Message-ID: <v01510105ace4cf04d255@[205.246.26.16]> Date: Fri, 1 Dec 1995 10:41:23 -0500 From: Frank Baitman <mailto:fbaitman@MARS.SUPERLINK.NET> Subject: Re: Africa and the internet To: Multiple recipients of list DEVEL-L <mailto:DEVEL-L@AMERICAN.EDU>
>The recent comments from Mbalo Ndiaye and Chris Dodge touch on an issue
>which I think is important...I think sometimes we are over eager not to be
>the cause of changing people's 'traditions' or other apect of our lives. In
>some ways I find this somewhat paternalistic.
>
>Shortly after my sister was in Ghana doing research for her PhD, she was
>telling our father about the people and the country (this was in the
>1970's). My father, who is the ultimate western consumer, said "I'll bet
>those people would just love a shopping centre, they just don't know about
>it so they don't know they would love it." My sister was outraged at the
>prospect of foisting such western things upon these untainted people. Years
>later she returned to Ghana and found that a shopping centre had been built
>and the people did love it.
>
>My point here is that westerners seem to want to keep 'those people' as they
>were -- perhaps so the westerners can see them in their quaintness like
>visiting some living museum. I don't see westerners doing this to
>themselves: just how 'traditional' is the internet anyway. Afterall, the
>west got gun powder from the Chinese, the number 'zero' and the concept of
>algebra from Islamis middle east, and even the Quran talks about a round
>world long before western scientists caught up with the idea. Although it's
>debatable, the concepts of chivalry and 'nation' are 'western' standards
>which have their origin in eastern cultures.
>
>All people of all cultures have a right to access to all forms of advances
>and the right to choose to maintain their traditions or to move them along
>to some new tradition. Should the african be denied medical science
>developments simply because they are developed outside of africa? Not only
>do I believe it is okay to spread the technology around, but such sharing is
>an essential part of the development of human society.
>
>The difficulty (danger?) is not the technology, nor even the
>'westernisation', but the propensity of the progentitor of the technology to
>use this technology to control other people and cultures for power or profit
>or both. In the introduction of any new technology or concept, there is
>required a love, a respect and appreciation for whatever culture is being
>presented with the new development...If advances were offered with a view to
>empowering the recipient (as opposed to another means of exploitation) and
>were introduced in such a way as to complement or even enhance the
>recipient's own culture, then we will see the best of both world (so to speak).
>
>The goal of anyone working in development, technology transfer, education --
>any field which brings them into contact with people other than their 'own'
>must be to release human capacity (not to contain it): this is the key to
>prosperity. When the human being is empowered, he or she can fairly well
>decide for him/her-self what is best. . .
>
>It is a world community we are now building...and this world community needs
>access to all those things which will allow for the speedy and continual
>advancement of society and civilisation.
>
>Thought from South Africa
>
>
>Steve Worth
Steve:
I think that your comments are on target!
As a U.S. citizen I often find the debate here to be on the extremes. On development matters, the *left* takes what you describe as a paternalistic point of view: don't force our culture on others. (I'm not sure what our culture is, because, like South Africa, we're quite a "melting pot"!) And conservatives on the *right* look at everything through the lens of America: if poor people don't pull themselves up by their bootstraps, and take advantage of our know-how, their predicament is their own problem.
I'm (obviously) not comfortable with either argument.
Technology is neither good nor bad. And it must be adapted locally. I'm not sure many in America would find South African television to be terribly entertaining. Equally, there is much on our TV that would offend. But the people are getting -- more or less -- what they want.
That argument goes many-fold for the Internet. Because it is interactive, users will take what they want, and ignore that which is not of interest. Yes its implementation is relatively expensive by local standards, but so was television. And I think it has so much more to offer in terms of economic and cultural exchanges. (particularly when you *do* compare it to television programming!)
There are of course cases where technology is foisted upon those who do not want it. But they are rare. Social acceptance is more often than not determined by commercial viability. If people want it, and it does something for them (entertain, enrich, etc.) they'll embrace it.
Frank Baitman Cranbury, New Jersey