Modern Technology as a Great Equalizer and Liberator
Modern Technology as the Great Equalizer and
Liberator
M. Bakri Musa
www.bakrimusa.com
Modern technology, specifically digital, brings us
to the outside world, and it to us. Today what happens in the remote caves high
in the mountains of Kabul can be recorded on a cell phone and then posted on
the Web for the whole world to see. Even a repressive regime like China could not
control the dissemination of images of its tanks bulldozing innocent citizens back
at Tiananmen Square in 1989, though not for lack of trying.
The
success of the Arab Jasmine Revolution owes much to this digital revolution.
Through social networks like Facebook and Twitter, ordinary citizens
communicated with each other in real time to organize massive demonstrations
that brought down powerful leaders like Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak.
I assert
that the digital technology is a much more powerful and consequential instrument
of leveler and liberation than the AK47, hitherto (still is) the favorite with not-so-bright
revolutionaries worldwide.
Mubarak
was derailed not by a gunman, like his predecessor Anwar Sadat, but by a social
revolution made possible by the online social network. If there were to be a
leader of that movement, it would be Google executive Wael Ghonim. Unlike earlier
Arab revolutionaries who were military officers, this guy was, for lack of a better
word, a geek. What an incredible achievement! No one could have predicted that Mubarak,
who only a few months previously was the most powerful man in the Arab world,
would face charges of premeditated murder for the deaths of those protestors.
Digital
technology is not the only modern agent of liberation. Modern transportation
has reduced if not removed the barrier of geography. Today I can fly from San
Francisco to Kuala Lumpur in less time than it took my sister to get from Kuala
Pilah to her Teachers’ College in Kota Baru via Malayan Railway back in the
1950s.
Travel,
in so far as it affords one the opportunity to experience different cultures
and realities, can be liberating. While the digital revolution might afford a
virtual reality at the convenience and safety on your sofa, travel lets you
experience reality in its raw, unfiltered physical form.
The
liberating effect of travel works both on the traveler as well as the host.
This result however, is not guaranteed. Seeing how the rest of the world
operates may not necessarily open up minds; in some it would result in the exact
opposite.
The
Chinese Emperor of the 15th Century sent
explorers out to the vast Pacific and Indian Oceans. Far from opening up
Chinese minds, those exotic foreign expeditions merely reaffirmed their smug
superiority that they had nothing to learn from the barbarians outside, a
manifestation of a collective “confirmation bias” at the societal level. The
Chinese were so confident of their superiority that they eschewed the need for
further foreign explorations. They went further. They ordered the dismantling
of their then advanced and massive maritime infrastructures, including the banning
of building of boats, declaring that to be frivolous and resource-wasting
exercises.
Meanwhile
the Europeans continued with their explorations. The scale was considerably much
less, their ships pale imitations of the Chinese. Consider that the length of Columbus’s flagship Santa
Maria was less than half the width of Cheng Ho’s.
Unlike
the ancient Chinese, the medieval Europeans had no pretensions of grandeur;
they explored the world with an open mind. They had no delusions about their
ways being the best; instead they observed in those foreign lands things they
could take home, like tea and spices. It did not take them long to recognize
the enormous potential in trading those commodities by introducing new culinary
experiences to European palates. The Europeans also soon discovered that the
Chinese had a voracious appetite for opium, which the Brits could secure with
ease from India. Lucrative commercial domination soon led to the political variety,
and thus colonialism was born.
Why
one culture reacted a certain way and another, the very opposite, is
intriguing. In the final analysis, it boils down to a culture’s openness to new
ideas and experiences, its collective open mindedness. The ancient Chinese had
closed minds; the medieval Europeans, open.
Today
when some foreigners arrive in a new country, and on encountering an alien
culture, would retreat, fearing it would “contaminate” their pristine values.
They would close ranks and congregate in their own little ghettoes, refusing to
integrate with the native majority. We see this in America as well as Malaysia.
Others
view their new experiences as open and endless learning opportunites. Some are
grateful to be given a new lease on life after escaping the wretchedness of
their native land. Eastern Europeans who came to America early in the last century
were grateful and thus more than eager to join the American mainstream. They
readily gave up their old ways to integrate as quickly as possible into their
new society. They learned English quickly and changed their names to make them
sound more Anglo-Saxon, as with Pawlinsky morphing into the less jaw-breaking
Paul.
Even
when they were actively being discriminated against, and the early Jews, Irish
and Italians in America definitely were, they continued to adopt American ways.
They did not rush to build Italian or Jewish schools; instead they built their
own English schools so their children would not be handicapped in integrating
into mainstream American society. They did not consider such actions as
repudiating or denigrating their own culture. Far from it! They realized that their
own culture and ways of life would more likely survive if they were to thrive and
be successful in their adopted land.
Today
St. Patrick’s Day and Octoberfest are celebrated more exuberantly in Chicago
and Milwaukee respectively than in Dublin or Berlin.
It
is tempting to attribute the contrasting reactions of early immigrants to
America from Europe to later ones from Asia and Latin America to the
differences in circumstances that prompted them to emigrate. The Europeans were
forcibly thrown out of their native lands through pogroms or wars. In contrast,
recent Asian and Latin American immigrants crossed the border voluntarily, for
the most part (the South Vietnamese being the most recent notable exception).
The Europeans did not ever want to return to their homelands. By contrast, many
recent Hispanics consider their stay in America temporary, remaining just long
enough to accumulate some money so they could return and live comfortably back
in their native land. As such, they do not feel compelled to learn English or
in any way integrate into American society.
A
similar “temporary abode” mentality occurred with immigrants from China and
India into Malaysia early in the last century. Brought in by the colonials to
work the tin mines and rubber plantations, their mindset was to work hard,
accumulate enough savings, and then balik Tongsan (return to their motherland,
China). Hence there was little need to learn the local language or adapt to
local culture. They remained insular, xenophobic, and closed-minded.
They
were completely different from the Chinese men and women who came much earlier and
voluntarily settled in the Straits Settlement, the Peranakan. They absorbed many of the elements of Malay culture,
including the language and attire. They were not obsessed with balik Tongsan.
When the British were in charge, those Chinese learned English; in independent
Malaysia, they learned Malay and worked with the majority Malays.
The
challenge for Malays and non-Malays in this global era is to cultivate an open
mind because the alternative means depriving yourself of new opportunities.
Next: Emigration
as Liberation
Adapted from the author’s book, Liberating The Malay
Mind, published by ZI Publications, Petaling Jaya, 2013. The second
edition was released in January 2016.
posted by M. Bakri Musa | 7:22 PM
|
0 comments
