Flippant Remarks on “A Conversation with David Weinberger”
The YUI Theatre show “A Conversation with David Weinberger” shows, yet again, how different the Yahoo! culture is from the Microsoft culture. All those recent rumors of a Microsoft purchase and assimilation of Yahoo! shows me just how perilous such a move would be—especially for the people who organized and attended this talk. These pop out:
- David Weinberger admitted publicly and honestly on the campus of major technology company that he is economically and therefore “racially biased” against standardized testing in schools. Yes, Microsoft has a group called Blacks at Microsoft but you should never hear the phrase racially biased ever spoken on behalf of Blacks at Microsoft. Microsoft shows more people of color but they say very little—this of course comes from the hazing and house training in the social class from which these colored folks emerge.
- David Weinberger exclaimed almost subconsciously that Aristotle is an intellect that is unsurpassed. He made no regional or relative qualifications. Although, seconds later he does make the effort to distinguish limitations on Western thought in general to defend against supremacist and imperial aspersions about the universal “nature” of the West because of his comments. Clearly, like millions of properly assimilated academics, David Weinberger has the luxury of ignoring the work the Cheikh Anta Diop and Martin Bernal—and it takes a nation of millions to hold us back. Here in the rasx() context, calling Aristotle an intellect unsurpassed is like calling Moby a musician unsurpassed. Moby had his local record store and perhaps a few public domain sound recordings of African women from the Library of Congress to make him so great. Aristotle had the Library of Alexandria from which he could sample.
- As Weinberger disclosed the racial bias aforementioned, he also highlighted the fact that his school-age children—like all children of the appropriate social class—are learning via the Internet socially and independently of the antiquated power structure in the public schools. Weinberger rightfully calls on the educational establishment to not only encourage but to condition young people to learn in groups. However, there are too many imperial advantages to not conditioning the children—especially the children of the lower classes—for working and organizing together for constructive purposes. It is simply more profitable to have disconnected, self-absorbed, underage consumers desperately trying to get their broken-home infant needs met rather than young world citizens in diverse cooperatives. Until the powers that make policy “for the people” learn how to control social organization via information technology, this idea won’t be ‘socially acceptable.’ No child will be left behind—but any non-governmental groups from which the child organizes are all considered “gangs” and must be left behind.