proportion, however even before that I have seen ebonics advocates try to spread the notion that ebonics was the natural way for blacks to speak, and we should just accept it.
However even with many of the other English dialects you mention, the speakers have the same problem, if they don't learn to drop it, at least in formal situations (job interview or whatever), they won't go very far.
Up here in Bahs-tuhn (Boston) people take classes to learn to drop that regional accent for the same reason.
So anyway, I guess my point is that it bothers me to see things like ebonics advocated that will only futher hold back the blacks in this country. If it's used as a teaching tool, that's great.
Of all the comments I've ever posted, this is definately one of them
This reminds me of computers/Internet in the schools. There has been much said about the disparity of deployment of computers and the Internet in inner city/minority schools versus suburban, majority white schools.
Never mind the fact that the inner city schools are falling apart. Never mind the fact that the kids that graduate from these schools can't read. Let's give them a computer on every desk and access the the Internet. That should fix everything.
Why is it that the media seems to see technology as some sort of universal panacea? A computer and Internet access is not going to fix a broken household.
The underlying problems are economic and social. One of the symptoms *may* be (I haven't seen good stats) less prevalent access to computer technology and the Internet.
Let's get to the root cause, and stop treating the symptoms.
-josh
> The reality of the modern economy is that more > than a third of the population is limited by
> ability or gumption to working in the low-end
> service sector. We can't change that, and
> unless you want to make your own McFries, I
> humbly submit that we don't really want to.
>
What a depressing thought. Better start
stockpiling shotguns and canned food now then.
Moreover it isn't at all obvious that that a situation is natural, not more than a couple of hundred years ago everyone worked in the fields. To those who didn't that seemed quite natural too. Is there some reason why social development should stop at the end of the twentieth century?
We now live in a society that thinks that luxuries are basic rights. This is bad. A luxury is a one because everyone does not or cannot have one. Just because a group of people has something that a 'poorer' group does not doesn't make it a right to have one.
Computers are tools; you do not have a right to own a computer. You may own a computer or you may not, that is ok, but it is not ok to say "I am poor, give me a computer because I cannot afford one for myself". An example: I currently do not own a car. It would help me a great deal to own a car, but I cannot afford one. It would also help a lot of people a great deal to own a computer. I don't have a 'right' to get a free car nor should someone have a 'right' to get a free computer.
This I believe is just another example of 'class warfare' that goes on in America.
Sorry to have to tell you this sir, but in our economy hard work does mean shit. Its drive and determination to learn and be able to acheive that is worth shit. I worked some service jobs in my day, and would definatly say that I worked much harder than I do now, but I think I deserved my lower wage because what I offered was fairly useless and could be done by anyone.
Yes, the computer world is colorblind, and also age, sex, looks, etc, aren't important. But you need to be able to afford a computer and have a minimum of schooling in how to use it.
This is a racial issue in that there are more poor blacks and hispanics than poor whites.
But, dealing with this from a racial angle is completely wrong. Not only does helping someone because of their race pretty well equate with holding others back because of their race. (Would it be racism to give blacks a 50% off coupon for a computer? How about to do it for whites?)
What needs to be done is to target the situation people are in. If the poor can't get good schooling then chances are that they won't be eligible for any decent jobs, or better schooling, etc, and won't know what to do with a computer if the government requires that they be given one.
This is *not* a racial issue. I went to school with plenty of white kids who were destined to live McLives when I transfered into the inner city for my final year of high school.
We need to reach these children somehow. Offering them real choices and the education to make the most of their chances. It's not fair to say that the poor have as good of a chance at winning a scholarship when they have to grow up in a slum and are sick all the time and it's not enough to simply raise welfare payments hoping that it will miraculously make these children live an easier life.
I think advocates do themselves a disservice by making issues like this racial. I would be behind anti-poverty movements, but the minute someone brings race into it, like "Helping poor *black* families" I rebel completely. Treating one race differently from another is what got us into this mess in the first place and repreating that mistake won't help anyone.
So yes, technology is completely color blind. Computers don't care who hits their keys and the users at the other end won't know who you are unless you tell them. They are economically discriminatory because you need to buy them and they're fairly expensive to a family barely getting by as is.
There is a small racial issue here in that there are many poor blacks, but this just clouds the real issue by ignoring all the poor of other races.
If you make race the issue then it becomes the focal point of the discussion. It seems to me that the issue is really one of economics - people that do not have the income available to them to purchase a computer and internet service. Those people could be white, black, hispanic, tall, short, fat, hairy or blue.
A specific demographic may have a larger number of economically depressed people per capita, but that doesn't mean that a poor person of European descent doesn't deserve the same access as some poor person of African descent.
I don't think access to a computer or the internet is a right of individuals, but it would be nice to make sure that we, as a society, help as many people get access as we can. (And free software matched with cheap hardware can really bring us a long way towards that...)
It would be great if everyone could afford a computer. It would also be great if everyone could afford a house, a car, and a nice cruise one a year...
Dozer
"The dumber people think you are, the more surprised they're going to be when you kill them."
Dozer
"The dumber people think you are, the more surprised they're going to be when you kill them."
Your first paragraph is an economic argument -- not a racial one. You are making the mistake of equating correlation with causation.
The subject of your first paragraph could be black, white, hispanic, or asian, etc. Using racial instead of economic methods to identify such an economic situation is simply racist.
The reality of the situation is that the net is, at least until we hook up cameras to each PC, colorblind. I respectfully suggest that that is a Good Thing.
Geeky modern art T-shirts
>>>I ain't no jeenyus
Yep, that's true.
Man, if I lived in a place where my work, talent, and capacity weren't rewarded (and I mean with cold, hard cash, not to mention the self satisfaction of a job well done), I'd just nip off and shoot myself.
Listen, my dad's a farmer, I know all about 'all sorts of effort with little gain.' It's just not the resposibility of me, or any (wo)man to make sure everyone is doing a job that is
1. worthwhile
2. making them feel good about life
3. feeding their families (which begs the question why anyone would start a family they could not guarantee to sustain)
Frankly the logic flaws about social responsibility in general are *huge* in this day and age. It really cannot be morally correct to force a man to feed another. Ever.
Let's keep the government and everyone else out of this and let the cream rise to the top naturally. Black, white, et al - who cares?
You don't get it, do you? Do you really think that if you yourself were born in the middle of a housing project, with 4 siblings, no idea who your father was, a mother on drugs half the time and unable to give you attention, let alone raise you, with a boyfriend that beats her and sells drugs, where you don't play outside of the house, and you're lucky to get enough food to eat, let alone nutritional food, that you'd be able to end up where you are today? If you do, then you're living in a different reality from the rest of us.
The point of this article is the fact that the economic disparity is also very much a racial one. Society has put the minorities into these poor situations because of countless years of prejudice. Now just eliminating the prejudice isn't enough. because we've established a cycle of poverty.
If you're going to live in a dream world, and pretend that everyone has a fair chance of rising to the top, then at least realize it's a dream world.
---
"You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do."
The inequality of the Web is not racial - it's economic. It's a good thing there is some sort of inequality, as well. Remember the "Shoe Event Horizon" in Hitchhiker's Guide, where everyone on the planet was making shoes? That could be us. Do we really want a world in which everyone thinks he should be a sysadmin or a programmer?
The reality of the modern economy is that more than a third of the population is limited by ability or gumption to working in the low-end service sector. We can't change that, and unless you want to make your own McFries, I humbly submit that we don't really want to.
Let's keep the government and everyone else out of this and let the cream rise to the top naturally. Black, white, et al - who cares?
Carefree highway, let me slip away on you.
This is quite a strong flame against me.
Sorry to bring up the point that a culture (other than our own) in our country has suffered more than necessary.
Yes, I am sure that many of you were poor, and I am sure that many of your parents were poor. But at least your parents and grandparents were EQUAL CITIZENS of this country!
This goes a long way towards your children and grandchildren to eventually make it.
The fact that I want my tax dollars to help underpriviliged, prejudiced against kids makes me a traitor to true freedom and liberty?
You are either a blithering idiot, or you completely misunderstand me. I want everyone in this country to have equal opportunity, not standing... that does not exist right now. And I believe our tax dollars should go towards mending our mistakes in the past. And I want people like you to understand why these were mistakes.
I am far from a bleeding heart liberal, and I consider myself to be a huge advocate of liberty, freedom, equality and the capitalist society.
It is unfortunate that African Americans are continuously used as a substitute for "the underclass". Largely true, but unfortunate.
There is often a reason why people are poor.
Some were born poor, without the means to rise above it. Whether lacking skills or the ability and oportunities to learn those skills, it rarely happens that someone is able to overcome their birthright. If all you know is based on ignorance and poverty, chances are, that is all that will ever come out of you.
Then there are people that are lazy. Their job or trade gets "replaced", and they simply do not want to learn another. Our society has made it relatively easy to live by essentially doing nothing. For many of these people the effort to get educated and get a job that might pay a smidgin above wellfare is not economically sensible.
Why are blacks considered poor and lazy?
You have to consider where these people come from. Here you have an entire race that did not earn their full participation in this country until only 30 years ago!!! That always blows my mind. This culture has been associated with poverty in the United States since the country was born. The majority of these people have known nothing but ignorance and poverty, and it is only because they had the bad luck to born black in the U.S.
It takes an exceptional person to rise above this. We all have seen it done on many occasions, but unfortunately the majority are not able to. And it is not because they do not try and are lazy, but because they have been ingrained that life is this way from the day they were born.
As to the people who state, "well now they have every oportunity as everyone else and we should not bend over backwards to accomodate them!", I do not really agree with. They do not have every oportunity in the world. Not when the a large number of them are born poor. That is a huge disadvantage, and the reason they were born poor is because of the direct (or lack of) actions of our country.
So I do think we need to go out of our way to help this society of poor black americans. I do think we "owe" it to them in a way. Not to go so far as to disadvantage others, but to concentrate more on giving more opportunities to rise above the poverty they have known for generations and generations. These are not people getting "replaced" and are now lazy... they never had a place!
And I guarantee that those that now and hopefully will have a place in our society, will stay there!
We need to go out of our way to give them the oportunities that we kept away from them only 30 years ago!
They are members of our civilization, and whether you like it or not, we have a duty to see that all of us can make it. Pure Darwinism worked in the middle ages... and society was set back 100's of years.
Again and again, America is not the sum and be
all of the Internet. The Internet is color-blind.
If racism is an issue it is only in America, think
of all the other non-white countries that are on
the Internet. I started out as poor, white
Euro-trash and I got on the Internet.
India is on the Internet (non-white)
Africa is on the Internet (non-white)
Asia is on the Internet (non-white)
Europe is on the Internet (mixed races)
South America is on the Internet (mixed races)
And what does that leave?
America has a race problem.
Get a grip, these problems are the results of
the sublte ontinuation of racist policies that
American society pursues. It is not the fault
of the Internet. Handle it!
Euro-trash American Geezer Geek!
(RANT)
You know, I'm getting sick of people screaming
about equality, and how so-and-so minority doesn't
meet this spec, and so and so minority isn't on
the same level as this other group of people..
Yes, we're all equal, then, we aren't. I can't
rap for the life of me, i'm just an average white
boy, I can't jump either. I can't cook well, I
certainly do not have the social ties or the
culture that I see in a lot of minority groups
all I have is what I've worked to aquire myself,
Knowledge. Pretty much what I'm saying is that
no matter what the color, we all have the -capacity-
to be 'equal' but you know, I think some of us
just don't want to be, maybe there are black
americans that just don't WANT to screw around
with computers, they're happy with their lifestyle
and their education, and what they do, and they're
good at what they do, when I probably suck at it.
As for this article, I look around at my coworkers
and have to say that it's total BS. I work in a
company that prides itself on the fact that it has
tapped the great resources in the masses of
america, all of america, the red, yellow, black,
white, orange and plaid.
Maybe if people will STOP looking at America as
being comprised of a lot of groups of people of
different colors we'll be able to get somewhere
and stop worrying about discrimination damnit,
I think the only reason the children even have
an inkling of discrimination is because they hear
about it so much, and they see it from their
parents, it WILL go away if we just stop making
it such a big deal, it seems now to just be
something to bitch and whine about. heh.
(/RANT)
Just because you disagree doesn't make it offtopic or flamebait.
THis article has seriously made me want to go out and join a club or other organization that helps poor people 'get connected.' In a sense, the whole 'free software' movement is great, as long as we realize that it isn't just about freedom, it is also about free beer.
Everyone keeps harkening on, "Oh yeah, and you can SELL linux too." But you know what I think is another aspect of the revolution? The fact that you can make a $200 box for a home, with a free (as in beer) OS, so that your grandma or a poor inner-city youth can experience the same inforation as everyone else.
Freedom is not freedom if you have to buy it from (Choose your favorite software vendor).
Maybe it is not time yet to start calling for free beer (and the social-guerilla tactics are exactly why I like ESR), but soon (comrades) soon we should stop putting down and rather pick up our neighbors. Strange that code may set us free....