For this week I read, Falling Through The Net: A Survey of the “Have Nots” in Rural and Urban
America. This essay is a report on a research that was conducted pertaining
to universal service. According to the researchers, universal service is “the
idea that all Americans should have access to affordable telephone services”. However,
the researchers ended up expanding universal services to mean more than just
telephone penetration. Starting in the 70’s there was an evolution of personal
computers being purchased in the home beginning with Intel 4004. By the 90’s (and that is when this study was
conducted), that evolution of personal computers and the need for them was
increasing (not at the same speed though as in the 00’s). In the 90’s personal
computers included Microsoft Windows 3.x, Windows 95, Netscape, and the iMac. Ergo,
the researchers in this study extended their definition of universal service to
accommodate the trends of society: “The robust growth recently experienced in
Internet usages illustrates this promise as new and individual subscribers gravitate
to on-line services. This suggests a need to go beyond the traditional focus on
telephone penetration as the barometer of this nation’s progress toward universal
service” (3).
This essay reminded me of the conversation we had in
class regarding the digital divide. From this research there are empirical
evidence that supports the idea (or perhaps the fact) that there is a racial/
ethnic difference between those who are more information advantaged than those who
are more information disadvantaged. Blacks, Latinos, Native Americans, and
Asians in urban areas have a much lower computer penetration in their homes
than Whites do. However, it is very interesting to note the time period. This
study was conducted in the 90’s, and therefore was very true for that time
period. However, a study conducted by The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation—formally
known as the Kaiser study—reported that Black and Latino youth media usage is
exceptionally higher than White youth. In the Kaiser report, Black and Latino
youth were much more likely to own an electronic device. Ironically, these
children also had parents who either did not finish high school or who only
have a high school diploma or a GED. This report was conducted in 2005. I
wonder how great the digital divide is today in 2015 within the United States
because in have and have not study, the researchers said “generally, the less
that one is educated, the lower the level of telephone, computer, and
computer-household modem penetration” (4). Yet, it seems to me that no matter a youth’s
race, socioeconomic background, or their parents’ educational attainment, many
of them own some type of electronic device, have a computer home, and all (if
not the majority) are active on social media sites.
I also wanted to quickly discuss some comments made by
the researchers in the report. They (the researchers) noted that “regarding usages
of on-line services, minority groups surpassed Whites in percentage of:
classified ad searcher..” (5) and again they note “low-income, minority, young,
and less educated computer households in rural areas and central cities appear
to be likely engage actively in searching classified ads for employment, taking
educational classes, and accessing government reports, on-line via modem” (4). I
wonder if they (the researchers) took out the time to consider that for many “low-income,
minority, young, and less educated individuals” the computer served as an
opportunity to potentially advance their lives. Especially for individuals
living in rural areas who unlike city people, did not have access to as much
opportunities. For many middle to upper class White people, the computer could
be more of a leisure activity.
The other comment I wanted to address was the one in
the Race and Origin section: “according to the U.S. Census Bureau, race is
defined as a concept used by individuals as a self-identification of “biological
stock” (7). This is not necessarily
true. Race is a social construct that was created by the dominant culture to
identify other groups of people while also creating a hierarchy. U.S. Census
Bureau uses an identification “identifier” that was defined by one group of
people. Then they tell people that this
classification is how they should identify, and so they do. This is
problematic. Let’s examine Black for example. Black is a race, but Black would
also be an umbrella term that would cover many different black ethnicities that
are not shown as an options on the Census. Instead the Census uses Black and
African American synonymously which is very incorrect. An African American is
Black, but a Black person may not necessarily be African American. What about
Afro-Latinos—who, by the way, are the largest population of Black people
outside of Africa? Many people aren’t even aware that Latin American had way
more slaves than America, and that slavery in Brazil ended much later than in
the United States. Yet many people believe that outside of Africa, America is
where all the black people are. Also, sometimes the census will say African or
African American which again is incorrect. Black Americans are referred to as
African American because they cannot pinpoint the country that they came from. But
to name all people from the continent of Africa as African is ignoring their
heritage and culture. There is no African culture. There is a Nigerian culture,
a Moroccan culture etc, but there is no one (mono) African culture. Africa is
the most diverse continent in the world, and yet it is the only continent that
is referred to as a country. Going back to my original point, the U.S. Census
Bureau does not list race and ethnicity the way a group of people identify themselves.
Instead, race and ethnicity are listed the way the dominant culture identities people.
