I would only reply that it is grossly simplistic, in my opinion, to assume
that "racism and other structural factors" are the only reasons for the
digital divide and unemployment in minority communities. I doubt that
anyone on this list would argue that they are not the most important.
And I was only "explaining" that it was wrong to assume that the cost of
internet access was necessarily a factor. It is not.
----Original Message Follows----
From: Phil Gasper <[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To: Science for the People Discussion List
<[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Talking gently.
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 12:40:14 -0500
The original article posted by Sam was about the digital divide in the
US-the fact that some groups have much easier access to computer technology,
the Internet, etc. What explains this fact? Your suggestion was that some
people waste their money on big TVs and their time watching "mindless
entertainment". If that doesn't amount to blaming the victim, I don't know
what does. The fact that some of your best students are people of color
doesn't make the taste that your response leaves in the mouth any less
If what I am objecting to isn't clear, let me draw a simple analogy. Why is
there an "employment divide" in the US, with unemployment rates in minority
communities twice the national average and for black youth well over 40
percent? Is it because members of minority communities don't have the right
work ethic, don't speak standard white English, don't dress in appropriate
ways, etc.? Or does it have to do with racism and other structural factors?
The first explanation isn't made any better if you add that for the past 30
years you have been a job coach to minority youth, teaching them the skills
they need to get and keep employment. Such work may be admirable, but it
doesn't make an individualistic explanation (by which I mean an explanation
in terms of individual behavior) of the divide any more credible.
It is interesting to note that both Eric and Michael seem to think that
rejecting the blame the victim response must commit one to some kind of
ultra-left lunacy. But there are plenty of things one can do to help reduce
the digital divide aside from emphasizing individualistic solutions to a
problem that can't be solved on an individual basis or calling for the
downfall of capitalism (even if you think capitalism is the root of the
At 12:37 PM -0400 7/25/07, Eric Entemann wrote:
>I must express my gratitude to Phil. I now realize that I have been wrong
>for the past 30 yy during which I have tried to encourage my students
>(virtually all low-income, mostly of color) to study rather than watch
>stupid TV shows or play violent video games, and for my involvement in
>getting thousands of surplus computers into the hands of poor people here
>and in third-world countries. The scales have been lifted from mine eyes
>and I can now admit to having been racist in those endeavors.
>Instead, I should have devoted my full energies to the struggle for the
>downfall of capitalism, as Phil clearly does. You are my hero, Phil. I
>----Original Message Follows----
>From: Phil Gasper <[log in to unmask]>
>Reply-To: Science for the People Discussion List
><[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: Talking gently.
>Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 08:31:04 -0500
>Oops--I meant that response to go to Maurice, not to the whole list.
>Incidentally, the fact that provocations can sometimes be constructive,
>doesn't mean they always are or even generally are (unless you believe that
>every cloud has a silver lining). A racist rant would be highly
>provocative, but perhaps not very constructive.
>At 10:15 AM +0100 7/25/07, Michael Balter wrote:
>>With all due respect to Phil, whom I admire greatly, I have problems with
>>the use of the word "provocation" on this list, and not just because it
>>was repeatedly aimed at me not so long ago. A provocation appears to be
>>when someone on this list says something that others do not agree with
>>because it appears to violate some shared assumption that we are all
>>supposed to have. If so, then we need more provocations on this list, not
>>fewer, if the left is to engage in the kind of self-examination it so
>>badly needs. Sorry Les, but I have not banged on too much about this
>>lately, have I?
>>love, like Maurice says, but tough love.
>>On 7/25/07, Phil Gasper
>><<mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask] > wrote:
>>I thought the tone of my first response to what was, frankly, an ignorant
>>and provocative post was very "gentle". I also think a little sarcasm is
>>appropriate when the ignorance is not only repeated but magnified. I
>>certainly think it's missing the point in a big way to equate my response
>>with Eric E.'s double provocation, but you're entitled to your own
>>opinion, of course.
>>At 9:44 AM +0200 7/25/07, Maurice Bazin wrote:
>>fascinating for me who will fly from Paris to Rio de Janeiro (via
>>Florianópolis) in a few hours, to read a truly American exchange about
>>technology and life in America.
>>Claudia's contribution is very illuminating, technical, social and full of
>>feeling. She does not argue! She talks with us all.
>> I ask our friends Phil and Eric and more male participants to learn from
>>Claudia. Learn to be gentle! Please! It is so good to read gentle tones
>>when one is afar and then wishes one were there, with you all at the next
>>Love. Yours truly,
>>Maurice Bazin, last hours in Paris
>><mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]
>>On Jul 25, 2007, at 7:04 AM, Claudia Hemphill Pine wrote:
>>Umm... maybe we could all back off from "prescriptive" values and take a
>>more descriptive look here.
>>YES. Both in the micro-universe of this story, and the wider personal
>>experience of some of us, low-income households appear to be more likely
>>to have TV's with cable than computers with internet.
>>Never mind that access being high-speed. I live in a grad student/old
>>people's "ghetto" in my small university town and I only have dial-up.
>>Why? It's not the cost to me, but the unwilllingness of either my local
>>phone provider or rental property owner to provide. Certainly, my city
>>Not that cost isn't a consideration: I don't have cable or a big TV,
>>partly because it's an expense I'm unwilling to pay. But my social and
>>informational needs are amply satisfied by internet communities,
>>list-servs and emails; by the many local RL friends who I tend to see on
>>campus, or downtown, at the gallery, the bookshop or the Saturday market;
>>by occasional trips out of town to see family; by newspapers (online) and
>>journals (delivered). I can watch films on my laptop. If I want to see a
>>favorably-reviewed TV show or an entire season, my family can often share
>>it on TiVO or DVDs when I visit.
>>Ahhh.... that's why I can live without TV. It isn't my source of news or
>>shopping information. It isn't the common conversational currency with
>>friends or colleagues. It isn't my escape from the humdrum of home with
>>kids during the day, or when hiding inside from heat, a city's noise or
>>insecurity. Or the "only thing there is," as for so many older people who
>>for health or safety reasons, stay at home.
>>So, I can turn my nose up at cable TV. But for others, it's a key
>>connection to news and neighborhood, as well as recreation. I'd no more
>>ask them to trade it in for a computer & the internet - with the
>>associated learning curve, hardware needs, shorter uselife, and mainly
>>single-user setup - than I would ask my Mom to give up watching Wimbledon
>>and Mystery to listen to NPR and hang out on the internet like me.
>>Internet doesn't replace cable TV for her, just augments it. But it added
>>costs and complications as well.
>>Mom's house is actually wireless now. But she was driven to the internet
>>more than she was enticed. She had to get email to stay in touch with her
>>peripatetic children (who don't write snail mail letters) and eastern
>>European friends (whose letters take months). She can use it to shop
>>beyond her smallish city. To really sweeten the pot, she gets unlimited
>>free in-home software and hardware support from 2 daughters and a
>>son-in-law with very high computer skills.
>>I don't think it's as easy for someone like those in this article to dump
>>cable TV and shift over to internet. They would lose as much as, or more
>>than, they gain.
>>On 7/24/07, Phil Gasper
>><<mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>You're digging yourself in deeper, Eric. Why don't all those poor
>>people stop eating at MacDonald's and start eating healthy organic
>>vegetables? And if they just studied harder instead of wasting their
>>money on "mindless entertainment" I bet they could get into Harvard
>>This isn't the Science for Elitists list.
>>At 8:58 PM -0400 7/24/07, Eric Entemann wrote:
>>>The article in question starts with this erroneous comment:
>>>"I am low-income and computers are not low-income," says Marcella
>>>Morris, sitting on the front step of her apartment building on a
>>>sweltering day last week.
>>>A $50 used computer and under $20 per month gets one on the internet
>>>with broadband quite adequately, and a dialup connection can be had
>>>for under $40 per year.
>>>My contention is simply that cost is not the cause of the so-called
>>>"digital divide". And that most low-income people in this country
>>>spend far more than that on mindless entertainment, as do most
>>>people of any income level. Let's get real here.
>>>----Original Message Follows----
>>>From: Phil Gasper <<mailto:[log in to unmask]> [log in to unmask]>
>>>Reply-To: Science for the People Discussion List
>>><<mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]>
>>>To: <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>>>[log in to unmask]
>>>Subject: Re: Binary America: Split in Two by A Digital Divide
>>>Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 16:26:35 -0500
>>>I am uncomfortable with Eric's comment, which seems to be blaming
>>>the poor for their lack of computer access.
>>>I also think that on a list about science it ought to be possible to
>>>do better than make claims that begin "I bet". Why not do a little
>>>At 1:31 PM -0400 7/24/07, Eric Entemann wrote:
>>>>I'll bet a lot of lower-income people have big TVs and cable, but
>>>>no computer or broadband. A computer that is adequate for
>>>>broadband net access can bought new for little and used for almost
>>>>nothing. The primary computer I use is an old Pentium 3 that has a
>>>>value of maybe $50. And if need be, cable TV could be sacrificed
>>>>for cable broadband. So no doubt choice is a big factor here.
>>>>But, of course, much more needs to be done toward the provision of
>>>>technology education and low-cost broadband. And more public
>>>>access to computers on the internet as alternatives to libraries
>>>>and schools and Starbucks. For example, when I visited Tucson
>>>>three yy ago, I was pleased to find the Univ. of AZ computer center
>>>>to be open long hours and to have free public access with no time
>>>>limit. Every computer even had a CD burner available for downloads.
>>>>----Original Message Follows----
>>>>From: Sam Anderson <
>>>><mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]>
>>>>Reply-To: Science for the People Discussion List
>>>><<mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]
>><mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]
>>>>Subject: Binary America: Split in Two by A Digital Divide
>>>>Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 08:38:17 -0400
>>>>Binary America: Split in Two by A Digital Divide
>>>>By Jose Antonio Vargas
>>>>Washington Post Staff Writer
>>>>Monday, July 23, 2007; C01
>>>>CHARLESTON, S.C. -- Less than a mile and a half from the Citadel,
>>>>the site of the Democratic presidential debate tonight, sits
>>>>Cooper River Courts, a public housing project. Forget the Web.
>>>>Never mind YouTube, the debate's co-sponsor. Here, owning a
>>>>computer and getting on the Internet (through DSL or cable or
>>>>Wi-Fi) is a luxury.
>>>>"I am low-income and computers are not low-income," says Marcella
>>>>Morris, sitting on the front step of her apartment building on a
>>>>sweltering day last week.
>>>>The unemployed 45-year-old adds: "I know how to use a computer. I
>>>>just can't afford one right now."
>>>>There exists "two Americas," as John Edwards, South Carolina's own
>>>>son, likes to say: an America for the rich and an America for the
>>>>poor. But what Edwards and the rest of the presidential field have
>> >>yet to adequately address are the two Americas online: one that's
>>>>connected to high-speed Internet -- socializing, paying bills,
>>>>uploading debate questions to presidential candidates on YouTube --
>>>>and one that's not. This is the digital divide, now more than a
>>>>decade old, a rarely discussed schism in which the unconnected are
>>>>second-class citizens. In some parts of this so-called Internet
>>>>ghetto, the screech of a telephone modem dialing up to get online
>>>>is not uncommon. And with dial-up, YouTube is impossible to use.
>>>>Between 40 to 45 percent of Charlestonians, city officials here
>>>>estimate, subscribe to high-speed Internet. That figure is nearly
>>>>in line with the national average, according to the nonpartisan
>>>>group Free Press. And though a study released last month by the Pew
>>>>Internet & American Life Project found that broadband use among
>>>>African American adults increased from 14 percent in 2005 to 40
>>>>percent this year, blacks continue to lag behind whites and
>>>>English- speaking Latinos. In fact, a great number of American
>>>>households , especially in rural areas and poorer parts of cities
>>>>such as Charleston, are without broadband.
>>>>And in a presidential election that's being fought as much online
>>>>as off it -- all campaigns employ Web strategies -- some say the
>>>>candidates have generally ignored the issue.
>>>>"I would argue that the digital divide is worse than it was 10
>>>>years ago. Back then everyone -- schools, businesses -- was trying
>>>>to get online. These days every single Fortune 500 company has its
>>>>employees, its customers and its suppliers connected 24 hours a
>>>>day, seven days a week. In the meantime, while our students have
>>>>online access at school, many of them don't have it at home," says
>>>>Andrew Rasiej, a member of a panel studying universal Internet
>>>>access in New York, and co-founder of TechPresident, a nonpartisan
>>>>blog that tracks the online campaign.
>>>>"Our presidential candidates may all have BlackBerrys, but they
>>>>have no vision when it comes to bringing all our citizens to the
>>>>21st century. If you go to look at the presidential candidate Web
>>>>sites, the word 'Internet' practically doesn't exist. Breaking the
>>>>digital divide has not been recognized as a critical issue," Rasiej
>>>>Two months ago, TechPresident challenged the candidates to adopt
>>>>specific policies to get everyone online. "Declare the Internet a
>>>>public good in the same way we think of water, electricity,
>>>>highways," reads a policy statement. "Commit to providing
>>>>affordable high-speed wireless Internet access nationwide," reads
>>>>another. So far most of the candidates have not adopted any of it,
>>>>"At one level, the YouTube debate shows that the Web has really
>>>>become a centerpiece of American political culture," adds Lee
>>>>Rainie, director of Pew Internet. "At another level, it also shows
>>>>that the debate is not for everybody. It's certainly not available
>> >>to all Americans."
>>>>That is especially true at Cooper River Courts, where Tiara Reid,
>>>>14, in her jeans shorts and pink striped top, runs up and down the
>>>>complex asking friends if anyone wants to go the library. Finally
>>>>her mom, Jossie, who works at a deli, drives her and a neighbor's
>>>>daughter. With school out and without Internet access at home, the
>>>>library is the only place where she can go on the Web -- for a
>>>>maximum of two hours a day. Says Tiara: "It's 10 minutes to get to
>>>>the library if someone drives you. It's 15 minutes if you take the
>>>>30 bus. It's about 30 minutes if you walk." On the library's
>>>>second floor, she folds herself up on a chair and updates her
>>>>MySpace profile, sends e-mails on her Yahoo! account and, if
>>>>there's time, surfs <http://Disney.com>Disney.com.
>>>>Across from the Reids' apartment stands LaToya Ferguson, holding
>>>>her grandson Marquis. She's one of the few residents here to have
>>>>Internet access at home. It's a sense of pride for her. "You're
>>>>falling behind if you're not online, now that's the truth," says
>>>>Ferguson, a nail technician in her 30s.
>>>>Nearby Marcella Morris runs after her son Donny, who's nearly 2.
>>>>Morris says she relies on "the three F's" -- food stamps, family
>>>>and friends -- to provide for Donny and her 7-year-old daughter,
>>>>Jordan. Money's tight. She has a phone, subscribes to cable, but
>>>>that's it. No cellphone, no car, no computer. At 3 in the morning,
>>>>when an infomercial about the Web-based Specialty Merchandise
>>>>Corp.comes on TV, she dreams of owning a business, she says.
>>>>A few weeks ago, she signed up for a computer program at Trident
>>>>Literacy Association, a 10-minute walk from her apartment. At the
>>>>end of the 10-week program, she will receive a refurbished
>>>>"Never too late to start, right?" Morris says. "But after I get the
>>>>computer I have to worry about the Internet."
>>>>It's a familiar story around the country, even in places as
>>>>Internet- savvy as San Francisco, Chicago and the District. Who can
>>>>get online? Who can't? And what can be done about it?
>>>>Charlestonians pay as little as $20 or as much as $99 (which covers
>>>>phone, cable and the Internet) a month to get online, depending on
>>>>the package. There are a few free Wi-Fi "hot spots" in town, such
>>>>as the Cereality cafe on King Street, where a cappuccino costs
>>>>Nearly two years ago, officials vowed to spread Internet access
>>>>across the city. An initiative called the Charleston Digital
>>>>Corridor selected a proposal to build a citywide Wi-Fi grid. It
>>>>was meant to give everybody free Wi-Fi -- and the city didn't even
>>>>have to pay for it. As in other municipalities that are developing
>>>>public Wi-Fi projects, now numbering around 400, the goal is
>>>>twofold: to empower small businesses and to plug poorer
>>>>neighborhoods such as Cooper River Courts into the online world.
>>>>But like other cities, including San Francisco, Charleston has
>>>>struggled with its Wi-Fi project. The city originally said the
>>>>service would be up and running at the end of 2005. It was delayed.
>>>>Twice. When it finally was launched last spring, the Wi-Fi reached
>>>>only about 30 to 40 percent of its intended coverage.
>>>>And the Charlestonians tapping into the free Wi-Fi network --
>>>>sometimes more than 200 surfers a day -- were largely the ones who
>>>>could already afford to pay for it.
>>>>Now the citywide Wi-Fi project is in limbo. But Ernest Andrade,
>>>>head of the Digital Corridor, is optimistic: "We're evaluating
>>>>right now and I know that we'll bring Wi-Fi access to the rest of
>>>>this city," he pledges. Morris sounds upbeat, too. She plans on
>>>>sticking with her 10-week computer course. "Not having the
>>>>Internet in this day and time makes me feel disconnected from a
>>>>whole other world. Things I could see, things I could hear, things
>>>>I could do.
>>>>"I could take my kids to other places on the Internet," says Morris
>>>>as Donny naps on her lap. "Sometimes I feel shortchanged. Not
>>>>envious, but shortchanged."
>>>>She just turned 45 three days ago. By her 46th birthday, she hopes
>> >>to own a computer -- and be online.
>>>>s. e. anderson (author of "The Black Holocaust for Beginners" -
>>>>Writers + Readers) +
>>>>Local listings, incredible imagery, and driving directions - all in
>>Contributing Correspondent, Science
>><mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]
>Local listings, incredible imagery, and driving directions - all in one