Quit your damn crying. There, I said it. This entry is like making fun of the Amish on TV; they can't watch it, so no harm done. And since Have-nots have not access to the internet (or else they would be haves, right?), I can write freely without worry about offending anyone. Well, anyone except self-righteous Haves who champion the cyber civil rights of an invisible part of our global community. You know, the invisible community members who have not a clue that their non-existent rights are being violated.<rant> Ugh. I just read another blog entry featuring the cliche argument pointing out that there are people 'without access' to modern technology and its many accompanying benefits. Is there anyone who really isn't aware of this by now, who doesn't realize that some members of American society choose to make excuses (i.e., "I can't walk to my public library, which provides access for free") so that social observers can use clever phrases like "digital divide" or "Haves and Have-nots?" Hooray; there are Have-nots in the world. And guess what: even though I have publicly acknowledged it, those Have-nots still exist and they are still Have-nots. Nothing has changed by acknowledging what we already know. Now that I have made it clear that there are two different types of people, we should be able to focus on how to unleash the potential of the Haves instead of perpetuating negative imagery and jealousy against them. Haves are the new version of "male, middle class, and white."Instead of focusing on the plight of the have-nots and pointing this out through clichés like “We need to realize there are Have-nots but I am offering no plan other than to point this out as important to think about”, perhaps the new cliche should be "We realize that there are Have-nots. As such, it is our responsibility as educators to ensure that the Haves take full advantage of the opportunities that exist because of the resources they are fortunate enough to access. It is our responsibility as educators to impart upon Haves the responsibility and expectation that they will use the opportunities available to them as Haves in a manner that benefits all members of our society -- Haves and Have-nots alike. And the Amish"</rant>PS - There are some people who cannot walk, or who have broken bones. Let's not forget that sports create Haves and Have-nots. (Man, that sounds ridiculous!)
12 Comments
Add this link to...
Tell a friend
Bury
12 Comments
Add this link to...
Tell a friend
Bury
Pligg is a Web 2.0 open source content management system
Login
You can log in using your Penn Sate Access Account
username and password.
Me!...I am still checking in on Pligg. Just added a story, too. Anyone else on...I agree with bburns! This was an amazing addition. Please add me as a...The linked poem was a nice touch. Great connection!...Ditto....Thanks, Donna! Your compliments mean a great deal to me!...My first thoughts were of the song about Slim Shady (My name is). haha...I just wanted to tell you again how much I LOVED your artistic...
Comments
Your comments do nothing to enhance the conversation and only act to ostracize yourself from the author. If you want to change someone's point of view, I implore you to explore venues other than insults.
A wise scholar (okay, my boyfriend) once said: "Realizing that you are an a--hole does not make you less of one." That said, I apologize for my crass nature and language, but that is all I apologize for. If I could find a tactful way to phrase my gut reaction, I would. But, along the same lines, prefacing something as a "rant" does not nullify any potentially offensive remarks you make inside said "rant." You may be incredibly offended by my words, but I was (and am) incredibly insulted by this post. I am so insulted that I don't think it deserves discussion.
This is not about "haves" and "have-nots": "some members of American society choose to make excuses (i.e., "I can't walk to my public library, which provides access for free")...."
I guess this shows that you can grow up in any kind of area or within any demographic (rural, urban, whatever) and still be completely ignorant.
"Excuses"? Excuse me while I bury this post.
I don't want to be mean... but have you ever been outside of State College? If you aren't aware, we are currently in a VERY affluent area compared to the rest of the country (or even the county!). Just drive a few miles outside the area and take a look around. What do you do when your town library is 20 miles away? What do you do when there are 4 computers with dial-up internet for an entire county? What do you do when you school district is so poor there are not enough textbooks for the students let alone computers? What do you do when you are a child who's single mother has 4 other children to take care of, does not own a car and there is no public transportation to take you to the library? What do you do when the neighborhood you would have to walk through is so dangerous you can't get to the library? You may think I am over dramatizing... but I am not. I have worked in areas like these. The solution is to work with what you have! You can't expect to rely on technology if it isn't present. Good teachers can teach with technology, but more importantly, they can teach without it. I think the most talented teachers are not the ones who know how to use all the technologies available, but are the ones who can still teach when those technologies are not accessible.
To answer your question, yes, I have. I grew up in Philadelphia, a big city with big city problems. I also work for an organization that serves people who could be considered Have-nots (65% of our youth come from homes that earn less than $25,000). I am very aware of the issues facing the world outside of State College, and the excuses that exist.
Part of my position is to reach these very youths and their families throughout the year. Since my organization targets these very youth, it means that I deal with the issue of 'digital divide' very intensely and predominantly. Perhaps more intensely and predominantly than educators who work for other organizations that simply include some 'Have-nots.'
My purpose for posting this entry are to open up the discussion and move it in a new direction. Instead of saying, "We need to be aware of Have-nots," my intent is to change the conversation to "We can overcome the obstacle of Have-nots by..." Afterall, this course is "Disruptive Technologies in the Teaching & Learning Process" and not "The Absence of Disruptive Technologies in the Teaching & Learning Process."
I acknowledge that there is shock value in paragraphs 1 & 2 and I apologize for making you feel insulted. But I would like to emphasize the argument in paragraph 3, which is where I suggest a new direction for future discussions of Haves and Have-nots.
Saying "We need to be aware that there are Have-nots" is a finite statement that leaves no room for discussion. I am suggesting a new statement that opens the conversation up in two areas: 1) How can we make it our responsibility to encourage the Haves to take advantage of their resources and opportunities and use them to benefit Haves and Have-nots a like, and 2) To change the conversation from the finite, "We need to be aware of Have-nots" to the open-ended "We can overcome the obstacles facing Have-nots by..."
In class and in your blog you said that a lot of the conversations at the symposium "were mostly talking ABOUT people like me rather than WITH people like me." We share a similar thought, in that we both want to include Have-nots. For me, this means future conversations should focus on including Have-nots among those who benefit from the uses of technology. For you, it means including Have-nots in the conversation itself. Again, the commonality is the inclusion of Have-nots.
Despite the shock value of paragraphs 1 & 2, hopefully you can see the merit of paragraph 3 of both the original post and my response to eal166, which states these very ideas. If nothing else, I invite you to join me in contributing to a positive discussion where together we can explore how educators can overcome these obstacles and ensure that Have-nots become Haves in terms of growth and benefits.
http://rtc.ruralinstitute.umt.edu/TelCom/computer.htm
The issue is not simple, tech use is disparate, we will not solve it by getting emotional. Yes we can teach w/o it and we will, my poor rural neighbors don't want internet, but have cell phones, big screen TV and guitar hero, we all have choices, it is not about judgment, it is still a free country, we can all vote with our feet and move, there will always be haves and have nots, we cannot save the world even though we want to, tech makes our life easier so we can be more available and present to people we are teaching, and all we are saying....is give peace a chance. We are all after/saying the same thing. More people than we are confused. Google haves/have nots and computer use and see what you get.
Re-read my post. Watch Lessig's keynote. The issue is much bigger than poverty race access...if the government restricts our access as an entire people to the language and expression of the common folk, all this discussion will be minuscule in proportion to the lack of freedom we will all have, money or not. I'll be dead and gone but my daughter will live in those times. Look at the bigger picture and stop sniping at each other. We are all in this together, we are family, and your generation cannot afford to be torn apart by issues of judgment, color, class, etc. One voice...stop judging. For what it is worth.
To mtt143: I defend your right to an opinion just as I also defend bsr11's right to an opinion; my comment was simply asking you not to stoop to the level of personal insults, and threats of violence. History has shown us time and time again that coming together in an open and peaceful way is the only true path to changing points of view. Not being willing to engage in civil conversation only succeeds at building walls, distancing yourself and entrenching someone deeper into his/her previously held thoughts and opinions.
Shock value. Web 2.0 erases nuances.
"We need to be aware that there are Have-Nots" because a statement like "some members of American society choose to make excuses (i.e., "I can't walk to my public library, which provides access for free")..." demonstrates that there are indeed people who don't believe there are Have-Nots, who believe that Have-Not-ism is voluntary, and that people choose to Not-Have. While, granted, voluntary or manipulative Have-Nots exist, their existence should not diminish the needs (or the existence) of real, involuntary, Not-Having Have-Nots. Sure, all your ideas about eliminating obstacles that Have-Nots face or getting Haves to work with Have-Nots are pretty and flowery, but how will you (anyone) address or resolve these issues if you don't even believe in the Have-Nots?