Buffet, Gates, & the future of linguistic diversity

[Mia Kalish]

Hi, Phil, 

How's it going? 
[How are the trout?]

Mia

-----Original Message-----
From: Indigenous Languages and Technology [mailto:ILAT at LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU]
On Behalf Of phil cash cash
Sent: Saturday, July 01, 2006 9:10 AM
To: ILAT at LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU
Subject: Re: [ILAT] Buffet, Gates, & the future of linguistic diversity

Yes, I agree Don.  The Gates Foundation has had technology outreach
programs targeting native communities, however, it seems these programs
were short lived and did not continue for one reason or another.

I do believe however that, at least from the perspective of Gates-funded
projects carried out here in the SW several years back, that language
was and is a compelling component for any community development
project.  Tribes certainly made this an important issue.

Based on my own experience on working on a Gates-funded project, I can
say that these projects were extremely valuable and rewarding.  I
surely hope to see the continuance of community-oriented technology
development in the future coming from the Gates Foundation!

Phil Cash Cash (cayuse/nez perce)
UofA, ILAT list mg


Quoting d_z_o <dzo at BISHARAT.NET>:

> With the news of Warren Buffet's donation of most of an estimated $44
> billion to the Gates Foundation (GF), and remembering that the GF has
> funded some programs for endangered languages, one wonders whether any
> of this new mass of capital can be directed for use for language
> revitalization and linguistic diversity.  Is not just a question of
> whether some more money can be allocated for specific projects, but
> rather whether resources can be found to develop and implement
> long-term programs for the development of minority languages.  There
> are a number of important but relatively small programs to assist in
> documentation of endangered languages, and there are sometimes
> programs in individual countries to promote teaching of and
> development of literature in certain languages, but there does not
> seem to be any overarching strategy involving a range of actors (or
> "stakeholders") involved in or concerned with language preservation
> and development.
>
> At this time, when we read so often about about the current and
> expected rates of language extinction, when many countries and
> communities lack the resources to plan and manage for their own
> linguistic diversity, when many children especially of minority groups
> do not have access to formal education of any sort let alone in their
> maternal language, and when older people in minority language
> communities pass away taking with them knowledge that cannot be
> replaced (the proverbial "when an elder dies, a library burns"), while
> at the same time we have the resources, both monetary and
> technological, to record, manipulate, produce, and instruct in any
> language, there is an urgent need to develop bold, coherent and long
> term strategies.
>
> Basically we seem to be faced with a window of opportunity of limited
> duration, and an imperative to act promptly. The GF even with this
> added capital, is not the only organization that can assist in this
> area, so it shouldn't be singled out.  There are other organizations
> that can and should contribute as well – philanthropic, national,
> intergovernmental, etc.  However, given the amount of resources now at
> the GF's disposal, and its implied link via its founder to information
> technology (which has a great potential to help work language
> development and revitalization), it certainly is a logical starting
> place. And since this story is big in the news at this moment, maybe
> it deserves some focused discussion in order to produce a strong
> policy proposal?
>
> Don Osborn