This started out as a response to Laura's article and turned into something else.....
->Really interesting Laura! I just got done meeting with the independent study group "Maasai Connection" and so a lot of these similar ideas are on my mind. I'm wondering about the technology aspect of millennium villages and how if we can get these computers they will affect the Maasai. The quote about texting a doctor in a another village about malaria meds is pretty huge. Advances in technology are astounding in general I mean texting is pretty new it's even still coming up as a spelling error when I type it. Anyone who hasn't watched the "Everything is amazing and nobodys happy" youtube video by C.K. Lewis should its hilarious...I think though I can't help but still be skeptical of technology. I know that it is the lens through which I am viewing it but it kills me a little to see people watching tv or playing games all the time especially young kids. I just got my first computer last year and am on it all the time now. It has definitely enhanced my education but I also spend hours on facebook and watching videos each week. I keep thinking about how the computers that we might bring to the Maasai will affect their culture. I do believe that computers offer the ability for people to educate themselves, communicate with others easier and empower them to take charge of their education(like my computer has done for me), but I still wonder what the outcome will be. Any thoughts
here is a link to the computers we may be bringing...
http://laptop.org/en/vision/
2 comments:
My response to that can be best explained with the notion of how culture is dynamic, a continuous force that can never be stable; it is ever-changing, whether or not a change in a cultural group is brought about through force (ie. colonialism) or environment (ie. the 'outside world' or 'circumstantial/situational adaptation of the group').
I, personally, don't believe that 'indigenous' cultures were static for hundreds of years, until the impacts of 'colonialism.' The oral histories, like those we've read about from the Kikuyu (yes, I realize the irony of the two previous phrases), have supplied us with periods in history when there were cultural shifts.
Koigi wrote about a story, he heard as a child, explaining why the Kikuyu tribes and families are lead by male figures, in 'Queen UUU,' (I'm paraphrasing from memory: there were female tribes and male tribes, and the female tribes held absolute control and dominance... the men decided to rebel and takeover by impregnating all the women at the same time, so when the women were physically 'feebler' in their third trimesters, the men used that opportunity to overturn the power status). Despite the probability of this story being historical or mythological, it still expresses that even within the insider history of the Kikuyu culture, their culture was dynamic: life now in our society is different than before.
I believe stories like this one, which describe societal life being different in the past, couldn't ever come to be if that society had never experienced change.
Therefore, regarding the morality of bringing in technology to an indigenous culture like that of the Maasai, I think that if it's wanted by the peoples of that culture, as opposed to being forcibly brought in, then the results, negative or positive, of a cultural shift shouldn't be an excessive morally overanalyzed concern.
With or without the computers, the Maasai culture won't be the same today as it will when the current generation of youth are the adult generation. As an outsider that has the ability to affect the lives and future of another cultural group, the best stance (I think) to take, is one of choice. If the Maasai want the technology, because they believe it'd be beneficial for their peoples' survival in our globalized, 'western thought paradigms' world today, then bring it. If they're against it, to preserve their traditional culture and survive in our globalized (ie. Bhutan), then don't bring it.
Basically, I don't consider an integrative outcome between two or more variable groups, should be decided upon by one.
If technology is brought into a place where it isn't welcomed, then it's the same as colonialism, forcibly applying a mode of thought or lifestyle. If, purposefully, technology isn't brought to preserve the ideology of that place, then it's the same as a caged animal in a zoo, look but don't touch; therefore, applying the same standard to that animal. Never the two shall meet, but the observed isn't given the same power as the observer.
I like the point you are both making about the effects of bringing technology to the Maasai. It is a difficult and touchy subject because there are so many ways of thinking about the situation. Sarah, I am in total agreement that it pains me to see so many kids spending hours in front of the tv or computer instead of being outside exploring or causing trouble. There have been many bad side effects from this trend (obesity, more exposure to violence, etc...) but technology has also enriched our lives if used in moderation. Long gone are the days when I would have to make my way to the library to do research. Now it is as simple as logging onto the internet and finding the information I am looking for.
As for whether or not to expose a traditional culture like the Maasai to this same technology. I will have to agree with Laura in that it is not our choice whether or not to allow them the access to this technology. It is our responsibility to educate the indigenous group the pros and cons as we see them and let them make the decision for themselves. Outside people have spent too much time making decisions for other people groups as if they are not able to make the best decision for themselves. That is how you empower them to succeed, by putting them in charge of their own future.
Post a Comment