Taran, perhaps we've taken this conversation about as far as it can go. My conclusion is this: the question of whether a telecenter, or 1000 telecenters, will improve a situation is always the same, and that answer is:
It depends. It depends on the cultural forces dividing and connecting the "community." In some cases, a telecenter will strengthen the possibilities of development, of amity, of hope, In other cases a telecenter will multiply the opportunities for generating hate and violence. It depends. Steve Eskow [EMAIL PROTECTED] -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Taran Rampersad Sent: Saturday, May 07, 2005 12:37 PM Cc: The Digital Divide Network discussion group Subject: Re: [DDN] Digital Divide, Telecentres and Iraq Dr. Steve Eskow wrote: >Taran Ramersad writes: > ><<when people feel they must resort to violence, it is usually because >they do not believe that they are being heard.>> > >Those who are resorting to violence in Iraq and Israel--and the US--have >been heard, and clearly. > > Have they? By no means do I defend anyone who undertakes a road of violence (pick a side if you wish), but has there been sincere discussion? Or instead have there been opposing monologues? Indeed, the only people who can say that they have been heard and understood are the senders with the appropriate feedback. For communication to happen, there has to be a sender and a receiver. To assure that communication is effective, there has to be feedback. This applies to everything in the world - from ICT to human interaction (which are what we would like to see merged more). >Perhaps it is more accurate to say that when people resort to violence it is >because they are not satisfied with being heard: they want to prevail. > > Perhaps they wish their message to prevail. If someone sees themselves as sincerely right, they will continue trying to communicate their message in any way possible - or they give up. Now we could delve into discussion which transcends the Digital Divide here, and I'll try to avoid that. Dragging this back on track (kicking and screaming, I might add) - telecentres in Iraq would be and should be basically alot like anywhere else in the world. As Andy pointed out, they would be places where people not only communicated over long distances, but also gather socially. It's a modern bonfire, per se, where people congregate and share not only information that is abstract - they share information that is real to themselves, and real to their own community. In the context of Iraq, or even the larger scope of the Middle East - individuals (call them what you will) blow themselves up to kill many people. This supports the idea that they wish the message to prevail - for they certainly do not. But a good telecenter - one which allows people to congregate - becomes a target. So then, they may gain military security from the Iraqi security forces, or some other country's military... and then it becomes more of a target for people who wish to send a message. And the best place to have meetings is in crowded places - secret or otherwise. So, it stands to reason that the military and security forces get nervous when people congregate - not only because they do not know who their enemy is, but also because they end up personally becoming targets. The phrase used to describe such congregations is 'a target rich environment'. In comparison, I presently live a very surreal life. I updated my personal website to Drupal 4.6.0 on the 10th floor gallery in a hotel in Panama City, Panama, using wireless access this morning at 2 a.m. while people returned from where normal people come back from on Friday nights. They came to the 10th floor for fresh air, and perhaps a spirit of romance, only to find some geek sitting there working on a computer near a wireless antenna, a romance terrorist... or perhaps an excuse to go to a hotel room, I'll never know. But if I had to worry about one of these people coming to the roof with a bomb strapped to their chest, I probably wouldn't have been where I was. And that's Iraq's specific problem, I think, when it comes to telecenters. The real travesty of present day Iraq is that being around other people could be seen as dangerous. And the Iraqi people, who have suffered for generations, are having some of the best technology installed as they rebuild their country (or perhaps Halliburton does. I don't keep track), but they still have people wandering around and blowing things up. Before technology can be effective, the basic human need of safety is needed. These are historically food, shelter, water and clothing. In this millenium, that also means having a sense that one will not be harmed or killed, or not caring whether one is harmed or killed. While we can bat around phrases such as 'prevail' or 'feedback', the bottom line really is that if people can't communicate properly with existing technology in a manner which is non-violent, how do we expect technology to improve the quality of life? Perhaps I paint to dire of a picture. I'm not in Iraq, and I applaud the idea of telecentres everywhere. However, I also think that we have to be realistic with expectations, especially in light of the physical dangers. So people work toward these goals, and that is a good thing - but until underlying issues are addressed, these things remain a reality. -- Taran Rampersad Presently in: Panama City, Panama [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.knowprose.com http://www.easylum.net http://www.digitaldivide.net/profile/Taran "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. _______________________________________________ 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.
