 I don't know whether all right, there you go. We want to be here. Yep. There is a little thing that tell me when it's being recorded. Right. All right. So, um, so everybody knows the colors that we have to do. Yeah, we'll have more people. Yeah. Hello, Joel. Federal man. How are you? Hello. Hello. How are you? Nice to meet you. Nice to meet you all. So, where are you? You are in San Francisco. Yes. San Francisco. What time is over there? 7 in the morning? Yeah. That's commitment. That's academic commitment. What time is with you, Wendy? You are at 7 o'clock too? No, 9 o'clock. Almost 9 o'clock. Well, that's good. It's different. Yeah, it's a difference. It's a different time anyway. So, a quick question of the format. Are we going to be representing part of our papers? Are we just going to be talking about things? How would you? You know, that's something that all of us, all the presenters decide how you want. It's very flexible. In the previous session, it was an open conversation. We talked about the issues. If you want to highlight maybe within five minutes or three minutes, to highlight the main points because each of you make a lot of interesting points. So, if you want to do that, that's another thing that we can do at the beginning and then establish the conversation. I don't know. I'll ask it. This is tried and error. We're trying to be as flexible as possible so we don't fall into the 20 minutes and then there's not much time to have a conversation at the end. That's the idea. Just waiting for a couple more colleagues. Let me see. There are no here. Yeah. That's good. You are here. I mean, the link is working. The link is working. So, Cynthia, the conversation of an immigration is always, always, always something that is open all the time. The different reactions, the different how different countries respond to that process. Yes. You were talking about our previous session. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Well, we wait for them from our colleagues. Yes. Yeah. I think it's the pandemic is global and everybody has experienced very intimately with the issue. Yeah. And then it's also a process where different parts of the world are cooperating and also as well as was kind of like, you know, and a lot of issues happened in the process. So, yeah, I mean, people, I was always wondering about people in other parts of the world. I lived through the COVID era in the U.S. So, I started in China. I'm from China. And then a month later, I started in the U.S. So, I lived through the whole process. Yeah. And it's very interesting how other countries have lived that experience. We're talking about, yeah. I don't think Mexico recognized that the world's a pandemic for a long, long, long time, isn't it Wendy? Yes. Yes. We are still in pandemic. Yeah. Yeah. But there's a little bit of reaction. Yeah. The use of the mask is still mandatory. I hope that this ends as soon as possible. Soon, of course. Anyway. Okay. What do you think is 10? No, sorry. I'm in Roma time. It's two or two. So, shall we wait another couple of minutes? Yeah. It's university time, you know, 10 minutes, five, 10 minutes. Cynthia, I'm sure you saw Joel presentation of the four crises that we are experimenting. And the first one is the pandemic. I like how you integrate that. I have a question. If nobody has a question, I have a lot of questions. Right. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I think, you know, the focus of this panel is the creation of knowledge. It's very interesting because I remember, you know, I attended a lot of online conferences, including those in China, and they were talking about the power of the right to talk, you know, like, you know, like, who is producing knowledge, whose knowledge is noticed and used. So what is the discourse basically? I think that's very, very important because, for example, the knowledge produced by academics using, you know, rigorous methods and everything is there. It has been presented. But is it the knowledge that is broadcast by a large proportion of the society? If that were the case, then a lot of the things could be, at least some precautions will be taken. You know, like I have been working in criminology for about nine years now. And I was teaching media and criminology. And one of the things is that a lot of people get the knowledge about crime from mass media. Some media channels are serious. But I mean, the picture painted by mass media is not exactly the same as... Yeah, that's for sure. We're waiting for you, Patti, so we can start the conversation. Sorry. I'm just a couple of more minutes and then we can start the colleagues' film and the third video. So Wendy and Joel, so you prefer to have a small highlight presentation of the main points or do you want to directly go to the conversation? It's up to you. I'm happy. We are happy either way. Whatever is comfortable for you. For me, it's okay in every way. For you, Joel? I'm fine either way. I have my... I brought my notes. I've already given it. I'm sort of getting a sense already that we're having beginning an organic conversation. So why not build on that? I think that's where maybe the more productive conversations happen. We all have a lot to say. We all have been thinking about these things for a long time. So it may just come out in the organic conversation. Yeah, okay. Sounds good. Wendy, is that okay for you? Yes, I agree. So it is 206, 10 or 6 Toronto time. So let's make it official. Welcome, everybody. Letting you know that this conversation has been recorded and closed capture. A follow-up, party instruction, children's mind that we have to do that. All right. So how do you want to have this conversation? Do you want to talk about what you found very important in your own research and your document as a conversation, not as a presentation, to talk about some of the things you're working? And maybe after that conversation, I have a few questions. Maybe our colleague party or something may have another question, but I have a few questions that I don't know how you want to proceed with that. Anybody? Anybody with my question here there? Do you want me to ask a question? Good. Yes, yes, yes. Another question. Okay. If you don't mind, Wendy, I have my notes. Okay. Justice for traditional knowledge. Maybe if you can introduce 30 seconds introduction, so the rest of us know who you are. Okay. Some highlights. Yeah. Okay. I saw also bring my notes. Yes. So my highlights are intellectual property is defined by national and international positive law. That means a prevalence of law. A diverse proposal as we generate is legal size 10 highlights. But it is a discursive recognition of diversity because it remains as a vertical framework generated from a single actor. Therefore, the ecology of knowledge argues the need for true coexistence, which could begin among core researchers. That is to say, all stakeholders involved in our horizontal dialogues. For a mutual translation, respecting the symbolic universe of traditional knowledge. And this implies the generation of legal proposals that protect them, assuming differences in an active way. For example, taking into account the management of traditional knowledge from communities themselves, as well as the permanence of criteria for this transmission. Okay. I have a question for you. You talk. Okay. Anybody have a question? But I do. Through your presentation, you talk about traditional knowledge. What do you mean? It's almost evident what you mean, but what do you mean by traditional knowledge? Are you talking in the context of indigenous people or first, original Pueblo Julinario? What are you talking about when you say traditional knowledge? Okay. It's mainly indigenous people. Okay. But they refer also to small communities. For example, I don't remember. Could you hear me? Carpenters? Carpenters. Carpenters, for example, are small communities of specific work, as cell wing, carpenters, schools, I don't know. So, sorry. So, when you talk about traditional knowledge, you talk about the indigenous knowledge. And then, I like something that you say, you mentioned the su Henry system and then the plural system and then the ecologies of knowledge. Who defined those terms? Who defined them? Where are they coming from? The terms? Yeah. The term, where are they coming from? For example, legal pluralism is a term just from law, specifically talking about the impacts of colonialists in our societies. We have a colonial past and this footprint is always still present. So, we are looking for recovery a little or a much of the original essence. And this implies to recognize the authorship of traditional knowledge because there is a use, a general use from them. For example, in traditional medicine, we are looking for the recognition to the original authors and the economic benefits for them. So, legal pluralism is a way to make this, but the problem is legal pluralism is a theory. I recognize the existence of the diversity, but states, they are not managing in an accurate mode. So, more or less is there. But the ecology of knowledge, but don't you think that the ecology of knowledge still remain a little bit theoretical? It's trying to be implemented in different places. Were your projects able to implement that ecology of knowledge to Santa's top? Yes. We are looking for that. We are thinking about ways to get together to the communities. For example, talking about the concerns about intellectual property. This is the main objective. For example, we are working with midwives of Eringariqua, that is a community near to Tumorelia, and carpenters of Guanaju, also near to Tumorelia. We are listening to the concerts, the ways to registration, the ways to management. We are trying to create alternative ways that are flexible. Anybody have a question? Because I can go ask a more question, because I find it very interesting. Anybody have a question? Yes, Cindy. Yeah, I think this is very, very interesting. If I understood Wendy correctly, it's really about how to advocate for knowledge produced by the Indigenous people and people in the community. You are also applying the knowledge to the community so that communities can be served. Since that seems to me that was what Wendy just presented. I think that is great. I guess my question, I think from my first session, I didn't see this, but I think if I summarize that session correctly, it is that we want to find hope by recognizing the mistakes and the problems in the society. My question to you is, in the process of producing the knowledge by the community and the Indigenous community, what are the issues that you run into in terms of producing the knowledge and also having the society to recognize the importance, the significance of the knowledge. Also, when the knowledge is applied to the community, to serve the community, what are the supports and challenges that you have encountered? Thanks. Thank you, Cynthia. Yes, there are a lot of challenges about this. In the case of Michoacan, one important support is the recognition from the, how do you say, the plan of governments in the plan is recognizing the traditional medicine and the midwives. So this means programs is economic support to highlight this knowledge. Another challenge I think is the economic cost to register intellectual property. So I think this is the main thing to talk about with federal government because intellectual property in Mexico is federal, it's not for states. So I think it's the big challenge for a better recognition, registration of intellectual property and the understanding of all of us about the differences of knowledge and the importance of knowledge. Thank you. Thank you very much. Okay, anybody else? Can I continue to ask a question? Is there, okay, you talk about the Michoacan government planning process that introduced indigenous knowledge, okay? So when it comes to research, may I ask you how you as a researcher of your team, because I understand you belong to a larger team within the university, how, okay, do you have ethical component that demand that you are engaged in certain action in a way that you don't like, you know, colonialism, appropriate knowledge in your knowledge doesn't provide credit to who owns the knowledge. Do you have an ethical process to carry on? The reason I'm asking you is some of the partners I work don't have social science ethical protocol, which makes it very, very easy. Yes, yes, yes, yes, it's an ethical point that is important for this traditional knowledge. I, I've been working with midwives experts of plants. I, I have learned about a little about this knowledge, but I am not spreading this knowledge because I don't have authorization, but in a research exercise, I went with them to learn, to learn a little. So his spread is writing about the teams I have, I have to say authorization. So it's a little the ethical component because we are looking for the respect for the recognition to the true authorship. I cannot spread this knowledge without this authorization. So for me, it's the principal ethical point to always a question, may I write about this? What can, what could I to say about that? No, all these that, that persons are sharing me. Okay. Any question? Any comment? Joel? Yeah, I mean, I think, I mean, you're obviously talking about something extremely important here. Joel, you, you, your volume is very low. Ah, okay. Let me, let me try to, is this better? Yeah, thank you. Okay, okay, thank you. I was, I was thinking you're talking, that when you're talking about this extremely important subject, and, and I think that, I think one thought I have it is, it may not be a question, but it's just sort of to express like this tension between the protection of knowledge and the need to not inappropriately appropriate indigenous knowledge. And at the same time, there's this terrible need in the world for, or tremendous need in the world for a larger pluralistic conversation, that brings indigenous knowledge and particularly indigenous worldviews into the conversation of the whole of the world. And in order to create a counterbalance to western dominated knowledge and culture. And so there's, you know, there's the tension of not wanting to appropriate, and then, and then the, and then the need for the need for this kind of knowledge. And I think that's what that's a, that's a tension that I've seen was kind of repeated over and over in different, in different conversations and different contexts. And, and I do, you know, have a lot of respect for the idea that there are many different traditions, the idea that, you know, that that certain knowledge is held within the community. And it's held within, just held within whatever that community is. And then there's the question of, at what point, for example, we have the vaccines for COVID and the, you know, because of intellectual property, the vaccines are not, you know, being disseminated in an equal basis throughout the world. Is there, is there, you know, this is just a provocative question. Is there a parallel between the, the notion that of, of prohibiting cultural appropriation and intellectual property for things that are valuable for the, for humankind at a time when humankind needs those pieces of knowledge? I don't know that anybody here can answer the question, but it's a big question. I just wanted to throw it out there. Yep. Wonderful. Yeah. Yes. Yes. There is a real tension about the needs of the world, for example, in the, in the subject of health. But the, the, we are looking for the recognition of ownership. And after the recognition, economic benefits. This is the main point. I think we have to say that. We are also looking for a benefit, economic benefits for the original actors. No, it's the, it's the thing, it's the, it's the point that sometimes it's difficult to say that in these terms, in these subjects, but it is important. And this is the principal aspect for every kind of knowledge, the, the recognition, the, the, of the ownership. Who is the, the beer, no? Who can exploit the benefits? I follow what Joel said, if I might, if I may. It's actually more closely what you say when they, when you talk aside, but I mean, to understand that we need to have intercultural among different culture and, and, and the way they understand the world. It is very hard for some, all of us that have been trained and educated in the Eurocentric way of understanding the world to, to give the same value to the other world. Do you find that it's an issue? Because, you know, we, that notion that let's provincialize Europe and the knowledge they produce is a very important knowledge. But then how, how do we go about, I think I'm repeating what Joel said, how do we go about recognizing certain traditional knowledge without making universal in that particular space, you know, I don't know if I'm making sense because I keep telling the colonization is not a universal concept. It's a spatial and temporal, how people and, and Michoacan has been colonized both externally and internally and with personal logic, maybe different to the indigenous people here in Canada. And so I don't know if you have the answer for that, but how do you, how do you balance the tension? Because we want to respect integer of knowledge. We do, we must, there is no ritual, but at the same time, sorry, Joel, I'm sort of repeating what you say, but at the same time, it is important that there is an intercultural communication and translation, how those knowledge is, knowledge is, that knowledge is, is, is use a good benefit. The Canadian indigenous people have, or sorry, they will kill me if I say that the indigenous First Nations in Canada called the concept, the two eyes concept, I think all communities, the two eyes think they're doing really doing research. You go through the indigenous process first and then you buy the outsider, usually university to come and work together to create a research project that has both eyes, the traditional and the Western both parallel to the process. So what do you think? I'm just breaking. That is the most beautiful issue about this because every group, every community is different. Even in Michoacan, there are different groups and there are different ways to, to see the variety. And it depends, it's also depend of the, the perception about colonialists, and these barriers to country, between countries. For example, in Mexico, we have perception of drama about colonialists. And there are many ideas that is, that is, is, is a permanece. Remains. Yeah. Remains. So I think in Michoacan, the perspective is different because I have seen in other states, it seems that we have to hide all traditional knowledge because there are modern ways, technologies, but in Michoacan is an important issue. And it, for this, we can talk about this with different groups. So I think every group has its particularities, you know, and we have to see, to see every group. And this is a big, big word that we, we, we have not, well, we don't have life for every, for every group, for every reality. But I think that for this is intercultural translation, not to, to try to intend to, to know this difference and ways to work together. Not always it's possible, but we are trying. Thank you. Any other comments, questions? We'll come back, Wendy. We'll come back. Don't worry. Thank you. Thank you. Stay with us in the conversation. Joel, do you want to share your knowledge or do you want to ask, do you want us to ask questions? Well, I'll just say the, I think that the, the, what I was talking about in my presentation, the one that I did online, that really is my life work. It's, when I kind of reflect on it, in this moment, that it's, it's the, the life work is the work of trying to find ways to create solidarity across cultures and across social movements and to try to build on a sort of a broader, global, beloved community or cosmopolitan worldview that would be very inclusive and yet not imperialistic in the sense that these conversations are interrelated. So that, so there's not a cultural appropriation of one from the other, but that there's a deep appreciation of, of the different various cultures. The one thing that comes, a couple of things that come just to mind, things that I didn't present, and maybe that's the best way to go about it, is talk about things that I didn't present about. It was just occurring to me as we were just talking, was one of my, the books that changed my life tremendously was Autobiography of a Yogi by Paramahansa Yogananda. And one of the things that his experience was, was to bring his charge from his teacher was for him to bring the cultural wisdom of India broadly speaking and of, and of various religions within traditions within India to the West, because it was so needed. And then he brought, he did bring that and began this kind of cultural dialogue. Now, of course, there's this, there's a backlash about people saying that yoga is being culturally appropriated by, you know, because it doesn't have the, it's not, it's used as whatever it's called, a RoboSize. It's, you know, it's kind of like people trying to use it as an exercise technique to strengthen your muscles and to do whatever instead of to have a spiritual dimension and it's losing that, that, that deep spiritual dimension, which is the point of bringing it here in the first place. If he, if here means the United States or to Western Western cultures. And so there's then this notion of this long tradition of the first with the Theosophical Society that had in, you know, in the, I mean, from the late 1800s to all the way through to today, having this idea that there could be some true dialogue about what are finding commonalities across religions. And there's the, the Parliament of Religions process where they are attempting again to do that same thing. And this notion of what his father, Wayne, who was one of the, one of the leaders of the, the revisiting of the World Parliament of Religions and began the new process of having those conferences was saying this idea of interspirituality, that we can all learn from each other that there are commonalities, but that there are differences, and that we can kind of learn from each other. It's a kind of much more pluralistic. And I think pluralism has gotten a bad name in a sense, but the idea of genuinely being pluralistic about cultures. And so I think, you know, the, the, the talk that I gave was very political, and it was really about the fact that, that there are that really we are in this era of autocracy versus democracy, and democracy in the broad sense in that, in that pluralistic sense that I'm talking about, that would be able to incorporate and to bring together people from different cultures versus this kind of hyper nationalist patriarchal, extreme capitalist, extreme racist, xenophobic worldview. And the, the point that I was making is in one sentence would be that, you know, there's a cartoon that says that shows, you know, the big fish attacking the little, you know, all the little fish and then the little fish all kind of band together and attack the big fish. I think that this, it's, it's the time for solidarity. If ever there was a time for solidarity, and it's got to be solidarity, I think on a global level. So in order to defeat this really terrible upsurge of authoritarian energy in the world, and in order for that to happen, there needs to be a new resurgence of, of, you know, whatever you want to call it. I, I sometimes call, you know, pluralistic, also nice use the word topian versus utopian. But if the idea of it is, is, is to have a beloved community in the Martin Luther King sense of that word, that is an inclusive community, and that respects other people's rights, and also not just respects them, but it takes care of other people's needs in the community. So it's a genuine community on a global level. And so, so maybe pause there that those are that that's the big thought. It's been time. And that's why I say it's my life work is that my work over time has just been various iterations of saying this same thing, which is that we, we need to have a global vision. We need to sort of, you know, see the world in a global context, and to bring everybody up into that conversation. And who wants to be part of the conversation, and to, and then to defeat in a literal sense, politically, the forces that would make everything based on power and a control and greed, and the worst human impulses. Okay, I want to play a little bit of devil's advocate here. And this is more rhetorical than than trying to challenge you per se, but there, there is two thoughts came to my one is I'm really glad you use the word solidarity, instead of the word unity. I think that there has been, and this is very colonial in nature, this idea that somehow in order to have an inclusive grouping, if you will, that it has to be unified in some way, that it has to be a unification of purpose or of lead allegiance, and so forth. And I think that that's a really important distinction, because there is a really wicked history of kind of forcing unity on people that it always, it almost always comes with conformity right after. So I'm very happy that you use that. But the thing that concerns me about this idea of global solidarity is that I think that sociologically, and this is my own kind of personal project, okay, so you're tapping into something that I think about a lot. I think that most movements, even when they're big global movements in the end, start very small with small groups of people doing problem solving. In other words, they don't start out by saying, let's have a movement. They don't start out by saying, let's, you know, one of the examples I use in my classes is the Canadian healthcare system. So a lot of people see it, you know, in Canada, I can't remember the name of the guy, but the MP in the 1960s who came up with this idea. And just all of a sudden, everybody was like, yes, let's have healthcare, right? But if you look at the history of it, it started provincially. It didn't start as a federal program. It started in provinces. And when it started working in these places, then other people are like, yeah, I want that. And it moved into a national policy. And I wonder the practical implications of what I'm suggesting is how do you, how can you build a global solidarity, one little group at a time? You know what I'm saying? Like, and I think that the key might be problem solving. I think that most of the time, and I think it's a process thing rather than a solution thing. Let me explain what I mean. A case history that I did in graduate school was a program in San Antonio called Quest. It is a program that emerged in the 1980s when Levi Strauss left San Antonio and moved to Mexico. And with it went good paying jobs that most of the local population there who were working class, that they had good paying jobs through Levi Strauss, right? We're talking about the jeans, sewing blue jeans, right? So the Texas wanted to give them like, you know, job training and education and all the usual policy stuff that you do when people lose a lot of jobs. But they started having basically little town meetings. They were kind of like house meetings, like 10, 15 people together. It was mostly organized through a church. There was a priest who organized different meetings and they started asking questions about, well, what do you know, how can we really get these new skills and what do these new skills mean to us and what do we need and how are we going to go back to get training and all this stuff. And what they came up with is connecting this training to real jobs, right? So they went out and actually lobbied people, you know, companies in the area and said, if you were going to support this person in getting job training, then you need to provide childcare for them. You need to provide some sort of income to take care of them while they're in school. And they need to know that there's work at the end, right? And so this emerged into the program that is now called Quest. And then it really worked in San Antonio. It was very good. It still exists, right? I did this case study in 1996. I looked it up just last year and it's still going strong. They tried to move it to Houston, right? But they didn't do all of the grassroots stuff. And Houston, it was like a done program. Now we know how to do it. And they, you know, and it didn't work in Houston. I mean, this is the same state, same kind of population, et cetera. And the reason is because the buy-in that was in the community in San Antonio wasn't there. It went from a bottom-up grassroots problem-solving invested thing to a government telling you, this is what you need to do, right? Even though probably if it had been a grassroots thing in Houston, it would have probably looked very similar when it was done. So I'm wondering if one of the ways that, just to bring this back to what you were talking about, Joel, if one of the ways to build that kind of solidarity is not so much trying to share goals or share like these generalized kind of things that we talk about, but to share process, right? Instead of saying we need to take care of this thing, that thing or the other thing, look, we need to be together. Maybe one of the ways to build this kind of solidarity is to talk about the ways in which people interact with each other, the ways in which people build on these kind of localized problem-solving. So that what we're sharing with each other is not so much the answers to those problems, but the methodology of how to go about listening to each other, empathizing with each other, empowering each other, and so forth. And I worry sometimes when I hear sociologists talking big picture terms that we miss the kind of middle part that actually has to happen in real people's lives when they really are faced with real situations. And I wonder what you think of all of that. That just sort of came to mind when you were talking about this idea of a global solidarity, and I'll shut up now. So I think that was directed for a response for me. I think so many things that my main responses that you said several different things, and I want to kind of highlight the several different things that you said, and I agree with all of them. So I don't know that we're going to have, and I guess that's part of the process that we're trying to create here is a kind of problem-solving where we're not sharing the answers and we're learning how to do process. So I agree very much on that notion, and I am going to culturally appropriate that idea that it's beautifully said, not sharing goals, but sharing process. I think that you can do a bit of both of those. I think that just on that one point, I think that having deep values, like I mentioned the Bertrand Russell Einstein manifesto where they said, remember your humanity and forget the rest. That becomes a basis. If you really do that, then remembering your humanity is to remember not just a principle of humanity, it's to remember that you need to be kind to others in the process and you need to have a kind of compassion toward others. So I very much agree with that idea of sharing, not sharing goals, but sharing process, but also having some or and also having some overarching values that inform the dialogue. It's sort of like this idea of content moderation on Twitter. If you don't have, if there's no, if you let every idea in, you will let, if you don't say we're going to have respectful dialogue and you don't allow for every idea, and some of the people would come in and they would kind of bomb the ideas. If you have a 4chan discussion versus a current Twitter discussion that's moderated and people can be thrown out or reprimanded for attacking other people or threatening other people so that we have a respectful dialogue. So I think that there's a balance there. And what you said about solidarity versus unity, I want to shift back to that other point, Patty, is that I couldn't agree more and I very much chose that word solidarity. I use that word coming out of other languages, but it also is my language in and of itself. It's really that idea of not having one worldview. And I think that's what, I think that of course is what threatens the right and their fear as they try to impose their one worldview of paraphrase bell hooks, a patriarchal capitalist, gender conforming world on top of the entire world. But they yet have this fear of having the globalists impose the world on them. So I think that some of the fears of maybe these different groups are the same, but I think that what you're saying, Patty, my response would be, I agree and what you're saying about process versus the goals, I think is something that I think is something I really want to think about more and to try to think about how I emphasize in my own work the process, not the goals. I think that's a really good point. So that that's my response. If I may, Joel, there's a few things that I really like. You talk about the intersection of solidarity. The intersection, I think that's it's almost similar. What Patty is saying, let's, let's not use a unit silences. We know that the unit is silencing voices. I, when you talk about intersectional solidarities, do you, well, you present a few examples, you know, the Black Lives Matter in different parts of the world. I think one movement that I think will reflect somewhat what Patty is saying is the environmental movement is reflecting different parts of the world differently, but ultimately there is a goal. And the other thing that I really, really like, I like is if we're going to engage, I'm paraphrasing, if we're going to engage with the other, humility has to be present. I mean, academics are not very well known for being humble, because we know it all. So, but how do you, I'm teasing Wendy, it's a problem. How do you, how do you, how do you engage in that process? Do you have any experience in the ground that allow you to present that notion of intersectional through humility? And I don't think you talk about naive, polyana way of understanding the world. It's a, it's a humility with knowledge, a humility understanding of your limitation, humility, putting other knowledge at the same level of your knowledge. Is that how you are presented? And I just interpret that way. Yeah, I think that I am just learning, you know, the various dimensions of what is meant by intersectional. I think that there's the classic definition that if, you know, that of Audre Lorde of, you know, we, you know, we live, there are different dimensions to our lives. You know, the classic example would be a, you know, a black trans person who, you know, there's the black part of that person, the trans part of that person, and that that's combining together in one person. And so we have to respect the different parts of that person. And that's bringing that whole idea of intersectionality forward. The other piece of it is that, you know, I do have this idea that can seem like the all lives mattering of intersectionality, which is to say that the ultimate, I believe that the ultimate intersectionality is our common humanity, you know, that because because that is that is a part of us. So we can all identify as whatever we're going to identify as, but but the common humanity and that gets the core value, but of our common humanity as a basis for all of the work that we do. I'm trying to get back to the, you know, you were asking this question, maybe restate the, restate the question again about intersectionality, what you were asking for, because I think I, it wasn't a question. I was just wanting you to, to, to explore a little bit more that that concept, because the concept of solidarity tend to be thematic. And you gave some examples in your presentation, environmental women's people with disability and others. That is intersectional solidarity, which is to reflect what parties say you are not looking for unity. You're looking to, to go parallel working together. And you cite the, I think it is the Australia indigenous person. But if you come with us to look for a liberation, let's work together. So it wasn't a comment. It wasn't, it wasn't a question. It was more a comment that this is the first time I worked a lot about intersection. Now that's all we talk here in the university here. But when you move it into the person, to the social and to a social movement, it generated a new way of interpretation. I don't know. I'm paraphrasing a lot of the stuff that you said. For me, that taking, how I see it, taking conservation, what Paris is saying, that the global doesn't start in the global, start in the local, localization. That's what we call, you know, that the sociology term of localization, the local is global and the global is local. The global, the global south is in the global north now and the global north. So that's what I really like the concept in intersectional solidarity. Have you written about that? Have you, have you cared that information somewhere else? That would be very good to explore. But, sorry, but I'm sorry. That's a concept that I have loved a lot for many years is, I call it academic or epistemology humility. I mean, that's a, in my right, I call it epistemology. So when you bring, we are going to engage with others, as long as we bring certain solidarity, humility to engage in the process. I don't know. What do you think? I'm just trying to understand how you present it. It's not a question. It's just a conversation. Do you agree? I do agree. I think it is, it is, I think you, I agree with how you framed it and that's how I view it as well, which is that the humility is the essential element of it. And it's not just humility to lower yourself. It's humility to be able to look other people in the eye and to listen to them enough so that you really are and quiet yourself a bit so that you can listen to what they have to say and to, and you can hear the complexity of who they are. One of the things that I, you know, I didn't get a chance, there's so many things to put in. I didn't put it in this presentation. I'd put it in another, is Charlene Carruthers, who is an activist in Chicago wrote a book called Unapologetic. And she talks about it's a black queer book on organizing from an intersectional point of view. And she uses the word queer in a sense to mean that it's a broad kind of overarching term that means different from the norm almost and different from the sort of cultural patriarchal norm of what society is and it's a symbolic term and that people could be fit within that within that. And then we need to cherish all those people that fit within that norm who have, who have been oppressed in that way. And, and, but the flip side is, is that to me queer is not sufficient, you know, that's where you get to the intersectional thing. First of all, there's, there's, you know, there's Latinx queer people, Jewish queer people, Black queer people, you know, people of every color and denomination who are queer people. Then the question is, is queer a big enough term? And what I would say is you want to like, in a sense, queer the world, you want to like, say that this whatever whatever that notion of queer is, whatever that notion of is a radical acceptance of, of this, this differentiality down to the individual person. You know, that, that every single person is a different version of queer. Or also, I would say every, every single person is a different version of what it is to be a human being. So when, you know, I go back to, like to Gandhi, when he said that, you know, truth is like light and, and it goes through a prism and, and the prism actually has an infinite set of an infinite rainbow of possibilities and, and, and nonviolence is the, the act or the process to go back to Patty's term is the process by which we recognize that infinite display of beauty, of truth, of the truth of, of however, whatever it is, five billion, however many billion people we are on the planet right now, we recognize that beauty of every single individual and group. And then we, we try to respect all of that in, and in that respect, and maybe in, to pick up again on Patty in the process of, of engaging with respect, maybe the, the harmony, maybe instead of unity, maybe the harmony is found. Wendy, you want to say something? You were shaking your head that sort of. Yeah, go ahead. Yes, yes, yes. And from your presentation, a overview effect resonates with me, but not from the moon, from internet. No. My question is a better understanding of web resources, contribute to the contemporary overview effect, or another question, sorry, how we digital immigrants could become part of this movement. Do you say digital, digital immigrants? The difference, having a native, digital natives, digital. Joe talks about that, talk about that. Yes. I think that a better understanding of web resources for digital natives is makes more easy, this, this movement, for us, immigrants. Could we, could we take part of that movement? Could we understand this diversity, that this need to, to, to anti-racist, to a global solidarity? Oh, you, you throw in another element here, you know, if I, if I can paraphrase, if I understood correctly, just Wendy. So what you're saying is, is technology, digital technology can be different between the native and the immigrant technology, and how both groups can participate within the solidarity movement. All right. Yes, in terms of approach to, to the understanding of, of this reality, of the diversity. That's a really good question. You know, I can throw out an answer if you want or throw out a first thought, which is not, and I don't want to, if somebody else in the group, I've been talking a lot, if somebody else wants to respond to that first. I mean, my first thought is that I think that, you know, there are the, that there are, first of all, I was using digital native and digital immigrant as a metaphor for, for this idea of people being for the, what I call the, what, you know, what some people call the overview effect of, of people having that sense that we are, you know, if you, if you see the planet, obviously indigenous, indigenous cultures have had this idea from their own internal spiritual work that, that, that they've done to know that all things are interconnected, and that the, that the, that the whole universe is interconnected and that the world is, is one world and that, that, that we're all part of a fabric for people coming, particularly from Western cultures where they, everything is divided up. I think that's where the, that's the, one of the things where the value of this overview effect of literally having a picture that science or, you know, we have a picture, we see, you can't deny that picture that, that the world is one, one small planet and that we are all one humanity, and that all of those boundaries that we draw on the, on the old maps are just fake, our fake boundaries, and that, and, and so, so that, so there's that, and then, and then there's the question of, I think you were actually talking about, when you tell me you were not talking about the metaphor, you were actually talking about how, how people in indigenous communities can participate in the, in the internet world as digital proficient. Is that what you were really asking? Not about my metaphor, right? What? Yes, yes. Yes, yes. Because I think that this is not about, it's about intercultural, but it's also about intergenerational understanding. So I, I saw, I listened to my students, I, I find in them another view, a different overview, this, this global overview, you know, this overview effect, and they have a small notion of diversity. But I think we, as digital immigrants, sometimes we don't have the, the resources of the, the theories of the, I don't know, the, the words to understand this movement is women, well, women maybe, yes, but I think it's also intergenerational, and it has a, there is a, there is a concept on life, and the, the effect of the, our life is, is not, doesn't have boundaries, from the virtual to the real. And I think that this makes these movements spread in a, in a big way, you know. But, you know, actually, I remember in the presentation from Joel, talking about how the Egyptian revolution, the Arab Spring World and all the stuff, technology was a key component within that component. But at the same, that was key component, but on the same, there's more and more studies that the virtual technology and the everyday living technology sometimes blur, sometimes blur that, you know, originally, our, my generation think to believe the virtual world is a different world, it's not reality, it doesn't exist. It is a rare, especially for the young people, it is a reality they are living that is different from the notion we have ourselves during at least my generation. But the other component that I see is also the digital make also the same way like the pandemic made visible. Disparities, inequalities, digital has also make that evident. Countries that have only 10 to 15% internet penetration, mostly in urban areas. Class who has access to that, who has access to smartphone, who has, so that I think make that division a little bit more evident into the process. And age, in this case age is a factor, isn't it? Which generation we belong into that reality. But very interesting study that I'm carrying on with the Central America and the diaspora. I'm just collecting data, mining data, how they use social media to strengthen the human rights in authoritarian countries. Data that is coming is quite interesting. I don't understand it because it's somebody in media who's doing it, but show how sometimes it's not a parallel world, it's an integrated world that for my generation is very difficult to grasp because we live here in the body as you mentioned. But I'm just rambling because that's the stuff. Henry, I think that yeah, one of the things that you just said before we lose it, there's also the flip side of that. The digital world lives in the real world too. There is an integration that it isn't just that young people flip back and forth between these two constructed worlds. But also, I mean, you mentioned who has a phone and who doesn't, who has access and who doesn't. There are some people who don't have electricity, much less or don't have electricity that's dependable and so forth. So there's a real material reality to the digital world. This is something that came up when the idealistic Bitcoin stuff went on. And then all of a sudden, we found out that it's just so carbon-intensive to create and mine Bitcoin. And I'm thinking to myself, no, this is all cyberspace. How can it be carbon-intensive? And then I realized, oh yeah, because electricity. And so, and I mean, we're sitting here looking at like a international crisis right now of energy, right? With all of this going on with the war and everything in Europe. And we really are like, it's going to impact maybe North America, not so much, but a lot of the world. It's just if you don't have coal, you don't have gas, you don't have these things. You don't have electricity. You don't have dependable electricity. And I mean, you might even have dependable electricity in Europe. So if this continues in any kind of large crisis. So yeah, I agree that it's like young people are like it's a fluid kind of thing between the two worlds, but that digital world really does live in a material world as well. And I think that that affects the inequality that we're talking about. I think they get a point that in the same way that the pandemic brought forth and made clear, I guess is the best word. These inequalities in systems. This digital ass, I really like that concept. I know it was a metaphor, but it really is kind of true that there are digital immigrants, digital refugees, and digital natives. And a lot of that has to do with access to resources. And I mean, things that I know I take for granted. You know, like last night, I've, there was an electrical storm here in Kansas while I'm trying to finish my grades and set all this stuff up. And I'm like, don't go out, don't like typing going, oh, please, no, don't take the electricity away. And I thought, you know, that's like normal for a lot of people in the world. I mean, one of the things that I worry about with this conference as an organizer is we have very, very little representation in Africa. We have people coming from all over the world and we have no African scholars direct African scholars. And I thought about, well, why is that happen? And one of the reasons that I think it's happened is just simply access that this is a, you know, we like to talk about neutral carbon conferences and, you know, nearly neutral carbon conferences and all this kind of stuff and how accessible it is and everything. But that gap was really obvious as we organize this, that there's just this part of the world that is not, I mean, it's getting there. You know, I don't want to make it, I don't want to paint this, you know, those people or those people are trying to say that. But I mean, there is that reality that it isn't easy to get electricity. It isn't easy to get cell towers. It isn't easy to get a lot of the things that make this possible. Yeah. Sorry. Go ahead. Joseph and then Cindy. Yes. I think this is a great point. Yes. I have never been to Africa, but I've read something about the digital divide in the world. The internet access in Africa is very unreliable. So I think, yes, you're right. One of the reasons probably, you know, one of the reasons that they cannot present is probably the unreliable internet connection. And I think there's another component to the virtual world which is supposed to benefit everybody, particularly during COVID, you know, everything is transmitted electronically is that not only the technology that supports internet connection, but also the technology that is, I mean, you know, like internet connections supposed to be something, well, I mean, it's supposed to be beneficial, although it's sometimes it's neutral, you know, it is useful. Beneficial purposes like a conference and everything, it is beneficial to people, unless, you know, somebody cannot afford that. But it's also neutral in the sense that just like, you know, bureaucracy can benefit the humanity with production, right? Hunger is reduced. But it also makes Nazi Germany possible. So what I'm saying is that technology in terms of internet connection really benefits as long as people can afford. At the same time, cyber security is an issue. You know, I think, you know, I remember some time ago when I was attending, I can't remember which conference and then there was this pornography comes into the process. Obviously, somebody hacked the conference. So I think, you know, for those who have resources to control the technology, you know, so I think, you know, of course, you know, I don't hope this happens to everybody. But once we access internet resources to produce knowledge and everything. But what if somebody hacks a conference, a data source, you know, a data set and everything, and then, you know, it's even more difficult for us to detect, right? Because, you know, if we go to a conference, we know we are accessing the right people, right? We have to make the flight and everything. But if it is online, and you're not, you know, an expert in terms of cyber security and everything, and you use that data set or whatever for a long time, it turns out to be false. So I think in that aspect, there's also the equal accessibility or equal access to technology as well. So I think, yeah, this is to have an equal conversation. This is just a technology access to technology. The knowledge of technology is very, very important. And Josephine, just give me a sentence, but technology has facilitated the construction of the transnational subject too. Okay, sorry. Josephine? Yeah, I wanted to not to create too much overlap, but we're going to cover some of this in detail on the advancing minorities in academia, invited conversation that we have on Friday, because we've found that even with near non-existence cellular internet, people want to communicate across borders across the globe. And it's not always the case of the global north inviting in the global south, but it's also a reciprocal facilitation of communication between people, or I would say across people. During the pandemic and before it created communities across academic disciplines, where we talk to people at all foreign corners of the globe, and we just make sure that we have a five minute break at the top of every hour. So if people do not have good bandwidth, good internet, if they can just log in for those five minutes, then they can participate and they can be involved on equal footing. And it has really changed how certain people behave in the global north in their settings, and it has also invited in and created collaborations across boundaries and across hemispheres, I would like to say. But we've seen even, I mean, through storms, through both planned and unplanned electrical cuts in South Africa and in the Indian context, the people still are extremely resilient and find ways, which links back to Patti's idea that it's about problem solving, right? Because it's about problem solving. And if we link to the ideas of human rights, that it's about the highest attainable standard. Well, if this is the highest attainable standard at the moment, then we need to find ways of working with that until a higher standard is attainable. So I think that, of course, this is an easy thing to say, coming from a Scandinavian context where fiber is considered a human right. But I do think that there are ways of working around and where there are no ways we have to identify pathways in order to include. But I do think that it's very often discussed as the inclusion of the minority in the majority. And I have been actively working on the idea, which links back to the topic of this panel, right? The idea of that we should see it just as much as the inclusion of us in other contexts where we should be just as involved and just as engaged. Yeah. Josephine, you remind me of something, my spirit in the Dominican Republic. The internet penetration is very low. But 95% of the people have cheap telephone, very cheap telephone, $5 or $10 that they buy the data just three or four minutes to be able to communicate. So that's what we had here in the 90s. Exactly. So it's about time, right? So I think that we should already now pave the way towards a conversation that is going to be happening. It's just a matter of time. All right. Joel, Wendy, any brilliant conclusion, comment? No? No? Okay. Anybody else? Well, I think we have a fabulous conversation. It's recorded and I know how to save it. Okay. Sinti? Yeah. It's not a conclusion or whatever. My thought came to me when I heard all the conversations. I think if I heard everybody correctly, it's about hierarchy. It seems to me, I read a long time ago that some scholars had an experiment and so they had group of people working together and over time, hierarchy just emerged. So it was supposed to be an equal conversation and everything and then the hierarchy just emerged. I think, but in the end, hierarchy serves organizational purposes. People look to one person for decisions. At the same time, it also kind of increases the time of communication, the command and everything. So globally, across peoples, across genders, across different social dimensions, hierarchy serves certain purposes, but then to be able to innovate, to be able to cooperate and everything. Sometimes people have to be able to talk without thinking about the accumulated status, accumulated wealth or whatever. So I think it's a dynamic process and at the same time, we really have to remember, just like the example of technology, the enforcement of hierarchy sometimes is not that subtle. It's not like we're all trained intellectuals with all the abilities, material and everything in the world. So I think that's something that has to be remembered. And again, just like the case about the Chinese case, it's not only for the benefit for the people who are silenced, it's really for the benefit of the whole society. Thanks. Thank you. Anybody, Patti, do you have something to say? Oh, Joel, the conclusion, bring us to conclude. Well, maybe I don't know if it's the conclusion. I just wanted to respond to something that Wendy said or was asking about earlier, just a thought about that, which is that this issue of bringing people into the digital, and it almost maybe to presume that the digital is superior, I think that it's the opposite. I've covered these movements, but I've also, I participated in Occupy San Francisco directly in the Occupy place. And I went to Standing Rock and I was there for a short period of time, but I was there enough to experience what that was like. And I was also in Tahrir Square in 2011, right when it was being, I showed that picture in my presentation. It was in late July. And when I got there, it was in early August, in August 3rd, August 2nd, 3rd, and the military had just swept out that whole area. And so that it was no longer there and people were trying to see about reclaiming it and it never fully got reclaimed. But that there's something very beautiful and there's something that you can't replicate in the digital space that you can have only in the real space or in the physical space, which is the human connection, the breaking of bread together, the singing of songs, the spontaneity, the movement around of people just learning from each other, the kind of emergent. We've obviously had this wonderful discussion just here, which has been very emergent and very wonderfully dialogical. And we've learned from each other. But what I would suggest is that that is amplified in when you have real, not real, I want to use the word real, but non-digital spaces. And so I think that the digital has an amplification and it also has the ability to, for me, when I use Twitter, for example, particularly I use Twitter to, and I have way more people who I follow on Twitter than who follow me. And that's very intense. The reason why is because I'm using Twitter to learn. I'm using it to hear and define those people all around the world who aren't being amplified by traditional media sources and to find exactly those people to hear their voices because I know when I participate in a Black Lives Matter demonstration or in Occupy or in Standing Rock or in Tahrir Square, I'm hearing something different. I mean, there's something different that's occurring in those spaces, in those physical spaces, than is happening in Twitter. And so the Twitter sometimes gets, you know, translates that into a way that can be understood in terms of large people understanding it and liking it and retweeting it, et cetera. But there's a reality. That's what I say to people, you know, why do you go to demonstrations? You go to demonstrations to show solidarity, to show that you're part of this larger movement. But another reason to go to demonstrations is to hear the speakers who are saying things from the points of view locally or wherever you're at that you couldn't hear any other place. All of a sudden these people coming out of the woodwork, so to speak, who are saying these things and giving perspectives. And it goes back again to Patty's point, which I thought was, you know, so well said, it's process. It's that kind of process, that kind of inclusive process that occurs that can only occur, not only occur, but occurs in a unique way in physical spaces. And so I think there is this possibility of creating, I think the big thought that I'll end with is there is this possibility of creating a kind of global inclusive community, but that global inclusive community also runs the terrible risk of being hijacked and becoming a global authoritarian community. And it's not, it won't be a community, it'll be a global authoritarian state. And so we're in this, we're in this phase where we're globalizing and that dynamic tension is occurring. And the most visible way that that's manifesting is Putin invading Ukraine right now. And to have that sense that that some one person can control or Elon Musk taking over Twitter. It's that notion that even these disseminated spaces can be colonized in ways that could be global. And that's the real fear is that we could lose everything. And, but we can also gain everything. And so I, you know, that's, that's the tension that we're in right now. Sounds good. Wendy, any closing remarks? It's almost 3.30. No, no, I agree with Joel. There is a need for organic movement movements, not only virtual activists, because it's a big mistake. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you, everybody. And I add something real quick. Yes. And I think most of you know about this, but I just want to mention it, there are two ways that, well, three ways that you can continue to connect. One is that there is a discussion forum on the bottom of the page for this session. So we can keep the conversation going in the discussion. And, you know, if you think of something else or be sure to check in because other people might watch your presentations and ask questions. So you want to visit that and see what's going on. The second thing is that there is a guest book on the front page of the conference. If you scroll down towards the bottom, you put your email in there that'll leave you connected to the committee for future events and so forth to let people know about that. And then the third thing is that they're right underneath that is a link to a feedback survey that, you know, if you want to wait until you've gone through more sessions in the conference, you can do that, but you can provide feedback, which will help future committees and help Triple SP keep this going, the more interest that we show in it, the better. So thanks for letting me put on my chair hat. Thank you, buddy. Thank you. There's a little announcements at the end. Thank you for organizing the conference. I'm Joseph. Oh, well, you guys had a lot to do with it too. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. I'm saving this thing now. I'm saving the transcript. And I'm going to send it to party so she knows how to do it. I don't. All right. Take care, everybody. See you in the other conferences and other sections. All right. Take care. Take care. Take care. Bye. Take care. Bye. Bye.