It has been nearly a month since my last post and it is with good reason. I have been busy getting KIPP-notized.
Most Americans have no idea what this means just yet, but I am sure many will know very soon. For the next two (probably plus) years I will be embarking on an incredible journey - to try to become one of the top educators in the world for low-income students. In what was a small, simple idea from two, young, idealistic tecahers in Houston only a decade ago, the Knowledge is Power Program (KIPP) now reaches 17 states including the District of Columbia, 57 schools, and 15,000 students.
While KIPP is a very complex program, the the concept from which it originates from is very simple: no excuses.
Two words that, I have no doubt will forever change the American education system. In 1994, two audacious teachers founded KIPP to change education for the better with this philosophy. So far, nearly eighty percent of KIPP graduates have gone off to college, a number than rivals most competitive schools in America. What makes KIPP different is that the students that they are teaching are all low income students who otherwise would have only a one in five chance of college. Moreover, the progress of such schools is undeniable. As Jay Matthews, education reporter for the Washington Post reported from the annual KIPP Summit, "the 1,400 students at 28 schools in 22 cities who have completed three years at KIPP so far have gone from the 34th percentile at the beginning of fifth grade to the 58th percentile at the end of seventh grade in reading and from the 44th percentile to the 83rd percentile in math." Click here to read the entire article.
However, even more importantly than getting their students into college, KIPP is instilling their students with priceless life skills that most American students don't even have when they graduate from college. While KIPP schools aim to get all of their students into college, they also are aware that this is only one of many challenges that these students face. These students will need to succeed in college and in life long after they leave the halls of KIPP.
Therefore, in order to do so, the students attending KIPP schools usually have actioned packed 8am-5pm school days, including Saturday schools when needed or in addition as a means to learn other life skills on top of their academic workload. Moroever, every morning, as soon as a student enters a KIPP school, they go straight into their morning work. This is a form of school work that they immediately do in silence as soon as they arrive and while they eat breakfast. In classes, students start each class with a "Do Now" another exercise that gets students directly into schoolwork unlike the lack of urgency that exists in most other schools. In fact, in KIPP: Gaston College Preparatory (where I work), mirrors have even been taken from the bathrooms so students will spend less time in the bathroom and more time in classes.
Moreover, KIPP schools have summer school in August before the grading period statrs to build the community of the schools while instilling the cultural norms and core values that are expected from each student. While each KIPP school does so in their own unique way, the amazing part of this is that unlike the other schools systems in America, these students are constantly challenged to take ownership of their actions, to make critical explanations of what their consequences should be for every action (whether it be positive or negative), and earn everything that they receive from college visits to even homework. Who would think that teachers could get students to be begging to go to class or be given homework? Somehow KIPP has found a way to do so.
This is not to say that KIPP does not have its shortcomings. In fact, the biggest critics of KIPP seem to be within KIPP. I have never seen an organization so proud of its commitment to a shared mission, yet so critical of their work as I have with KIPP. While there have been incredible gains in KIPP, teachers, principals, and students operate under the rule that "we are never done." There are always more challenges to come and we can always get better.
To make sure all of this happens, teachers, parents, and students all must sign contracts promising each other that as a collective team, they will all do as much as they can to help the student succeed by continuously supporting and challenging them to do better. Parents must sign the planners of students every night to verify that they have checked their son/daughter's homeowrk is done and teachers are given cell phones that students can call at night to get help with homework so that no child has the excuse not to have done their homework. Therefore, as the KIPP motto goes, there really are "no excuses." Moreover, when students do poorly on their assessments or make mistakes like being mean to another classmate, no one takes this as hard as the teachers of KIPP. There is a shared responsibility with the student to know that it is up to the teachers to teach these things and for the students to practice them. Therefore, teachers can always find a better way to teach and students can always find better ways to execute.
In the end, one of the main goals of KIPP is to disappear, which might sound a little crazy if it is doing so well. The point of KIPP is not to replace other public schools in America, but to challenge them to look at education as more than just a holding place for youth until they turn eighteen. Rather, KIPP challenges themselves and the rest of the country to push every student to acheive to the level where they can have more choices - the choice of whether or not to go to college, the choice of what college to go to, and most importantly the moral choices that we will have to make for the rest of our lives. KIPP teaches life long learners and not just middle school students. As the walls read in the KIPP school in which I teach, there is college, a better life, and then a changed world. With a little more KIPP-nosis, I believe that we will be closer to our goal of a changed world.
Sunday, July 29, 2007
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
Save Yourself
If you haven’t read it yet, you should really pick up Uzodinma Iweala’s critically acclaimed novel, “Beasts of No Nation.”
But before you do, you can whet you appetite with his opinion piece in this past weekend’s Washington Post, entitled “Stop Trying to ‘Save’ Africa.”
Iweala’s point here is not new. William Easterly’s piece, “The West Can’t Save Africa” appeared in the Washington Post eighteen months ago, right before his book about the same subject matter came out: “White Man’s Burden.”
The sad thing is that no matter how many times people are told they just don’t seem to get it: Africa doesn’t need to be saved anymore than any other continent in the world. Why don’t you think Al Gore’s environmental campaign slogan is "Save Antarctica?" Or perhaps the Democrats should run their 2008 campaign on, “Save North America.”
When it comes to the US, we don’t ever think we need be saved. We are, of course, hard-working and self-sufficient Americans. Therefore we should know how to save ourselves. So why don’t we feel that way about Africa? And who are we to try and save other people when we can’t even save ourselves?
I share Iweala’s frustrations. But what are our solutions going to be?
Maybe every time a US college student tries to give us a “Save Darfur” pamphlet, we should give them back a pamphlet that says, “Save our nation’s misguided college students.” I’m not quite sure how effective this tactic will be, but then again, how effective are they in getting people to really care about Darfur? Signing a petition and convincing themselves that they’ve done their part to “save” the poor Africans seems like more of an instigator of bad politics than it is a help.
It’s natural to want to help people. Saving people, however, seems egotistical & condescending. Personally, I think that I have a lot to offer to Africa and the rest of the world, probably more than most people do. However, there is a clear distinction for me between being a savior and being an important part of the struggle.
Critics of Iweala may ask: does it really matter? After all, if money and advocacy is going to charitable organizations to help, shouldn’t the ends justify the means?
The answer to me is unequivocally no. Because even if campaigns like “Save Darfur” succeed in raising money and awareness, it is also prolonging the two and a half century old American problem of manifest destiny - Americans and wealthy western nations are not any better than anybody in the developing world. Rather, we are only more developed because we stole the resources, exploited the people and destroyed the communities of the areas of which we are now trying to “save.” Africa would not be in the condition that it is in today if it wasn’t for colonization and slavery.
While the words “manifest destiny” are no longer used in our daily vernacular, they are still ingrained in daily American belief. While Americans are not destined to be the world’s premier superpower, we still believe us to be. We think it’s our responsibility to “save” the rest of the world by promoting our cultural and ideological influence. Rather, it is these same practices that seem to be plaguing the people we want to “save.”
If there’s one thing that I’ve learned about working with my colleagues in Africa, it’s exactly what Nelson Mandela argues: ask not what you can do for us, but what you can do with us. Development should be about partnerships and not about misguided notions of manifest destiny. And so before people try to “save” others perhaps they should be trying to save themselves from thinking this way. In the meantime, the next time I go back to Africa, I’m going to see if I can get African college students to start wearing shirts that say, “Save America’s Youth.”
But before you do, you can whet you appetite with his opinion piece in this past weekend’s Washington Post, entitled “Stop Trying to ‘Save’ Africa.”
Iweala’s point here is not new. William Easterly’s piece, “The West Can’t Save Africa” appeared in the Washington Post eighteen months ago, right before his book about the same subject matter came out: “White Man’s Burden.”
The sad thing is that no matter how many times people are told they just don’t seem to get it: Africa doesn’t need to be saved anymore than any other continent in the world. Why don’t you think Al Gore’s environmental campaign slogan is "Save Antarctica?" Or perhaps the Democrats should run their 2008 campaign on, “Save North America.”
When it comes to the US, we don’t ever think we need be saved. We are, of course, hard-working and self-sufficient Americans. Therefore we should know how to save ourselves. So why don’t we feel that way about Africa? And who are we to try and save other people when we can’t even save ourselves?
I share Iweala’s frustrations. But what are our solutions going to be?
Maybe every time a US college student tries to give us a “Save Darfur” pamphlet, we should give them back a pamphlet that says, “Save our nation’s misguided college students.” I’m not quite sure how effective this tactic will be, but then again, how effective are they in getting people to really care about Darfur? Signing a petition and convincing themselves that they’ve done their part to “save” the poor Africans seems like more of an instigator of bad politics than it is a help.
It’s natural to want to help people. Saving people, however, seems egotistical & condescending. Personally, I think that I have a lot to offer to Africa and the rest of the world, probably more than most people do. However, there is a clear distinction for me between being a savior and being an important part of the struggle.
Critics of Iweala may ask: does it really matter? After all, if money and advocacy is going to charitable organizations to help, shouldn’t the ends justify the means?
The answer to me is unequivocally no. Because even if campaigns like “Save Darfur” succeed in raising money and awareness, it is also prolonging the two and a half century old American problem of manifest destiny - Americans and wealthy western nations are not any better than anybody in the developing world. Rather, we are only more developed because we stole the resources, exploited the people and destroyed the communities of the areas of which we are now trying to “save.” Africa would not be in the condition that it is in today if it wasn’t for colonization and slavery.
While the words “manifest destiny” are no longer used in our daily vernacular, they are still ingrained in daily American belief. While Americans are not destined to be the world’s premier superpower, we still believe us to be. We think it’s our responsibility to “save” the rest of the world by promoting our cultural and ideological influence. Rather, it is these same practices that seem to be plaguing the people we want to “save.”
If there’s one thing that I’ve learned about working with my colleagues in Africa, it’s exactly what Nelson Mandela argues: ask not what you can do for us, but what you can do with us. Development should be about partnerships and not about misguided notions of manifest destiny. And so before people try to “save” others perhaps they should be trying to save themselves from thinking this way. In the meantime, the next time I go back to Africa, I’m going to see if I can get African college students to start wearing shirts that say, “Save America’s Youth.”
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
The Inconvenient Truth About Live Earth
There were many great things about how Live Earth was put together. Unlike Live 8, Live Earth was truly a global event by including every continent, rather than shunning out Africa as Live 8 had done – the very continent they were trying to bring awareness about. In addition, the venues tried their best to use recyclable items and encourage their patrons to do so. And if the Live Earth event organizers were right, the event reached 2 billion people or about a third of the world’s population. And if you had the time and money to go to one of the concerts or own a television to watch it, chances are, you needed to hear the message. But was the message heard?
Al Gore may have known better than to help spearhead this project. After all, he got it right from the beginning: protecting our environment is an “inconvenient truth.” People do not like to be inconvenienced, even if it means protecting the environment.
It is inconvenient to care because to care means to people will have to change the convenient and comfortable lifestyles that they are used to. This means less bottled water and more tap water that you should be drinking from a reusable container (even if it means bringing it everywhere you go) and not a paper or Styrofoam cup you’re just going to throw out. It means going to the local farmers more and buying local produce as opposed to the produce that needs to be flow in from across the continent - and remembering to bring a reusable bag or not to ask for one so that you are not taking a non-biodegradable or non-recyclable plastic bag. It means turning down the air conditioning on a hot day & trying to get back w/ just your windows open. It means using as much daylight as possible to be efficient and then keeping your lights off at night. It means not flushing the toilet every time and dealing with the odor so that you can conserve water. Or even worse for many, showering less or with less water.
Those are just the many tip of the iceberg ideas that very few people are willing to partake because of the inconvenience factor. It’s not too hard to reuse the same water bottle for five years and to ask take out restaurants if it’s okay that you use it for your drink rather than taking one of their throw-away cups, yet it is too hard for most people in the world. So if people are unwilling to do this, how willing are they to do the bigger, even more impacting things like living in smaller, older homes rather than taking the resources and land to build a large, new one?
And what about the debate over some of the new ideas to conserve energy are really working? Are people going to actually take the time to think critically about this information or just mindlessly do what they think is the cool thing to do because a celebrity told them to do so? It is arguable whether or not the energy used to recycle things actually creates more waste than if items were just put in a landfill ( “Recycling is Garbage,” John Tierney). Or whether or not solar energy or hybrid cars actually save fuel in the long run, or that the fuel needed to create these things to being with create more waste than these items could ever save? Not to say that any of these ideas is correct, rather people need to see all sides of the story to be able to truly know whether or not their well-intentioned behaviors are actually helping or hurting the environment. The only sure fire way to help so far is to use less and reuse more, which means dramatic lifestyle changes for much of the wasteful, need-to-own-everything-brand-new, "developed" world. Though if they are so developed, the question remains, how so when it comes to environmental protection?
The thing is that despite the good intentions behind Live Earth, the end result probably will not save as much energy as the event needed to put it together. Musical artists are still going to live in their overly extravagant houses that use up a ridiculous amount of energy. They will continue to go on tour in their private jets & large buses that could easily accommodate more people going their same direction. And they are still going to put on these large scale concerts w/ laser lights and sell lots of food items sold in non-reusable containers and artist paraphernalia that doesn’t need to be made in the first place, but will one day end up in a dump somewhere.
Moreover, the people who saw the show will also soon forget about the message behind it and just be thankful for the opportunity of a free concert to see their favorite acts. Plus, if their musical idols aren’t going to practice what they preach, what incentive will fans have?
The truth of the matter is that it is only when people are really to change their lifestyles to live a little more inconveniently for the convenience of the future will the world truly be a Live Earth.
Al Gore may have known better than to help spearhead this project. After all, he got it right from the beginning: protecting our environment is an “inconvenient truth.” People do not like to be inconvenienced, even if it means protecting the environment.
It is inconvenient to care because to care means to people will have to change the convenient and comfortable lifestyles that they are used to. This means less bottled water and more tap water that you should be drinking from a reusable container (even if it means bringing it everywhere you go) and not a paper or Styrofoam cup you’re just going to throw out. It means going to the local farmers more and buying local produce as opposed to the produce that needs to be flow in from across the continent - and remembering to bring a reusable bag or not to ask for one so that you are not taking a non-biodegradable or non-recyclable plastic bag. It means turning down the air conditioning on a hot day & trying to get back w/ just your windows open. It means using as much daylight as possible to be efficient and then keeping your lights off at night. It means not flushing the toilet every time and dealing with the odor so that you can conserve water. Or even worse for many, showering less or with less water.
Those are just the many tip of the iceberg ideas that very few people are willing to partake because of the inconvenience factor. It’s not too hard to reuse the same water bottle for five years and to ask take out restaurants if it’s okay that you use it for your drink rather than taking one of their throw-away cups, yet it is too hard for most people in the world. So if people are unwilling to do this, how willing are they to do the bigger, even more impacting things like living in smaller, older homes rather than taking the resources and land to build a large, new one?
And what about the debate over some of the new ideas to conserve energy are really working? Are people going to actually take the time to think critically about this information or just mindlessly do what they think is the cool thing to do because a celebrity told them to do so? It is arguable whether or not the energy used to recycle things actually creates more waste than if items were just put in a landfill ( “Recycling is Garbage,” John Tierney). Or whether or not solar energy or hybrid cars actually save fuel in the long run, or that the fuel needed to create these things to being with create more waste than these items could ever save? Not to say that any of these ideas is correct, rather people need to see all sides of the story to be able to truly know whether or not their well-intentioned behaviors are actually helping or hurting the environment. The only sure fire way to help so far is to use less and reuse more, which means dramatic lifestyle changes for much of the wasteful, need-to-own-everything-brand-new, "developed" world. Though if they are so developed, the question remains, how so when it comes to environmental protection?
The thing is that despite the good intentions behind Live Earth, the end result probably will not save as much energy as the event needed to put it together. Musical artists are still going to live in their overly extravagant houses that use up a ridiculous amount of energy. They will continue to go on tour in their private jets & large buses that could easily accommodate more people going their same direction. And they are still going to put on these large scale concerts w/ laser lights and sell lots of food items sold in non-reusable containers and artist paraphernalia that doesn’t need to be made in the first place, but will one day end up in a dump somewhere.
Moreover, the people who saw the show will also soon forget about the message behind it and just be thankful for the opportunity of a free concert to see their favorite acts. Plus, if their musical idols aren’t going to practice what they preach, what incentive will fans have?
The truth of the matter is that it is only when people are really to change their lifestyles to live a little more inconveniently for the convenience of the future will the world truly be a Live Earth.
Friday, July 6, 2007
The ABCs of ICTs
I joined facebook this morning.
It’s something that I have been resisting for years since its inception. While I saw the benefit for social networking, I could foresee it aiding in the downfall of everyday face-to-face communication and true friendships, not those artificial friendships created by collecting as many people as you can onto your Friends Page. I am not denying that it is still doing this on a micro-level, but on a macro-level, I am starting to see the greater benefit of an online community that crosses borders, both geographical and ideological.
Information Communication Technologies (or ICTs) are the new thing in development. My friend, Josh Goldstein, is at the forefront of this being a graduate student at Tufts’ Fletcher School of International Relations and working at Harvard’s Berkman Center for Internet and Society. He knows more about ICTs than I do, but from what I’ve learned from him and have learned myself, it is clear to me that ICTs are a key component to the impending success of the developing world.
Nicholas Negroponte’s ambitious One Laptop Per Child (OLPC) Initiative is a perfect example of the global breadth of ICTs. In his vision, Negroponte and his team envision every child in every developing nation to have access to their own personal laptop that has been created to be water, wind, sand…basically, anything-proof. Moreover, these laptops would have the ability to connect to each other on a wireless network and so if one of these laptops would be able to secure an internet connection, all the children in the village would be able to link into that laptop as a server and all gain connection to the rest of the world.
Currently, only about two percent of people in the developing world have access to the internet. If every child in the developing world gets one of these laptops, the accessibility rate would jump to near one-hundred.
Now critics, including Bill Gates a while back, will ask, why ICTs and not ARVs (anti-retroviral drugs, used to stymie HIV/AIDs and prevent the passing of the disease from pregnant mother to unborn child)? Would not the money used to create all these billions of laptops be better used by governments and private donors to cure deadly disease like HIV/AIDs and malaria, or help to feed the hungry or provide clean drinking water to the rest of the world?
This may be true, but this also may not be feasible when it comes to implementation strategy in places with little to know infrastructure and information dispersal plan. For instance, when well-meaning Hollywood activists tried to give out free mosquito nets to people in rural villages in Sub-Sahara Africa (SSA), many people did not know what they were for and ended up using them as fishing nets or simply throwing them away. However, when they were being sold at a subsidized cost, everyone who bought them ended up using them the way they were intended to be used because of the information they received from the shopkeeper and others around them who were able to tell them what their investment was for.
Moreover, ICTs may be the key element in fighting disease and eliminating the devastating effects of extreme poverty. ICTs may represent the proverbial horse to the cart of extreme poverty. Take the following example.
ICT does not only mean the internet. It also means communication tools like cell phones, which seem to be a hotter than the weather when it comes to SSA. While not everyone has them, they are far more accessible than the internet is. Moreover, because of the general lag in developing nations in picking up technology, there are few LAN lines (the type of communication technology before cell phones when we had to rely on miles and miles of telephone poles and wires to be able to make phone calls) in SSA. SSA jumped straight to cell phones, thereby eliminating lots of wasted wiring and general capital that would have been needed to be spent to create such a system. Nowadays, cell phones have created a general communications infrastructure that is helping the developing world by passing information along from person to person at a incredible speed that has never been seen before.
Farmers are able to text message other farmers about a fair price to sell their crops for at the marketplace, communities are able to disperse important information about town meetings our contaminated water in their village, activists can take pictures from cell phones and immediately send them across the world to show the atrocities and everyday suffering of SSA in a matter of seconds – all of this and more because of something we, Americans, take for granted everyday in cell phones.
For those who grew up before the cell phone era, think about how hard it was to be able to find someone on a crowded train station or movie theater where you had decided to meet them at a certain time. And if they were running late, they had no way of telling you. Or how now cell phones can take pictures, connect you to the internet and play movies, music and videogames. Now think about how valuable those resources could be in connecting people in a place where it takes an entire day of walking to get from one village to another to disperse important information. Having such an infrastruture in place would aid in the other bigger problems like preventing the spread HIV/AIDs, et al by creating a means to distribute information to everyone about health education, access to healthcare, and opportunities to get tested or ARVs.
But cell phones are just one of the many affordable items that can help ameliorate the efficiency and effectiveness of information dispersal and communication in SSA. Moreover, there is much potential not only intra-community, but also inter-community.
And this brings us back to facebook. As of now, most people are connected through facebook within their communities in the United States. But now that facebook has opened its doors to anyone in the world who wants an account, people in SSA can now create accounts and link to others in the US and elsewhere, including their own communities. For now, the more valuable of the two connections will be to those abroad as locally there is not a wide of an internet user base as there is in say the US, though eventually there will be.
Very little of SSA is on facebook, blogger or youtube. But by putting themselves out there to make connections to people in the West, the rest of the World will one, grasp a better understanding of SSA and two, be able to share information and resources with their counterparts in SSA. An example of such an exchange taking place is with a Cameroonian filmmaker and all-around entertainer named Zigoto who is now on facebook and can put his films, music and ideas out there on the web. As a result, people in the West will be able to recognize his talents and download his music and videos. While people in Cameroon are not able to necessarily afford his music and videos, the people in the West definitely can. However, the West would never be able to know of Zigoto without the power of ICTs connecting them to a struggling Cameroonian artist.
Clearer examples of this is taking place today with micro-finance websites which allow people to lend money to people in the developing world by looking at profiles online and finding a prospective client. The client then works through a middle man (usually the NGO running the site) to get the money, use it for their business, make the money back and return it to the lender, sometimes with pictures of their success to thanks the lender.
However, the later example relies heavily on a third party. The bigger potential lies in simply having the people of SSA put themselves out there on the more popular sites like facebook, myspace, blogger, youtube, etc. where they will be able to connect directly to their counterparts of the West. Now with me on facebook, my friends in the US can now link up with my friends like, Zigoto, in Cameroon. Rather than keeping our networks confined to our spaces in the US, we should be seeking to expand our communities to include those of SSA and the rest of the developing world. We can always pretty easily call each other or see each other face to face in the US, but to communicate with someone in SSA is something that make community tools like facebook really worthwhile. By taking advantage of ICTs, including these “community-creating” websites, people with access to the internet both here in the US and in SSA will greatly be able to benefit.
It’s something that I have been resisting for years since its inception. While I saw the benefit for social networking, I could foresee it aiding in the downfall of everyday face-to-face communication and true friendships, not those artificial friendships created by collecting as many people as you can onto your Friends Page. I am not denying that it is still doing this on a micro-level, but on a macro-level, I am starting to see the greater benefit of an online community that crosses borders, both geographical and ideological.
Information Communication Technologies (or ICTs) are the new thing in development. My friend, Josh Goldstein, is at the forefront of this being a graduate student at Tufts’ Fletcher School of International Relations and working at Harvard’s Berkman Center for Internet and Society. He knows more about ICTs than I do, but from what I’ve learned from him and have learned myself, it is clear to me that ICTs are a key component to the impending success of the developing world.
Nicholas Negroponte’s ambitious One Laptop Per Child (OLPC) Initiative is a perfect example of the global breadth of ICTs. In his vision, Negroponte and his team envision every child in every developing nation to have access to their own personal laptop that has been created to be water, wind, sand…basically, anything-proof. Moreover, these laptops would have the ability to connect to each other on a wireless network and so if one of these laptops would be able to secure an internet connection, all the children in the village would be able to link into that laptop as a server and all gain connection to the rest of the world.
Currently, only about two percent of people in the developing world have access to the internet. If every child in the developing world gets one of these laptops, the accessibility rate would jump to near one-hundred.
Now critics, including Bill Gates a while back, will ask, why ICTs and not ARVs (anti-retroviral drugs, used to stymie HIV/AIDs and prevent the passing of the disease from pregnant mother to unborn child)? Would not the money used to create all these billions of laptops be better used by governments and private donors to cure deadly disease like HIV/AIDs and malaria, or help to feed the hungry or provide clean drinking water to the rest of the world?
This may be true, but this also may not be feasible when it comes to implementation strategy in places with little to know infrastructure and information dispersal plan. For instance, when well-meaning Hollywood activists tried to give out free mosquito nets to people in rural villages in Sub-Sahara Africa (SSA), many people did not know what they were for and ended up using them as fishing nets or simply throwing them away. However, when they were being sold at a subsidized cost, everyone who bought them ended up using them the way they were intended to be used because of the information they received from the shopkeeper and others around them who were able to tell them what their investment was for.
Moreover, ICTs may be the key element in fighting disease and eliminating the devastating effects of extreme poverty. ICTs may represent the proverbial horse to the cart of extreme poverty. Take the following example.
ICT does not only mean the internet. It also means communication tools like cell phones, which seem to be a hotter than the weather when it comes to SSA. While not everyone has them, they are far more accessible than the internet is. Moreover, because of the general lag in developing nations in picking up technology, there are few LAN lines (the type of communication technology before cell phones when we had to rely on miles and miles of telephone poles and wires to be able to make phone calls) in SSA. SSA jumped straight to cell phones, thereby eliminating lots of wasted wiring and general capital that would have been needed to be spent to create such a system. Nowadays, cell phones have created a general communications infrastructure that is helping the developing world by passing information along from person to person at a incredible speed that has never been seen before.
Farmers are able to text message other farmers about a fair price to sell their crops for at the marketplace, communities are able to disperse important information about town meetings our contaminated water in their village, activists can take pictures from cell phones and immediately send them across the world to show the atrocities and everyday suffering of SSA in a matter of seconds – all of this and more because of something we, Americans, take for granted everyday in cell phones.
For those who grew up before the cell phone era, think about how hard it was to be able to find someone on a crowded train station or movie theater where you had decided to meet them at a certain time. And if they were running late, they had no way of telling you. Or how now cell phones can take pictures, connect you to the internet and play movies, music and videogames. Now think about how valuable those resources could be in connecting people in a place where it takes an entire day of walking to get from one village to another to disperse important information. Having such an infrastruture in place would aid in the other bigger problems like preventing the spread HIV/AIDs, et al by creating a means to distribute information to everyone about health education, access to healthcare, and opportunities to get tested or ARVs.
But cell phones are just one of the many affordable items that can help ameliorate the efficiency and effectiveness of information dispersal and communication in SSA. Moreover, there is much potential not only intra-community, but also inter-community.
And this brings us back to facebook. As of now, most people are connected through facebook within their communities in the United States. But now that facebook has opened its doors to anyone in the world who wants an account, people in SSA can now create accounts and link to others in the US and elsewhere, including their own communities. For now, the more valuable of the two connections will be to those abroad as locally there is not a wide of an internet user base as there is in say the US, though eventually there will be.
Very little of SSA is on facebook, blogger or youtube. But by putting themselves out there to make connections to people in the West, the rest of the World will one, grasp a better understanding of SSA and two, be able to share information and resources with their counterparts in SSA. An example of such an exchange taking place is with a Cameroonian filmmaker and all-around entertainer named Zigoto who is now on facebook and can put his films, music and ideas out there on the web. As a result, people in the West will be able to recognize his talents and download his music and videos. While people in Cameroon are not able to necessarily afford his music and videos, the people in the West definitely can. However, the West would never be able to know of Zigoto without the power of ICTs connecting them to a struggling Cameroonian artist.
Clearer examples of this is taking place today with micro-finance websites which allow people to lend money to people in the developing world by looking at profiles online and finding a prospective client. The client then works through a middle man (usually the NGO running the site) to get the money, use it for their business, make the money back and return it to the lender, sometimes with pictures of their success to thanks the lender.
However, the later example relies heavily on a third party. The bigger potential lies in simply having the people of SSA put themselves out there on the more popular sites like facebook, myspace, blogger, youtube, etc. where they will be able to connect directly to their counterparts of the West. Now with me on facebook, my friends in the US can now link up with my friends like, Zigoto, in Cameroon. Rather than keeping our networks confined to our spaces in the US, we should be seeking to expand our communities to include those of SSA and the rest of the developing world. We can always pretty easily call each other or see each other face to face in the US, but to communicate with someone in SSA is something that make community tools like facebook really worthwhile. By taking advantage of ICTs, including these “community-creating” websites, people with access to the internet both here in the US and in SSA will greatly be able to benefit.
Tuesday, July 3, 2007
Cameroon...or the Moon?
Stepping off on the plane into an airport lacking the air-conditioning that I have grown accustomed to was the first sign of the new world that I had entered for the next two weeks. While this was my third trip to Africa in three years, I never seem to be quite prepared for the humidity and heat that hits you in the face like a wall of sweat and dirt each time you arrive.
They call Cameroon “Africa in miniature” because of how diverse the population and environment is. However, despite its similarities to many other parts of Africa, there are few similarities to the United States outside of the capitalistic culture and mass marketing that the West has tried to infuse into Cameroonian culture. I can’t say that is hasn’t worked, as much of the youth can be found wearing the same Kobe Bryant jerseys and drinking the same imported beer that any young American would be wearing and drinking these days. However, the culture itself is so different that oftentimes I would not even feel as if I was on the same planet.
Everyone greets you as family, even if they have just met you for the first time. And at first, you might be dubious of this - thinking that this is just their sly way of earning your trust just to ask you for money later. But after two weeks of sharing meals and being invited into their homes, it is clear to see that this is just how people are in Cameroon. The cynicism that I may have had in thinking that these people would be out to get me was simply part of my western indoctrination for the past 24 years to be paranoid that those with less may actually be coming back for what they deserve from their western counterparts - whose empire has been built on the lives of Africa's (though, in actuality all of our) ancestors.
At each NGO, governmental or cultural official, or random place, I cannot even tell you how many times we were asked to take a “family picture” with us, Americans, as part of it. If I was to call all the pictures I took in the US, a “family picture,” I would probably be getting funny looks from people who are thinking to themselves, “I hope to God that he’s not part of my family.” However, in Cameroon, we are all family, despite our differing cultural background or how much money we may have in our pockets.
Another way to see how important family is in Cameroon is through food. On my first full day in Cameroon, I went to the US Embassy with the group I was traveling with for a security and cultural briefing. The cultural attaché of the Embassy, known affectionately as “Ya” (meaning respected mother), asked each of us to introduce ourselves by sharing with her something that we liked to celebrate. Most of the Americans I was with talked about insightful and poignant things like peace, progress, family, holidays, etc.
When it came to me, I ashamedly uttered: food. I celebrate food because I think it tells you a lot about the people and culture you are with. Not only the type of food, but where they got it from, how they chose to prepare it, how much time they put into making it, and most importantly to me, how it is eaten. Is it eaten with your hands? Do you sit around a round table to eat where you share food or does everyone get their own unique dish? Who gets to eat first? Do you have to wait for everyone else to get their food before you eat? There is so much to learn about a culture through their food and how they choose to eat it. And I must say that I learned a lot about Cameroon through their food, even as a vegan who couldn’t enjoy much of the fish and meat that Cameroon has to offer.
For one, much alike the Native Americans of the West, Cameroonians are known to eat just about anything (including the “street meat” – or as we are more familiar with road kill) and to eat the entire part of everything they eat, down to the skins of their meat and the eye of the fish. There is no wastefulness in their food. Another thing I appreciated was that all the food we were eating was local. Most of the vegetables and fruits that we were eating could be found growing in a field not far from where we were staying - unlike the overly processed, pre-packaged foods that we are used to in the US that come from across the country in huge trucks littering the air with absurd amounts of CO2 just so we can enjoy a pineapple.
However, the most profound thing about Cameroon that I learned about food came from our Cameroonian friend Synthia, who told me once over a paltry looking dinner, that “there’s always enough food.” In a country where most of the people seem to be living in extreme poverty, there is always enough food. Synthia would tell me that communities and families are always willing to feed each other in the villages despite not having much food because as she so eloquently and simply put it, there is always enough. This couldn’t be more true, yet in the cities in America, we never seem to have enough for the starving or homeless despite all the waste restaurants pour out at the end of every night or the insane amount of grain that the US government simply dumps out in the ocean after subsidizing our farming industry. It is a bitter irony that in a place that has such a higher rate of poverty that people seem much more willing to share their food with a wealthy American, even if it seems as if they don’t have enough for themselves.
While Cameroon is considered a developing country, I sometimes wondered if they are actually much more developed than we, Westerners, are. Cameroonians and Sub-Saharan Africans, in general, are much more developed than Americans when it comes to things like family, community, environment, survival skills, etc. There is a laundry list of inexhaustible, un-measurable social capital in Cameroon. Just because we cannot put a monetary value on it or count it like we would material goods or square feet doesn’t mean it’s not there.
The people in Cameroon work at what we in the West would consider a snail’s pace, but oftentimes with good reason. Generally speaking, Cameroonians seek to develop their relationships with each other first before they worry about developing their economy. Therefore, while Americans may want to brag about how developed we are because we can fit 250 songs into an i-pod the size of my fingernail, Cameroonians can brag that their community structure is so developed that if a thief strikes in a market, all the shop owners will hold him to justice before any policeman ever could; or that their family structures are so developed that any stranger coming into their home will have a enough to eat and a place to stay for the night; or that no matter who you are, Cameroonians have the time of day for you, even if they have to miss a meeting or a TPS report for you.
Moreover the weight of the ecological footprint of a Cameroonian must be at least ten times less than that of an average American, much like how our weight is much less if we were on the moon. A Cameroonian uses a tenth of the amount of water we would use in a single shower by only using enough cold water to rise, lather, and re-rinse, whereas we are used to long hot showers. Not to mention that they save their water to either fill their toilets or to wash their clothes. Another area where Cameroonians make much less of an ecological impact is in plastic and glass. The soda and beer industry in Cameroon reuses its glass bottles in the same way Americans used to with the milkman. However, whereas the days of milkmen have given way to convenience and wastefulness in the US, Cameroonians are still used to reusing the same bottle over and over again. Not to mention that any spare bottles are usually taken in to be cleaned and filled with homemade juices, spices, or collected peanuts to be resold on the street. At first glance, the streets of Cameroon may appear dirty, but given the amount of people who live there and that people generally simply throw their trash out on the street, it is much cleaner than the US would be if people had to do the same. Rather, there is very little trash created in Cameroon because everything can be reused for a different purpose.
In living up to my “leave no trace” principles, I even brought my trash back to the US with me: a few empty water bottles and mostly trash I had brought into Cameroon to begin with: Luna Bar wrappers, empty plastic bags and a broken pair of sunglasses. Everything else I had bought in Cameroon didn’t come with packaging or has already found a new owner and a new use.
What is sad, however, is despite how resourceful Cameroonians seem to be, that much of their resourcefulness is in using products that are not Cameroonian. Rather, much of what Cameroonians spend their money on goes to industries owned by the West. Cell phones, Coke and foreign beer bottles, and Western fashion dominate the Cameroonian landscape and economy by freezing out local producers. Moreover, it is not uncommon for these foreign businesses to extract the natural resources of Cameroon, ship them away to be processed, and then back into Cameroon to be sold. So despite the efforts of locals being resourceful, they are fighting an uphill economic battle against emotionless, profiteering giants living oceans away from them.
I found myself still sweating as I stepped back into the comfortable, air-conditioned lobby of the JFK airport. Perhaps I was sweating not so much because of the heat, rather because I was a guilty American who had made more of an ecological impact in my 24 years of begin an American than any Cameroonian would in a lifetime. Moreover, on top of my 50lb back pack, I could feel the weight of the world on my shoulders to actually do something about what I now could see more clearly about the world I was living in.
I take a deep breath and look around at the hurried people with their soon to be thrown out soda bottles and fast food scurrying around in fast forward motion through the airport. It seems to me that everyone here could use a trip to the moon.
They call Cameroon “Africa in miniature” because of how diverse the population and environment is. However, despite its similarities to many other parts of Africa, there are few similarities to the United States outside of the capitalistic culture and mass marketing that the West has tried to infuse into Cameroonian culture. I can’t say that is hasn’t worked, as much of the youth can be found wearing the same Kobe Bryant jerseys and drinking the same imported beer that any young American would be wearing and drinking these days. However, the culture itself is so different that oftentimes I would not even feel as if I was on the same planet.
Everyone greets you as family, even if they have just met you for the first time. And at first, you might be dubious of this - thinking that this is just their sly way of earning your trust just to ask you for money later. But after two weeks of sharing meals and being invited into their homes, it is clear to see that this is just how people are in Cameroon. The cynicism that I may have had in thinking that these people would be out to get me was simply part of my western indoctrination for the past 24 years to be paranoid that those with less may actually be coming back for what they deserve from their western counterparts - whose empire has been built on the lives of Africa's (though, in actuality all of our) ancestors.
At each NGO, governmental or cultural official, or random place, I cannot even tell you how many times we were asked to take a “family picture” with us, Americans, as part of it. If I was to call all the pictures I took in the US, a “family picture,” I would probably be getting funny looks from people who are thinking to themselves, “I hope to God that he’s not part of my family.” However, in Cameroon, we are all family, despite our differing cultural background or how much money we may have in our pockets.
Another way to see how important family is in Cameroon is through food. On my first full day in Cameroon, I went to the US Embassy with the group I was traveling with for a security and cultural briefing. The cultural attaché of the Embassy, known affectionately as “Ya” (meaning respected mother), asked each of us to introduce ourselves by sharing with her something that we liked to celebrate. Most of the Americans I was with talked about insightful and poignant things like peace, progress, family, holidays, etc.
When it came to me, I ashamedly uttered: food. I celebrate food because I think it tells you a lot about the people and culture you are with. Not only the type of food, but where they got it from, how they chose to prepare it, how much time they put into making it, and most importantly to me, how it is eaten. Is it eaten with your hands? Do you sit around a round table to eat where you share food or does everyone get their own unique dish? Who gets to eat first? Do you have to wait for everyone else to get their food before you eat? There is so much to learn about a culture through their food and how they choose to eat it. And I must say that I learned a lot about Cameroon through their food, even as a vegan who couldn’t enjoy much of the fish and meat that Cameroon has to offer.
For one, much alike the Native Americans of the West, Cameroonians are known to eat just about anything (including the “street meat” – or as we are more familiar with road kill) and to eat the entire part of everything they eat, down to the skins of their meat and the eye of the fish. There is no wastefulness in their food. Another thing I appreciated was that all the food we were eating was local. Most of the vegetables and fruits that we were eating could be found growing in a field not far from where we were staying - unlike the overly processed, pre-packaged foods that we are used to in the US that come from across the country in huge trucks littering the air with absurd amounts of CO2 just so we can enjoy a pineapple.
However, the most profound thing about Cameroon that I learned about food came from our Cameroonian friend Synthia, who told me once over a paltry looking dinner, that “there’s always enough food.” In a country where most of the people seem to be living in extreme poverty, there is always enough food. Synthia would tell me that communities and families are always willing to feed each other in the villages despite not having much food because as she so eloquently and simply put it, there is always enough. This couldn’t be more true, yet in the cities in America, we never seem to have enough for the starving or homeless despite all the waste restaurants pour out at the end of every night or the insane amount of grain that the US government simply dumps out in the ocean after subsidizing our farming industry. It is a bitter irony that in a place that has such a higher rate of poverty that people seem much more willing to share their food with a wealthy American, even if it seems as if they don’t have enough for themselves.
While Cameroon is considered a developing country, I sometimes wondered if they are actually much more developed than we, Westerners, are. Cameroonians and Sub-Saharan Africans, in general, are much more developed than Americans when it comes to things like family, community, environment, survival skills, etc. There is a laundry list of inexhaustible, un-measurable social capital in Cameroon. Just because we cannot put a monetary value on it or count it like we would material goods or square feet doesn’t mean it’s not there.
The people in Cameroon work at what we in the West would consider a snail’s pace, but oftentimes with good reason. Generally speaking, Cameroonians seek to develop their relationships with each other first before they worry about developing their economy. Therefore, while Americans may want to brag about how developed we are because we can fit 250 songs into an i-pod the size of my fingernail, Cameroonians can brag that their community structure is so developed that if a thief strikes in a market, all the shop owners will hold him to justice before any policeman ever could; or that their family structures are so developed that any stranger coming into their home will have a enough to eat and a place to stay for the night; or that no matter who you are, Cameroonians have the time of day for you, even if they have to miss a meeting or a TPS report for you.
Moreover the weight of the ecological footprint of a Cameroonian must be at least ten times less than that of an average American, much like how our weight is much less if we were on the moon. A Cameroonian uses a tenth of the amount of water we would use in a single shower by only using enough cold water to rise, lather, and re-rinse, whereas we are used to long hot showers. Not to mention that they save their water to either fill their toilets or to wash their clothes. Another area where Cameroonians make much less of an ecological impact is in plastic and glass. The soda and beer industry in Cameroon reuses its glass bottles in the same way Americans used to with the milkman. However, whereas the days of milkmen have given way to convenience and wastefulness in the US, Cameroonians are still used to reusing the same bottle over and over again. Not to mention that any spare bottles are usually taken in to be cleaned and filled with homemade juices, spices, or collected peanuts to be resold on the street. At first glance, the streets of Cameroon may appear dirty, but given the amount of people who live there and that people generally simply throw their trash out on the street, it is much cleaner than the US would be if people had to do the same. Rather, there is very little trash created in Cameroon because everything can be reused for a different purpose.
In living up to my “leave no trace” principles, I even brought my trash back to the US with me: a few empty water bottles and mostly trash I had brought into Cameroon to begin with: Luna Bar wrappers, empty plastic bags and a broken pair of sunglasses. Everything else I had bought in Cameroon didn’t come with packaging or has already found a new owner and a new use.
What is sad, however, is despite how resourceful Cameroonians seem to be, that much of their resourcefulness is in using products that are not Cameroonian. Rather, much of what Cameroonians spend their money on goes to industries owned by the West. Cell phones, Coke and foreign beer bottles, and Western fashion dominate the Cameroonian landscape and economy by freezing out local producers. Moreover, it is not uncommon for these foreign businesses to extract the natural resources of Cameroon, ship them away to be processed, and then back into Cameroon to be sold. So despite the efforts of locals being resourceful, they are fighting an uphill economic battle against emotionless, profiteering giants living oceans away from them.
I found myself still sweating as I stepped back into the comfortable, air-conditioned lobby of the JFK airport. Perhaps I was sweating not so much because of the heat, rather because I was a guilty American who had made more of an ecological impact in my 24 years of begin an American than any Cameroonian would in a lifetime. Moreover, on top of my 50lb back pack, I could feel the weight of the world on my shoulders to actually do something about what I now could see more clearly about the world I was living in.
I take a deep breath and look around at the hurried people with their soon to be thrown out soda bottles and fast food scurrying around in fast forward motion through the airport. It seems to me that everyone here could use a trip to the moon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
