Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

internetworkers - Re: Clinton's Digital Divide NewMarkets Tour

internetworkers AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Rachel Cox <rachel AT hesketh.com>
  • To: "InterNetWorkers" <internetworkers AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: Clinton's Digital Divide NewMarkets Tour
  • Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2000 12:02:40 -0400


At 05:32 PM 4/4/00 -0400, Ruby Sinreich wrote:

>"New markets?" We should empower poor poeple so they can buy more stuff!
>Barf.

Wow. Talk about a cynical oversimplification of a complex and
difficult issue - and without a single realistic alternative,
too. Indeed, without any alternative. I'm impressed.

Yes, there are a lot of problems that need to be addressed in
order to cure poverty in America, and the programs outlined don't
address all of them. However, not addressing *all* of them at a
pop doesn't mean that addressing *some* of them is wrong, or
should be cause for scorn or ridicule.

After all, kids *do* need to be technologically literate in order
to succeed in the coming years. I shudder to think at what a
disadvantage kids will be now if they don't have solid computer
skills. And I'm not talking about having to go to a bookstore
because they can't figure out how to use Amazon. And it's clear
that the kids who are not getting this training are the ones who
are already at an economic disadvantage. So yes, there are all
kinds of problems that need to be addressed, including these.
*Not* getting "poor people" access to the Internet is not going
to *help* them at all; I strongly believe - and I think there's
a certain amount of evidence, even among folks on this very list -
that having IT skills can only improve employability and salary
potential, perhaps even helping some poor people become not-poor
people. It certainly did me. I also can't think why it would be
bad to try to get folks involved in communities, to try to help
and teach and learn; why it would be bad to encourage and enable
young women to go into computers; or how information literacy
programs are nothing more than devices of the Powers That Be
to separate poor people from the money they don't have.

The term "new markets" has also been used in the context of
bringing new business into poverty-stricken, neglected areas
of the inner city and rural America - is this also a bad thing,
intended only to get more money from people who don't have any
to begin with? How about seeing it as a way to get people jobs?
Or is employment, too, just a way to make poor people spend money?
After all, the point of a job is to *make* money - if they don't
have any money, we can't sell stuff to them, so we bring new
business in and get them jobs so they can buy stuff (like, say,
diapers or soup), ergo, we're Evil Capitalist Pigs. But at least
we don't suppose that poor people can live on sunshine and good
intentions.

Best regards from your friendly local pragmatist -
Rachel

Speaking, as always, only for myself.

_____________________________________________________________________
tired of being an underappreciated functionary in a soulless machine?
hesketh.com is hiring: http://hesketh.com/careers/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Rachel Cox | voice: 919.834.2552 x16 | http://www.hesketh.com




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page