mink

"We explore creation as we sense it, but there is no known example of a creature in the world that has the mind of a human. For some, it is the ability to choose destiny, to forge past what is right versus what is wrong. For others, it is the ability to love, to care for another in the most unique of ways. But, we cannot fathom a uniform definition of humanity except in the face of each other. To be human is to be the same as one another."  Rajabu glanced at his phone. 3 minutes left. The old man was small, sitting on a chair with his back to the campus wall. His diction was clear, like Rajabu's great grandfather. Rajabu knew the English those men spoke was immaculate and came from a very systematic and colonial education. He had never seen this old man... Read more of my submission to the 2016 NUHA Blogging Prize here.

Sometimes I think we are extremely loud online but only a fraction of it is valid, true, logical and factual, the rest is spam. What if every once in a while, we all agreed to stay quiet on all social networks? Or what if there was a rule that, unless you were licensed, you could only publish a maximum of 3 sentences on any digital platform?

Just came across this page on The Economist and am left wondering how I never saw it before. My favorite excerpt: "Do not be hectoring or arrogant. Those who disagree with you are not necessarily stupid or insane. Nobody needs to be described as silly: let your analysis show that he is. When you express opinions, do not simply make assertions. The aim is not just to tell readers what you think, but to persuade them; if you use arguments, reasoning and evidence, you may succeed. Go easy on the oughts and shoulds." I was also happy to be reminded that I need to get a copy of Orwell's "Politics and the English Language".

So much to think about here, but needed to throw  this link in here along with the following quote: “We have not yet become good enough at the kind of pedagogues that make the most of technology; that adding 21st century technologies to 20th century teaching practices will just dilute the effectiveness of teaching.” This is not news, especially not in Tanzania. But thinking broadly about the situation, here is what will be on my mind for the rest of the day: Why is technological innovation in education surpassing the needs of those who teach and learn today? If technology is made up of tools that support needs, what needs is ed tech supporting? What will it take for pedagogy to adapt practice + content to current tools? Or is this a reverse-logic problem?

"In rivers, the water that you touch is the last of what has passed and the first of that which comes; so with present time." - Leonardo Da Vinci

“Conservatism, however, is too often a welcome excuse for lazy minds, loath to adapt themselves to fast changing conditions.” ― Sigmund Freud, The Interpretation of Dreams

I return, about 6 months later. No, I didn't forget about my blog, nor the people that may (read: may never) read it. Oh no. What I may have forgotten is how valuable an activity blogging can be.  Where I work now , time is of the essence. Here's an Edward Said nightmare: We are trying to sell to people who have very little to spend; they need to be in many places at once, and are not as mobile as society may think they are. They are sensitive to change, but are demanding about their aspirations. So when it comes to our products, services and sales routes, we are constantly moving, shifting, trying.  That leaves me with little time to think and do the things I write about here.  I used to think this situation was a binary choice and, therefore, a problem. However, I have come to think of the "binary" in a different way: It isn't about time; it's about ideas.  A friend once told me that I would either spend the rest of my life building someone...

Here I will refer to "traditional" content as content that is translated via TV, newspapers and radio; it is centrally produced and once published cannot be changed. I will refer to "digital" content as content that is translated via the Internet; it can be produced by any number of people and can be changed even after publication. The primary difference between traditional and digital content is that the reader cannot know how many times the digital content has been edited over, or by who. In order to build an audience that trusts digital content, digital content creators (including curators, editors, etc) need to be open in their approach to their content. This requires transparency with both, contributors as well as readers. It also requires a consistent editorial policy, such that content is edited in the same ways, following the same rules, across all articles. These are developing thoughts.

A few recent thoughts on this subject: 1. Time has no direction per se. We created a direction for it. 2. We share a common concept of time so we can work on the same schedule. 3. Most products and services are utilized in the day time, eg: Cleaning, Food. 4. Some products and services are utilized at erratic times, eg: Transporting, Drinks. 5. Some people do not share the common schedule. 6. Some people create their own schedules, ie: their own time. 7. A different concept of time does not necessarily conflict with the common concept.

"Any advertisement in public space that gives you no choice whether you see it or not is yours, it belongs to you... its yours to take, rearrange and re use. Asking for permission is like asking to keep a rock someone just threw at your head." - Banksy

Read this article on FT Magazine today. Interesting how artists can benefit from the streaming industry after all, just when it looked like artists were going to go broke due to free streaming and downloading online. Can this be applied to learning? For instance, can teachers benefit from putting out custom curriculum that they write from their bedrooms? Better yet, can students benefit from asking the right questions on the web? The answers to these may lie in who we think are the "artists" in this situation: The teachers, or the students, or someone else?

Harun, towards the end of The year of the rebels : "I have killed only murderers, I have robbed only thieves. I gave not ceased to fear God for a moment. I have ceased only to fear the rich and the powerful. Here I am fighting the unbelievers to whom our princes are paying court, I defend the towns which they abandon. My companions in arms are the exiles, outlaws and lawbreakfers from all lands..." Harun, the protagonist 's best friend and brother in law, has all the qualities Hasan wished he had but could not seize. In previous posts , I seem to think that this character is usually the enemy, the ante, the foe. But in Leo the African, the other is on the same side. Perhaps, then, the importance is not in which side the different perspectives support, but in the difference of perspective itself.

20.09.1974: "Comrade Nyerere is very much interested in education and public health. He is very interested in learning how we have faced the problem of illiteracy and the problem of educating our people. True, we did not have a situation as serious as Tanzania's, but it was serious in that in the early days of the revolution we had some 30 percent of illiteracy and almost 50 percent of the children were not going to school." - Fidel Castro on Julius Nyerere (13.19.22 – 14.10.99) and Cuba. Archive here .

This post was created on 19th October 2014 at 1640. However, it was published into the past, on 15th September 2014 at 1640. There is not much point to this post, except 2 lessons: (1) History can be fabricated, (2) history is being fabricated. 

I always knew our radio industry could be better, but today it got a bit more real. I see two scenarios: 1) We take global fun-talk (eg: fashion, Gaga and Cadillacs) and try to replicate it in TZ; something of a cosmopolitan-slanted-Westwards approach. 2) We take our talk (eg: corruption, Kubanda and Toyota) and try to understand the world through those lense.  ie: Should TZ radio bring the world to TZ, or take TZ to the world?

Been getting into The Blacklist , thanks to Aly. Still early days, but Raymond 'Red' Reddington went into a monologue once that goes like this: A farmer comes home one day to find that everything that gives meaning to his life is gone. Crops are burned, animals slaughtered, bodies and broken pieces of his life strewn about. Everything that he loved taken from him - his children. One can only imagine the pit of despair, the hours of Job-like lamentations, the burden of existence. He makes a promise to himself in those dark hours. A life's work erupts from his knotted mind. Years go by. His suffering becomes complicated. One day he stops - the farmer who is no longer a farmer - sees the wreckage he's left in his wake. It is now he who burns, he who slaughters, and he knows in his heart he must pay. Fantastic oration by James Spader , here and in many other monologues. Kinda reminds me of a post I wrote  6 years ago discussing heros and villians, and then a revisit o...

You play games in life (*) for one of two reasons: either you like what happens when you finish the game, or you enjoy making moves within it. * Assuming there can be games within "life", even if one thinks life is a game.

Human development is not just about what people need , but what you can do for them. 

Following on from yesterday's post . Perhaps it's not just about economic transactions, but more about revolution across the board. When the political, economic and social status quo is so entrenched in thinking X, but a new way of thinking Y has far reaching consequences on this status quo, then perhaps the only way is through force. It's important to consider different forms of force here: Through written or pronouned words, produced sounds, or through physical action. I meant physical action for the majority of this and yesterday's post, but force may come in different ways. And along this line, force may come through natural as opposed to human interventions.

Thanks to a reading club that happens once a week in Khane (thanks SL!), I've been getting into Marshall Hodgon's The Venture of Islam   (Book 1). The section titled "Muhammad's Challenge 570-624" has made me think about history unlike I did back at the IIS. Particularly, one question: In any instance when a new way of transacting goods and services was introduced, was force necessary? We could discuss market entry , but that would imply an assumption that there is a market in which people transact based on known and accepted methods. Today that means that cash and credit can buy you a good or a service. Barter could also do, but you may have to try extra hard. But that assumption did not exist in 570 AD. Barter was a viable option, and so were other forms of currency which came from different lands. So in order for Muhammad to introduce a way of being - including a way of doing business that was based on a philosophy of why business should be d...