"A Plea From the Iranian People"

Published on Tuesday, September 25, 2007 by The Nation

by Akbar Ganji
Editor’s Note: As world leaders gather at the United Nations this week, Akbar Ganji, Iran’s leading political dissident, sent this open letter to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon. As Iranians face the threat of military attack from the United States and economic sanctions from the UN Security Council because of Iran’s nuclear activities, they also suffer severe repression from their own government. Ganji’s plea for Ban to reprimand the Iranian government for its human rights abuses and provide moral support for its citizens has been endorsed by more than 300 public intellectuals, writers and Nobel laureates from around the world. Read their names here.

To His Excellency Ban Ki-moon, Secretary-General of the United Nations,

The people of Iran are experiencing difficult times both internationally and domestically. Internationally, they face the threat of a military attack from the US and the imposition of extensive sanctions by the UN Security Council. Domestically, a despotic state has–through constant and organized repression–imprisoned them in a life-and-death situation.
Far from helping the development of democracy, US policy over the past fifty years has consistently been to the detriment of the proponents of freedom and democracy in Iran. The 1953 coup against the nationalist government of Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadeq and the unwavering support for the despotic regime of the Shah, who acted as America’s gendarme in the Persian Gulf, are just two examples of these flawed policies. More recently the confrontation between various US administrations and the Iranian state over the past three decades has made internal conditions very difficult for the proponents of freedom and human rights in Iran.
Exploiting the danger posed by the US, the Iranian regime has put military-security forces in charge of the government, shut down all independent domestic media and is imprisoning human rights activists on the pretext that they are all agents of a foreign enemy. The Bush Administration, for its part, by approving a fund for democracy assistance in Iran, which has in fact been largely spent on official institutions and media affiliated with the US government, has made it easy for the Iranian regime to describe its opponents as mercenaries of the US and to crush them with impunity.
At the same time, even speaking about “the possibility” of a military attack on Iran makes things extremely difficult for human rights and pro-democracy activists in Iran. No Iranian wants to see what happened to Iraq or Afghanistan repeated in Iran. Iranian democrats also watch with deep concern the support in some American circles for separatist movements in Iran.
Preserving Iran’s territorial integrity is important to all those who struggle for democracy and human rights in Iran. We want democracy for Iran and for all Iranians. We also believe that the dismemberment of Middle Eastern countries will fuel widespread and prolonged conflict in the region. In order to help the process of democratization in the Middle East, the US can best help by promoting a just peace between the Palestinians and Israelis, and pave the way for the creation of a truly independent Palestinian state alongside the State of Israel.
A just resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict and the establishment of a Palestinian state would inflict the heaviest blow on the forces of fundamentalism and terrorism in the Middle East.
Intolerable Conditions
Iran’s dangerous international situation and the consequences of Iran’s dispute with the West have totally deflected the world’s attention and especially the attention of the United Nations from the intolerable conditions that the Iranian regime has created for the Iranian people. The dispute over the enrichment of uranium should not make the world forget that, although the 1979 revolution of Iran was a popular revolution, it did not lead to the formation of a democratic system that protects human rights.
The Islamic Republic is a fundamentalist state that does not afford official recognition to the private sphere. It represses civil society and violates human rights. Thousands of political prisoners were executed during the first decade after the revolution without fair trials or due process of the law, and dozens of dissidents and activists were assassinated during the second decade.
Independent newspapers are constantly being banned and journalists are sent to prison. All news websites are filtered and books are either refused publication permits or are slashed with the blade of censorship before publication. Women are totally deprived of equality with men and, when they demand equal rights, they are accused of acting against national security, subjected to various types of intimidation and have to endure various penalties, including long prison terms. In the first decade of the twenty-first century, stoning (the worst form of torture leading to death) is one of the sentences that Iranians face on the basis of existing laws.
A number of Iranian teachers, who took part in peaceful civil protests over their pay and conditions, have been dismissed from their jobs, and some have even been sent into internal exile in farflung regions or jailed. Iranian workers are deprived of the right to establish independent unions. Workers who ask to be allowed to form unions in order to struggle for their corporate rights are beaten and imprisoned. Iranian university students have paid the highest costs in recent years in defense of liberty, human rights and democracy. Security organizations prevent young people who are critical of the official state orthodoxy from gaining admission into university, and those who do make it through the rigorous ideological and political vetting process have no right to engage in peaceful protest against government policies.
If students’ activities displease the governing elites, they are summarily expelled from university and in many instances jailed. The Islamic Republic has also been expelling dissident professors from universities for about a quarter of a century. In the meantime, in the Islamic Republic’s prisons, opponents are forced to confess to crimes that they have not committed and to express remorse. These confessions, which have been extracted by force, are then broadcast on the state media in a manner reminiscent of Stalinist show trials.
There are no fair, competitive elections in Iran; instead, elections are stage-managed and rigged. And even people who find their way into Parliament and into the executive branch of government have no powers or resources to alter the status quo. All the legal and extra-legal powers are in the hands of the Iran’s top leader, who rules like a despotic sultan.
Human Rights
Are you aware that in Iran political dissidents, human rights activists and pro-democracy campaigners are legally deprived of “the right to life”? On the basis of Article 226 of the Islamic Penal Law and Note 2 of Paragraph E of Section B of Article 295 of the same law, any person can unilaterally decide that another human being has forfeited the right to life and kill them in the name of performing one’s religious duty to rid society of vice. Over the past few decades, many dissidents and activists have been killed on the basis of this article, and the killers have been acquitted in court.
In such circumstances, no dissident or activist has a right to life in Iran, because, on the basis of Islamic jurisprudence and the laws of the Islamic Republic, the definition of those who have forfeited the right to life (mahduroldam) is very broad.
Are you aware that in Iran, writers are lawfully banned from writing? On the basis of Note 2 of Paragraph 8 of Article 9 of the Press Law, writers who are convicted of “propaganda against the ruling system” are deprived for life of “the right to all press activity.” In recent years, many writers and journalists have been convicted of propaganda against the ruling system. The court’s verdicts make it clear that any criticism of state bodies is deemed to be propaganda against the ruling system.
A Plea for Intervention
The people of Iran and Iranian advocates for freedom and democracy are experiencing difficult days. They need the moral support of the proponents of freedom throughout the world and effective intervention by the United Nations. We categorically reject a military attack on Iran. At the same time, we ask you and all of the world’s intellectuals and proponents of liberty and democracy to condemn the human rights violations of the Iranian state. We expect from Your Excellency, in your capacity as the Secretary General of the United Nations, to reprimand the Iranian government–in keeping with your legal duties–for its extensive violation of the articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international human rights covenants and treaties.
Above all, we hope that with Your Excellency’s immediate intervention, all of Iran’s political prisoners, who are facing more deplorable conditions with every passing day, will soon be released. The people of Iran are asking themselves whether the UN Security Council is only decisive and effective when it comes to the suspension of the enrichment of uranium, and whether the lives of the Iranian people are unimportant as far as the Security Council is concerned. The people of Iran are entitled to freedom, democracy and human rights. We Iranians hope that the United Nations and all the forums that defend democracy and human rights will be unflinching in their support for Iran’s quest for freedom and democracy.


Akbar Ganji is an Iranian journalist and dissident who spent six years in prison for exposing rights abuses committed by Iran’s fundamentalist regime. His work has appeared in pro-democracy newspapers across Iran, most of which the government has since shut down. He is also the winner of the 2007 John Humphrey Freedom Award for his fearless commitment to human rights, democratic development and nonviolence.
© 2007 The Nation

more blood = more oil

Anyways. Here is a Naomi Klein exerpt that details how a new law, pushed through Iraq's legislature by US hands, will rob the country blind and basically condemn the country and its inhabitants to a future of poverty and a failing economy.

Worse, this same move, this same charade, has been lauded by Bushcons and corporate interests (including many democrats)as a boon for the Iraqi economy. Lies as usual.

"The law that was finally adopted by Iraq's cabinet in February 2007 was even worse than anticipated: it placed no limits on the amount of profits that foreign companies can take from the country and placed no specific requirements about how much or little foreign investors would partner with Iraqi companies or hire Iraqis to work in the oil fields.

Most brazenly, it excluded Iraq's elected parliamentarians from having any say in the terms for future oil contracts. Instead, it created a new body, the Federal Oil and Gas Council, which, according to the New York Times, would be advised by "a panel of oil experts from inside and outside Iraq". This unelected body, advised by unspecified foreigners, would have ultimate decision-making power on all oil matters, with the full authority to decide which contracts Iraq did and did not sign. In effect, the law called for Iraq's publicly owned oil reserves, the country's main source of revenues, to be exempted from democratic control and run instead by a powerful, wealthy oil dictatorship, which would exist alongside Iraq's broken and ineffective government.

It is hard to overstate the disgrace of this attempted resource grab. Iraq's oil profits are the country's only hope of financing its own reconstruction when some semblance of peace returns. To lay claim to that future wealth in a moment of national disintegration was disaster capitalism at its most shameless."

I hate to seem too extreme, but America is drenched in the blood of Iraqis because of this war and now the excesses of the country's executive-branch-run-amock are seeking to suck the resources out of country as well. Seems like looting and pillaging to me.

If I could virtually scream with rage at the state of things I would. But I think I'll stick with just refusing to use the terminology "war" which implies a real enemy and battle, and stick with "occupation", "humanitarian disaster", "neo-imperial conquest", and the like. grrr.

Misplaced sympathy

There is a serious need in the United States and in the West in general of a sea change in public consciousness about this whole Iraq debacle. Of course, I'm referring to the US primarily...I am sick of anti-war and pro-war voices alike taking a tone that prioritizes US interests above all others in references to Iraq.

It seems to be that even criticisms of this disgusting, genocidal and illegal war tend to take a tone that laments what such a debacle means for America and Americans. As of now, I couldn't care less - from my standpoint I know for a fact that, no matter what, American people will always be better off than Iraqi people in suffering the repercussions of this thing.

Why is there not more of a sympathetic and concerned public conscience for the Iraqi people, for the 1 million dead (violence + war-related deaths - see the Lancet study) and 4 million fled from the country, for the widowed wives, fatherless children, and traumatized public that suffers more and more each day that the violence continued? Why is it SUCH a stretch for the American public specifically and the West in general to be voice a serious concern for the disintegration of a society that resides in the birthplace of one of the oldest civilizations known to mankind? Why aren't news stories on Frace 24, or TV5 or Euronews or on any given network in the United States SHOWING the extent to which the bloodshed and violence has lead to malnutrition, widespread sickness, and rampant poverty. And why is there no coverage of the massive amount of refugees that are now poor, homeless, and displaced in surrounding countries?

It's a humanitarian crisis and it's high time that people begin to see it this way. Especially in the US, but more importantly also in the West, as these are the most influential voices of the international community and are crucial in turning the tide of international attention (not against the US - it happened long ago) to the crisis on the ground in Iraq. So much attention is given to military manoeuvres and how US politics handles the situation - why so little on how Iraqi civilians are handling the situation and how everyday life has been shattered?

I am ANGRY, OUTRAGED and UPSET by the extent to which public opinion shows such a lack of sympathy for those who are suffering the effects of this war, and on my own end my heart breaks everytime I think of what the war really means for the majority of people involved - the iraqi people.

Labelling "Racism" in Mauritania: Continued

So originally this was a comment to Sian's comment because I really meant to talk about something in the "labelling racism in Mauritania" post, but I forgot. And I think it confused things a little. The whole inspiration for that post was the disparity between the books and articles I have read on Mauritania, and how they conceptualize the idea of race in the country, and what is actually going on here, on the ground.

I wanted to bring up another point that I guess upon reflection is relevant and troubles me but I guess I didnt include it. This whole thing came about because the available "history" and information on Mauritania is produced by societies in which and idea of "race" as more color-oriented, exists. Because the whole color-race idea thing is a north american but more importantly also a colonial idea (which is where most race-based 'science' originated). There is a major disparity between what I read, that is published in the US or in France, and the reality on the ground. Namely, these 'informational' sources tend to base things on color, using terms like "white moor" (who are not always white) and "black african" (who are not always black) to refer to an environment where it's really not about color. Because Mauritania hasn't the means to publish its own history on an international level (so countries like the US and France do it instead), the idea of Mauritania's history as being race/color-based is disseminated and in the process does a major disservice to the country itself.
I'm bringing this up because this is where the idea of color-race and "race" (in the sian sense) in mauritania itself come together, and where "racist" really becomes a misnomer because of what it signifies and which audiences read these books.
I also think its important not to leave the color-race thing out in terms of colonial history in africa, because it was a main centrepoint, so that's why all the books written by french expats bother me.
Although I think race SHOULD be used to refer to anything that holds people inferior for superficial reasons, there are some serious historical factors that inform the discussion today that continue to return to the color issue. And unfortunately, items like the State Department Country Report, the CIA Factbook, and basically any book written by an expat on Mauritania are considered "credible" sources of information on Mauritania. The CIA factbook, by the way lists under Mauritania's "ethnicity": "black 30%".....Same goes for many french pages on the country, where the divisions are "maur" or "maur blanc" and "maur/noir metissage", and "noir". No mention of actual ethnic groups.
And I have yet to read one that doesnt consider color as being central to issues of social prejudice in Mauritania.
I'd love to believe that everyone considers racism to be an idea that is as inclusive as you say (i certainly feel that way, but I think you're way ahead of the game on this one), but I would be willing to bet that if one were to do a European-North American poll of "what's the first thing you think of when you think of race/racism", most people would make a reference to color. Thats a stretch, I know. But I can't shake the impression, book after book and article after article I read, that race is being oversimplified as color. Here, anyway.

On ending economic apartheid

Ok can I first say that the idea of "economic apartheid" and, in a larger sense, "global apartheid" are the coolest paradigms for describing the unforgivable and widening gap between rich and poor that is reinforced everyday by an out of control and excessive capitalist system that increases the quality of life for a few and decreases the quality of life for most.....and I am tired of people who claim that to protest this status quo is to be socialist - to which my response is, #1: so what if it is, and #2:even those who embrace the idea of the market as a beneficial thing (which, all things considered, it can be, but isnt for now) must admit that its current role as a virus that is killing global society as we know it is not optimal. So I had to post this excerpt from Yes! magazine detailing the economic revolution that is in order and that strikes a nice compromise between market-lovers and socialists alike.

Community-based Economics
From a system-design perspective, a healthy society must either eliminate profit, interest, and for-profit corporations altogether, or use the taxing and regulatory powers of publicly accountable democratic governments to strictly limit concentrations of economic power and prevent the winners from passing the costs of their success onto the losers. This creates yet another system design issue. As government becomes larger and more powerful, it almost inevitably becomes less accountable and more prone to corruption.
Paul Hawken has correctly observed that big business creates the need for big government to constrain excesses and clean up the messes. To maintain equity and secure the internalization of costs, democratically accountable government power must exceed the power of exclusive private economic interests. The smaller the concentrations of economic power, the smaller government can be and still maintain essential balance and integrity in the society.
There will be less need for a strong governmental hand to the extent that we are successful in eliminating sociopathic institutional forms, making community-based economies the norm, and creating a public consensus that predatory economic behavior now taken for granted as “just human nature” is actually aberrant and immoral. Responsible citizenship may then become the expected business norm. There will always be a need, however, for rules and governmental oversight to deal with what hopefully will be a declining number of sociopathic individuals and institutions who seek to profit at public expense.
Equalizing economic power and rooting it locally shifts power to people and community from distant financial markets, global corporations, and national governments. It serves to shift rewards from economic predators to economic producers, strengthens community, encourages individual responsibility, and allows for greater expression of individual choice and creativity.

Labelling "Racism" in Mauritania

(look out, it's a long one)
So I have an issue with the word “racism”, as has been the case for ages. Just to preface this post a little.

I’m in Mauritania and find that there a some very deep-seated issues involving prejudice, socio-cultural segregation and “race” among black (sub-saharan) African and Arab (north African) people. The question is whether it can accurately be called “racism” and, if so, to what extent does that label, bearing with it centuries of historical baggage, serve to complicate the problem by means of over-simplification? This last part of the phrase seems a little odd but it is the only way to describe it. When one uses the term “racism”, the immediate impression is that of a prejudice borne of skin color….because its widely considered for such prejudices, currently and throughout history, to be egregious and horrible, the word “racist” or “racism” tends to overshadow the underlying historical and sociocultural factors that cause the visible elements of racism (skin color etc). I guess what I’m trying to say is that the word racism denies the subject a real, deep, and important subtext that, in the end, leads to faulty information and sometimes a perpetuation of a problem that needs to be recognized and addressed at its roots. Also, because “racism” immediately suggests the existence of a dichotomy, it tends to reshape multifaceted and non-dichotomic problems in its image (I want to say the problem of “race” in Mauritania is poly-something in nature, as it is nonlinear and the categories of prejudice are multiple)…..
In this case, the issue is Mauritania, in which the historical presence of repeated conquest (Arabic and colonial) and a caste system – to me – resist the categorization of systematic prejudices here as “racism”. I feel that if and when I use that word, I am doing a disservice to the effort to understand and deal with a very serious problem…. But then, what word can I use to provoke the appropriate level of disgust and indignation that’s needed here, without the hassle of false impressions? To add on to all this, I can’t help but think of the prejudices associated with caste in India as well – is the word “racism” applied in Mauritania (rather than India, where I haven’t heard it as a ref to caste system issues before) just because it’s part of Africa? Or what? I know race is a social construct and not a genetic thing, but this doesn't shake the superficial connotations of skincolor that the word "racism" carries with it....
The word racism is very specifically part of a western historical consciousness, and I’m getting the increasing impression that, as such, ignores the scope of prejudices that are above and beyond (not to mention pre-dating) that same historical consciousness? Bear with me, I’m not getting my words out here (its Monday morning J).
History-wise, the question of “racism” dates back to the arabic-islamic conquest that originated in the middle east and spread downward and westward into and across the sahel, and its an influence that has been there for thousands of years (i.e. the Islamic empire). So Mauritania's white "moors" are the descendants of these arab populations from the north, and the black moors are those who were originally indigenous to the south but for generations, have adopted the arabic culture as their own. Most people in Mauritania (about 50%) who are metissé (brown) have adopted the moor culture as well. So islam and the arabic culture are very much intertwined and totally inseparable here. Because Mauritania contains both populations, one of whom thinks of itself as the conqueror (this leads to a slave issue, ill get to it later) and owner of the land (mostly white moor), and the other who think of themselves as the rightful inhabitants and as distinctly african (so wolof - wolof culture and langauge, same for fulani) with the right to the land and their respective cultures. Note also here that conventional white-black racism here is blurred by issue of arab culture among moors; in fact, the term “white moor” refers mostly to brown people, a small minority of whom are very light skinned (think Moroccan people) but still not white in the racial sense.
All this prejudice and conflict between cultures and people was exacerbated by colonial borders imposed in the 60s, because originally senegal and mauritania were together as french west African colonial territory before being sliced up with the african population on both sides of the Mauritanian border. What colonialism also did was to add another dimension to the problem – that of skin color, as they naturally favored white moors as the ruling class and therefore as the beneficiaries of colonial rule and, later, independence. As one sees with aboriginal people in North America, the drawing of artificial lines that cut across peoples leads to an especially strong sense of solidarity, which of course leads to bitter and severe clashes with arab moors in Mauritania. This led to widespread massacres and expulsions of blacks in '90 - 91, so there are still refugees on the senegalese border, this happened in part because the government implemented an "arabization" policy (and there has not been an african government, ever, they are all moors). you can fill in the blanks...

To further complicate the whole thing there is the issue of caste - there were already caste systems in place among the wolof and fulani in the region that dictated, via surname, who was aristocracy and who was servant, and so to this day even in senegal there is a BIG issue with upward mobility in employment and with women's rights and stuff because strict social rules remain stating that you absolutely cannot marry outside your caste. Many people still follow these rules (they are enforced at a social level) in order to preserve their position and keep their name since it indicates status. Which in turn causes a vicious cycle of prejudice. So what happened with the Moors was that they used this to their advantage and obviously put themselves at the top of the chart, because they considered themselves superior culturally (which translates into skin color superficially), and this also allowed them in the process of conquest to take slaves from those who were already in the lowest castes. Like I said though, color is superficial, because even Black moors own/owned slaves, and the distinction between them is in their names/caste status. This is also an indicator of the cultural factor in all this, commonly called “arabization” here in Mauritania – one can see with the Black moors how the adoption of Arabic culture over time has superceded the importance of skin color in society, allowing them the same privileges and status of their white moor counterparts.
There is still a kind of conquistador/slavekeeper mentality, and people joke about it here in the office but there are serious office politics that show its something thats really deep rooted. And it happens all over - like Nicole's driver, who is a white moor, refuses to greet the Fulani guard or the women who work at the house (who are ivorian, but are still ‘black’/non-arab for him.
I saw this whole caste/slave/”race” thing firsthand the other day: A woman named Mariam N'Diaye (African name, black woman, servant caste), a specialist in psychology, came to talk to our office about stress management (they brought her in because of an office politics thing, which is yet another caste-social status-linked-thing). During the seminar, she asked everyone their name. One guy (white moor, brown, arab), when called on, said his name was Alhassan Sy (an Arabic name). Mariam didnt hear him so she asked him to repeat his last name, to which he responded, "My last name is Sy, as in, your master". Because Sy is an arabic name indicating a caste that traditionally owned slaves. So this was followed by an awkward silence which Mariam laughed off, as she is from Dakar the whole arab moor thing is new to her. So while slavery itself is still a serious and obscene practice/problem that has been pushed underground, it exists in very small numbers, around like 2000 or something. The bigger issue is an antiquated caste system aggravated by cultural and “racial” factors that stifles social growth and opportunity for everyone involved and perpetuates a monopoly of power among moors. So, to return to my point in the first place, the term “racism” is simply insufficient to explain what is going on here and from what I have read in US country information on Mauritania, it totally disfigures a western historical understanding of prejudice, slavery, culture and “race” as it exists here in Mauritania.

surprise! a lot of black people in the americas have white ancestors!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6284806.stm
this annoys me in general because for so many of us its pretty obvious that you cant tell a person's genetic make up just by looking at them, which is why the concept of "race" is so useless if you try to understand it as genetic rather than as the social construct that it is.
i guess eventually they'll do this in the states and then everyone will realize that most, if not all, african-americans are mixed.
not that this even changes anything, because people are dumb and it'll take ages before average people are able to see through racist constructs. but i guess its a start.

4th of July...

It's my first 4th of July that I'll be in this country in about 10 years, so I feel like that's kind of a big deal. But I'd like to share two stories I've heard today that illustrate how this country treats its veterans, and it makes me sick because you'd think a country as patriotic as we are would treat our vets really well right?
Ok, so first of all it's bad enough that we've been in war for years for no good reason, and don't even get me started on how the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi people, including lots of children, somehow don't matter as much as the 2000 people killed on 9/11.
But so ok, I don't think it's my place to completely divulge who these people are online, so if you want details I'll tell you, but basically both of these vets served in the military for many years. And one is currently in one of the VA hospitals that was left open after Bush closed a bunch, and he's being treated for post traumatic stress disorder over 20 years after he finished his service. The other person is currently in jail (even tho technically she should have been released one month and 2 days ago, but the papers just haven't been processed yet WTF) for an incident related to psychiatric problems for which she has not gotten (and probably won't get once she's released) adequate treatment.
And both of them happen to be black, which is significant because the proportion of black and latino people enlisting in the military has been much higher than that of white citizens (which is another issue in and of itself). And I don't want to argue that they're not getting proper care because they're black, but rather that the lack of treatment and proper care only compounds the social disadvantages of being a person of color in this country.
Recently I've realized that thinking about things in terms of family can be quite useful. For example, that when you raid communities and deport undocumented workers they often are seperated from their children who are American citizens. Thinking about it like that makes it more accessible because we can all imagine how horrible it would be to be forcefully seperated from our parents or children or family. And in this case, when you have a relative or friend in jail, you experience the extra burden of stress in your life, and then this stress disporportionately affects people of color. Like just think about how you'd feel if your relative was mentally unwell, in jail even though they should have been released, and not getting proper medical/psychiatric help, and then of course that's all in addition to handling your everday life stuff like going to school or work or whatever.
Anyway, it just seem ironic that I hear about these two stories on the same day and it happens to be a national holiday. For me these examples show how interconnected all of the injustice in this country is, and how the prison industrial complex, and military recruitment, and anti-immigration policies are not only inhumane, and not only are they damaging for individual people, but that they have terrible consequences for families and children, especially those from communities that are already most vulnerable.
So in conclusion, until this country makes it a priority to take care of its most vulnerable children and families I can't be proud to be American.

kind of related:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/05/us/05contractors.html?hp
http://www.latimes.com/business/local/la-na-private4jul04,1,7340256.story
the first one is about contractors suffering from post traumatic stress disorder and not getting proper medical attention cuz the companies they work for dont do follow up psychological tests or whatever, and the second is about how now there are more private contractors than military personel in iraq, which is creepy cuz we're moving from a military occupation to an economic one.

She's baaaaaack

YES! Cindy Sheehan is drawn back out into the public eye as she expresses outrage over the Bush's quasi-pardon for Scooter Libby, described in another source as follows" "Fines and probation and ruined careers affect ordinary people. Scooter Libby is no ordinary man. He is a Bush Administration Untouchable".

So I just love the way Sheehan writes and the way she's not afraid to voice the righteous anger that anyone who witnesses the grossness of the bush regime is familiar with. Plus the terms she uses are humorous and 100% at the same time, showing everyone that its about time to expose the U.S. Government as a mockery in this day and time. Here's her "comeback" article:

(p.s. Obama (on impeachment), what the hell? tsk tsk....read below)

Published on Tuesday, July 3, 2007 by CommonDreams.org

Call Out The Instigator

by Cindy Sheehan

Call out the Instigator
Because there’s something in the air
We got to get together sooner or later
Because the revolution’s here
You know it’s right!

-Thunderclap Newman

I’m not backing off. I tried to remove myself from the political realm of the US, what BushCo is turning into an Evil Empire, but the blatant audacity of George commuting Scooter’s sentence (he’s not ruling out a full pardon —and you know he will) has dragged me kicking and screaming back in. I can’t sit back and let this BushCo drag our country further down into the murky quagmire of Fascism and violence, taking the rest of the world with them!

I have sat quietly back these past five weeks as the slaughter in Iraq sorrowfully surges along with George’s bloody escalation—and as the philosophical opposition to the war has soared to almost four out of every five Americans. I have remained silent when Senator Barack Obama said that impeachment is only reserved for “grave, grave” breeches! Well, BushCo has created hundreds of thousands of graves dug by their lies and greed. For cripes’ sake, George admitted to breaking the FISA Act (which is a felony) that also breeched the 4th Amendment to our Constitution that already prohibited illegal search and seizure. How was Bill Clinton’s offense graver than George’s, Dick’s, or Scooter’s? Did we ever think that the criminality and arrogance of the Nixon White House would be eclipsed in our time with nary a “baaaah” from the Sheeple in Congress?

George has said that America doesn’t “do torture” when we have all seen the images of torture from Abu Ghraib (don’t believe your lyin’ eyes) and know that hundreds of people sold to the US Army for an immoral bounty are incarcerated within the inhumane confines of Guantanamo Prison which is right in our own back yard.

I have had to bite my tongue – HARD — as the George and Dick crime cabal, (formerly known has the executive branch) have claimed that their offices are not to be held up to the same standards of accountability and control as any other entity in the human race, governmental or private.

It has been recently reported that Nancy Pelosi said that impeachment is not “worth it.” Her faulty reasoning is that impeachment would take too much time because they don’t have the votes. If they could “whip” their own Democratic caucus into shape to defend and protect our Constitution and the people of Iraq and our soldiers as they whupped, cajoled, threatened and browbeat the caucus into attaching “non-binding” time lines onto the last war funding bill, then impeachment would not only be possible, but likely.

The recent commutation of I. Scooter Libby’s sentence, however, was the straw that broke my camel’s back of exhausted ennui. Patrick Fitzgerald is a thoughtful and thorough prosecutor who did a heroic job of bringing at least one of the Bush Crime Mob to justice. Even though we were all very pleased, we knew that it was not enough and that Mr. Fitzgerald would delve deeper into the feces infested executive branch. The lawlessness of the Bush Administration has reached wild west proportions and the inmates definitely have control of the US(A)sylum.

.....(edited)....

It is about time us “peasants” (in the eyes of the Fascist Ruling Elite) march on DC with our “pitchforks” of righteous anger and our “torches” of truth to demand the ouster of BushCo. I have a dream of the detention centers that George has built and filled being instead filled with Orange Clad neo-cons and neo-connettes.

If Congress won’t dig BushCo’s political grave, it is the People’s job to do so. Thomas Jefferson said that we need a Revolution every 20 years, or so, to keep our Republic honest. Over 225 years have passed since our last Revolution (if you don’t count the War Between the States) and we are long overdue for one. Turn off your TVs, kiss your pets goodbye, bring the kids and flock to the federal seat of corruption, or join us on our walk there, for a People’s Accountability Movement to be in the face of the Criminal BushCo and the Complicit Congress for the last week of session before they go on their undeserved vacations (why do they get vacations when the Iraqi parliamentarians don’t?)

On the eve of our first revolution: You know it’s right!

I can't say I have the same faith in revolution in this country (the last major one was...hmm..1776?), but it's heartening to hear the words of those who refuse to give up.

China's beating us.

China has just passed a legislative law that provides improved protections for workers including collective bargaining rights for migrant workers and measures for better job security. There will probably still be problems with enforcement, but I think this is pretty amazing. China has been regarded as the site for super cheap labor for a while now, and it's significant that they're working towards protecting workers despite pleas from lobbyists for multinational corporations who want cheap labor and "flexible" labor conditions. It's really gross how rights for vulnerable people are seen as a barrier to economic success and development. So here's the NYT article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/30/world/asia/30china.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
For some reason this makes me think of Nancy Pelosi's address at the Campus Progress conference last week, when she kept saying that America being "number one" is a priority, and that whatever social changes that are made can't be at the expense of out status as the best in the world. So I guess she must mean number one in purely economic GDP kind of terms, which is silly because we're definitely not number one in health or healthcare or infant mortality or eradicating poverty, and we're especially not number one in ensuring rights for working people. Workers who aren't (or can't be) unionized all over the world and in this country are made increasingly vulnerable as practically every company sees its workers as the most expendable resource. There's been a trend in lowering job security, like with the workers in Princeton dining halls where permanent/year-long employees are being phased out and replaced with expendable workers with fewer benefits and much greater job insecurity.
Anyway, so my point is that its stupid to look only at how much money the country has without paying attention to who has it and at what expense, and it's kind of shameful that China clearly cares more about its people than our government and businesses care about ours. Why isn't being number one in this respect important?

"Multicolored" people

So, an interesting tidbit in my reading on Mauritania. A couple weeks ago, a princeton alum who is now the executive director of Africare commented to me that I "look very Mauritanian", after I told him about my upcoming trip.

Upon reading more about the country (information is suprisingly hard to find), I found that one of the largest population groups in Mauritania are the "Toucouleur", which literally translates into "multicolored (people)". Which explains why I apparently "look" Mauritanian. The rise of the Toucouleur population is, according to some sources, a direct result of the divisions between the majority "black"/ Wolof (also the majority group in Senegal, to give an idea of what we're talking about here) Mauritanian south and the majority "white"/Arab moor Mauritanian north and the abolishment of black slavery in Mauritania, which in turn caused a lot of intermarriage as a means of "marrying up". So the Toucouleur apparently make up much of what lies between these two regions as the two groups have mixed as a result of trade, industrialization and migration and, of course, our vicious friend colonialism. I'm really curious to see how the dynamic is on the ground, as there is apparently a rampant problem of racism between the two groups, but no one I have spoken to, and no site I have visited have addressed the issue of racism and the Toucouleur/mixed population, which I presumably will be considered a part of.

So this brings up another issue/question, since the same phenomenon has cropped up in South Africa and in other regions around the world, hence the terms mulatto, coloured (note the "u" to indicate its south african, lol), metis, mestizo, etc. It makes me wonder, specifically in the cases of Mauritania and South Africa, if a history of racism leads to a mentality that seeks to create specific groups of people rather than navigate individual differences. As in, it would be easier within a social mentality of strict classifications to lump all the "in between" people into their own respective racial/social/cultural/etc group, especially because the creating of a separate and disparate group inevitably skirts the issue of recognizing the interactive and socially significant relationships between "blacks" and "whites". So, if you have a group like the Toucouleurs, then wouldn't it be true that you would be re-drawing the color lines instead of understanding the fact that those lines are artificial and don't exist? Or, don't you just avoid the explanation of how racial and social mixing occurs naturally by instead separating out a specific (mixed) group as being an individual entity? I guess it could be worse, like the States, where apparently mixed people don't "exist" at all in the socially recognizeable sense of the term.

Yeah. So I am wary about the novelty and "coolness" of looking Mauritanian and how it will supposedly help me to blend in more. Feedback, anyone?

The Taboo of a Third Party

As most progressives, socialists and lefties have known for a WHILE, there has always been a pressing need for a third party in america - even more so these days, as both Democrats and Republicans have shown themselves to be totally irresponsible in their decision-making, as well as being so blindly partisan that decisions, actions, and rhetoric reflect more of a committment to one's party and politics than to the country and the international community as a whole. Anyways, so we need a legitimate and responsible third party because as far as I'm concerned both parties are rife with corruption and are becoming useless in terms of making this country and the world at large a better place

So here's a quote from an article by Cindy Sheehan that I thought was pertinent to this issue and the way it has been depicted socially and in the media:

"I am deemed a radical because I believe that partisan politics should be left to the wayside when hundreds of thousands of people are dying for a war based on lies that is supported by Democrats and Republican alike. It amazes me that people who are sharp on the issues and can zero in like a laser beam on lies, misrepresentations, and political expediency when it comes to one party refuse to recognize it in their own party. Blind party loyalty is dangerous whatever side it occurs on. People of the world look on us Americans as jokes because we allow our political leaders so much murderous latitude and if we don’t find alternatives to this corrupt “two” party system our Representative Republic will die and be replaced with what we are rapidly descending into with nary a check or balance: a fascist corporate wasteland. I am demonized because I don’t see party affiliation or nationality when I look at a person, I see that person’s heart. If someone looks, dresses, acts, talks and votes like a Republican, then why do they deserve support just because he/she calls him/herself a Democrat?....George Bush will never be impeached because if the Democrats dig too deeply, they may unearth a few skeletons in their own graves and the system will perpetuate itself in perpetuity."

Basically Cindy Sheehan is a peace activist who is offically resigning - see full text at: http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/05/29/1495/

Firestone Liberia on Al Jazeera (Part 2)

Corporate Exploitation in Liberia - continued

Firestone Liberia on Al Jazeera (Part 1)

So here's one of the International Labor Rights Projects that I'm working on right now - a perfectly fucked up example of corporate exploitation in Africa.

Climate Change? We need Climate Justice. and other things.

I've been talking smack about posting this for like 2 months. Here it is, and please guys, take it to heart. If you dont think climate change is affecting you now, take a closer look. If it actually isn't, then it will in the near future. So it's relevant.

About those "other things":
1. Can Wolfowitz please just be fired already? Not only is he a piece of crap, but he symbolizes the corruption and hypocrisy of the World Bank as a whole.
2. Can the U.S. newsmedia please stop its mission of sensationalizing stories into oblivion and just take up the simple task of providing accurate and broad-based information to the public so that we can all be more informed and stop supporting imperialist Republican-Bushite policies (or being complacent enough to let it happen)?

So to the main feature: Climate Change and the question of Climate Justice.

Climate Change: So, to give a couple facts to preface things: climate change is not a far-fetched and slow-coming notion that scientists have come up with. This is a current issue and it has been going on since the Industrial Revolution. It has been studied since the mid 60's and it is just now that it is gaining international attention. This is not because it hasn't been a legitimate issue until now. This is because we have gotten to the point where, given current rates of fossil fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions, we are beyond a point where we can completely reverse the trend of climate change. Which is bad, bad bad. We can only maintain current rates and prevent future acceleration in the rate and severity of climate change.

Climate change, as the human-enduced warming of the world's atmosphere caused by the burning of fossil fuels and release of other pollutants in the atmosphere, has consequently caused fundamental shift in the earth's climate. Not temperature - climate. The term "climate" encompasses our weather patterns, the air we breathe and what it is made up of, the water we drink, and the ground we walk on. Climate change example: an increase of warm air causes an increase in major storms such as hurricanes. An increase in hurricanes and their intensity means a short-term increase in rainfall and humidity. Increases in rainfall and humidity in areas that are not ecologically acclimated to such changes (i.e. areas that arent a tropical rainforest or wetland) leads to increases in stagnant water, landslides, and waste runoff into our water systems. Increases in stagnant water = more mosquitos = more malaria, west nile etc. (depending on where you are). Landslides lead to degradation of the soil which leads to lower crop yields, not to mention houses being destroyed. Contaminated water due to waste runoff means contaminated vegetables (read: e.coli outbreak). This list could continue forever and applies for all weather related events caused by climate change, like drought, which has contributed significantly to conflict in a variety of regions, most notably Sudan.

This little thing called climate change embodies virtually every issue that governments and individuals alike hold dear: the availability of food and water, susceptibility to conflict, major health problems and widespread sickness, poverty, the health of the world ecosystems that we rely on to survive, every day, national security, the global economy, the wealth of nations (whose natural resources are simultaneously being depleted by our use and endangered by climate change), birth rates, death rates, standard of living, household incomes, energy needs and supplies - again an interminable list. I will stop here.

So this is a big issue, but it's importance as a question of global justice is often overlooked. To me, this should give any and everyone who thinks about it a permanent sense of outrage and urgency in terms of how this is being dealt with. So what is the "climate justice" issue? The simple idea that Western nations have singlehandedly caused this problem, and the nations of the southern hemisphere and Third World will suffer most acutely from it. Just ask yourself: who is affected more by drought - a family in California (which has been drought stricken for the past 7 years) with a small but nice house, one car, running water and a grocery store nearby, OR a family in Chad or Mauritania who survives off of their 1-acre plot of land (which needs seasonal rainfall) to grow crops and feed livestock that they sell in return for money that pays for water that does not run from the tap because it is too scarce? Yeeeah.

The U.S., for example, holds 5% of the world's population but produces 25% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions. Effectively, the poorest nations of the world are suffering from the excessive consumption of Western nations. This is what I am referring to when I say that the world needs climate justice, because every second, minute, and day of inaction or ineffective action on part of the US, Canada, Europe and Asia is another moment of climate injustice. So this is a moral issue as well as an economic and political one.

I could go on about this forever, but what I am getting at is that people need to develop a stronger sense of what climate change is and how it is an issue that endangers everyone, everywhere, and is also an issue that highlights how interconnected our world is. We need to think about the global effects of our actions on an everyday basis, we need to think about the industries and the politics that we buy into (ideologically and financially). We need to re-think where we would like to see ourselves and our world 20 years from now. The crisis of the global environment is something that is going to fundamentally change life on a global and personal level in the years to come, and the burden of dealing with this falls on our generation. You don't need to be an environmental activist for this to concern you. It will concern you regardless. It doesn't matter if you're interested in literature or science or politics, this issue will affect you in all of these respects because this is about the world we live in and the earth that has made it possible for our species to exist in the first place.

There are too many people who are pretending not to notice the problem and not doing anythign about it. There are too many people who know about this problem and refuse to do anything about it. There are too many people who are just sitting on the fence.

There are too few people who are truly committed to seeing the full scope of this issue and solving the problem. Let's get outraged at where things stand, let's get motivated to think about it and plan for it and do something about it. Let's just get involved, even if it just means reading a book about it or turning off the TV when you're not home or just using a bike or walking around town more often. Or just thinking about it - how it affects you, your countr[ies], yur future, your career and your loved ones - for like 15 minutes everyday.

cultural imperialism

Does anyone else find it really creepy that a car rental place would call itself imperial? In Africa no less? Like really, what the fuck. See things like that are so sneaky, people don't even think twice, after all, its just a car rental company, who cares what it's called. I also saw a billboard for some business called Anglo.
But what I really want to talk about is how disturbing I find it that so many black South Africans identify so strongly with black American culture. Ok, so inherently I don't think there's anything wrong with identifying with other cultures or trying to draw parallels or find similarities between different situations, in fact I think people should do that more often. But what I'm talking about is mistaken identifications, or really I guess identificiations that just promote capitalism and deny the reality of situations.
Yesterday we went on a bike tour of the Soweto township outside of Johannesburg, SA. My friend asked one of the tour guide dudes what exactly defines a township, and basically he said he didn't know. This is something that we've come across quite often, South Africans not knowing what a township is or how to define it. But as far as I'm concerned (and please call me out if I'm being presumptuous) a township is a place that was designated as an area for black people to live under the Apartheid government, specifically with the 1953 Group Areas Act that divided every part of the country into white, coloured, and black areas. Townships were for what would be the urban black population, people that worked in cities, and homelands were like Native American reservation type places for black people in rural areas. I feel like I'm being a jerk, but I really don't think this is a complicated thing to understand. When she asked the guy though, he was at a loss for an explanation and responded "well how do you define a ghetto" as if the parallel with US ghettos could possibly shed light on the situation in South Africa. I feel like I shouldn't have to get into why this is a ridiculous comparison, because in modern US cities people were never forcefully put into ghettos for being black, and now ghettos are a socioeconomic phenomenon I think way more than a racial one. (If he had compared townships to the Black Belt in turn of the century Chicago that'd be a different story, but he didn't). By making this comparison though, it seems as if this guy is limiting his own understanding of the uniqueness of the township (not to mention his explanation to tourists) by the false comparison with his perception of American ghettos, which I feel quite comes from mainstream American hiphop/rap music (like Akon's song "ghetto", which has been in my head since that conversation...funny how he's from Senegal?). Speaking of ghetto...there were so many people with BMW's there, it was ridiculous.
Another thing I've been meaning to write about was how I went into this informal house in the township I'm writing my JP on and these kids were watching Barbershop, and it was just the weirdest weirdest thing to me, mostly cuz I dont understand why anyone would watch that in the first place, but I guess it was also fascinating that apparently these black South Africans living in pretty shit conditions could identify with black Americans. Oh, and plus, all the kids we tutor have pictures of Beyonce all over their notebooks and g-unit written everywhere...while they're in 5th grade trying to do long division. It's really depressing, and basically I think it's American cultural imperialism and I don't like it.

An eloquent rant

OK so I'm being cheap these days by not posting anything original...But there's still a purpose, I promise. The purpose here is to be relieved that some people out there are able to acknowledge and express concern for the negativity, suffering and global dislike that America has left in its wake for the past 7 years. It is crucial that we all understand that the role of the US as an empire - in every sense of the word - is where the roots of our current problems lay, and it only takes a lunatic like Bush to exploit them. This excerpt is from an article by James Carrol in the Boston Globe:

"Why should you not be demoralized and depressed? But the sorrow of war goes deeper than the mistaken policies of a stubborn president. Next to Bao Ninh's book on your shelf stands "The Sorrows of Empire" by Chalmers Johnson. That title suggests how far into the bones of your nation the pins of the problem are sunk. In effect, the disastrous American War in Iraq is the text, while America's militarized way of being in the world is the context. Armed power at the service of US economic sway has made a putative enemy of a vast population around the globe, and that enemy's vangard are the terrorists. Violent opposition to the American agenda increases with each surge from Washington, whatever its character. Both text and context reveal that every dream of empire brings sorrow, obviously so to the victims of imperial violence, but also to the imperial dreamers, whether or not they consciously associate with what is being done in their name.

But the world sorrow implies more than grief and loss. The palpable sadness of a people reluctantly at war can push toward a fuller moral reckoning with the condition of a nation that has made its own economic supremacy an absolute value. To take on the question of an economy advanced with little regard for its sustainability, much less for justice, implies a move away from the focus on Bush's venality to a broader responsibolity. How do the sorrows of war and empire implicate you?

The simplest truth is that the economic system that so benefits you is steadily eroding democracy by transferring the power to shape the future, both within states and among them, to ever smaller elites. At the same time, wealth multiplies and conentrates itself, while impoverishing more and more human beings. Everything from US oil consumption, to global trade structures, to the iron law of cheap labor, to immigration policies, to the psychology of the gated community, to the gated idea of national sovereignty, to the distractioons of celebrity culture - all of this supports what is called the American way fo life. Yours. If finally seen to be the source of multiple sorrows at home and abroad, can this way of life prompt a depper confrontation with its true costs and consequences? You need nto reduce social ills to personal morality - or let Bush off the hook for his wholly owned war - to acknowledge the complicity attached to mere citizenship in a war-making, imperial nation. In that case, can you measure your sorrow against the word's other meaning, which is contrition?"

UK's mixed populations

I found this article on BBC and thought it was really interesting - the UK has one of the largest growing mixed populations in the world, and it examines the factors that contribute, especially with regards to women's choices in marriage, partners, etc. And they have had a "mixed" box on their census since 2001! :)

Changing Face of Britain: Britain's blurring ethnic mix By Cindi John Community affairs reporter

Lenny Henry and Dawn French

The United Kingdom has one of the fastest growing mixed-race populations in the world, fuelled by the continuing rise of inter-ethnic relationships. In spite of the recent racially-fuelled violence in several northern towns and cities, these days the evidence suggests that Britons of all shades are embracing each other more than ever before. Celebrities like comedians Lenny Henry and Dawn French, actor Michael Caine, newsreader Trevor McDonald, singer Sade and writer Salman Rushdie are, or have been, in mixed race relationships. The singer Shirley Bassey, Labour MP Oona King and writer Hanif Kureshi are high-profile examples of Britain�s burgeoning mixed race population. Data from the 2001 census due to be released later this year is expected to confirm that Britain has one of the highest rates in the world of inter-ethnic relationships and, consequently, mixed race people. By 1997 already half of black men and a third of black women in relationships had a white partner according to a major study of ethnic minorities published by the Policy Studies Institute (PSI). It also revealed that other inter-racial relationships were flourishing with a fifth of Asian men and 10% of Asian women opting for a white partner. But in spite of those findings, research carried out for BBC News Online revealed only a third of Britons think people in the UK are very tolerant of mixed race relationships. Professor Richard Berthoud of the Institute for Social and Economic Research at Essex University was one of the PSI report�s authors. He said their research had revealed a public fascination with the subject. "Part of the huge interest is based on the assumption that it wouldn�t happen - there�s an implicit assumption in British society that you marry somebody of the same colour as oneself. "But there are many people with black faces who just think of themselves as English and see no reason why they should not form a partnership with a white person," Professor Berthoud said. Women�s motives In the past men have led the way in inter-racial relationships but according to writer Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, an Asian married to a white man, that situation is changing rapidly, especially among better-educated women. Ms Alibhai-Brown said: "I think in the case of African Caribbeans especially there are more middle class women than there are middle class men. "So what they want from life is very hard to find within their own communities because there has been quite extraordinary discrimination against black men who have not been allowed to progress through the system. "So for them it�s almost like a class reason." For Asian women there were more "feminist" motives, Ms Alibhai-Brown added. "Rightly or wrongly quite a lot of us believe that in order to fulfil our lives it just won�t be possible if we marry an Asian man who however egalitarian before marriage very often becomes extremely sexist afterwards." �Blurring� Whatever the reasons, the result of Britain�s high number of inter-ethnic relationships is a boom in the mixed race population - currently the fastest growing ethnic group in the UK. Figures published by the Office for National Statistics in 2001 revealed the number of mixed race people grew by more than 75% during the 1990s to around 415,000, 10% of the total ethnic minority population in the UK. Professor Richard Berthoud of Essex University said such growth was leading to the blurring of racial identities, especially among those of black Caribbean origin. "Our study showed around 40% of children with one black parent also had a white parent. "But those statistics only relate to children living with both parents and since a very large number of Caribbean mothers live without their partner we don�t know what ethnic group that partner comes from. "So it seems not unlikely that a large proportion of their children would fit into the mixed ethnic group," Professor Berthoud said. New racial category The census in 2001 was a milestone for people of mixed race in the UK � for the first time a "mixed" category was included among the racial groups. It followed a long campaign by those opposed to having to tick a box marked �other� . But researchers say though the existence of mixed race people may now be officially acknowledged in statistics, serious concerns remain. Yasmin Alibhai Brown, author of a recent book �Mixed Feelings� examining the issues facing children of mixed race, said one major worry was that many organisations and public bodies in Britain had adopted policies from the US. "The movement started there to claim all mixed race children as black - the argument was if they suffer racism nobody asks them if they�re mixed race. "But I think big mistakes were made to drive policy makers and practitioners into accepting this rather ludicrous concept because mixed race children aren�t black and they�re not white or brown � they are themselves," she said. Often mixed race children lived with white mothers who in many cases were the victims of racism from both whites and blacks, Ms Alibhai-Brown added. �Pressure� That was a point echoed by researcher Jill Olumide of London University. She said: "I think there is more pressure on mixed race couples further down the social order and on single mums with mixed race children. "They�re more likely to come to the attention of social workers particularly if there are other factors like extended family withdrawing support when there�s more likely to go wrong." As a white woman married to a Nigerian she had experienced family hostility to a mixed marriage at first hand, Ms Olumide added. "In particular the Nigerian family were concerned and against it really, didn�t want the marriage to happen or continue. "There�s also been name-calling and negative experiences but nothing that we couldn�t handle." But writer Yasmin Alibhai-Brown believed in spite of the difficulties faced by some couples the trend of mixed race partnerships was likely to intensify. She said: "More and more black and Asian and Chinese people will be marrying whites and each other. There is no stopping this, it seems to me. "I hope it makes this country become more comfortable with its hybridity as a national characteristic."

Re: Cheetahs & Prism Magazine

Ok so I was just posting this as a comment to Sian's post below but it got too long.

The reason this got sooolong is because of the cheetahs (and also because I talk too much).

I dont know if you guys know this (Sian maybe they told you this when you saw them?) but cheetahs are amazing animals and are severely endangered - much more so than they are portrayed as being. Although there are current attempts to "save" the cheetah, many of these conservation efforts are helpless in the attempt to stop the main problem that is leading to the extinction of the cheetah - human incursion and urban expansion. The growth of urban areas and the constant incursion of humans into the cheetah's main habitat has led to widespread killings and poaching of cheetahs over the years. In addition and perhaps more importantly, human incursion has pushed all savanna species into a smaller and smaller area, leading to a decrease in wildlife numbers due to higher competition for food and water supply. This means that the cheetah's food sources are dying off/being killed by bigger and stronger predators, and that the cheetahs themselves are dying off due to this. As their physique suggests, cheetahs have evolved a "flight" versus "fight" behaviour, which is a recipe for disaster in an environment that is decreasing in size and increasing in its density of hungry cat predators, such as the lion and leopard. The massive decrease in the cheetah's habitat has also led to the single most crucial issue that is slowly ensuring their extinction - inbreeding. In smaller numbers, cheetahs that are forced into a smaller habitat tend to inbreed among family groups, and now virtually ALL non-captive cheetahs in africa are genetically related within their respective habitats. In Kenya, it has gotten so bad that all wild cheetahs in the region are twin brothers and sisters, reducing their gene pool significantly. Like all inbred species, the upsurge of inbred cheetahs - though it is an adaptation on part of the species to survive in harsh times - has led to lower breeding rates, genetic deformities and greater susceptibility to disease. Because the gene pool of the species is SO tiny, these amazing animals are constantly at risk of disease- related extinction. Moreover, the issue of inbreeding and genetics among cheetahs also means that they are less able to evolve and adapt as a species, which is a pressing issue due to climate change (yes - its affecting Africa pretty seriously), which has lead to widespread drought, drier and hotter conditions, and migratory changes (of cheetah prey) across Africa.

In 1900 there were over 100,000 cheetah across Africa and Asia. Today, the cheetah has become extinct in 20 countries because of the problems I just listed. The cheetah remains in only ONE country in Asia - Iran, where there are less than 100 left. The Asian cheetah was/is the only remaining genetic variation of the cheetah. It was declared extinct in India in the 1950s.

In Africa, there are 24 countries left where the cheetah resides, and the cheetah population has dropped to under 15,000. In only half of the 24 countries is there a genetically viable population of cheetahs, and only in Namibia, Botswana, Kenya, and Tanzania do the cheetah exist in concentrated populations. To add to the problem, the issue of predator competition has made it extremely rare for cheetahs to thrive in protected wildlife preserves, and even less rare to raise a genetically viable cheetah population in these areas.

It would be a shame to lose this amazing species - they have survived on this planet for 3.5-4 million years before humans came in and cut down the cheetah population, leaving only 1-2% of the cheetah population to remain. It is the oldest of the "big cats", and may now be relegated to the pages of a history book if a cohesive effort is not made to provide a large amount of safe, fertile and prey-rich habitat for the cheetah to recuperate. It is possible to save the cheetah if awareness is raised and people across the world realize the huge, negative impact we are having on the earth's precious and fascinating species.



And the next post will be on climate change I think, because the cheetah's story is a microcosm of the effect that human induced climate change and environmental abuse (for which the west bears a heavy burden of responsibility) is having on Africa, and how these issues have a disproportionately large impact on its inhabitants (on humans and wildlife alike).

So read about cheetahs and donate to save them ( I did!), especially if you're lucky enough to see cheetah cubs. Let's hope it doesn't get to the point where you have to tell your kids about the extinct cheetah babies one day.

donate: http://www.cheetah.org/
http://www.cheetahbotswana.com/

I won't even get into talking about mountain gorillas. They're from rwanda and theres less than 400 left. And they're our relatives. SO save them too. http://www.igcp.org/

just submitted this to Princeton's Prism magazine...

There was a 5 rand admission charge to see the cheetahs. I told my aunt I didn’t have any cash, and she responded that nieces don’t need cash unless they’re on their own. The ticket lady immediately jumped in with a cheerful, “you don’t need money when you have an auntie! That’s what aunties are for!”

It was a relatively mundane exchange, I guess, but let me break down the dynamics of that interaction to show its significance and what it means to me. I’m studying abroad in South Africa and my (white, Irish) aunt is visiting me for the week. In South Africa I’m considered “coloured”, in the States I’ve been considered lots of things, but for the sake of simplicity I’ll just say I’m mixed. The woman who was selling tickets at the cheetah reserve was a coloured, or perhaps a lighter-skinned black, South African.

The quickness of her reaction and her immediate acceptance of the fact that I could have a white aunt is what took me by surprise, and upon further consideration I realized that it might have been the first time in my life that a stranger unquestioningly acknowledged that a white person could be related to me. That might sound weird, but I think it’s true. Growing up in the US nobody ever doubted that I was my mom’s daughter, she’s significantly darker than I am, but people say we look alike. On the other hand, nowadays when I go anywhere with my dad, people assume I’m his girlfriend or wife before they’ll believe I’m his daughter; it seems to be hard for people to understand that a white man could have a non-white daughter. It’s silly because people of different “races” have been mixing literally forever, but at least for the past 300 years, all over the world.

Being in South Africa is so cool for exactly that reason. There’s an entire “racial” identity called “coloured” for people who aren’t “black” or “white” and whose ancestors usually come from some combination of the Khoisan people of South Africa, Bantu-speaking Africans, White Afrikaaners with Dutch ancestry who colonized South Africa, British people who also colonized South Africa, Portuguese people who were another colonial power, Malay people who were brought to South Africa from Dutch colonies as slaves, and Indians and south Asians who were brought by the British as indentured servants. The idea of having a category for these people is unique to South Africa because of its history, but it’s also the only place I’ve been to that accepts mixedness or multiraciality as a legitimate identity.

While the South African system is by no means flawless, it feels so much nicer to have the complexities and nuances of your identity acknowledged, as opposed to the situation in the States where only now are people beginning to realize that it’s possible to have ancestors from lots of places and to identify racially and culturally with more than one group.

America: Media, Violence and Milgram

Ok so I was just typing away in my office and I heard a very loud conversation about the middle east going on outside. A guy was explaining to a woman that the middle east is not as homogenous (ethnically) as people make it out to be, and that there has recently been an increase in men "importing" women to marry because they have "run out" of women in their own countries. This is true and a complicated issue, but the woman's response was gross and I think it was ignorant and derogatory.

woman:"well isn't this just about dowries? I mean, dont all those arabs pay dowries for their women?"

guy: "well dowries generally make having a wife more expensive, but its something that is becoming less common in urban areas, so its not really relevant"

Woman: "No, but arent't the men marrying women outside their own countries because the women in poor countries are cheaper? Why don't the arabs just abolish the dowry system, anyway? Those people should just abolish it, its just silly"

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ok so. This is not one of the most ignorant things I have heard, but it annoyed me anyways, and I would like to hear what you all have to say about it. It upset me for two reasons:

1) I don't like that there is a mentality in america that disrespects the cultural practices of other countries/societies by considering those practices to be dispensable and therefore seeing it okay to obliterate culture through regulation (as though dowries = a legal offense such as stealing). I also think that such an idea is neo-colonial in a way. By its nature, the notion of regulating, or "abolishing" certain cultural practices suggests that those practices are seen as being trivial, thus divorcing those practices from their cultural history (say like 1000 years worth of dowry-giving), or even worse, assuming that the cultural history itself is trivial.

The reason I attribute this to America is because I find that the "mixing pot" mentality that is required in order to become a legitimate member of American society requires the disposal of non-american cultural practices, or the relegation of such cultural practices to the shadows of American society. I'm sure the reasons for this is are complicated, but it annoys me anyhow and I think it leads to this weird dualistic view of america where in reality it is full of people form a gazillion countries and cultures but at the same time it is viewed by many as being a very culturally ignorant and even xenophobic society despite the plurality of its members.

2) I think the conversation is indicative of the effect that the "anti-terror" campaign, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Palestine-Israeli conflict and overall media coverage of the middle east "crisis" is having on the American public as a whole. This has led to the U.S. population being conditioned to have a disparaging and derogatory view of people from the middle east because they are depicted on a regular basis as being violent, abusive, quarrelous and threatening. Because of the Israel-Palestine conflict and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, people from these regions are also commonly depicted as victims and targets of violence, leading to a view of them as being helpless and inferior. I'm sure you guys have heard about the Milgram Experiment (the one where people shock other people), whose architect Stanley Milgram states: "the systematic devaluation of the victim provides a measure of psychological justification for brutal treatment of the victim and has been the constant accompaniment of massacres, pogroms and wars". Althought Milgram is referring to a more extreme example (Rwanda), his studies centre around the idea that the voice of an authority (i.e. media or government, in this case) that devalues a precific group of people on a regular basis will eventually lead to a view among thos who listen to that authority that those peoples lives - or culture, in this case - is also unimporant and expendable.

I think this is entirely true and it saddens me that the US's close relationship to military violence and a mentality of force vs. fear/terror in media and government has encouraged a generalistic and prejudiced view of specific people around the world as victims and enemies because they are considered acceptable targets of violence. My focus here isn't on bitching about americans, but its a genuine concern of mine that media and government policies genuinely affect the way that the populace thinks. (This post more about American society - not about individuals necessarily. I know its bad to generalize and I'm trying to refer to a phenomenon rather than coming across as suggesting that "all Americans do x, y, or z") And this happens all over the world, not just in the U.S.. That being said, there are sociology studies that show that obedience to authority in the U.S. is very high (like the ones done by Michael Adams, University of Toronto sociology professor and author of "Fire and Ice") which affects the influence of that authority on social mentalities and leads to the "Milgram effect". The only exception to this might be the US public's view of Israelis, as they are commonly depicted in the media as 'good guys'.

On a related note, an article from Common Dreams today describes a study by BBC and PIPA that surveyed random groups of people -28,000 ottal- in 27 countries on their view of 12 subject countries. Overwhelmingly, the most disliked countries were the U.S., Iran, and Israel, BUT, relating to my point above, the country polled that had the most positive view of Israel, second to Nigeria, was the USA.

The study links negative views to "countries whose profile is marked by the use or pursuit of military power" - though it doesn't talk about how the populations within those countries (the ones who use military power in such a strong way) view the countries against whom that power is directed, which would relate to the Milgram issue.

The reason all this bothers me is because national politics and the media that broadcasts those politics necessarily affect anthropological views - i.e. the views of people to people, leading to generalizations and bigotry in the way that the individuals in one population treat and view the individuals of another population. It's a trickle-down effect that is unsettling, to say the least and I don't like how it's closely tied to military action. Did I mention that the G8 nation with the smallest per-capita military, Canada, garnered one of the most favourable views (along with Japan) in the BBC/PIPA survey?

To read more on the Common Dreams article, go to: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines07/0307-04.htm

To read more on the Milgram Experiment:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment (there's acutally a lot more about the implications of Milgrams experiment in wartime and for social prejudice. )

Read Ode

OK so I just posted a new link to Ode Magazine, which is by far my favourite magazine in the entire world right now, and I suggest that everyone go to the website and read some of their articles.

The magazine takes a critical, against-the-grain appraoch to world issues and focuses on encouraging sustainability, fair trade, peace-building and awareness on political and human rights issues all over the world. Essentially it focuses on making the world a better place and convincing people that making a positive impact isn't really that difficult and should be something that's a priority and that's meaningful to everyone. I LOVE it. It also writes really specifically from a position that views the world and it's communities from a shared perspective rather than an individualistic (and capitalist, grr) one. By looking at things that way it encourages readers to see people and issues (and themselves) as being interconnected and as such removes silly excuses for sitting back and doing nothing about things.

You all should love it too. AND if you subscribe they'll plant a tree for you. It's coolness at work, I tell you.

Hegemony & Marxism

OK so I'm just going to be a nerd for a (non-racial)minute and talk about Marxist theory. For all of you guys who don't spend their time going through other people's textbooks (ahem,terrence) / don't love Marxist theory, Hegemony is an idea formulated by Gramsci, an Italian marxist.

Hegemony also describes what Sian is talking about in her Obama rant about race and class. Anyhow, I see the parallels. Because Marxism is a class-based theory that describes the cycle of exploitation that occurs under capitalism, Hegemony is best described as a cultural ideology that surreptitiously ties the needs and desires of the bourgeosie to the needs and desires of the working class so that both classes become devoted to maintaining the status quo, even though it's only the bourgeosie that benefits. By creating such an interdependency within a capitalist system, the workers unknowingly "buy into" their own exploitation by perpetuating the system that abuses them. This is an ideology that is aimed at maintaining the status quo and that also sadly pits workers against eachother in the spirit of competition, and that also supports a mentality in which dissenters are socially pressured by their peers to stick to the norm - the same "norm" that exploits everyone. And so it becomes a cycle.

So I'm tying this into the whole race/class thing because I find that the race dichotomy in the U.S. where white = rich/powerful and black=poor/exploited is a mode of hegemony because it is an ideology that people have willingly adopted and in so doing have exacerbated the social problems of the country and thus the social problems that result from an increasing distance between upper/middle and lower classes AND from the lack of distance between race and class. And of course, because of the ideology, the class issues are confused as race issues, thereby distracting the most disadvantaged people in the whole system by mixing a cultural identity with a class identity and thus reinforceing the inferiority of that identity within society as a whole. And, of course, this also encourages a mentality that seeks to preserve a status quo that generally sees a popular, successful and smart "black" politician as a freak of nature and an anomaly. I think the same ideology is to blame for the massive number of black kids who are dropping out of school because they are convinced that they cannot succeed. When this damaging kind of normality is supported because it is confused with a cultural/racial identity, it's hegemony in practice. So what many people see as racial domination is in fact class domination that uses the concept of race as hegemony in order to maintain a capitalist cycle of exploitation that recruits a "worker" population in its own social and economic impoverishment.

Umm so this is just my nerdy 2 cents and I think you all should read about Gransci and his theories about Hegemony because it explains how it's possible for capitalism to be a culture and a political system even though also an economic system....

btw the picture at the top is Gramsci. I also wanted to note that the only times I learned about Gramsci in depth was 1) while at mcgill in a Cultural Studies course, and 2) while reading through Terrence's coursepacks while in Montreal.