"We Think a Lot Less in National Perspectives and a Lot More in Individual Perspectives Nowadays"

I've been enjoying the response that my column about Internet colonialism has received over the last few days. I appreciate the thoughtful discussion and anyone who knows me personally will attest to the fact that I never shy away from a good debate!

So in the spirit of open discourse, I asked Paul Ibrahim for feedback on my article. Ibrahim is a Gen. Y blogger and columnist who was born near Beirut, Lebanon. Although I don't always agree with his perspective, I often find his columns interesting and knew he'd have some good thoughts about what I wrote.

I've pasted his e-mail response below.

-------------------------------

First, the word "colonialism" and its variations is in my opinion way overused, often rendering its meaning useless. When people call McDonald's colonialist, it takes away from the suffering of those who had to endure true colonialism 250 years ago.

I wouldn't think that the prevalence of the Internet in the West compared to, say, Angola, is akin to neo-colonialism. What is the "West" anyway? It's not like we're a bunch of old rich white men sitting around the table deciding what to say about Angolans. We don't all come from the same, "Western" perspective, whatever that would be. We are a collection of individuals, each of which is paying attention to certain content on the Internet. And our beliefs and interests are highly diverse, and we are capable of having as strenuous debates about Angola as Angolans themselves would. My point is, with the diversity already on the Web, all perspectives that are significant are already being presented, even if not much of it is emanating from poorer countries.

Now it's natural for Americans to mostly produce and read products on the Internet about America, because that's what they care about mostly, and logically so -- just as the Egyptians would care about Egypt. But when it does come to content about Angola, it is not necessarily the TMZ crowd creating it. I would venture a guess that those who contribute to the Angola article on Wikipedia are very well learned about Angola, and likely even Angolans themselves, either in Angola or expatriates in the U.S. or Europe. Heck for all we know, content about the U.S. could be created by Africans who do have the Internet. This is because the Internet has torn down borders. We think a lot less in national perspectives and a lot more in individual perspectives nowadays. When someone leaves a comment on a blog entry, I don't think oh that sounds like an American perspective or a Nigerian one, I think that's a person who holds xyz beliefs, and he could be from any country in the world. This is why I largely dispute your clash of civilizations approach.

Now, African bloggers are gonna have much less exposure and traffic, because, as you said, they write about stuff that mostly locals are going to care about, and the locals don't all have Internet. But is that inherently bad? Do we have some kind of duty to make up for their lack of readership, or to institute some kind of Internet affirmative action program? I think not. It'd be like saying we have to publish Mauritanian newspapers in Vermont. Well, no, if the market doesn't request them, forcing them onto people isn't going to do anything. Likewise, when more Angolans go online, they'll know where to find the Angolan bloggers, if they want to. But if the Angolan bloggers don't break into the U.S. readership on a large scale on their own, then there is no demand for them, and we should leave it as is.