Eyes relax movies |
Beyond euphoria: Political, social, and economic realities in South AfricaBlack Collegian , Oct 1994 by Daniels, RonIn May Nelson Mandela was inaugurated as the first Black president of South Africa, capping a heroic struggle by the indigenous African masses for self-determination in their own homeland. The eyes of the world were riveted on South Africa, as that which was deemed virtually unthinkable a few short years ago became a reality. Millions of Black South Africans stood patiently in lines for hours, some having to leave and return on subsequent days, to cast the ballots that would destroy the hated apartheid system. The euphoria of that glorious moment has passed, however, and now Nelson Mandela must meet the elevated expectations of the African masses that their lives will be better now that the shackles of apartheid have been shattered. For Mandela the road ahead may be extremely difficult. Franz Fanon, the renowned Algerian revolutionary, reminded us that the goal of African liberation movements should be not only to achieve national liberation but also to achieve national reconstruction. National liberation speaks of political control. National reconstruction addresses the crucial question of control over the economic structures so that the material resources of the nation can be harnessed to meet the needs of the great masses of the people. Without control over the nation`s vital resources and control over the principal instruments and means of production, national liberation is tantamount to what is often termed "flag independence." Kwame Nkrumah, the first President of Ghana, warned that without the total liberation of the economy from foreign hands (the white minority in this instance) independence will result only in neocolonialism. Under apartheid, the enormous wealth of South Africa--agriculture, gold, diamonds, coal, uranium, nickel, chrome, etc.,--and the major means of production were firmly in the hands of the white minority. And, in a society where the ownership of land is virtually a sacred value, the White minority appropriated the majority of Black-held land and forced the masses of Black people to subsist on about 13 percent of the land in barren wastelands and Bantustans. If the inauguration of Nelson Mandela is to be meaningful in terms of national reconstruction, then Black majority rule must translate into control over the economy. Otherwise, social and political apartheid may have ended but economic apartheid in the form of domestic colonialism will remain intact. Amilcar Cabral, the late, great leader of the anti-colonial struggle in Guinea-Bissau, cautioned that "the people do not struggle for ideas but for a change in their material condition." Herein lies the difficulty for Nelson Mandela and the ANC. At the height of the liberation struggle, the ANC promised that the major industries and other vital sectors of the economy would be nationalized to ensure that the masses would benefit from national liberation. Failing to win a decisive victory on the battlefield and with the West eager to relax sanctions, the ANC backed away from its more radical call for economic transformation to facilitate achieving victory at the ballot box. Electoral victory was achieved, but at a potentially damaging price. Former President F. W. De Klerk, reflecting the sentiments of the White business elite, essentially set the terms for the transition to the "new South Africa." In conceding defeat to Nelson Mandela, De Klerk declared the following: "We must insure that we adopt the right approaches in the economic and social spheres. We need a strong economy based on the tried and tested principles of free enterprise." (New York Times, May 3, 1994) By the time that De Klerk acknowledged his electoral defeat, the White business elite had already triumphed. Mandela and the ANC had abandoned the rhetoric of nationalization and radical economic reform in a major concession to the White minority who control the key sectors of the South African economy. These concessions were also calculated to appease corporate interests in Europe and America to attract massive investment in the South African economy. The White economic power elite in South Africa (Europe and America as well) is comfortable that political changes will not disrupt or significantly alter the existing economic arrangements. Business as usual can proceed uninterrupted. Conceding Black majority rule under these conditions is hardly a sacrifice for those who control the commanding heights of the economy in South Africa. It is, however, a major problem for those who suffered, bled, and died in the belief that Black majority rule would end the suffering of the Black masses. Life is extremely harsh for the vast majority of Black South Africans. "The legacy of apartheid is the same as colonialism Black unemployment exceeds 40 percent; White unemployment is four percent. The average White person earns nine times as much as the average Black. The differences have been artificially exaggerated by policies that not only kept Blacks down but propped Whites up on a cushion of job preferences and subsidies." (New York Times, April 24, 1994) As I noted earlier, apartheid also effectively rendered most Black South African landless and propertyless. There is understandably an enormous expectation that Mandela`s election will mean land, property, and homes for the suffering masses. Information Architecture: An Academic`s ViewBulletin of the American Society for Information Science & Technology , Aug/Sep 2006 by Campbell, D Grant << Page 1Continued from page 3.Previous|
What I Get from Information Architecture As an academic, information architecture as a field continues to puzzle me, and the IA Summits continue to intimidate me. But there are a number of reasons why I keep coming back, why I participate in the planning of the conference when I can and why I`m eager for IA to develop a bigger presence in the broader arena of information science research. First, the IA Summits give me the chance to see the intellectual tools of my trade being used in a new, stimulating and sometimes frightening way. Throughout my library school training, facet analysis was considered one of the more obscure features of information organization. It surprises me to see Ranganathan on PowerPoint slides or to hear people arguing over coffee about the theory of integrative levels. Sometimes it frightens me to see people tearing these theorists and theories apart for whatever they can offer to solve current problems. I feel scandalized, as if I`m watching a huge, complex work of literature being cheerfully opened, the pages torn out, and fragments dipped in wallpaper paste to make a pifiata. What, I wonder, do these satisficing professionals know about Ranganathan`s concepts of phase relations or his theory of lamination? But whenever I start feeling that way, I force myself to relax. When information architects use complex theories, they usually know more than I give them credit for. And as for Ranganathan`s theory of lamination, I`m just a wee bit shaky myself. Occasionally, I feel tempted to roll my eyes when people talk about tagging and say to myself, "that`s just indexing. We librarians learned all that years ago." It takes a real effort to acknowledge that my response arises from defensiveness: a frightened reaction to the realization that my intellectual work has moved into an arena with enormous social, technological and economic differences from the library world that I was trained to serve. After three days among information architects, I`m apt to feel completely untrained in areas where I am supposedly an expert. Second, working in the area of information architecture has given me a chance to interact with people who approach problems and solutions in a very different way from those immersed in the academic environment. People bend over backwards trying to answer the ever-present question, "What is information architecture?" The question never gets answered, I suspect, because information architecture is less a field than an intellectual approach, much like philosophical approaches such as phenomenology, structuralism and deconstruction. Information architects do not deal with common information subjects, but instead approach information problems, in all their complexity, within a common problemsolving culture. This culture is different from academic culture in three important ways: 1. Research and practice are intertwined. Many information studies academics would indignantly protest that they too are committed to the intermingling of research and practice. Yes, but IA pushes it to a whole new level. Practitioners don`t just sit and listen to research; they do it. When, in 2006, we introduced a research track to the IA Summit, the end results surprised me: the Research Track was virtually indistinguishable from the rest of the conference. While there were definitely some sessions that were more oriented to practice than others, there was in the end no clear distinction between scholars and practitioners, and the existence of the Research Track as a separate entity was easy to forget. An academic who comes up with a practical solution to a nagging problem can present at the Summit and attract enthusiastic listeners. Similarly, a practitioner can present on George Lakoff`s Women, Fire and Dangerous Things, distilling Lakoff`s dense theories of categorization and culture to an audience o f practitioners and academics alike. At the IA Summit, researchers and practitioners do not just use each other`s findings; they adopt each other`s methods. Previous- 1- 4-Eyes relaxation index
|
||
| Music games | Speed reading | Mnemonic games | Online games | Kids games | Fonts viewers utility | Games design |