How Technological Change Reveals Time Warps In Black Culture and Politics

I once had a conversation with an individual who is a professional in the 'industry.' We were talking about Black civil rights leaders getting involved in the business of media. This person was comparing my influence and potential as a media entrepreneur, with that of a particular activist. They said what that person could do in media was good, but nothing compared to my own capability because I was on the cutting edge of technology, in their view.

It took a while for it to sink in. And I think it is still crystalizing for me in stages. I, like many of us, can be a bit slow when considering our own selves.

But what I gathered from that encouraging assessment were a few things. The first of which is that the person who can embrace change - the progressive, innovator, and entrepreneur, will always have a competitive advantage over the person who primarily leverages just personality in order to produce social change. Nothing replaces door-to-door contact and face-to-face interaction, but speaking to the masses is now no longer a 'street' undertaking. Influencing what happens on the ground requires one to get up into the air - Internet, Radio - and reaching the individual through as many senses as possible (this is one way of seeing the potential for the visual arts to be more influential, at times, then the literary arts or intellectual scholarship. Yes, Hollywood can affect more minds and hearts than any other power center in the world).

Another thing that I took from that conversation is that there is a form of illiteracy that exists among many of the most well known Black leaders. While they sincerely seek to push the envelope of social change, from their mouths, minds, and hearts, their activism or building is technologically-challenged. The two greatest forms of illiteracy that I have seen among Black leaders and organizations of consequence are financial and technological. While there are a few leaders - at least through rhetoric - seeking to work on the former, the latter area remains severely underattended. Hyperbole, you say? Alright, go to the next activist shindig or major conference hosted by a Black civic organization, and talk confidently of incorporating Science and Technology into a Black mass movement, and listen to the music stop. The only position disrespected or taken for granted more than that of scientist or technology professional (remember there would be no sound, picture at your after-party; or webcast, or conference call at your business without these people) is that of secretary, or the keeper of records.

This void in the value system of Black leaders and organizations supposedly concerned with social change is peculiar, in a sense. After all, one only need to look at all of the patents, trademarks, and copyrights that Blacks have secured for themselves (and Whites) throughout American Business history to know that Black innovation and creativity is not limited to singing, and dancing, and acting the fool (you should look up the root of this word sometime). But somehow, when the subject becomes politics and social change, an appeal to Whites to stop violating principles of freedom, justice, and equality overwhelms and overpowers an appeal to Self and the laws of nature which make technological progress possible and beneficial, even to the point of overcoming racism and discrimination. Is it not strange that some of our most brilliant Black political progressives often seem to be the worst haters of technological progress?

Ah yes, I can hear the rhetoric of a few Black socialists now, complaining of how technology has been used against the poor and oppressed through capitalism. Interesting, as I have yet to hear a Black socialist demonstrate that they have even read what Karl Marx said about human suffering in his book, Das Kapital or Capital and what it leads to, in a positive sense. And I can hear the voices of a few Black Muslims and Black Christians crying over how technology uproots tradition and social order and breaks down families. I hear them, and am one of them. But are Blacks, with their Treos, Blackberrys, Sidekicks, and iPods really the poster children of domestic technological violence? To them I say take the time to get up on the horriffic experience of Native American families whose first contact with the television set was as destructive to the family unit as the earliest European conquerors.

I do not accept that technology, in and by itself, is the enemy of social cohesion or ethnic solidarity. The problem is not technology, as much as it is who makes it and who consumes it? If the producers are consistently different than the consumers, as is frequently the case with Black usage of technology, then naturally there will not be a cultural sensitivity or an indigenous element in the relationship to what is being used. Saying that you are taking what you get from 'the man' (we should stop using this phrase) and using it for your people does not cut it. Eventually you who are concerned about the people should be capable of mass production and distribution of technology for the people. There is no such thing as a revolutionary consumer. You cannot buy your way into a state of independence.

And that leads us to the issue of just what a platform is. What makes a person truly independent and free is that they control their own mind and heart and that they exercise the freedom to speak with, think about, and meet with whom they desire. The only way to do all three of these things is to control a platform - whether land, a building, website, radio station, or space on the spectrum. Unless a person, leader or organization controls land, sound and light without interference and manipulation of how they cultivate, make and use it from others, they are not free or independent. And when one is not free and independent, their politics and culture will forever be limited. And technology will always be more feared than embraced.

We don't need more Black talent or leaders. We need talent and leadership that can embrace technological change and progress enough to have their own platforms from where they can consistently and reliably serve the masses of their people.

We need a platform revolution.

Cedric Muhammad

April 5, 2007